HomeMy WebLinkAbout2012-4-04Tentative
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
T E N T A T I V E
APRIL 4, 2012
9:00 A.M., AUDITORIUM
COUNTY OFFICE BUILDING
1. Call to Order.
2. Pledge of Allegiance.
3. Moment of Silence.
4. Adoption of Final Agenda.
5. Brief Announcements by Board Members.
6. Recognitions:
a. Proclamation recognizing April, 2012 as Fair Housing Month.
7. From the Public: Matters Not Listed for Public Hearing on the Agenda.
8. Consent Agenda (on next page).
9:30 a.m. - Public Hearings:
9. Keswick Lake - Request to amend the Albemarle County Service Authority Jurisdictional Area Boundary to
provide water service to Tax Map 79, Parcel 23 and Tax Map 79C, Parcel 1 located approximately 2,100 feet southwest of
the intersection of Rt. 250 and Shadwell Road.
10. Wayland Easement. To consider granting a deed of exchange releasing and abandoning certain water
rights, including easements, across Parcel ID 03900-00-00-029C0, adjacent to Mint Springs Park, in exchange for a
limited conservation easement.
11. FY 2012 Budget Amendment and Appropriations.
12. SP-2011-00031. Greenbrier Emergency Animal Hospital (Sign #52).
PROPOSED: Request to amend SP200900030 to extend veterinary services to include specialty medical care and
expand the space in the existing building. The emergency animal hospital use remains. No residential units proposed.
ZONING CATEGORY/ GENERAL USAGE: HC Highway Commercial – commercial and service; residential by special use
permit (15 units/ acre) and C-1 Commercial – retail sales and service; residential by special use permit (15 units/ acre).
AIRPORT IMPACT AREA: Yes. ENTRANCE CORRIDOR: Yes. SECTION: Sections 22.2.2.5 and 24.2.2.4 of the Zoning
Ordinance which allows for veterinary office and hospital uses. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE/DENSITY: Office/
R&D/Flex/Light Industrial – commercial, professional office; research and development, design, testing of prototypes;
manufacturing, assembly, packaging in Neighborhood 1 of the Places 29 Master Plan. LOCATION: 370 Greenbrier Dr.
approximately 675 feet west of the intersection of Greenbrier Drive and Route 29 (Seminole Trail). TAX MAP/PARCEL:
061W0-01-0A-00500. MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Rio.
13. SP-2011-00029. VERIZON WIRELESS Keswick Tier III Personal Wireless
Service Facility (Sign #49). PROPOSED: Special use permit amendment request to SP200400039
because the conditions of approval limit the antennas number and size on the tower to those that were shown on the
original construction drawing. The proposal consists of collocation of three new antennas and relocation of three antennas
in an existing array on an existing tower, as well as the location of associated ground equipment. 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(48) which allows for Tier III personal wireless service facilities in the RA Zoning
District. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE/DENSITY: Rural Areas 2 – preserve and protect agricultural, forestal,
file:////coba-webapp01/BOSForms/Agenda/2012Files/0404/0.0_Agenda.htm (1 of 3) [10/2/2020 10:23:56 AM]
Tentative
open space, and natural, historic and scenic resources/ density (0.5 unit/acre in development lots). ENTRANCE
CORRIDOR: YES. LOCATION: 4464 Richmond Rd. Keswick TAX MAP/PARCEL: 09400-00-00-041A1. MAGISTERIAL
DISTRICT: Scottsville.
10:15 a.m. - Action Items:
14. 10:15 a.m. - Beard Crozet Property: Water Protection Ordinance – Appeal of Decision by the Program
Authority Under County Code § 17-321.
15. 10:35 a.m. – Cedar Hill Mobile Home Estates – Central Sewerage System.
Recess
16. 11:00 a.m. - VDoT Monthly Report, David Crim.
17. 11:15 a.m. - Work Session: Review of County's Priority List of Secondary Road Improvements and the VDOT
Six Year Secondary Road Construction Program Budget.
18. Closed Meeting.
19. Certify Closed Meeting.
20. Boards and Commissions:
a. Vacancies/Appointments.
1:30 p.m. - Presentation:
21. 1:30 p.m. – Community Water Fluoridation, Dr. Lillian Peake.
22. 1:50 p.m. - Economic Vitality Action Plan Quarterly Report.
2:10 p.m. - Action Items:
23. Crozet/Western Albemarle Library – Update on Bids and Budget for Library Project.
24. Calendar Year 2012 Tax Rate Resolution.
25. Adoption of FY 2012/2013 Operating and Capital Budgets.
26. From the Board: Committee Reports and Matters Not Listed on the Agenda.
27. Adjourn to April 11, 2012, 3:00 p.m., Room 241.
C O N S E N T A G E N D A
FOR APPROVAL:
8.1 Approval of Minutes: December 7, 2011.
8.2 New Sublease Agreement with UVA for proposed Ivy Fire Station to be located in the Kirtley Warehouse
property.
file:////coba-webapp01/BOSForms/Agenda/2012Files/0404/0.0_Agenda.htm (2 of 3) [10/2/2020 10:23:56 AM]
Tentative
8.3 Extension of the Lewis & Clark Exploratory Center lease for office space in the McIntire County Office
Building.
8.4 Revised Community Use of County Facilities Policy.
8.5 Resolution accepting Rushia/Fleckles offer to sell conservation easement.
8.6 Cville Bike mApp Project Resolution.
8.7 Resolution to accept road(s) in Lambert Point Subdivision into the State Secondary System of Highways.
8.8 Solid Waste – Extension of RSWA Agreements and Future County Services.
FOR INFORMATION:
8.9 Copy of letter dated March 2, 2012 to Jeremy Manning-Smith, from Francis H. MacCall, Senior Planner, re: LOD-
2011-00013 – OFFICIAL DETERMINATION OF PARCEL OF RECORD & DEVELOPMENT
RIGHTS – Tax Map 82, Parcel 1 (property of Jeremy Manning-Smith) – Rivanna District.
8.10 Copy of letter dated March 2, 2012 to Charles Frankfurt, from Francis H. MacCall, Senior Planner, re: LOD-
2011-00014 – OFFICIAL DETERMINATION OF PARCEL OF RECORD & DEVELOPMENT
RIGHTS – Tax Map 82, Parcels 3, 3A, 3B, 3C & 3D (property of Charles and Elfi Frankfurt) –
Rivanna District.
8.11 Board-to-Board, April 2012, A monthly report from the Albemarle County School Board to the
Albemarle County Board of Supervisors.
8.12 Copy of letter dated March 2, 2012 to Jasper P. Davis, from Francis H. MacCall, Senior Planner, re: LOD-
2011-00012 – OFFICIAL DETERMINATION OF PARCEL OF RECORD & DEVELOPMENT
RIGHTS – Tax Map 28, Parcel 11 (property of Jasper P. Davis Jr. or Diana J. Kieler) – White
Hall District.
Return to Top of Agenda
Return to Board of Supervisors Home Page
Return to County Home Page
file:////coba-webapp01/BOSForms/Agenda/2012Files/0404/0.0_Agenda.htm (3 of 3) [10/2/2020 10:23:56 AM]
FAIR HOUSING MONTH
WHEREAS, April 2012, marks the forty-fourth anniversary of the passage of the Fair Housing Act of
1968, which sought to eliminate discrimination in housing opportunities and to
affirmatively further housing choices for all Americans; and
WHEREAS, the ongoing struggle for dignity and housing opportunity for all is not the exclusive
province of the Federal government; and
WHEREAS, vigorous local efforts to combat discrimination can be as effective, if not more so, than
Federal efforts; and
WHEREAS, illegal barriers to equal opportunity in housing, no matter how subtle, diminish the
rights of all;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED,
that in the pursuit of the shared goal and responsibility of providing equal housing
opportunities for all men and women, the Board of County Supervisors of Albemarle
County, Virginia, does hereby join in the national celebration by proclaiming
APRIL, 2012
as
FAIR HOUSING MONTH
and encourages all agencies, institutions and individuals, public and private, in
Albemarle County to abide by the letter and the spirit of the Fair Housing law.
Signed and sealed this 4th day of April, 2012.
Return to agenda
Page 1 of 3
Board‐to‐Board
April, 2012
A monthly report from the Albemarle County School Board to the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors
Long- Range Planning Advisory Committee – In response to the 2011 Long-Range Planning Advisory Committee’s
recommendation for the Capital Improvement Program (CIP), the School Board requested that the building capacity of all
schools be evaluated. The evaluation of the capacity methodology took place over several months and was a collaborative
process involving multiple departments, both operational and instructional. The Committee’s proposed method makes
three changes to the current calculations for capacity: it creates a variable classroom multiplier, increases the number of
specialty classrooms that are excluded from capacity calculations and counts rooms in a more rigorous manner as
compared to the current method. The result is a figure that is more applicable to a school’s specific population and
programs. The revisions reduce the overall division’s capacity by 5%.
The Long-Range Planning Advisory Committee has convened again for a new session. The Committee’s goal is to
provide a recommendation in July 2012 to the School Board and Superintendent for the Capital Improvement Program
(CIP).
Safe Schools/Healthy Students (SS/HS) Albemarle/Charlottesville Update – Now in its second year, SS/HS recently
completed the spring 2011 School Climate Survey and the fall 2011 Peer Support Survey, with more than 11,000 students
in grades 3-12 participating. The Olweus Bullying Prevention Model was strengthened in schools and security camera
installation was completed for middle and high schools with more than 75 cameras installed. To address substance abuse
the Student Assistance Program (SAP) Counselors and Safe Schools Counselors (SSC) completed their first full year in
the middle and high schools. To encourage socially appropriate behavior, Responsive Classroom (RC) continues to be the
desired training of most elementary teachers. RC Communities of Practice are supported by SS/HS staff and provide
monthly opportunities for teachers to network and discuss successes and challenges related to RC. To improve access to
mental health services for students, the SS/HS project funds, supports and trains mental health counselors for all middle
and high schools. From January 2011 through December 2011, 1,142 students were provided school based mental health
services by counselors supported by SS/HS funding.
State Farm Grant – ACPS has been awarded a $40,000 grant from State Farm Insurance Company to support the M3 –
Men, Math, and Mission Program. The program is designed to provide African-American males with a solid pathway for
success through increased opportunity for rigorous coursework, opportunities for mentoring and support, and service
learning to develop their understanding of giving back to their community. The program, coordinated through the ACPS
Department of Community Engagement, aims to engage African-American males in middle school to set the foundation
for high school coursework and ultimately career pathways. M3 Program is focused on algebraic concepts as a skill that is
critical for academic success. State Farm’s 4-year support of the M3 Program has resulted in total contributions of
$95,000.
Piedmont Regional Science Fair – ACPS students earned a near-perfect 12 first place finishes in the 31st annual
Piedmont Regional Science Fair at John Paul Jones Arena in March. 52 projects were presented across 17 categories. In
the Senior Division, ACPS students finished first in 12 of 14 categories. Winners are eligible for the Virginia State
Science & Engineering Fair in April.
Best in show, the top award, went to AHS juniors Matt Smith and Jacob Perry, who collaborated on a research project that
examined low cost methods for making water safe to drink. They used ceramic disks impregnated with silver to gradually
release silver ions to disinfect water in a household environment. Their project earned three additional honors: The
Change the World Award, The Battelle Innovation Award, and The NOSS Pulse of the Planet Award, and they will
The second year of the Albemarle/Charlottesville Safe Schools/Healthy Students
Albemarle/Charlottesville Project (SS/HS) was a busy but very productive year of training, data
collection and partnership building. The project staff, consisting of the Project Director, Project
Coordinator and four Project Leaders worked directly with the forty school sites and more than
17,000 students in the combined Albemarle County and Charlottesville City School sytems. Our
group’s Core Management Team continued to be very active in the project and increased in
membership this year with the participation of new organizations that include: the Central
Virginia Boys and Girls Club, Children, Youth & Family Services and the Charlottesville City
Commonwealth Attorney’s Office.
To enhance school safety and decrease violence, the SS/HS project staff provided direction and
support for the spring 2011 School Climate Survey and the fall 2011 Peer Support Survey. More
than 11,000 students in grade 3‐12 from all local schools participated. The Peer Support
Survey process was formalized with a student video to explain the definition of bullying and the
reason for the survey process to students. A counselor video was created to ensure consistency
in follow up and reporting measures.
Olweus Bullying Prevention Model expanded and was strengthened in many schools. About
122 staff attended at least one of the 11 Olweus training opportunities during 2011. Project
staff continued to track fidelity using the Olweus Implementation Checklist and teacher
feedback surveys. Our Project Leaders started a Community of Practice focused on the Olweus
method that meets regularly to discuss implementation, problem‐solve and share experiences
with the program in different schools.
Restorative Practices trainings were offered throughout the year. Charlottesville High School
and CATEC have offered school‐wide training to all staff, and many administrators from both
systems attended a summer training specifically for administrators during the summer of 2011.
Since then we have also trained staff at the Central Virginia Boys and Girls Club and have had
school board members from both systems attend one or more training during the year. A
Restorative Practices Community of Practice also meets regularly to allow staff to network and
share ideas.
Security camera installation was completed for ACPS middle and high Schools during the year
with more than 75 cameras installed along with a systems upgrades for cameras that were in
use prior to the grant funding period. Two “best use” training sessions were held with camera
experts, SROs, administrators and law enforcement representatives. These have helped all
schools to leverage the maximum benefit from new or existing cameras.
To address substance abuse, the Student Assistance Program (SAP) Counselors and Safe
Schools (SSC) Counselors completed their first full year in the middle and high schools. Project
TND was successfully implemented in both system’s alternative education programs, with plans
to continue the program again during 2012. Ivy Creek School heard about the success of
Project TND and has begun implementing this curriculum in one of their classrooms.
Social Norms Marketing was used in our area’s four major high schools and SS/HS provided
support through materials and resources, including production of the student created posters.
All the posters designed and displayed in schools, during 2011 can be viewed at
http://www.safeschoolscville.org/2011BullyingPreventionMonth.html .
To encourage socially appropriate behavior, Responsive Classroom (RC) continues to be the
desired training of most elementary teachers. Staff from eighteen of the twenty‐two
elementary schools attended RC training during 2011. RC Communities of Practice are
supported by SS/HS staff and held monthly to provide opportunities for teachers to network
and discuss successes and challenges related to the implementation of RC.
In 2011, Second Step was implemented in 247 classrooms in 7 middle schools. SS/HS Project
Leaders are tracking fidelity through teacher implementation checklists.
To improve access to mental health services for students, the SS/HS project funds, supports
and trains mental health counselors for all of the Albemarle/Charlottesville middle and high
schools. From January 2011 through December 2011, 1,142 students were provided school
based mental health services by counselors supported by SS/HS funding.
To provide early learning experiences for children and families that address risk factors, SS/HS
provided HighScope (HS) training opportunities for 39 preschool teachers during 2011 as well as
monthly HS Communities of Practice (COP). One hundred percent of those attending a COP
indicated that the work session met their expectations and enjoyed having opportunities to
meet other teachers, engage in conversation and share ideas. Fidelity measures are tracked
through a self‐assessment survey distributed through Survey Monkey.
Page 2 of 3
receive expense paid entry and travel to the Intel International Science & Technology Engineering Fair in Pittsburgh this
May. Both Matt and Jacob are students in the Math Engineering and Science Academy (MESA) at AHS.
Other first place winners at this year’s senior division of the regional science fair included:
Sydney Giacalone, who studied optical illusions and how such variables as age and education affect impressions;
Caitlin Dutta, who evaluated the effect of certain chemicals within cells to determine if they could be used to cure
muscle disorders;
Chris Seto, who looked at nonconventional ways to protect computer systems from virus attacks;
Elizabeth Hillstrom, whose project examined how soap can be produced in households in developing world
countries;
Ben Merrell, who focuses on how the use of structural dimpling on aircraft can improve efficient energy use;
Mario Sukkar, who examined the viability of portable water desalination systems powered by the sun;
Mary and David Kwiatkowski, who studied how the heart races to cardiovascular exercise on different surfaces;
HeeSeok Joo, who is evaluating the potential of wave function wells as a way to understand particle physics;
Alex Perez-Reyes, who evaluated the viability of algae as an alternative domestic energy source to crude oil; and
Logan Ford and Avi Lieberman, who showed how the design used for the children’s toy, shrink-*****, could be
adapted to separate bacterial mixtures as a way to clean polluted groundwater.
For a full description of projects that won awards at the Piedmont Regional Science Fair, visit:
http://vprsf.org/award_winners.htm
All State Orchestra and Band – Five AHS students have been selected for All State Orchestra and Band, the highest level
of achievement for student musicians in Virginia. Students were chosen based on their auditions last fall in
Charlottesville at JMU earlier in March 2012.
The five selections are the most ever for AHS and include four students selected for orchestra: Seniors Frank Wu and
Sarah Fredrick for first stand in violin and cello respectively; Senior Irene Lee for violin; and Freshman Allison Moore for
bass.
Trumpeter Emily Kuhn, a Senior, was selected for the second consecutive year for All State Band. Emily also was first
chair trumpet in the All State Jazz Ensemble this past fall.
All five students will be participating in the All State concert at James River High School in Richmond from April 12-14.
Redistricting Update - On March 8, 2012, the School Board endorsed Superintendent Moran’s recommendation for
redistricting Hollymead Elementary to Baker-Butler Elementary. The plan redistricts the following neighborhoods -
Dickerson North/Chris Greene, Airport Acres/Cedar Hill, Forest Spring/Dickerson South, Deerwood/Airport Road, and
Abington/Timberwood - totaling 141 currently enrolled students (enrollment as of February 29, 2012) and extends a
“grandfather privilege” for families of rising 5th graders and their siblings that are currently enrolled at Hollymead
Elementary to stay at Hollymead through 5th grade. Redistricting was not recommended for Stony Point Elementary at
this time.
Advancement Via Individual Determination (AVID) – The AVID program is designed to prepare students for college
while increasing schoolwide learning and performance. AVID focuses on students who are capable of completing
rigorous academic work but may not be working to their potential. Unusually, these students are from low-income or
minority families and will be the first in their family to attend college. Jack Jouett Middle School has established a goal to
become a Demonstration School for AVID, which requires the best strategies and exemplary models of the AVID
program. Nationally, approximately 2.6% of AVID schools are Demonstration Schools.
Middle School Program Guide – During its March 8, 2012 meeting, the School Board approved the Middle School
Program Guide. ACPS seeks to educate middle school students and encourage them to discover and appreciate who they
are, what they may become, and how they are able to contribute to our society. The middle school goal is to help the early
Page 3 of 3
adolescents who move through our schools enter high school with a strong academic background, a high degree of
personal self-confidence, and the ability to make well-informed, meaningful choices from the many options available to
them at the high school level and beyond. The Middle School Program Guide presents a general overview of the county’s
middle school program, and is organized around five basic, interrelated beliefs about effective middle school education:
Characteristics of the Middle School Child, Transitions, Program, Special Needs, and Community.
Students Visit Pentagon – 4th graders at Agnor-Hurt Elementary School recently visited the Pentagon to showcase their
“World Peace Game” developed by teacher John Hunter. The “World Peace Game” presents students with 50 of the
world’s most difficult problems and the students are tasked to solve the problems as best they can, and without combat, if
possible. The 4th graders questioned top officials about world problems, and had the opportunity to speak with Secretary
of Defense Leon Panetta. The Paramount Theater will showcase the film documentary developed about the “World Peace
Game” on Sunday, April 22 at 4 p.m. http://worldpeacegame.org/the-film/about-the-film
Significant Changes to the Math Standards of Learning (SOL) – The Virginia Department of Education (VDOE)
recently changed the Standard of Learning (SOL) Assessment test in Mathematics. The changes include new multiple-
choice as well as technology-enhanced questions that are designed to more closely test a student’s critical-thinking and
problem-solving skills. State Superintendent of Public Instruction Patricia Wright stated “lower mathematics pass rates in
2011-2012 indicate that Virginia is expecting more of students – not that students are learning less.” Consequently, the
VDOE expects division and state-wide pass rates to drop by as much as 30% and results from those who took the test in
the fall reflect this reduction. Students who do not pass the tests in Algebra I, Geometry, or Algebra II will be provided
remediation and be allowed to retake the exam in order to achieve a passing score. ACPS was successful in the fall in
helping many students pass the SOLs on their retakes. Teachers, principals, and central office staff will continue to work
diligently to best prepare students for success.
VDOE link for math SOL resources: http://www.doe.virginia.gov/testing/sol/standards_docs/mathematics/index.shtml
SOL Practice Items: http://www.doe.virginia.gov/testing/sol/practice_items/index.shtml
Discussion of Additional High School – At its March 22, 2012 meeting, the School Board discussed the impending need
for an additional high school in the Northern Feeder Pattern. Albemarle High School, Western Albemarle High School
and Monticello High School are at or near capacity, and the School Board discussed the need for an additional high school
in the future. The Long-Range Planning Advisory Committee shared this consideration during their deliberations. Board
members pointed out that the current economy may serve as an appropriate time to begin to consider such an option.
General Assembly Actions – The School Board is closely monitoring the legislation following the General Assembly’s
regular session which will impact the Division’s services to our students, parents, teachers and administrators. The
School Board remains active in advocating on behalf of the Division, and awaits the General Assembly’s final budget
impact.
Attached:
Safe Schools/Healthy Students report to the School Board March 8, 2012
ACPS School Board letter to Governor McDonnell in opposition to increased costs due to VRS mandates
www.k12albemarle.org
P a g e | 1
Outcome Measures Summary
Element 1: SCHOOL SAFETY
GOAL: To enhance school safety and increase violence prevention
Baseline Target 09-10 data 10-11 data
Objective 1.1: Reduction of 25% from baseline,
by the end of the grant period, in the percentage
of students in grades 6-12 who report being
bullied.
Outcome Measure 1.1: Reduction of 25% from
baseline, by the end of the grant period, in the
percentage of students in grades 6-12 who report
being bullied as measured by the School Climate
Survey.
28.4% 21.3% 28.6% 22.9%
Objective 1.2: Reduction of 25% from baseline,
by the end of the grant period, in the percentage
of students in grades 6-12 who did not go to
school on one or more days during the past 30
days because they felt unsafe at school or on
their way to and from school. (GPRA)
Outcome Measure 1.2: Reduction of 25% from
baseline, by the end of the grant period, in the
percentage of students in grades 6-12 who did not go
to school on one or more days during the past 30
days because they felt unsafe at school or on their
way to and from school as measured by the School
Climate Survey.
7.2% 5.4% 7.3% 6.0%
Objective 1.3: Reduction of 25% from baseline,
by the end of the grant period, in the percentage
of students in grades 6-12 who have been in a
physical fight on school property in the prior 12
months. (GPRA)
Outcome Measure 1.3: Reduction of 25% from
baseline, by the end of the grant period, in the
percentage of students in grades 6-12 who have been
in a physical fight on school property in the prior 12
months as measured by the School Climate Survey.
14.0% 10.5% 13.3% 10.8%
Objective 1.4: Reduction by 25% from baseline,
by the end of the grant period, in the number of
offenses against persons, property, and of
disorderly or disruptive behavior committed by
students in grades 6-12.
Outcome Measure 1.4: Reduction by 25% from
baseline, by the end of the grant period, in the
number of offenses against persons, property, and of
disorderly or disruptive behavior committed by
students in grades 6-12 as measured by the VADOE
Discipline, Crime and Violence Report.
1,908 1,431 1,621 1,331
P a g e | 2
Element 2: ALCOHOL, TOBACCO AND OTHER DRUG USE
GOAL: To reduce alcohol, tobacco and other drug use
Baseline Target 09-10 data 10-11 data
Objective 2.1: Annual reduction of 10%,
compared to baseline, in the percentage of
students in grades 6-12 who report current (30
day) marijuana use. (GPRA)
Outcome Measure 2.1: Annual reduction of 10%,
compared to baseline, in the percentage of students
in grades 6-12 who report current (30 day) marijuana
use as measured by the School Climate Survey.
12.9%
09-10: 11.6%
10-11: 10.4%
11-12: 9.4%
12-13: 8.5%
15.9% 12.9%
Objective 2.2: Annual reduction of 10%,
compared to baseline, in the percentage of
students in grades 6-12 who report current (30
day) alcohol use. (GPRA)
Outcome Measure 2.2: Annual reduction of 10%,
compared to baseline, in the percentage of students
in grades 6-12 who report current (30 day) alcohol
use as measured by the School Climate Survey.
19.4%
09-10: 17.5%
10-11: 15.7%
11-12: 14.1%
12-13: 12.7%
22.7% 18.1%
Objective 2.3: Improve the accuracy of 9-12th
grade students’ estimates of peer 30-day alcohol
non-use to within 20 percentage points of
students’ self-reported alcohol non-use by the
end of the grant period.
Outcome Measure 2.3: Improve the accuracy of 9-
12th grade students’ estimates of peer 30-day alcohol
non-use to within 20 percentage points of students’
self-reported alcohol non-use by the end of the grant
period as measured by the School Climate Survey.
32.6%
estimate
vs. 69.5%
actual
+/- 20% of
actual N/A1
28.1%
estimate vs.
73.6% actual
Objective 2.4.1: Annual reduction of 10%,
compared to baseline, in the percentage of
alternative education students in grades 6 -12
who report current (30 day) alcohol use.
Outcome Measure 2.4.1: Annual reduction of 10%,
compared to baseline, in the percentage of
alternative education students in grades 6-12 who
report current (30 day) alcohol use as measured by
the School Climate Survey.
50%2
09-10: 45.0%
10-11: 40.5%
11-12: 36.5%
12-13: 32.9%
18.9% 50.0%
Objective 2.4.2: Annual reduction of 10%,
compared to baseline, in the percentage of
alternative education students in grades 6 -12
who report current (30 day) cigarette use.
Outcome Measure 2.4.2: Annual reduction of 10%,
compared to baseline, in the percentage of
alternative education students in grades 6-12 who
report current (30 day) cigarette use as measured by
the School Climate Survey.
58.3%2
09-10: 52.5%
10-11: 47.3%
11-12: 42.6%
12-13: 38.3%
24.3% 52.9%
1. While the percentage of 9-12th grade students who report alcohol non-use, according to the Spring School Climate Survey was available (68.5%), the question,
“During the past 30 days, on how many days do you think the typical student at your school had at least one drink of alcohol?” was inadvertently omitted from the
Spring 2010 Climate School Survey. This omission has been corrected and data for this outcome is reported in subsequent year s.
2 Baseline data not available for one alternative school
P a g e | 3
Element 3: STUDENT BEHAVIORAL, EMOTIONAL AND SOCIAL SUPPORTS
GOAL: To make learning possible for every child through fostering learning, safety and socially-appropriate behavior
Baseline Target 09-10 data 10-11 data
Objective 3.1: Reduction of 25% from baseline,
by the end of the grant period, in the number of
behavior referrals for students in grades K -5
participating in Responsive Classroom.
Outcome Measure 3.1: Reduction of 25% from
baseline, by the end of the grant period, in the number
of behavior referrals for students in grades K-5
participating in Responsive Classroom as measured by
the VADOE Discipline, Crime and Violence Report.
492 369 484 419
Objective 3.2: Reduction of 25% from baseline,
by the end of the grant period, in the number of
behavior referrals for students in grades 6-8
participating in Second Step.
Outcome Measure 3.2: Reduction of 25% from
baseline, by the end of the grant period, in the number
of behavior referrals for students in grades 6-8
participating in Second Step as measured by the VADOE
Discipline, Crime and Violence Report.
802 602 721 637
OD SOCIAL AND EMOTIONAL LEA
RNING PROGRAMS
Element 4: MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES
GOAL: To improve access to and availability of family-focused mental health services for students
Baseline Target 09-10 data 10-11 data
Objective 4.1: Increase of 33% from baseline, by
the end of the grant period, in the number of
students in grades 6-12 receiving school-based
mental health services. (GPRA)
Outcome Measure 4.1: Increase of 33% from
baseline, by the end of the grant period, in the
number of students in grades 6-12 receiving school-
based mental health services as measured by R10’s
PCE database and clinician records.
407 543 522 996
Objective 4.2: Increase of 25% from baseline, by
the end of the grant period, in the percentage of
mental health referrals for students in grades 6 -
12 which result in mental health services being
provided in the community. (GPRA)
Outcome Measure 4.2: Increase by 25% from
baseline, by the end of the grant period, in the
percentage of mental health referrals for students in
grades 6-12 which result in mental health services
being provided in the community as measured by
R10’s database and clinician records. (GPRA)
30% 37.5% 56.5% 49.3%
P a g e | 4
Objective 4.3: Annual reduction of 10%,
compared to baseline, in the percentage of
students in grades K-12 with mental health
diagnoses who are placed in congregate care for
treatment of mental health programs.
Outcome Measure 4.3: Annual reduction of 10%,
compared to baseline, in the percentage of students
in grades K-12 with mental health diagnoses who are
placed in congregate care for treatment of mental
health programs, as measured by CSA records.
72.3%
09-10: 65.1%
10-11:58.6%
11-12:52.7%
12-13:47.4%
63.9% N/A3
Objective 4.3: Annual reduction of 10%,
compared to baseline, in the percentage of
youth in grades 6-12 who self-report one or
more suicide attempt.
Outcome Measure 4.4: Annual reduction of 10%,
compared to baseline, in the percentage of youth in
grades 6-12 who self-report one or more suicide
attempt as measured by the School Climate Survey.
13.9%
09-10:12.5%
10-11:11.3%
11-12:10.2%
12-13: 9.2%
12.9% 11.5%
Element 5: EARLY CHILDHOOD SOCIAL AND EMOTIONAL LEARNING PROGRAMS
GOAL: To provide early learning experiences and social supports for children and families that address risk factors which may lead to early academic
failure
Baseline Target 09-10 data 10-11 data
Objective 5.1: At least 85% of students who
complete the High/Scope Preschool Program will
possess reading readiness each year.
Outcome Measure 5.1: At least 85% of students who
complete the High/Scope Preschool Program will
possess reading readiness each year, as measured by
the High/Scope Child Observation Record (COR).
66.7% 85% 83.3% 100%
Objective 5.2: Increase by 10 percentage points,
from pre-test to post-test, the percentage of
students in 3-year old public preschool and/or
receiving family support services who are in the
normal range of development.
Outcome Measure 5.2: Increase by 10 percentage
points, from pre-test to post-test, the percentage of
students in 3-year old public preschool and/or
receiving family support services who are in the
normal range of development, as measured by the
Brigance Preschool Screen.
33.3% 36.7% 58.3% 100%
Objective 5.3: At least 75% of parents with
preschool children in High/Scope Classrooms
with Family Support programs will participate in
2 or more school related activities during each
school year.
Outcome Measure 5.3: At least 75% of parents with
preschool children in High/Scope Classrooms with
Family Support programs will participate in 2 or more
school related activities during each school year, as
measured by family support services records.
60% 75% 97% 99%
3 Data not available as of 1/15/12.
Office of the School Board
401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22902‐4596
Phone: (434)296‐5826 Fax: (434) 296‐5893
www.k12albemarle.org
March 23, 2012
The Honorable Bob McDonnell
Office of the Governor
Patrick Henry Building, 3rd Floor
1111 East Broad Street
Richmond, Virginia 23219
Via fax (804) 371‐6351
Dear Governor McDonnell:
We are writing on behalf of the School Board of Albemarle County to request relief from the mandates
imposed by Senate Bill 497 (SB 497). Our School Board has supported full funding of VRS for many years
and strongly believes in meeting the retirement obligations to our teachers and staff. However, the
requirements of SB 497 substantially increase the cost of implementation and impose a very costly
unfunded mandate to Albemarle County, our employees, and the Commonwealth.
SB 497 imposes a mandate for employees to share in the cost of VRS by contributing five percent of their
salary, and mandates a five percent increase in employee salaries that only partially offsets the impact of
the employee contributions. These changes introduce substantial additional costs to Albemarle County
in the form of additional payroll tax (FICA), VRS costs, and group life insurance costs. Our employees
would be assessed additional payroll tax on their increased compensation. By increasing compensation
levels, the bill also increases the future obligations of VRS. Albemarle County and the Commonwealth
remain committed to providing for the future retirement of our valuable employees; however, adding
additional costs to the School Board, effectively reducing employee compensation, increasing the long
term VRS obligation, and creating a new major unfunded mandate are serious concerns to our
community and School Board.
The Commonwealth and the localities agreed to remove cost sharing from the VRS for employees in lieu
of a major increase in salary as determined by market conditions. This particular solution was chosen
due to the beneficial tax and cost components of payroll for both the Commonwealth and each locality.
Returning to a shared cost formula for VRS reintroduces these costs for Albemarle County, the
Commonwealth, and our employees. The net increase to our School Board budget from the increase in
employer contributions in your budget proposal is already $3.3M. It is estimated that implementation of
SB 497 would cost Albemarle County Schools at least an additional $1.25M and decrease employee net
compensation. This mandate arrives at a time when our local ability to pay is decreasing, and our Board
of Supervisors has already advertised a real estate tax rate that would provide no revenue to cover the
costs of this mandate.
Our School Board respectfully requests that you consider vetoing or amending SB 497 in order to avoid
imposing a costly unfunded mandate upon Albemarle County, all Commonwealth localities and our
employees.
Sincerely,
Steve Koleszar
Chairman
Dr. Pamela R. Moran
Superintendent
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
Ivy Fire Station Sublease
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
New Sublease Agreement with UVA for proposed Ivy Fire
Station to be located in the Kirtley Warehouse property
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Messrs. Foley, Letteri, Davis, Herrick, Henry and Lilley
LEGAL REVIEW: Yes
AGENDA DATE:
April 4, 2012
ACTION: INFORMATION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: X INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS: No
REVIEWED BY:
BACKGROUND:
On March 9, 2011, the Board approved a Deed of Sublease with the University of Virginia (“UVA”) for the use of a
portion of the Kirtley Warehouse, located at TMP 59 -23B1, as a Fire-Rescue Station to serve the Ivy area.
The existing Sublease allows for UVA to continue to use a portion of the building as a warehouse, requires the County to
replace an existing loading dock, impose d a deadline for final plan approval by March 31, 2012, and provides for a 20-
year term.
In recent months, UVA has decided to use the warehouse as office space instead of continued use as a warehouse,
making the replacement of the loading dock no longer necessary. In addition, the time needed for final plan approvals
for the improvements needs to be adjusted as a result of UVA’s proposed change of the use of the building.
DISCUSSION:
Both UVA and County staff wish to continue subleasing the property for a Fire -Rescue Station to serve the Ivy area.
Because the existing Sublease is about to expire, the parties have negotiated a new Sublease. The proposed new
Sublease would no longer require the County to replace the loading dock, but would require other site improvements to
be made at the County’s expense, and would change the deadlines for required plan approvals. The schedule for
opening the Ivy Fire Station remains on track for it to be operational by the spring of 2013.
BUDGET IMPACT:
The direct rental cost to the County of the proposed Sublease would continue to be $20.00 total over the 20 year
term. The larger cost of the design and construction of the new Ivy Fire station is funded in the FY 12 CIP and
includes the cost of the site improvements required in the new Sublease . Operation and maintenance of the facility
has been programmed into the Five Year Financial Plan and will be ad dressed in the FY13 budget.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends that the Board 1) approve the County’s entering into a new Sublease that has been approved as to
content and form by the County Attorney and 2) authorize the County Executive to sign the Suble ase and associated
documents after approval as to content and form by the County Attorney.
Return to consent agenda
Return to regular agenda
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
Lewis & Clark Exploratory Center Lease
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Extension of the Lewis & Clark Exploratory Center lease
for office space in the McIntire County Office Building
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Messrs. Foley, Letteri, Davis, Herrick, Shadman and
Freitas
LEGAL REVIEW: Yes
AGENDA DATE:
April 4, 2012
ACTION: INFORMATION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: X INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS: Yes
REVIEWED BY:
BACKGROUND:
In 2005 the Board approved a lease with the Lewis & Clark Exploratory Center, Inc. to temporarily lease office space in
the McIntire County Office Building. This space was located on the first floor of the north wing that had been recently
vacated when the Police department relocated to COB – 5th Street. After the renovation of the north wing for the
Community Development Department, the Lewis & Clark Exploratory Center moved into a 169 square foot office on the
second floor of COB-McIntire off the lobby. The Center and the County extended and amended the lease in 2011 with
the expectation that the Center would move into its new facility in the summer of 2012. The current lease will expire on
June 30, 2012, unless extended.
DISCUSSION:
The Lewis & Clark Exploratory Center had expected to move into its new facility at Darden Towe Park when the current
lease expired. Due to unforeseen project delays, construction of their new facility will not be completed as originally
anticipated. The Lewis & Clark Exploratory center has requested to continue to lease the office space for another year,
at the end of which they expect to be able to move into their new facility. The term of the proposed lease shall be from
July 1, 2012 through June 30, 2013.
The County Attorney’s office has advised that a public hearing is not required prior to the Board taking action on the
lease because the 2005 lease and 2011 amendment provide for “renewal for an additional period as may be mutually
agreed by the Landlord and Tenant.”
BUDGET IMPACT:
Approval of the proposed lease will generate $3,139.66 in annual revenue for FY2013.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends the Board approve the Agreement of Lease and authorize the County Executive to sign the Lease on
behalf of the County.
ATTACHMENTS
A - Lewis and Clark Exploratory Center Agreement of Lease
Return to consent agenda
Return to regular agenda
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
Community Use of County Facilities Policy
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Approval of Revised Community Use of County Facilities
Policy
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Messrs. Foley, Letteri, Davis, Herrick, Shadman, and
Freitas
LEGAL REVIEW: Yes
AGENDA DATE:
April 4, 2012
ACTION: INFORMATION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: X INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS: Yes
REVIEWED BY:
BACKGROUND:
Since first adopting a County facilities rental policy on February 10, 1982, the Board of Supervisors has encouraged
the use of County facilities by Local Government and the School Division for their activities, as well as by outside
organizations and groups when their activities have not interfered with the routine business of the County. There have
been several revisions to the policy and the application, with the last revision on April 22, 2010.
DISCUSSION:
The substantive changes addressed in the proposed revision are:
◦ Limiting after-hours rental to no later than 10 p.m., reflecting current practice;
◦ Eliminating weekend rental, reflecting current practice;
◦ Including a provision regarding the use of grounds, which is not specifically addressed in the current policy;
and
◦ Adjusting the rental rates - The rates have been adjusted to enable the County to recoup operating expenses
while still offering access to our facilities below the local public and private market for similar services.
Also, attached is the revised application to be used in conjunction with the revised policy.
BUDGET IMPACT:
Annual revenue from facility rentals would likely increase based on the rental rate increase and would offset direct
costs associated with room rental activities.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends that the Board approve the revised Community Use of County Facilities policy.
ATTACHMENTS
A – Application and Community Use of County Facilities Policy
Return to consent agenda
Return to regular agenda
1
Application Number____________
APPLICATION FOR RESERVATION OF
ALBEMARLE COUNTY BUILDING AND FACILITIES OR GROUNDS
I (we) __________________________________________________________, on behalf of
___________________________________________________________________
(organization) (the “Applicant”), have read and understand the attached rules and regulations and
in accordance with same, I (we) hereby make application for the use of Room ____________
(space wanted) on _________________ (date), between the hours of ___________ and
___________ under the conditions indicated below:
1) The exact purposes, for which the space will be used, including the exact kind of
equipment and apparatus to be brought on the property and any special equipment desired
to be used:
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
2) The following person(s) (include contact information) will be in charge of the program:
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
3) The schedule of admission charges will be as follows:
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
4) The proceeds from such charges will be distributed and used as follows:
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
5) Number of anticipate people attending:________________________________________
Number of anticipated parking spaces needed: __________________________________
6) Will food be served during this event (YES/NO)? _______________________________
General Rules and Responsibilities of Individuals/Organizations Using County Facilities
On behalf of the Applicant, the undersigned acknowledges and hereby agrees to ensure
compliance with the following rules and responsibilities:
1. The rental fee shall be paid prior to the rental date.
2. A representative designated as the Applicant’s “responsible individual” shall remain on
site throughout the rental period.
3. The Applicant shall provide appropriate supervision of all the individuals using the
facility (to include the audience in case of performances).
4. The Applicant shall ensure all general and specific rules and regulations are adhered to,
and safeguard all County property entrusted into its care.
5. Only the room/facility specifically requested and paid for (and adjacent restrooms) shall
be used.
6. Dais Auditorium furniture shall not be moved or otherwise rearranged.
2
7. No food or drink shall be brought into the Lane Auditorium.
8. Other than guide dogs, hearing dogs, and service dogs for persons with disabilities, no
animals shall be allowed in County buildings, without the County’s prior consent.
9. No tobacco or alcohol shall be brought onto any County grounds or into any County
facility.
10. Rental of the Lane Auditorium shall not include the use of its audio/visual/recording
/computer equipment, except by Class 1 Departments (directly supervised by the County
Executive/Superintendent or sponsored by the Virginia Cooperative Extension). Other
groups may bring their own equipment, if desired.
11. The Applicant shall be responsible for all damage to County property and shall either
(choose one):
____(a) Maintain commercial general liability insurance (of not less than $1,000,000 per
occurrence and $2,000,000 aggregate combined limit) that insures it, the County of
Albemarle, its officers, employees and agents against claims of personal injury,
including death, as well as against claims for property damage, which may arise from
the operations of the Applicant, of any agent, or of anyone directly or indirectly
employed by either of them. The Applicant shall provide Certificate(s) of such
insurance; OR
____(b) Indemnify and hold harmless the County and any of its officers, employees and agents
for any and all claims of any kind asserted for any damage, loss, injury or death to
persons or property arising out of the above use of County property, including attorney’s
fees.
Nothing herein shall be construed as a waiver of the sovereign immunity of the County.
Failure to adhere to these terms and conditions may be used as grounds to bar future use
of County facilities. Allowing a group/organization to use the County’s facilities does not
constitute an endorsement of the group/organization’s policies, beliefs or practices.
I hereby certify that I am authorized to sign on behalf of the Applicant. I assume full
responsibility for compliance with the above Rules.
Signed ________________________________________
(Applicant)
By ___________________________________________
Address _______________________________________
Phone Number __________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
FOR OFFICE USE ONLY - ACTION TAKEN
1) ( ) Approved for use of Room ____________ on _____________________________
pending receipt of rental fee.
2) Total rental fee: $_________________ Due Date(s):_______________________
3) Classification:____________________________
4) ( ) Disapproved for reason described below:
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
County of Albemarle (General Services)
By:_________________________________
Revised: 9/30/99, 7/3/02, 3/19/08, 4/7/2010
4/22/10, 3/7/12
3
COMMUNITY USE OF COUNTY FACILITIES
A) Generally
1. The Board of Supervisors believes in the full and best possible utilization of the
physical facilities belonging to the citizens of the County. To achieve this end, the
use of County facilities for governmental, school and related activities, as well as by
outside organizations and groups, shall be encouraged when these activities will not
interfere with the routine business of the County.
2. Proper protection, safety and care of County property shall be primary considerations
in the use of County facilities.
B) Eligible Organizations
1. The Board has classified various organizations and groups for the purposes of priority
and the charging of fees.
1. Classification
I. School and County government affiliated or related groups.
II. Youth agencies, educational, recreational, cultural, political, civic, charitable,
social, veteran’s veterans’ or religious groups or organizations.
III. Profit making or Private groups, organizations, or businesses.
2. Membership
The membership of any group or organization requesting the use of County
facilities must be largely from the County of Albemarle. This restriction shall not
exclude the use of certain facilities, as determined by the County Executive, by
state and national organizations that have a local sponsoring division of such
organization.
3. Commercial Activities
Commercial use of County property by any organization or individual is expressly
prohibited.
C) Applications and Approval
1. Applications must be sponsored by reputable and established clubs, societies or
organizations that reasonably can be held responsible for the payment of charges,
compensation for damages to property and for use of the property in reasonable
conformity with the regulations on the application.
2. The Board authorizes the County Executive or his designee to approve all
applications for the use of County facilities that meet the requirements of the Board,
that comply with implementing regulations the County Executive deems necessary to
protect County property and that do not conflict with established business or
commercial interests in the community. The County Executive shall design such
application forms as are required. The completed and signed form shall be a binding
agreement upon the applicant and the County.
4
3. No rental application will be considered more than six months prior to the desired
rental date.
4. The County Executive or his designee reserves the right to cancel a rental contract up
to ten calendar days prior to a scheduled rental.
5. The Lane Auditorium and COB – 5th Street Room A is are available during business
hours (8:00 a.m. – 5:00 p.m. Monday through Friday) only if the applicant provides
shuttle bus services or off-site parking for participants of the meeting. On-site
parking is not available for large meetings during business hours.
5.6.All activities shall end, with County facilities vacated no later than 10:00 p.m.
6.7.The Lane Auditorium is not available on any day during which a local government
board, commission, or other duly appointed entity is scheduled to use the facility due
to the possibility of these meetings running beyond the scheduled end time.
7.8.Meeting rooms and Auditorium are not available on holidays, scheduled or declared,
when the County Office Building is closed.
9. Reservations will automatically be cancelled when the County office buildings are
closed due to inclement weather or emergency conditions.
10. County Office Buildings’ Grounds and Parking Lots:
a. After normal business hours and when not in conflict with a scheduled local
government board or commission meeting, the lower parking lot may be used for
public parking, except between the hours of 2:00 a.m. and 6:00 a.m.
b. Except as described in this policy, the grounds of the County Office Buildings are
not open for public use. The County Executive or his designee may consider
requests for the use of County grounds consistent with this policy. Such requests
must be made and approved no less than 5 business days before the proposed
activity. A $150.00 security deposit will be required of any approved request.
The security deposit will be returned upon satisfactory inspection of the grounds.
At no time shall vehicles be parked on the lawns or pedestrian walkways.
D) Fees (See Attachment)
1. The County Executive shall establish a minimum schedule of fees and may make
additional adjustments in the fees. The minimum schedule and additional
adjustments shall be based upon the classification of the group or organization, the
facilities to be used, the size of the group, the objectives of the organization, the
approximate cost to the County and the purpose for which the facility will be used.
2. In general, the County Office Building Rental Charges schedule (attached below) will
apply.
3. A full rental fee shall be charged to all groups (except Classification I) when County
facilities are to be used for fund raising and/or when an admission charge is levied.
4. All fees must be paid at least seven (7) calendar days in advance, and the sponsoring
organization whose name appears on the application shall be held responsible for any
and all damages to property and equipment.
E) Protection of County Property
5
1. An employee or agent of the County shall be on duty on the property at times when
the facilities are in use. No equipment or furnishings may be used or moved without
the consent of the employee in charge if such usage is not in conformity with the
contracted agreement. The employee in charge may expel any group if said group,
after ample warnings, fails to adhere to the provisions of their rental agreement.
2. The sponsoring organization shall be responsible for crowd control measures,
including the employment of police protection when required. Such control shall be
arranged in advance when deemed necessary by the County Executive or his
designee.
F) Safety
1. Organizations and individuals using the facility shall be responsible for familiarizing
themselves with the nearest exits in case of emergency evacuation. Each conference
room has a Fire Escape Plan posted at its entrance which shows the primary and
secondary escape routes.
G) Deposits
1. A cash bond or deposit may be required at the discretion of the County Executive or
his designee prior to use of the property.
Lane Auditorium and COB-5th Street Room A Rental Charges
Classification Weekday-
Business Hours
Weekday-
Evening Weekends
I. County/Schools* No Charge No Charge No Charge
II. Youth agencies, educational,
recreational, cultural, political,
civic, charitable, social,
veteran’s or religious groups or
organizations
No Charge
$18.00 flat fee
$40.00/hour
$18 custodial
charge
Fee: $175 flat fee plus $28/hr
Security/Custodial Personnel Fee
Deposit: $150, to be returned
upon satisfactory inspection
III. Profit Making or Private
Groups, Organizations or
Businesses
$175 $200 flat
fee plus $18.00
custodial charge
$175 $200 flat
fee plus $18.00
custodial
charge
Fee: $175 flat fee plus $28/hr
Security/Custodial Personnel Fee
Deposit: $150, to be returned
upon satisfactory inspections
* Departments directly supervised or sponsored by the County Executive/Superintendent or sponsored by
the local office of the Virginia Cooperative Extension
The Lane Auditorium and COB – 5th Street Room A is available during business hours (8:00
a.m.-5:00 p.m. Monday through Friday) only if the Applicant provides shuttle bus services or
off-site parking for participants of the meeting. On-site parking is not available for large
meetings during business hours.
County Office Building Meeting Rooms Rental Charges
(Other than for Lane Auditorium and COB-5th Street Room A)
Classification Weekday-
Business Hours
Weekday-
Evening
Weekends
I. County/Schools* No Charge No Charge No Charge
II. Youth agencies, educational,
recreational, cultural, political,
civic, charitable, social,
veteran’s or religious groups or
organizations
No Charge
$18.00 flat fee
$40.00 per
hour
$18.00
custodial
charge
Fee: $28/hr Security/Custodial
Personnel Fee
Deposit: $150, to be returned
upon satisfactory inspection
6
III. Profit Making or Private
Groups, Organizations or
Businesses
$40.00 per hour
plus $18.00
custodial charge
$40.00 per
hour plus
$18.00
custodial
charge
Fees: $40.00 per hour plus
$28/hr Security/Custodial
Personnel Fee
Deposit: $150, to be returned
upon satisfactory inspection.
* Departments directly supervised or sponsored by the County Executive/Superintendent or sponsored by
the local office of the Virginia Cooperative Extension
Additional Charges
1. Each additional room used shall incur an additional charge, pursuant to the above schedule.
2. Requests to set up additional chairs/tables shall incur a flat $18.00 charge.
3 Any portion of a meeting scheduled past 5:00 5:30 p.m. will be subject to the applicable
custodial charge weekday evening rate.
4. For any event at which food is served, a $150.00 security deposit will be charged, to be
returned upon satisfactory inspection of facility.
Return to exec summary
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
Rushia/Fleckles ACE easement
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Adopt resolution accepting Rushia/Fleckles offer to sell
conservation easement
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Messrs., Foley, Elliott, Herrick, Cilimberg, Benish, and
Goodall
LEGAL REVIEW: Yes
AGENDA DATE:
April 4, 2012
ACTION: INFORMATION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: X INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS: Yes
REVIEWED BY:
BACKGROUND:
On November 2, 2011, the Board of Supervisors accepted the appraisal of the Rushia/Fleckles property and invited
the owners to sell a conservation easement to the County. Mr. Rushia and Ms. Fleckles are the last applicants in the
FY2009-10 class and have applied to participate in the ACE Program five times, only to miss out on funding because
the purchase of other properties exhausted previously available funds. This year, however, sufficient funds are
available to purchase this easement (see Attachment B). This 87-acre property occupies the top of Beaver Creek
Mountain, which is visible from Crozet. Without an easement, eight new dwellings could be built on the exposed upper
flanks of the property.
Albemarle County Code § A.1-109(B)(1) restricts building on ACE easements within the Mountain Overlay District
(MOD). Since 69 acres or almost 80% of the Rushia/Fleckles property is in the MOD, and most of the rest of the
property lies on critical slopes, the strict application of the ordinance requirements to this property would essentially
preclude future construction anywhere on the property (see attached “MOD and Critical Slopes Map”).
Mr. Rushia and Ms. Fleckles have offered to sell the ACE easement if they are granted a limited waiver from
restrictions on the property that is in the MOD.
DISCUSSION:
Given the high visibility of this property, and its potential for more intense development without an easement, County
staff and the ACE Committee have discussed whether to recommend a limited waiver of this requirement of the ACE
ordinance. Under County Code § A.1-111(A), “Requirements and deadlines may be waived. Any requirement or
deadline set forth in this appendix may be waived by the board of supervisors if, for good cause, it is shown that
exigent circumstances exist to warrant consideration of an otherwise untimely application, or it is shown that the
requirements unreasonably restrict the purchase of an easement. Under these circumstances, the board may
purchase a conservation easement at any time it deems necessary and subject to only those requirements it deems
appropriate.”
After discussion, County staff and the ACE Committee are recommending waiving the strict application of the ACE
ordinance on this property to allow building around existing structures just above an elevation of 1,200 feet, at the
lower limits of the MOD on the property (see Attachments E and F). This approach would minimize the visual impacts
of new construction while giving the owners the needed flexibility to add improvements. These exceptions to the MOD
would encompass a 200-foot radius around the existing dwelling, a large pole barn and a shed. Within these excepted
areas, the owners would be permitted to establish certain primary or accessory structures or other improvements
without prior written approval from the County or the Public Recreational Facilities Authority. Even within these
excepted areas, by operation of the Ordinance, the deed of easement would still assure that the parcel was used and
maintained in a manner consistent with the Comprehensive Plan as it pertains to mountain resources and, in
particular, the Mountain Design Standards in the Natural Resources and Cultural Assets Component of the
comprehensive plan. In the Mountain Protection Buffer (the rest of the MOD above 1200’ elevation), the deed of
easement would prohibit (a) the construction of any new primary or accessory structures or other improvements and
(b) the enlargement or extension of any existing primary or accessory structures or other improvements.
AGENDA TITLE: Rushia/Fleckles ACE easement
April 4, 2012
Page 2
With this waiver, the ACE Committee recommends that the Board accept the owners’ offer to sell a conservation
easement to the County for $203,980. Acquisition of this easement would provide the following benefits and resource
protection:
Protection of 87 acres of farm and forestland
Elimination of 7 development rights
4,768 linear feet of common boundary with three other property owners
69 acres in the Beaver Creek Mountain Overlay District
W atershed of the South Fork Rivanna River Reservoir
BUDGET IMPACT:
After the pending acquisition of the Nash/Violette easement, a total of $677,114 will be available for acquiring other
easements (Attachment B). This funding reflects a combination of re-appropriated County funds ($619,460) and
grants from VDACS Office of Farmland Preservation ($116,454) that were previously awarded to the County. These
funds would cover the acquisition of the Rushia/Fleckles easement at a cost of $203,980.
Funding for the purchase of this conservation easement comes from the CIP-Planning-Conservation budget (line-item
9010-81010-580409).
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends that the Board:
1) Approve a limited waiver of the ACE ordinance on the Rushia/Fleckles property, to allow the owners to build
within the specified excepted areas within the Mountain Overlay District.
2) Adopt the attached Resolution (Attachment G) accepting the Rushia/Fleckles offer to sell a conservation
easement to the County, for the price specified and subject to the terms and conditions contained in a deed of
easement acceptable in form to the County Attorney, and authorize the County Executive to sign the final deed
of easement for this property.
ATTACHMENTS:
A – Final Ranking Order of ACE Applicants from Round 10 – FY2009-10
B – ACE Budget for Round 10 & Rushia/Fleckles Easement Acquisition Cost
C – Rushia - Property Location Map
D – Rushia - MOD and Critical Slopes Map
E – Recommendations of the ACE Committee regarding the proposed Rushia/Fleckles ACE easement
F – Rushia - Building Envelopes Map
G – Resolution Accepting Rushia/Fleckles Offer to Sell Easement to the County
Return to consent agenda
Return to regular agenda
Attachment “A”
Ranking Order of ACE Applicants from Round 10 (FY 2009-10)
(20 points are needed to qualify for ACE Funding)
Applicant Tax Map Acres Points Tourism Status
Lively, Julius TM 93, Parcel 53 90.950 acres 48.45 points yes withdrawn
(Simeon) TM 93, Parcel 53C 10.650 acres
TM 93, Parcel 53D 10.500 acres
TM 93, Parcel 54 184.570 acres
Total 296.670 acres
Ethel Pugh/Stanerson TM 56, Parcel 25C 96.220 acres 33.36 points yes acquired 5.26.2011
(Ivy)
Barksdale, John TM 100, Parcel 34 153.010 acres 29.66 points yes withdrawn
(Walnut Creek)
Thurman, Thelma TM 94, Parcel 20A 108.400 acres 25.36 points no acquired 2.14.2011
(Milton)
Rives, Barclay TM 65, Parcel 93A1 3.811 acres 24.58 points yes withdrawn
(Cismont) TM 65, Parcel 94 3.000 acres
TM 65, Parcel 94 “A” 1.250 acres
TM 65, Parcel 94 “B” 15.950 acres
TM 65, Parcel 95 4.872 acres
TM 65, Parcel 95A 3.978 acres
TM 65, Parcel 121 38.840 acres
Total 71.701 acres
Rushia, Ed & Chris TM 39, Parcel 27 86.700 acres 23.09 points yes hope to acquire
(Crozet)
Nash/Violette TM 71, Parcel 43 40.160 acres 22.06 points yes hope to acquire
(Greenwood)
William Traylor TM 48, Parcel 45 14.569 acres 10.27 points no ineligible
(Stony Point) TM 48, Parcel 46 25.456 acres
Total 40.025 acres
_______________________________________________________________________________________________
Totals 8 applicants 862.926 acres
Note: Tourism value is determined by the presence of specific elements from the ranking evaluation criteria
making certain properties eligible for funding from the transient lodging tax. The specific criteria include the
following: contains historic resources or lies in a historic district; lies in the primary Monticello viewshed;
adjoins a Virginia scenic highway, byway or entrance corridor; lies on a state scenic river; provides
mountaintop protection.
ACE Ranking Evaluation Criteria & Points Determination
Owner: Lively, Julius
Property: TM 93, Parcel 53 ( 90.950 acres) 3 DivR’s + 5 DevR’s = 8 DR’s
TM 93, Parcel 53C ( 10.650 acres) 0 DivR’s + 5 DevR’s = 5 DR’s
TM 93, Parcel 53D ( 10.500 acres) 0 DivR’s + 5 DevR’s = 5 DR’s
TM 93, Parcel 54 (184.570 acres) 8 DivR’s + 4 DevR’s = 12 DR’s
Total (296.670 acres) 11 DivR’s + 19 DevR’s = 30 DR’s
Ranking Criteria Determination Source for Points Points
Criteria A.1 ¼ mile from Limestone Farm plats/County overlay maps 2.00
Criteria A.2 296.670 acres RE Assessor’s Office 5.93
Criteria B.1 no landowner 0.00
Criteria B.2 no landowner 0.00
Criteria B.3 24 DR’s eliminated Zoning & Planning Departments 12.00
Criteria C.1 no County overlay maps 0.00
Criteria C.2 yes landowner 5.00
Criteria C.3 1,340 feet on Route 53 County tax map/plats 4.23
(Entrance Corridor)
Criteria C.4 yes - in Monticello viewshed PEC/Monticello viewshed maps 2.00
Criteria C.5 yes - Henderson habitat zone DCR Division of Natural Heritage 5.00
Criteria C.6 102 acres “prime” farm/forest County Soil Survey 2.04
Criteria C.7 4,100 feet on the Rivanna River County overlay maps 4.10
Criteria C.8 yes - Rivanna River plat/survey/County overlay maps 2.05
Criteria C.9 35 foot buffer on Rivanna River landowner 4.10
Criteria C.10 n/a County Engineering Department 0.00
Criteria C.11 no County overlay maps 0.00
Criteria C.12 no landowner/DOF 0.00
Criteria D.1 n/a Based on income grid 0.00
Point Total 48.45 points
PEC = Piedmont Environmental Council; VOF = Virginia Outdoors Foundation; TNC = The Nature Conservancy
DCR = Department of Conservation and Recreation; SH = Scenic Highway; EC = entrance corridor; SR = State Road;
CE = Conservation Easement; SFRR = South Fork Rivanna River watershed; SWMHD = Southwest Mountains
Historic District.
ACE Ranking Evaluation Criteria & Points Determination
Owner: Ethel R. Pugh/Bettie Stanerson
Property: TM 56, Parcel 25C (96.220 acres) 4 DivR’s + 2 DevR’s = 6 DR’s
Ranking Criteria Determination Source for Points Points
Criteria A.1 1,900 feet on TM 72-20A plats/County overlay maps 8.72
1,450 feet on TM 56-113
Criteria A.2 96.220 acres RE Assessor’s Office 1.92
Criteria B.1 no landowner 0.00
Criteria B.2 yes (retired, medical issues) landowner 3.00
Criteria B.3 5 usable DR’s eliminated Zoning & Planning Departments 2.50
Criteria C.1 no County overlay maps 0.00
Criteria C.2 yes landowner 3.00
Criteria C.3 370’ on I-64 (EC) County tax map/plats 3.21
600’ on SR 683
Criteria C.4 none PEC/Monticello viewshed maps 0.00
Criteria C.5 yes (w/in ¼ mile) DCR Division of Natural Heritage 3.00
Criteria C.6 49 acres County Soil Survey 0.98
Criteria C.7 SF Rivanna River Watershed County overlay maps 3.00
Criteria C.8 no plat/survey/County overlay maps 0.00
Criteria C.9 4,029’ on Stockton Mill Creek landowner 4.03
Criteria C.10 n/a County Engineering Department 0.00
Criteria C.11 no County overlay maps 0.00
Criteria C.12 no landowner/DOF 0.00
Criteria D.1 n/a Based on income grid 0.00
Point Total 33.36 points
PEC = Piedmont Environmental Council; VOF = Virginia Outdoors Foundation; TNC = The Nat ure Conservancy
DCR = Department of Conservation and Recreation
SH = Scenic Highway; EC = entrance corridor; SR = State Road
CE = Conservation Easement
SFRR = South Fork Rivanna River watershed
SWMHD = Southwest Mountains Historic District
ACE Ranking Evaluation Criteria & Points Determination
Owner: Barksdale, John
Property: TM 100, Parcel 34 (153.010 acres) 7 DivR’s + 3 DevR’s = 10 DR’s
Ranking Criteria Determination Source for Points Points
Criteria A.1 1,076 feet on Walnut Creek Park plats/County overlay maps 9.77
2,810 feet on C. Hudson
Criteria A.2 153.010 acres RE Assessor’s Office 3.06
Criteria B.1 no landowner 0.00
Criteria B.2 no landowner 0.00
Criteria B.3 7 usable DR’s eliminated Zoning & Planning Departments 3.50
Criteria C.1 yes - 40 acres in Gay Mtn. MOD County overlay map 0.95
3 acres in RAB
Criteria C.2 yes landowner 3.00
Criteria C.3 1,076 feet on SR 631 County tax map/plats 3.08
Criteria C.4 none PEC/Monticello viewshed maps 0.00
Criteria C.5 mafic outcrops w/ rare plants? DCR Division of Natural Heritage 3.00
Criteria C.6 105 acres County Soil Survey 2.10
Criteria C.7 no County overlay maps 0.00
Criteria C.8 no plat/survey/County overlay maps 0.00
Criteria C.9 none landowner 0.00
Criteria C.10 n/a County Engineering Department 0.00
Criteria C.11 no County overlay maps 0.00
Criteria C.12 no landowner/DOF 0.00
Criteria D.1 88% funding Based on income grid 1.20
Point Total 29.66 points
PEC = Piedmont Environmental Council; VOF = Virginia Ou tdoors Foundation; TNC = The Nature Conservancy
DCR = Department of Conservation and Recreation
SH = Scenic Highway; EC = entrance corridor; SR = State Road
CE = Conservation Easement
SFRR = South Fork Rivanna River watershed
SWMHD = Southwest Mountains Historic District
ACE Ranking Evaluation Criteria & Points Determination
Owner: Thurman, Thelma
Property: TM 94, Parcel 20A (108.400 acres) 4 DivR’s + 5 DevR’s = 9 DR’s
Ranking Criteria Determination Source for Points Points
Criteria A.1 w/in ¼ mile of Limestone Farm County overlay map 2.00
Criteria A.2 108.400 acres RE Assessor’s Office 2.17
Criteria B.1 no landowner 0.00
Criteria B.2 yes landowner 3.00
Criteria B.3 6 DR’s eliminated Zoning & Planning Department 3.00
Criteria C.1 no County overlay map 0.00
Criteria C.2 yes landowner 5.00
Criteria C.3 2,647’ on SR 623 County overlay map 4.65
Criteria C.4 no DHR & Monticello viewshed maps 0.00
Criteria C.5 no DCR - Division of Natural Heritage 0.00
Criteria C.6 55 acres “prime soil” County Soil Survey 1.10
Criteria C.7 no County overlay map 0.00
Criteria C.8 no County overlay map 0.00
Criteria C.9 2,958’ w/ 50-100’ wide buffers landowner 4.44
Criteria C.10 n/a County Engineering Department 0.00
Criteria C.11 no County overlay map 0.00
Criteria C.12 no Department of Forestry 0.00
Criteria D.1 n/a VOF, PEC, TNC etc. 0.00
Point Total 25.36 points
PEC = Piedmont Environmental Council; VOF = Virginia Outdoors Foundation; TNC = The Nature Conservancy
DHR = Department of Historic Resources; DCR = Department of Conservation and Recreation
SFRR = South Fork Rivanna River Reservoir
ACE Ranking Evaluation Criteria & Points Determination
Owner: Rives, Barclay
Property: TM 65, Parcel 93A1 ( 3.811 acres) 0 DivR’s + 1 DevR’s = 1 DR’s
TM 65, Parcel 94 ( 3.000 acres) 0 DivR’s + 1 DevR’s = 1 DR’s
TM 65, Parcel 94 “A” ( 1.250 acres) 0 DivR’s + 1 DevR’s = 1 DR’s
TM 65, Parcel 94 “B” (15.950 acres) 0 DivR’s + 5 DevR’s = 5 DR’s
TM 65, Parcel 95 ( 4.872 acres) 0 DivR’s + 2 DevR’s = 2 DR’s
TM 65, Parcel 95A ( 3.978 acres) 0 DivR’s + 1 DevR’s = 1 DR’s
TM 65, Parcel 121 (38.840 acres) 1 DivR’s + 6 DevR’s = 7 DR’s
Total (71.701 acres) 1 DivR’s + 17 DevR’s = 18 DR’s
Ranking Criteria Determination Source for Points Points
Criteria A.1 783 feet on Mirza (TM 65-93) plats/County overlay maps 3.57
Criteria A.2 71.701 acres RE Assessor’s Office 1.43
Criteria B.1 no landowner 0.00
Criteria B.2 no landowner 0.00
Criteria B.3 16 DR’s eliminated Zoning & Planning Departments 8.00
Criteria C.1 no County overlay maps 0.00
Criteria C.2 yes landowner 3.00
Criteria C.3 470 feet on Route 231 County tax map/plats 2.92
144 feet on SR 740
Criteria C.4 yes - SWMHD PEC/Monticello viewshed maps 3.00
Criteria C.5 no DCR Division of Natural Heritage 0.00
Criteria C.6 33 acres County Soil Survey 0.66
Criteria C.7 no County overlay maps 0.00
Criteria C.8 no plat/survey/County overlay maps 0.00
Criteria C.9 none landowner 0.00
Criteria C.10 n/a County Engineering Department 0.00
Criteria C.11 yes (Kinloch Ag-For) County overlay maps 2.00
Criteria C.12 no landowner/DOF 0.00
Criteria D.1 n/a Based on income grid 0.00
Point Total 24.58 points
PEC = Piedmont Environmental Council; VOF = Virginia Outdoors Foundation; TNC = The Nature Conservancy
DCR = Department of Conservation and Recreation; SH = Scenic Highway; EC = entrance corridor; SR = State Road;
CE = Conservation Easement; SFRR = South Fork Rivanna River watershed; SWMHD = Southwest Mountains
Historic District.
ACE Ranking Evaluation Criteria & Points Determination
Owner: Rushia, Ed & Christina
Property: TM 39, Parcel 27 (86.700 acres) 3 DivR’s + 5 DevR’s = 8 DR’s
Ranking Criteria Determination Source for Points Points
Criteria A.1 990 feet on Henley plats/County overlay maps 11.54
1,922 feet on Shaw
1,856 feet on Pietsch
Criteria A.2 86.700 acres RE Assessor’s Office 1.73
Criteria B.1 no landowner 0.00
Criteria B.2 no landowner 0.00
Criteria B.3 7 usable DR’s eliminated Zoning & Planning Departments 3.50
Criteria C.1 69 acres in MOD County overlay maps 3.13
35 acres in RAB
Criteria C.2 no landowner 0.00
Criteria C.3 none County tax map/plats 0.00
Criteria C.4 none PEC/Monticello viewshed maps 0.00
Criteria C.5 no DCR Division of Natural Heritage 0.00
Criteria C.6 8 acres County Soil Survey 0.19
Criteria C.7 SF Rivanna River Watershed County overlay maps 3.00
Criteria C.8 no plat/survey/County overlay maps 0.00
Criteria C.9 none landowner 0.00
Criteria C.10 n/a County Engineering Department 0.00
Criteria C.11 no County overlay maps 0.00
Criteria C.12 no landowner/DOF 0.00
Criteria D.1 n/a Based on income grid 0.00
Point Total 23.09 points
PEC = Piedmont Environmental Council; VOF = Virginia Outdoors Foundation; TNC = The Nature Conservancy
DCR = Department of Conservation and Recreation
SH = Scenic Highway; EC = entrance corridor; SR = State Road
CE = Conservation Easement
SFRR = South Fork Rivanna River watershed
SWMHD = Southwest Mountains Historic District
ACE Ranking Evaluation Criteria & Points Determination
Owner: Margaret Nash/Martin Violette
Property: TM 71, Parcel 43 40.160 acres 1 DivR’s + 6 DevR’s = 7 DR’s
Ranking Criteria Determination Source for Points Points
Criteria A.1 none plats/County overlay maps 0.00
Criteria A.2 40.160 acres RE Assessor’s Office 0.80
Criteria B.1 no landowner 0.00
Criteria B.2 no landowner 0.00
Criteria B.3 6 usable DR’s eliminated Zoning & Planning Departments 3.00
Criteria C.1 no County overlay maps 0.00
Criteria C.2 yes landowner 3.00
Criteria C.3 730’ on I-64 (EC) County tax map/plats 3.87
654’ on SR 824
Criteria C.4 none PEC/Monticello viewshed maps 0.00
Criteria C.5 yes - snail on Stockton Creek DCR Division of Natural Heritage 5.00
Criteria C.6 28 acres County Soil Survey 0.56
Criteria C.7 SF Rivanna River Watershed County overlay maps 3.00
Criteria C.8 no plat/survey/County overlay maps 0.00
Criteria C.9 1,834’ - 1 side Stockton Mill Creek landowner 1.83
Criteria C.10 n/a County Engineering Department 0.00
Criteria C.11 no County overlay maps 0.00
Criteria C.12 yes landowner/DOF 1.00
Criteria D.1 n/a Based on income grid 0.00
Point Total 22.06 points
PEC = Piedmont Environmental Council; VOF = Virginia Outdoors Foundation ; TNC = The Nature Conservancy
DCR = Department of Conservation and Recreation
SH = Scenic Highway; EC = entrance corridor; SR = State Road
CE = Conservation Easement
SFRR = South Fork Rivanna River watershed
SWMHD = Southwest Mountains Historic District
ACE Ranking Evaluation Criteria & Points Determination
Owner: Traylor, William
Property: TM 48, Parcel 45 14.569 acres 0 DivR’s + 5 DevR’s = 5 DR’s
TM 48, Parcel 46 25.456 acres 0 DivR’s + 5 DevR’s = 5 DR’s
Total 40.025 acres 0 DivR’s + 10 DevR’s = 10 DR’s
Ranking Criteria Determination Source for Points Points
Criteria A.1 <¼ mile of Gunn (TM 48-47C) plats/County overlay maps 2.00
Criteria A.2 40.160 acres RE Assessor’s Office 0.80
Criteria B.1 no landowner 0.00
Criteria B.2 no landowner 0.00
Criteria B.3 9 usable DR’s eliminated Zoning & Planning Departments 4.50
Criteria C.1 yes - 34 acres in MOD County overlay maps 0.68
Criteria C.2 no landowner 0.00
Criteria C.3 right-of-way County tax map/plats 0.00
Criteria C.4 none PEC/Monticello viewshed maps 0.00
Criteria C.5 no DCR Division of Natural Heritage 0.00
Criteria C.6 39 acres of “prime” farm/forest County Soil Survey 0.78
Criteria C.7 no County overlay maps 0.00
Criteria C.8 no plat/survey/County overlay maps 0.00
Criteria C.9 756’ on perennial, internal stream landowner 1.51
Criteria C.10 n/a County Engineering Department 0.00
Criteria C.11 no County overlay maps 0.00
Criteria C.12 no landowner/DOF 0.00
Criteria D.1 yes - wants to donate some portion Based on income grid ????
Point Total 10.27 points
PEC = Piedmont Environmental Council; VOF = Virginia Outdoors Foundation; TNC = The Nature Conservancy
DCR = Department of Conservation and Recreation
SH = Scenic Highway; EC = entrance corridor; SR = State Road
CE = Conservation Easement
SFRR = South Fork Rivanna River watershed
SWMHD = Southwest Mountains Historic District
Sec. A.1-108. Ranking criteria.
In order to effectuate the purposes of the ACE program, parcels for which conservation easement
applications have been received shall be ranked according to the criteria and the point values assigned as
provided below. Points shall be prorated and rounded to the first decimal.
A. Open-space resources.
1. The parcel adjoins an existing permanent conservation easement, a national, state or
local park, or other permanently protected open-space: two (2) points, with one (1) additional point for every
five hundred (500) feet of shared boundary; or the parcel is within one-quarter (1/4) mile of, but not
adjoining, an existing permanent conservation easement, a national, state or local park, or other permanently
protected open-space: two (2) points.
2. Size of the parcel: zero (0) points for parcels of less than fifty (50) acres; one (1)
point for parcels of at least fifty (50) acres; one (1) additional point for each fifty (50) acres over fifty (50)
acres; one (1) additional point for each fifty (50) acres over two hundred (2 00) acres.
B. Threat of conversion to developed use.
1. The parcel is threatened with forced sale or other hardship: three (3) points.
2. The number of division rights to be eliminated on the parcel: one-half (1/2) point for
each division right to be eliminated, which shall be determined by subtracting the number of retained
division rights from the number of division rights.
C. Natural, cultural and scenic resources.
1. Mountain protection: one (1) point for each fifty (50) acres in the mountain overlay
district, as delineated in the Comprehensive Plan; an additional one (1) point may be awarded for each
twenty (20) acres within a ridge area boundary. For purposes of this section, the term “ridge area boundary”
means the area that lies within one hundred (100) feet below designated ridgelines shown on county
mountain overlay district elevation maps. The deed restriction set forth in section A.1-109(B)(1) shall apply
if the parcel is eligible for points under this criterion.
2. Working family farm, including forestry: five (5) points if at least one family
member’s principal occupation and income (more than half) is farming or foresting the parcel; three
(3) points if at least one family member has as a secondary occupation farming or f oresting the parcel
so that it is eligible for or subject to land use taxation as land devoted to agriculture, horticulture or
forest use under Albemarle County Code § 15-800 et seq.; one (1) additional point if the parcel is
certified as a Virginia Century Farm by the Virginia Department of Agriculture and Consumer
Services.
3. The parcel adjoins a road designated either as a Virginia scenic highway or byway,
or as an entrance corridor under section 30.6.2 of Chapter 18 of the Albemarle County Code: two (2) points,
with one (1) additional point for each six hundred (600) feet of road frontage if the parcel is subject to a deed
restriction as provided herein; otherwise, one (1) point for each one thousand (1000) feet of road frontage;
the parcel adjoins a public road: two (2) points, with one (1) additional point for each one thousand (1000)
feet of road frontage; or, the parcel is substantially visible from, but is not contiguous to, a public road
designated either as a Virginia scenic highway or byway, or as an entrance corridor under section 30.6.2 of
Comment [AHH1]: Approved by the ACE
Committee 3/16/09
Comment [a2]: Approved by the ACE
Committee 4/20/09
Comment [AHH3]: Approved by the ACE
Committee 3/16/09
Comment [AHH4]: Approved by the ACE
Committee 2/9/09
Chapter 18 of the Albemarle County Code: two (2) points. The deed restriction set forth in section A.1-
109(B)(2) shall apply if the parcel is eligible for points for adjoining a Virginia scenic highway or byway.
4. The parcel contains historic resources: three (3) points if it is within a national
or state rural historic district or is subject to a permanent easement protecting a historic resource; two
(2) points if the parcel is within the primary Monticello viewshed, as shown on viewshed maps
prepared for Monticello and in the possession of the county; two (2) points if the parcel contains a site
of archaeological or architectural significance as determined by a qualified archaeologist or
architectural historian under the United States Department of Interior’s professional qualification
standards. The deed restriction set forth in section A.1-109(B)(4) shall apply if the parcel is eligible
for points under this criterion.
5. The parcel contains an occurrence listed on the Virginia Natural Heritage Inventory
or a qualified biologist submitted documentation of an occurrence of a natural heritage resource to the
program administrator and the Virginia Division of Natural Heritage on behalf of the owner, [or it includes
one of six sites of exceptional biological value designated as a priority conservation target by the Albemarle
County Biodiversity Committee OR the parcel is located within a Priority Conservation Target area
identified by the County Natural Heritage Committee]: five (5) points.
6. The parcel contains capability class I, II or III soils (“prime soils”) for agricultural
lands or ordination symbol 1 or 2 for forest land, based on federal natural resources conservation service
classifications found in the United States Department of Agriculture Soil Survey of Albemarle County,
Virginia: one (1) point for each fifty (50) acres containing such soils to a maximum of five (5) points.
7. The parcel is within the South Fork Rivanna Reservoir Watershed, the Chris Greene
Lake Watershed, the Ragged Mountain Reservoir Watershed, or the Totier Creek Reservoir Watershed: three
(3) points; or the parcel adjoins the Ivy Creek, Mechums River, Moormans River, Rocky Creek (of the
Moormans River), Wards Creek (of the Moormans River), Buck Mountain Creek, South Fork Rivanna River,
North Fork Rivanna River, Swift Run (of the North Fork Rivanna River), Lynch River (of the North Fork
Rivanna River), Hardware River, Rockfish River, James River, any waters designated as “Exceptional
Waters” by the Virginia Water Control Board, any public water supply reservoir or emergency water supply
reservoir: one-half (1/2) point for each one thousand (1000) feet of frontage.
8. The parcel adjoins a waterway designated as a state scenic river: one-half (1/2) point
for each one thousand (1000) feet of frontage. The deed restriction set forth in section A.1-109(B)(3) shall
apply if the parcel is eligible for points under this criterion.
9. If the owner voluntarily offers in his application to place the parcel in a
permanent easement that establishes or maintains buffers adjoining perennial or intermittent streams,
as those terms are defined in Chapter 17 of the Albemarle County Code or if the parcel is subject to
such an existing permanent easement: one (1) point for each one thousand (1000) linear feet of buffer
that is between at least thirty-five (35) and fifty (50) feet wide; one and one-half (1 ½) points for each
one thousand (1,000) linear feet of buffer that is at least fifty (50) feet but less than one hundred (100)
feed wide; two (2) points for each one thousand (1000) linear feet of buffer that is at least one hundred
(100) feet wide.
10. The parcel is within a sensitive groundwater recharging area identified in a county-
sponsored groundwater study: one (1) point.
11. The parcel is within an agricultural and forestal district: two (2) points.
Comment [AHH5]: Approved, by the ACE
Committee on 3/16/09
12. The parcel is subject to a professionally prepared Forestry Stewardship Management
Plan approved by the Virginia Department of Forestry: one (1) point.
D. County fund leveraging. State, federal or private funding identified to leverage
the purchase of the conservation easement: one (1) point for each ten (10) percent of the purchase price for
which those funds can be applied.
(Ord. 00-A.1(1), 7-5-00; Ord. 02-A.1(1), 12-11-02; Ord. 04-A.1(1), 10-6-04; Ord. 07-A.1(1), 12-5-07)
Sec. A.1-109. Easement terms and conditions.
Each conservation easement shall conform with the requirements of the Open-Space
Land Act of 1966 (Virginia Code § 10.1-1700 et seq.) and of this appendix. The deed of easement
shall be in a form approved by the county attorney, and shall contain, at a minimum, the following
provisions:
A. Restriction on division. The parcel shall be restricted from division as follows: (i) if the
parcel is less than one hundred (100) acres, it shall not be divided; (ii) if the parcel is one hundred (100) acres
or larger but less than two hundred (200) acres, it may be divided into two (2) lots; (iii) if the p arcel is two
hundred (200) acres or larger, it may be divided into as many lots so as to maintain an average lot size of at
least one hundred (100) acres, plus one additional lot for any acres remaining above the required minimum
average lot size (e.g., an eight hundred fifty (850) acre parcel may be divided into as many as nine (9)
parcels, eight (8) of which maintain an average lot size of at least one hundred (100) acres, and the ninth of
which consists of the remaining acres).
B. Protection of mountain, scenic and historic resources. The deed of easement shall include
the following restrictions if the owner agrees to use points received under section A.1-108 for mountain,
scenic or historic resources:
1. Mountain resources. If the parcel is eligible for points in the evaluation process
under section A.1-108(C)(1) for mountain protection, the deed of easement shall prohibit establishing all
primary and accessory structures and other improvements, provided that one or more farm buildings or
agricultural structures may be permitted within the mountain overlay district with the prior written approval
from each grantee; the deed of easement also shall assure that the parcel is used and maintained in a manner
consistent with the Open Space Plan as it pertains to mountain resources.
2. Scenic highways and byways. If the parcel is eligible for points in the evaluation
process under section A.1-108(C)(3) for adjoining a Virginia scenic highway or byway, the deed of easement
shall require that each new dwelling (a) have a two hundred fifty (250) foot setback from the edge of the
right-of-way of the scenic highway or byway or (b) if within two hundred fifty (250) feet of the edge of the
right-of-way of the scenic highway or byway, be sited in a location appr oved by each grantee prior to
issuance of a building permit to assure that the dwelling is not visible from the scenic highway or byway at
any time of the year.
3. Stream Buffers. If the parcel is eligible for points in the evaluation process under
section A.1-108(C)(7) for being located within a watershed named therein or adjoining a stream named
therein, the deed of easement shall require a stream buffer along any perennial stream, as that term is defined
in Chapter 17 of the Albemarle County Code.
4. Scenic rivers. If the parcel is eligible for points in the evaluation process under
section A.1-108(C)(8) for adjoining a Virginia scenic river, the deed of easement shall require that each new
dwelling (a) have a two hundred fifty (250) foot setback from the top of the adjoining stream bank or (b) if
within two hundred fifty (250) feet of the top of the adjoining stream bank, shall be sited in a location
approved by each grantee prior to issuance of a building permit to assure that the dwelling is not visible from
the scenic river at any time of the year.
5. Historic resources. If the parcel is eligible for points in the evaluation process under
section A.1-108(C)(4) for sites of archaeological or architectural significance, the deed of easement shall
require that no such site shall be razed, demolished or moved until the razing, demolition or moving thereof
is approved by each Grantee.
6. Voluntary Stream Buffers. If the owner voluntarily requested in his application that
the parcel be awarded points in the evaluation process under section A.1-108(C)(9) for a voluntary stream
buffer, the deed of easement shall require a stream buffer along any perennial or intermittent streams, as
those terms are defined in Chapter 17 of the Albemarle County Code.
C. No buy-back option. The owner shall not have the option to reacquire any property rights
relinquished under the conservation easement.
D. Other restrictions. The parcel also shall be subject to standard restrictions contained in
conservation easements pertaining to uses and activities allowed on the parcel. These standard restrictions
shall be delineated in the deed of easement and shall include, but not necessarily be limited to, restrictions
pertaining to: (i) the accumulation of trash and j unk; (ii) the display of billboards, signs and advertisements;
(iii) the management of forest resources; (iv) grading, blasting or earth removal; (v) the number and size of
primary and secondary dwellings, non-residential outbuildings and farm buildings or structures; (vi) the
conduct of industrial or commercial activities on the parcel; and (vii) monitoring of the easement.
E. Designation of easement holders. The county and one or more other public bodies, as
defined in Virginia Code § 10.1-1700, and designated by the board of supervisors shall be the easement
holders of each easement. The public body or bodies who may be designated by the board shall include, but
not be limited to, the Albemarle County Public Recreational Facilities Authority and the V irginia Outdoors
Foundation.
(Ord. 00-A.1(1), 7-5-00; Ord. 02-A.1(1), 12-11-02; Ord. 07-A.1(1), 12-5-07)
Return to exec summary
Attachment “B”
1. ACE Budget for Round 10 (FY 2009-10) Applicant Pool
Current County Funds Available from FY11-12 Re-appropriation $ 619,459.94
Funds from Farmland Preservation Grants 116,453.75
Funds from VLCF for Land Conservation Stewardship Efforts 3,498.42
Net Funds Available for Rushia & Nash/Violette (FY09-10) $ 739,412.11
2. Acquisition Cost for Rushia & Nash/Violette - Round 10 (FY 2009-10)
Applicant Total Appraised FMV Easement Value (% FMV) ACE Payment (% EV)
Rushia $ 737,000 $ 217,000 (29%) $ 203,980.00 (94%)
(Crozet)
Nash/Violette $ 521,000 $ 84,000 (16%) $ 58,800.00 (70%)
(Greenwood)
_______________________________________________________________________
Totals $1,301,300 $ 344,000 $ 262,780.00
FMV = Fair Market Value
EV = Easement Value
Notes: For FY12, we are in line for another $110,952.46 from the Office of Farmland
Preservation
Return to exec summary
BEAVER CREEKPOWELLS CREEK
PARROTT BRANCH WHITE HALL RDCROZET AVEB U C K RDRAILROAD AVE
T
H
U
R
S
T
ON
D
R
JARMANS GAP RD
O
R
C
H
A
R
D D
R
C L IN G L N
THREE NOTCH'D RD
ST GEORGE AVE
B E A R WOOD RD
HILL TOP ST
JO N E S M I L L RD
BEAVER CREEK MTN RDMINT S
P
R
I
N
G
S
R
D
PE
A
C
H T
R
E
E D
R
HIGH STM
C
C
O
M
B ST
L A N E T OWN R DSADDLE HOLLOW RDW E LBOURNE LN HADEN LNBALLARD DRG R A YROCK DR
KILLDEER LNCLAY D
RLAURA LN
TABOR ST
OLD TRAIL DRCARTER STW I N D M E RE LN BLUE RIDGE AVESUNSET RDRUSSET RDOAK STW
ESTON LN
JARMAN LAKE RDDAYBREAK LNWINESAP LNST GEO R G E A VERushia Property
► Prepared by Albemarle County Community Development Dept. Map created by McChesney Goodall, March, 2009.► 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.► Parcel boundaries reflect most recent available data.► Aerial photos 2007 Commonwealth of Virginia 2,000 0 2,0001,000 Feet
Rushia
Roads
Streams
µ
TM 39-27
Attachment E
Recommendations of the ACE Committee
regarding the proposed Rushia/Fleckles ACE easement
1) Current ACE Ordinance requirements regarding mountain resource protection: Albemarle
County Code § A.1-109(B)(1) provides in part: “If the parcel is eligible for points in the
evaluation process under section A.1-108(C)(1) for mountain protection, the deed of easement
shall prohibit establishing all primary and accessory structures and other improvements,
provided that one or more farm buildings or agricultural structures may be permitted within the
mountain overlay district with the prior written approval from each grantee.” This language
presents issues with the currently-pending Rushia/Fleckles property.
2) Allowance for waivers of the ACE ordinance: County Code § A.1-110(I) allows the Board of
Supervisors to waive certain ACE Ordinance requirements: “Requirements and deadlines may
be waived. Any requirement or deadline set forth in this appendix may be waived by the board
of supervisors if, for good cause, it is shown that exigent circumstances exist to warrant
consideration of an otherwise untimely application, or it is shown that the requirements
unreasonably restrict the purchase of an easement. Under these circumstances, the board may
purchase a conservation easement at any time it deems necessary and subject to only those
requirements it deems appropriate.”
3) Good cause for a waiver of certain ACE Ordinance requirements on the Rushia/Fleckles
property: The 87-acre Rushia/Fleckles property occupies the top of Beaver Creek Mountain,
which is visible from Crozet. Since 69 acres or almost 80% of the land is in the Mountain
Overlay District (MOD) and most of the rest of the property lies on critical slopes, future
construction on any of the existing open, buildable land would be severely limited by the
“mountain protection” provision of the ACE ordinance. Without an easement, eight new
dwellings could be built on the exposed, upper flanks of the property.
4) Recommended waiver of certain ACE Ordinance requirements on the Rushia/Fleckles property:
The ACE Committee recommends creating building sites at the lower limits of the MOD that
encompass existing structures on the Rushia/Fleckles property (just above 1,200 feet). This
approach would minimize the visual impacts of new construction while giving the landowners
the needed flexibility to add improvements as would ordinarily be permitted under an ACE deed
of easement. Within these exceptions to the MOD, these landowners would be permitted to
establish certain primary or accessory structures or other improvements without prior written
approval. These designated building sites would have a 200 feet radius around the existing
dwelling, large pole barn, and shed. Even within these areas, by operation of the Ordinance,
the deed of easement would continue to assure that the parcel is used and maintained in a
manner consistent with the comprehensive plan as it pertains to mountain resources and, in
particular, the Mountain Design Standards in the Natural Resources and Cultural Assets
Component of the comprehensive plan. In the Mountain Protection Buffer (above 1200 feet
elevation outside the building sites), the deed of easement would prohibit (a) the construction of
any new primary or accessory structures or other improvements and (b) the enlargement or
extension of any existing primary or accessory structures or other improvements.
Attachment E
Return to exec summary
B E A V E R CRE EK MTN RD
DAYBREAK LNSUNSHINE LN1 0 8 0
1 1 4 0
1020120090012608409601320138078010809001 1 4 0
102012009609601320Prep a re d b y Alb ema rle C ou nt yOffice o f Ge og rap h ic Da ta Se rvice s (GDS ). Ma p cre at ed b y E lis e Hack ett , J an ua ry 2 0 12 .
Note : The ma p ele men ts de p icte d are g ra p hic re p re se nt at ion s a n d are no t to b e con stru ed o r u se d as a le g al d e script io n .This ma p is f or d isp lay pu rpo se s o nly
Pa rc els sho wn ref lect p la ts an d d ee d s rec ord ed t hro ug h Dece mbe r 3 1, 2 01 0
Rus hia / Fleckle s Building Envelopes
0 500 1,000250Feet"NOTE : This map is inten ded to sh ow t he ap pro ximat e lo cat ion and width of t he Riparian B uff er describ ed in th e att ach ed Deed o f Easemen t.
39 -27
10' ContoursRoads
RailroadsStreams
Water Body
Parcel of I nt erest
Parcels
Mountai n Protection Buffer Buildings
Building Envelopes
Attachment G
RESOLUTION ACCEPTING OFFER TO SELL
A CONSERVATION EASEMENT UNDER THE ACE PROGRAM
WHEREAS, the County has received an offer to sell a conservation easement under the
ACE Program from the owner of the following property:
Rushia/Fleckles TM 39, Parcel 27 86.700 acres
(Crozet)
and;
WHEREAS, the owner offered to sell a conservation easement on the specified property
to the County for a fixed purchase price, subject to terms and conditions set forth in the proposed
deed of easement enclosed with the County’s invitation to offer to sell, subject to any further
revisions deemed necessary by the County Attorney and agreed to by the owner.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors hereby
accepts the offer to sell a conservation easement for the property described above and authorizes
the County Executive to execute all documents necessary for completing the acquisition.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors hereby directs the
County Attorney to send a copy of this resolution to the owner of the property identified herein,
or her contact person.
I, Ella W. Jordan, do hereby certify that the foregoing writing is a true, correct copy of a
Resolution duly adopted by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County by vote of ___ to
___, as recorded below, at a meeting held on _________________________.
Return to exec summary
RESOLUTION OF ENDORSEMENT
CHARLOTTESVILLE-ALBEMARLE MPO Cville Bike mApp PROJECT
WHEREAS, the Charlottesville-Albemarle Metropolitan Planning Organization, in
conjunction with the City of Charlottesville, Albemarle County, the University of Virginia, and
BikeCharlottesville, has developed a bike mapping application for iPhone and Android; and
WHEREAS, this mapping application will allow the MPO and MPO stakeholders to better
understand how cyclists use the transportation network; and
WHEREAS, this mapping application will allow the MPO and MPO stakeholders to
identify cycling corridors and barriers throughout the region; and
WHEREAS, this mapping application will aid the MPO and MPO stakeholders in
determining where to invest limited cycling funding for infrastructure enhancements and
improvements; and
WHEREAS, this mapping application will allow the MPO and MPO stakeholders to
gather cycling data using a new and accessible collection method; and
WHEREAS, this project provides an opportunity for collaborative, region-wide,
transportation planning for cycling:
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the County of Albemarle does hereby
support the Cville Bike mApp project.
I, Ella W. Jordan, do hereby certify that the foregoing writing is a true, correct copy of a
Resolution duly adopted by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County by vote of ___ to
___, as recorded below, at a meeting held on _________________________.
View description of project
Return to consent agenda
Return to regular agenda
1
Cville Bike mApp : project brief
Summary
The Cville Bike mApp project is a regional bike mapping project developed by the Charlottesville-
Albemarle Metropolitan Planning Organization, in partnership with BikeCharlottesville, the City of
Charlottesville, Albemarle County, and the University of Virginia. This App has been developed for
iPhone and Android. It will allow the MPO and MPO stakeholders to better understand how cyclists use
the current transportation system. Cyclists will use the App to map their ride and then upload the data
to the MPO. MPO staff will use the uploaded data for mapping to determine, key cycling corridors,
barriers and routes.
The MPO intends to promote the use of this App over a one month period. The MPO, along with its
partners, will kick-off using the app on April 14th and plan to wrap up the recording period on May 19th,
the close of national bike week.
Goals
There are many goals for this project, all of which are strongly rooted in better understanding how
cyclists use the existing transportation system. This data collection method is not meant to be scientific
but to serve as an input mechanism that helps show overall trends in regional cycling. The major goals
are listed below. These goals have not been prioritized.
To learn more about how cyclists use the current transportation network.
To determine best locations for investing in cycling facilities.
To identify major cycling corridors.
To identify major cycling barriers.
To have better quantitative data, regarding cycling in the region.
The overall goal for this project is to collect data that will allow the MPO to better plan for cycling for the
upcoming Long Range Transportation Plan 2040.
History
This App is based on the CycleTrack App developed by the San Francisco County Transportation
Authority. The CycleTrack project was completed in 2010, but several other localities have altered the
App for use in their communities. Other locations that have implemented a similar bike mapping App
based on the CycleTrack project include: Austin, Texas, Monterey, California, Lane County, Oregon, and
College Station, Texas. The source code developed for the CycleTrack App is open source, and other
2
communities are encouraged to use the code for their own projects. However, all changes to the code
must be open source as well.
How it Works…
The App works by accessing the GPS function of the iPhone and Android. When the App is activated the
phone records GPS points over a given time interval; for example, when a cyclist is recording a trip the
App records a GPS point every 5 seconds. When a trip is completed the cyclist submits the trip and the
recorded GPS data is uploaded to a server. MPO staff will be unable to identify the cyclist who is
submitting the data unless the cyclist submits their name and address voluntarily. Any identifying will
only be seen by MPO staff and will not be distributed. The App also records some qualitative data such
as, trip purpose, weather, cyclist capability (beginner, intermediate or advanced) and affiliation with the
University of Virginia. This data will help the MPO in better understanding who is cycling and where they
are cycling. The images below show the trip purpose/weather screen and the recording screen on the
iPhone version of the App.
Figure 1: Trip purpose and weather screen. Figure 2: Recording screen.
Once a trip is submitted, MPO staff is able to download the data and map it using the longitude and
latitude data from the GPS points. The App also records the date and time. MPO staff uses the time
information to convert the trip data from points to lines. The time information provides the direction
information for the trip. The lines are created by linking individual GPS points based on their
chronological order in the trip. The maps below show this transformation from point data to line data.
3
Figure 3: GPS points after MPO staff has mapped the data (test data).
Figure 4: Data after MPO staff has converted the point data to line data (test data).
4
Marketing
The major barrier for the success of this project is use. If only a few cyclists use the App the data wi ll not
show accurately how the cyclists use the transportation network. The MPO, along with its partners,
BikeCharlottesville, the City of Charlottesville, Albemarle County, and the University of Virginia, are
making every effort to promote this App. The MPO is planning several efforts in order to make sure the
community is aware of this project.
Timing
The duration of the recording period will be from April 14th to May 19th, approximately one month. The
goal for making the recording period a finite period is to encourage use of the App. People will likely be
more apt to participate if the participation period is limited. Furthermore, this time period will hopefully
afford mild weather making cycling a more viable option. Also this span covers both on and off semester
times for the University of Virginia. For the first part of the recording period school will be in session, but
for the last part the University will either be on its final exam schedule or in summer session. This will
allow MPO staff to see how regional cycling changes when the student population is in town and when
they are not. Finally, for marketing purposes the recording period wraps up during bike week, combining
the closing period for the Cville Bike mApp with the closing festivities for bike week.
Advertising
The MPO is hoping to use the information distribution methods of its partners to make people aware of
the App and the project. The MPO will utilize BikeCharlottesville’s website and facebook page to raise
awareness. Furthermore, the MPO also plans to distribute information about the project through the
City, the County, and the University of Virginia electronic information distribution systems. The MPO is
also working with local bike shops to advertise the project through both flyers and electronic resources.
Finally the MPO has created a logo for the App. This logo will be the basis for electronic information and
paper flyers for distribution.
Figure 5: Cville Bike mApp logo.
Incentives
The MPO is working with local bike shops to gather prizes to incentivize use of the App. When using the
App the cyclist has the option of submitting his or her information (name and email) for a raffle. If this
cyclist records 10 trips they are entered into a raffle. Specific prizes have not been identified at this time,
but BikeCharlottesville is working with local shop owners to identify appropriate gifts. The MPO is
encouraging owners to donate either gift cards or services. Again, all personal data will be kept private
and will never been distributed.
5
Events
The MPO is hoping to host a kick-off and closing event. Both events would include a short group ride
throughout the community. This ride would be routed in such a way, that the App would record GPS
points that spelled a word. The ride would be centered on the Downtown and would be no more than 2
miles to encourage participation. At this time a specific route has not been planned.
Project Contact
For questions regarding this project please contact Sarah Rhodes, at srhodes@tjpdc.org or (434) 979-
7310 ext. 360.
The Board of County Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virgin ia, in regular meeting on the
4th day of November 2009, adopted the following resolution:
R E S O L U T I O N
WHEREAS, the street(s) in Lambert Point Subdivision, as described on the attached
Additions Form AM-4.3 dated April 4, 2012, fully incorporated herein by reference, is shown on
plats recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of Albemarle County, Virginia; and
WHEREAS, the Resident Engineer for the Virginia Department of T ransportation has
advised the Board that the street(s) meet the requirements established by the Subdivision Street
Requirements of the Virginia Department of Transportation.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Albemarle Board of County Supervisors
requests the Virginia Department of Transpor tation to add the street(s) in Lambert Point, as
described on the attached Additions Form AM-4.3 dated April 4, 2012, to the secondary system of
state highways, pursuant to §33.1-229, Code of Virginia, and the Department's Subdivision Street
Requirements; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Board guarantees a clear and unrestricted right -of-
way, as described, exclusive of any necessary easements for cuts, fills and drainage as described
on the recorded plats; and
FURTHER RESOLVED that a certified copy of this resolution be forwarded to the Resident
Engineer for the Virginia Department of Transportation.
* * * * *
The road(s) described on Additions Form AM-4.3 is:
1) Half Moon Court (State Route 1642) from Route 743 (Earlysville Road) to 0.235
miles east and the cul-de-sac, as shown on plat recorded in the office the Clerk of
Circuit Court of Albemarle County in Deed Book 3400, pages 10-14, with a 50-foot
right-of-way width.
Return to consent agenda
Return to regular agenda
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
Solid Waste – Extension of RSWA Agreements and
Future County Services
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Authorize a one-year extension of the Ivy Material
Utilization Center Programs Agreement and the Local
Government Support Agreement for Recycling Programs
for RSWA to provide services in FY13 and consider how
services may be modified in the future
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Messrs. Foley, Elliott, Davis, Graham and Shadman
LEGAL REVIEW: Yes
AGENDA DATE:
April 4, 2012
ACTION: INFORMATION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: X INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS: Yes
REVIEWED BY:
BACKGROUND:
In August 2011, the County and the Rivanna Solid Waste Authority (RSWA) entered into two agreements for solid
waste services. The first Agreement is between the County and RSWA for the provision of services at RSWA’s Ivy
Material Utilization Center (Ivy) (Attachment A ). The second Agreement is between the City, the County and RSWA
for the provision of services at RSWA’s McIntire Road Recycling Center (McIntire) (Attachment B). Both agreements
require the County to notify RSWA by May 1, 2012 if services are to be extended for FY 2013.
Staff plans to present options for future solid waste services to the Board in May. In October 2010, staff presented a
matrix of possible County service levels and a comparison to several peer communities. (Attachments C & D) At that
time, the Board felt the County’s interest was best served by maintaining the current services as provided by RSWA.
As the state of this industry has continued to evolve since that time, staff recognizes there may be some changes in
service expectations for the County. Given this, staff plans to review future service expectations and how to assure
those expectations are best met with the Board in May, and to then discuss with RSWA how to implement strategies
identified by the Board.
DISCUSSION:
Without an extension of the support agreements, current services provided at Ivy and McIntire are anticipated to end
on June 30, 2012. As noted in earlier Board discussions regarding solid waste, there continues to be a significant
number of County residents and businesses that rely on Ivy and McIntire for solid waste services. By RSWA’s data,
Waste Management is removing over 80 tons of solid waste from Ivy per day when the facility is open. This is roughly
equivalent to four tractor trailer (“18 wheeler”) loads each day. Without the use of the Ivy facility, the next option would
be to haul the material to a transfer station at Zions Crossroads, a 50 to 60 mile roundtrip for many of Ivy’s customers.
Most loads received at Ivy are one ton or less and the current tip fee for garbage is $66 per ton. The additional
transportation costs to haul this material to another transfer station would result in very large cost increases to County
residents and businesses currently using Ivy. RSWA finds that the current fees at Ivy are significantly higher than
those of other transfer stations, leading staff to believe that Ivy is often used to avoid the cost of transporting material
to another transfer station. Pursuant to the Ivy agreement (Attachment A), the County’s financial support covers the
gap between collected fees and operating costs. An extension of this agreement for one year has been anticipated
and the County funding for support of this agreement has been included in the proposed County FY 13 budget. Staff
believes that FY 13 will be a year of transition for the County and RSWA as County and RSWA staff work towards a
long term strategy.
The County and City jointly fund RSWA’s McIntire operations pursuant to the McIntire agreement (Attachment B). As
a recycling only facility, there are no fees collected and the operation requires funding of approximately $108,000 per
year to cover the difference between operating costs and revenues generated from collected materials. Of this
$108,000, the County funds 70% and the City funds 30%, which is based on the number of users as determined by
RSWA pursuant to the agreement. Based on tonnage reported for 2011, this financial support payment is roughly
equivalent to $50 per ton of recycled material. While costs for this operation have remained fairly stable over the last
five years, the tonnage collected is roughly 40% of what was received five years ago. Staff believes this reflects some
of the market changes seen in the last few years rather than a reduced interest in recycling. As part of the discussion
AGENDA TITLE: Solid Waste – Extension of RSWA Agreements and Future County Services
April 4, 2012
Page 2
in May, staff plans to consider how more cost effective alternatives could be provided, but this agreement assures
continuity of recycling services until a long term strategy is finalized.
With the extension of the two referenced agreements, the County will work to implement a longer term strategy for
solid waste services over the next few months. Staff plans to provide a more thorough analysis of the options in May.
BUDGET IMPACT:
Funding for support payments required by these agreements has been included in the County’s FY 13 budget and
is unchanged from FY 12.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends that the Board authorize the County Executive to extend the RSWA agreements for both Ivy and
McIntire through FY 13.
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A – IVY MUC Programs Agreement
Attachment B – Local Government Support Agreement for Recycling Programs
Return to consent agenda
Return to regular agenda
ATTACHMENT A
ATTACHMENT A
ATTACHMENT A
ATTACHMENT A
ATTACHMENT A
ATTACHMENT A
ATTACHMENT A
ATTACHMENT A
ATTACHMENT B
ATTACHMENT B
ATTACHMENT B
ATTACHMENT B
ATTACHMENT B
ATTACHMENT B
ATTACHMENT B
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
Keswick Lake (formerly Clifton Lake) – Request to amend
the Albemarle County Service Authority Jurisdictional Area
for a “water service only” designation (ACSA201100107)
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Public hearing on request to amend the Albemarle County
Service Authority Jurisdictional Area Boundary to provide
water service to Tax Map 79, Parcel 23 and Tax Map 79C,
Parcel 1 located approximately 2,100 feet southwest of the
intersection of Rt. 250 and Shadwell Road.
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Messrs. Foley, Elliott, Davis, and Benish
LEGAL REVIEW: Yes
AGENDA DATE:
April 4, 2012
ACTION: X INFORMATION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS: Yes
REVIEWED BY:
BACKGROUND:
The applicant is requesting Albemarle County Service Authority (“ACSA”) Jurisdictional Area designation for public
water to serve a proposed 39-lot Planned Residential Development (PRD) approved by the Board of Supervisors on
January 18, 1978 (ZMA 77-24) (see Attachment A). The PRD is located south of the Shadwell Estates Subdivision
and east of Clifton Inn (see Attachment B). The site is designated Rural Areas in the County’s Comprehensive Plan
and is located in the Scottsville Magisterial District. The original development proposal called for the use of a central
water system to provide water service to all of the proposed lots except two, which were to be served by private wells.
The Board’s 1978 rezoning approval included Condition #9, which states: “Final subdivision approval will be subject to
the County Engineer’s Office approval of central water systems.” The applicant is now requesting public water service
in lieu of a central water system or of individual wells. Use of a central water system would require both the County
Engineer’s and the Board’s approval. To date, the applicant has not submitted a central water system proposal to the
County for review and approval.
In the immediate area, Clifton Inn is in the ACSA Jurisdictional Area for Water Only to Existing Structures and Stone
Robinson Elementary School is in the Jurisdictional Area for Water Only. Service was provided to the Clifton Inn
because of a documented health and safety issue involving groundwater quantity, consistent with the County’s policies
for extending water/sewer service to the designated Rural Areas. The designation does not permit service to any new
structure on that parcel.
The Board held a work session to discuss this request on February 1, 2012 and directed staff to set a public hearing
and provide additional information regarding: 1) properties that are comparable in circumstance to the Keswick Lake
PRD (undeveloped and located in the Rural Areas, zoned for urban development, and adjacent to public utility lines);
and 2) the proposed subdivision of the property. In addition, the applicant has provided well reports for two wells
drilled on-site. This information can be found in Attachment C.
DISCUSSION:
The Comprehensive Plan provides the following recommendations concerning the provision of public water and sewer
service:
“General Principle: Urban Areas, Communities, and Villages are to be served by public water and sewer (p.
114).”
“Provide water and sewer service only to areas within the ACSA Jurisdictional Areas (p. 130).”
“Follow the boundaries of the designated Development Areas in delineating Jurisdictional Areas (p.130).”
“Only allow changes in the Jurisdictional Areas outside of the designated Development Areas in cases where
the property is: 1) adjacent to existing lines; and 2) public health and/or safety is in danger (p. 130).”
By policy, water and sewer services are intended to serve the designated Development Areas where growth is
encouraged and are to be discouraged in the Rural Areas because utility services are a potential catalyst for growth.
Water supply and system capacities need to be efficiently and effectively used and reserved to serve the Development
Areas. Continued connection of properties in the Rural Areas to the public water system results in further extension of
lines from the fringe of the existing Jurisdictional Area into the Rural Areas, potentially straining water resources and
capacity to serve higher priority needs.
AGENDA TITLE: Keswick Lake (formerly Clifton Lake) – Request to amend the Albemarle County Service Authority
Jurisdictional Area for a “water service only” designation (ACSA201100107)
April 4, 2012
Page 2
There are no lots developed or platted on the subject parcels (only preliminary plat approval has been obtained to
date) and there are otherwise no documented public health or safety issues regarding these parcels. Therefore,
designating these parcels as part of the ACSA Jurisdictional Area for public water service would not be consistent with
County policy. If there were to be any future documented health or safety issue with water quality or quantity in
Keswick (Clifton) Lake, under the County’s utility policies a water service designation could be further considered at
that time.
The prior zoning action in 1978 required the use of a central water system to serve most of the development. No
proposal for a central water system has been submitted to the County by the applicant for review and approval;
therefore there is no evidence that a central system cannot safely and appropriately serve the development. While
current Comprehensive Plan policies also discourage the use of central systems in the Rural Areas except in cases
where there is a health and safety issue, use of a central water system would be consistent with the existing PRD
zoning of the property approved by the Board in 1978. If the Board approves this Jurisdictional Area amendment, the
Zoning Administrator must then determine whether a zoning map amendment is required to delete Condition # 9 of
ZMA 77-24 requiring that the development be served by a central water system. If she determines that the condition
must be deleted, the zoning map amendment to delete the condition must be approved before a final subdivision plat
can be approved for the development.
In sum, this request is not consistent with the principles, objectives, and strategies of the Comprehensive Plan for the
provision of public water service. Condition #9 of ZMA 77-24 requires that the development be served by a central
water system. No proposal for a central water system has been submitted by the applicant for review and approval;
therefore, there is no evidence that a central system cannot safely and appropriately serve the development.
BUDGET IMPACT:
The property owner would bear all of the costs for connection to public water service.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends that the request to amend the Jurisdictional Area to provide water service to TMP 79-23 and TMP
79C-1 be denied.
ATTACHMENTS
A – Applicant’s Request
B – Location Map and Jurisdictional Area Designations
C – Additional Information Requested by Board of Supervisors
D – Proposed Subdivision Plat
Return to agenda
GIS-Web
Geographic Data Services
www.albemarle.org
(434) 296-5832
Tax Map Grid
Overview Roads
Primary Roads
Secondary Roads
Overview Roads - City
Road Bridges
Railroad Bridges
Road Centerlines
Road Centerlines - City
Roads
Roads - City
Railroads
Buildings
Buildings - City
Driveways
Parcels
Lakes and Reservoirs
Ponds
Major Streams
Other Streams
ACSA Jurisdictional Areas
No Service
Water Only
Water and Sewer
Water Only To Existing Structures
Limited Service
City Water and Sewer
Albemarle Boundary
Charlottesville Boundary
Scottsville Boundary
ATTACHMENT B -- LOCATION MAP AND ACSA JURISDICTIONAL AREA DESIGNATIONS Legend
(Note: Some items on map may not appear in legend)
Map is for Display Purposes Only • Aerial Imagery from the Commonwealth of Virginia and Other Sources November 18, 2010
ATTACHMENT C
1
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION REQUESTED BY THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
At the Board’s February 1, 2012 work session, the Board requested additional information regarding: 1)
properties that are comparable in circumstance to the Keswick Lake PRD (undeveloped and located in
the Rural Areas, zoned for urban development, and adjacent to public utility lines); and 2) the proposed
subdivision plat for the property. In addition, the applicant has also provided well reports for two wells
drilled on-site.
Comparable Properties:
There are no other residentially zoned properties which have all the same characteristics as the
Keswick Lake situation—an undeveloped property, adjacent to utilities lines and the Development
Area, zoned for urban densities, and with zoning conditions that require the use of a central water
systems. The Ashcroft PRD, located just north of and Pantops Development Area is similar in that
it is zoned PRD and has some sections still undeveloped. It is served by public water , but is
served by individual septic systems.
The Whittington PRD located on Old Lynchburg Road is somewhat similar to Keswick Lake
(Attachment D). On October 13, 2010, the Board approved an amendment to the ACSA
Jurisdictional Area to allow public sewer service to Whittington. Like Keswick Lake, Whittington is
a property zoned PRD in the Rural Areas and designated for public water service. But staff
opinion is that there are important distinctions between the Keswick Lake and Whittington:
-Whittington is located immediatel y adjacent to Urban Area 5 and to existing similarly scaled
development (Mosby Mountain). The Board’s decision was based on the rationale that this area,
including existing and approved developments along Old Lynchburg Road, could be included in
the designated Development Area with the update of the Comprehensive Plan, making it eligible
for water and sewer service under the County’s utility policies. While the Keswick Lake
subdivision abuts the Village of Rivanna, expansion of Rivanna was considered during the
recently adopted Village of Rivanna Master Plan (adopted 5/12/10) and was rejected during that
process.
-When Rivanna was originally adopted as a new Development Area in the Comprehensive Plan,
the Board directed that the water line to the Rivanna only serve (and be sized to serve) the
designated Village of Rivanna and the Stone Robinson Elementary School.
-The Whittington development was already designated in the ACSA Jurisdictional Area for water
service when the sewer service designation was added. The Keswick Lake subdivision is not
designated for public water or sewer service.
-Providing sewer service to 90 lots, averaging approximately 40,000 square feet in size, in the
Whittington PRD avoided the necessity for 90 individual septic systems, which would have
created the potential for more undesirable and significant environmental impacts in the long term.
The use of a central water system or individual wells on 39 lots in Keswick Lake would not have
significant environmental impacts.
There are three commercially zoned, undeveloped properties in the Rural Areas located along US
250 which are adjacent to, or near, public water and/or sewer lines and are in close proximity to
Development Areas. These properties are located primarily along US 250 East (near the I-64
Shadwell Interchange) and US 250 West (from Miller School Road to the I-64 Interchange)
(Attachment E and F).
The most unique circumstance with Keswick Lake is the PRD zoning condition from the 1978
ATTACHMENT C
2
approval which requires the use of a central water system. The current Comprehensive Plan
policies discourage the use of central systems in the rural area as well as discouraging the
extending public utilities to the Rural Areas (except to address existing health and safety issue s).
Use of private well and septic systems would be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
Proposed Subdivision Plat:
The proposed subdivision plat currently under review has been provided as Attachment G. The proposed
subdivision plat is for a total of 29 lots on two of the three properties subject to the PRD zoning (average
lot size is 1.2 acres). There has been no development proposal submitted the third property zoned PRD.
The conditions of the PRD permit up to 39 lots on the three parcels.
Test Well Information:
The applicant has recently provided well completion reports for two wells that were drilled on the property
in 2011. One well drilled in June, 2011 had a yield of 0.5 gallons per minute, which is considered minimal
flow. The other well drilled in February, 2011 had a yield of 6 gallons per minute. A well yield of at least 5
gallons per minute is usually needed for home use. Virginia Department Health recommendations (12
VAC 5-630-460) states:
All private wells should be capable of supplying water in adequate quantity for the intended
usage. Failure to provide adequate capacity may cause intermittent flows and negative
pressures which may cause contamination of the system through cross connections or other
system deficiencies. All Class III wells should have a capacity to produce 150 gallons per
bedroom per day and be capable of delivering a sustained flow of five gallons per minute per
connection for 10 minutes. The system should be capable of providing at least 500 gallons per
hour for at least one hour if lawns or other residential areas are to be irrigated. In general,
residential use wells with yields less than 3 gallons per minute require additional storage to
provide uninterrupted service during peak water use times.
These results could indicate a potential quantity issue; however, it is a relatively small number of well
tests for the size of the development/property. No other information has been provided to indicate that an
adequate central water system could be provided consistent with the zoning conditions.
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
Wayland Property Deed of Exchange
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Approve proposed deed to exchange unneeded water
rights for limited conservation easement on property
adjacent to Mint Springs Park
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Messrs. Foley, Elliott, Davis, Herrick, Benish and
Crickenberger
LEGAL REVIEW: Yes
AGENDA DATE:
April 4, 2012
ACTION: X INFORMATION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS: Yes
REVIEWED BY:
BACKGROUND:
Parcel 39-29C, an 8.5-acre parcel adjacent to Mint Springs Park is encumbered by several deeds giving the County
water rights over the property. These water rights were acquired by deeds dated April 30, 1947 and April 1, 1952 in
anticipation of using Mint Springs as a water supply. The present lakes at Mint Springs Park serve only recreational
purposes and do not serve as a public water supply. The County has no present or futur e plans to use the lakes at
Mint Springs Park as a water supply.
The current owners of Parcel 39-29C are interested in selling the property to a third-party. As part of that transaction,
the current owners and prospective purchasers are requesting the release of the County’s remaining water rights.
DISCUSSION:
While County property (including water rights) may be disposed of, they may not simply be donated. Therefore
County staff has suggested releasing ithe County water rights in exchange for a limited conservation easement on
Parcel 39-29C. The proposed conservation easement would limit the development rights of Parcel 39-29C and create
a wooded buffer along an existing stream adjacent to Mint Springs Park. This exchange would benefit the County by
improving the water quality near Mint Springs Park and downstream, while also benefitting the current owners and
prospective purchasers, who seek the release of the County’s water rights. Representatives of both the current
owners and prospective purchasers are agreeable to the basic terms of the proposed exchange. An agreement has
been reached as to the terms of the exchange and language of the proposed deed of exchange is close to being
finalized.
BUDGET IMPACT:
No budget impact from this proposed exchange is expected.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Following the public hearing, staff recommends that the Board:
1) Approve the proposed acquisition of a limited conservation easement over Parcel 39 -29C in exchange for the
release of the County’s water rights previously acquired by deeds dated April 30, 1947 and April 1, 1952 over
that property.
2) Authorize the County Executive to to execute all documents necessary for completing the exchange , in a form
approved by the County Attorney.
ATTACHMENTS
A – Map of Parcel 39-29C
B – Proposed Deed of Exchange
C – Resolution Approving Exchange Involving Parcel 39-29C
Return to agenda
102096010801140
12
00
M IN T S P R IN G S P A R K
Prep a re d b y Alb ema rle C ou nt yDivision o f I nfo rmat ion S ervice s. Ma p cre at ed b y E lis e Hack ett , Ma rch 20 1 2.
Note : The ma p ele men ts de p icte d are g ra p hic re p re se nt at ion s a n d are no t to b e con stru ed o r u se d as a le g al d e script io n .This ma p is f or d isp lay pu rpo se s o nly
Pa rc els sho wn ref lect p la ts an d d ee d s rec ord ed t hro ug h Dece mbe r 3 1, 2 011
Tax Map 39 Par cel 29 C
0 300 600150Feet"NOTE : This map is inten ded to sh ow t he ap pro ximat e lo cat ion and width of t he Riparian B uff er describ ed in th e att ach ed Deed o f Easemen t.
39 -29 C
10 0' Bu ffer
Attachment A
10' Contours
RoadsRailroads
Streams
Water Body
Parcel of I nt erest
Parcels
1
This deed is exempt from taxation under Virginia Code §§ 58.1-811(A)(3) and 58.1-811(C)(4) and from Clerk’s fees
under Virginia Code § 17.1-266.
Prepared by: Boyle, Bain, Reback & Slayton Parcel ID No. 03900-00-00-029C0
420 Park Street
Charlottesville, VA 22902-4738
THIS DEED OF EXCHANGE, made this 4th day of April, 2012, by and between the
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA, Grantor and Grantee (hereinafter, the “County”), and
CHARLES ADAMS WAYLAND and SANDRA F. WAYLAND, husband and wife, Second
Grantees and Second Grantors (hereinafter, the “Waylands”), whose address is 1807 Belleau
Drive, Richmond, VA 23235.
W I T N E S S E T H :
WHEREAS, the County acquired real property and certain water rights and easements for
water rights from G. Bourne Wayland and Norman A. Wayland by deed dated April 1, 1952, and
recorded in the Clerk’s Office of the Circuit Court of Albemarle County, Virginia, in Deed Book
300, page 27; and
WHEREAS, said deed conveyed the following rights: “ . . . the right to construct, repair
and maintain, with right of ingress and egress, a dike and drainage ditch for the purpose of
diverting surface waters from the property hereby conveyed in Mad Run at a location shown on
said plat and designated as ‘dike and ditch.’” ; and
WHEREAS, said deed also conveyed the following rights: “. . . the perpetual right to
take, remove and use all or any part of the water from Mad Run branch from any place between
the two points on Mad Run as shown on the plat attached and designated as ‘diversion’ by means
of underground conduit or pipe; to construct, repair and maintain with right of ingress and egress
2
such dam, structures, and facilities as may be necessary for the collection, diversion, control and
conveyance of the water from Mad Run to the property hereby conveyed.”; and
WHEREAS, the County acquired easements for water usage and installation of pipelines
including repair and maintenance of same by deed from P.G. Ligon and wife, dated April 30,
1947 and recorded in said Clerk’s Office in Deed Book 273, page 426; and
WHEREAS, these water rights and easements were obtained for the establishment of a
public water source (Crozet reservoir) for the village of Crozet which the County engaged in at
Mint Spring until the establishment of Beaver Creek Reservoir in the late 1960s; and
WHEREAS, Second Grantee Charles Adams Wayland is the son of G. Bourne Wayland
and Norman A. Wayland and owner, with his wife, of Parcel D containing 8.50 acres as more
particularly shown on plat of Roger W. Ray & Assoc., Inc., dated May 1, 1995 and recorded in
said Clerk’s Office in Deed Book 1487, page 205 (hereinafter the “Property”), which said
Property is affected by these water rights and easements hereinabove mentioned; and
WHEREAS, the Waylands desire to sell the Property and are under contract to do so but
with the specific condition in the purchase contract that these water rights and easements, insofar
as they relate to the Property, be terminated and released; and
WHEREAS, the County is willing to release its unneeded water rights IN EXCHANGE
for new conservation requirements on the Property, as more fully set forth herein; and
WHEREAS, the Waylands are willing to accept the terms of the new conservation
requirements on their property IN EXCHANGE for the County’s release of its unneeded water
rights;
NOW THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the exchange described herein, the
County does hereby RELEASE and ABANDON unto the Waylands all right, title and interest in
3
and to the Property granted to the County by the Jarman deed from Wayland, et al recorded in
said Clerk’s Office in Deed Book 214, page 433, subsequently acquired by the County in Deed
Book 273, page 426, and by the Wayland deed to the County of Albemarle recorded in said
Clerk’s Office in Deed Book 300, page 27.
FURTHER, the Waylands hereby grant and convey to the County and its successors and
assigns, with GENERAL WARRANTY AND ENGLISH COVENANTS OF TITLE, a
conservation easement (the “Easement”) in gross over the Property described hereinabove,
restricting in perpetuity the use of the Property in the manner set forth herein.
A. Division of the Property and boundary line adjustments. The Property may not be
divided and its boundary lines may be adjusted only as provided herein:
1. Division. The Property is currently composed of one (1) parcel. For all
purposes of this Deed, the Property shall be considered to be one (1) parcel. The Property shall
not be divided or subdivided and it may be sold or conveyed only as a whole
2. Boundary line adjustments. The exterior boundary lines of the Property
shall not be adjusted unless the abutting parcel sharing the same boundary line is subject to
substantially equivalent restrictions and the adjustment is approved in writing by the County.
B. Construction, installation, location, placement of structures and improvements.
There shall be no construction, placement or maintenance of any structure or improvements o n
the Property unless the structure or improvements are either on the Property as of the date of this
Deed or are authorized as follows:
1. Types of structures. No permanent or temporary building or structure
shall be built or maintained on the Property other than:
4
(a) two (2) single-family dwelling(s) or dwelling unit(s), which shall
not exceed an aggregate of 6,500 square feet of above-ground enclosed living area without the
County’s prior review and written approval, which approval shall take into consideration the
impact of the size, height and siting of the proposed dwelling(s) on the scenic and other
conservation values of the Property. Such dwelling(s) shall not individually exceed 4,500 square
feet of above-ground enclosed living area without the County’s prior review and written
approval, which approval shall take into consideration the impact of the size, height and siting of
the proposed dwelling(s) on the scenic and other conservation values of the Property. The
dwelling(s) currently existing on the Property shall be counted in the number of permitted
dwellings and in the permitted aggregate square feet of above-ground enclosed living area;
(b) non-residential outbuildings and structures commonly and
appropriately incidental to dwellings permitted above, that are sized appropriately to serve as
amenities to single-family residential use, and that are neither designed, equipped nor furnished
for sleeping or cooking (such as outbuildings, swimming pools, decking detached from the
single-family dwelling units, gazebos, garages, and tool sheds), provided that the aggregate
footprint of non-residential outbuildings for each permitted dwelling shall not exceed 2,500
square feet in ground area unless prior written approval shall have been obtained from the
County that a larger footprint is permitted considering the purpose of this restriction and the
scale of the proposed outbuilding in relation to the surrounding area. Additionally, all non-
residential outbuildings shall be located near such dwellings. For the purpose of this paragraph,
“near” means within 200 feet of such dwelling, unless prior written approval shall have been
obtained from the County that a greater distance is permitted considering the purpose of this
restriction and the scale of the proposed outbuilding in relation to the surrounding area; and
5
(c) farm buildings or farm structures, except that a farm building or
farm structure exceeding 4,500 square feet in ground area may not be constructed on the
Property unless prior written approval for the building or structure shall have been obtained from
the County, which approval shall be limited to consideration of the impact of the size, height and
siting of the proposed structure on the conservation values of the Property. For purposes of this
paragraph, a farm building or structure shall mean a building or structure originally constructed
and used for agricultural activities.
2. Repair, Reconstruction, or Replacement of Structures. Any structure
permitted hereunder may be repaired, reconstructed, or replaced in a manner consistent with
these restrictions if it is damaged, destroyed or demolished; provided that the repair,
reconstruction or replacement of the structure is permitted by and complies with all applicable
regulations.
C. Riparian Buffer. A one-hundred (100) foot wide permanently wooded buffer
shall be maintained along each side of all perennial woodland streams (the “buffers”), as shown
on the map attached hereto as Attachment A. The buffers shall be measured from the top of the
stream or river bank and shall include both sides of the waterway where a wooded buffer exists
at the time of this Deed. In order to maintain the ecological values of the buffers, indigenous
vegetation shall be preserved, or be allowed to evolve by natural succession where it does not
exist, to the maximum extent possible. The target vegetative cover within the riparian forest
buffers shall be indigenous herbaceous, shrub and tree canopy layers. Within the buffers, the
Owners may remove or control, as appropriate: (1) vegetation to control insect and disease
infestations and to prevent personal injury or property damage; (2) dead, diseased and dying
trees; (3) vegetation that is determined to be an “invasive species,” as such species shall be
6
determined by reference to the appropriate federal or state agency list available at the time of
removal or control; (4) fallen trees that are blocking stream channels, or trees with undermined
root systems in imminent danger of falling, where stream bank erosion is a current or potential
problem that outweighs any positive effects the fallen tree or trees may have on the stream
ecosystem. Prior to removing any indigenous vegetation, the Owners shall confer with the
County to agree on the extent and method of vegetation removal. The County may require
mitigation of the removal of indigenous vegetation with the planting of comparable indigenous
vegetation. The Owners shall not plant any non-indigenous species of ground covers, shrubs or
trees. Any new trails must be constructed so as to minimize erosion. Trails existing at the time
of this Deed may remain, provided that they are maintained so as to minimize erosion. The
purpose of this paragraph is not to require the establishment or creation of new wooded buffers
where they do not currently exist but rather to maintain wooded buffers that already exist at the
time this Deed is recorded. Notwithstanding the above requirements, indigenous vegetation
within the buffers may be disturbed and/or removed in accordance with an environmental
remediation plan approved by the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality, which plan
may include removal of soil, installation of fencing and use of phytoremediation and/o r other
remediation/stabilization activities.
D. Enforcement. The parties shall have the following rights and obligations
regarding the monitoring of the Property and the enforcement of this Easement:
1. Monitoring. Representatives of the County may enter the Property from
time to time for the purpose of inspection and enforcement of the terms of this Easement after
permission from or reasonable notice to the Waylands, their successors in interest and/or assigns
(hereinafter, the “Property Owners”).
7
2. Restoration. Upon any breach of any term of this Easement by the
Property Owners, the County may require by written demand to the Property Owners that the
Property be restored promptly to its condition at the time the Easement was granted.
3. Baseline report. A copy of the Baseline Report is retained in the offices of
the County that describes the condition and character of the Property at the time this Easement
was granted. This documentation, which is incorporated by reference into this Easement, may be
used to determine compliance with and enforcement of the terms of this Easement. However,
neither the Property Owners nor the County is precluded from using other relevant evidence or
information to assist in that determination.
4. Legal proceedings. The County may enforce the terms of this Easement
by appropriate legal proceedings, including but not limited to, the right to require the restoration
of the Property to its condition at the time this Easement was granted. In addition, it is
conclusively presumed that an action at law seeking a monetary remedy is an inadequate remedy
for any breach or violation, or any attempted breach or violation, of any term of this Easement.
5. Failure to enforce does not waive right to enforce. The failure of the
County to enforce any term of this Easement shall not be deemed a waiver of the right to do so
thereafter, nor discharge nor relieve the Property Owners from thereafter complying with any
such term.
6. No third party right of enforcement. Nothing in this Easement shall create
any right in the public or any third party to maintain any suit or action against any party hereto ,
except as specifically noted herein.
E. No warranty by grantees as to qualification for charitable gift. The Waylands and
the County agree and understand that any value of this Easement claimed for tax purposes as a
8
charitable gift must be fully and accurately substantiated by an appraisal from a qualified
appraiser as defined in Internal Revenue Service regulations (see 26 C.F.R. § 1.170A-13(c)(5)),
and that the appraisal is subject to review, audit and challenge by all appropriate tax authorities.
The County makes no express or implied warranties regarding whether any tax benefits will be
available to the Waylands from this Easement, whether any such tax benefits might be
transferable, or whether there will be any market for any tax benefits that might be transferable.
F. Authority to accept easement. The County is authorized to accept this Easement
pursuant to Virginia Code § 10.1-1701. The County, acting by and through its County
Executive, duly authorized by resolution adopted by the Board of Supervisors of the County of
Albemarle, Virginia, accepts the conveyance of this property pursuant to Virginia Code § 15.2-
1803, as evidenced by the County Executive’s signature hereto and the recordation of this Deed.
WITNESS the following signatures and seals:
9
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA
By: ______________________________(SEAL)
Thomas C. Foley, County Executive
STATE OF VIRGINIA
CITY/COUNTY OF __________________;
The foregoing deed was acknowledged before me this ____ day of ________________,
2012 by Thomas C. Foley, County Executive on behalf of the County of Albemarle, Virginia.
______________________________
Notary Public
My commission expires: ______________________________
Notary Registration No.: ______________________________
Approved as to form:
By:___________________
County Attorney
10
______________________________(SEAL)
Charles Adams Wayland
______________________________(SEAL)
Sandra F. Wayland
STATE OF VIRGINIA
CITY/COUNTY OF __________________;
The foregoing deed was acknowledged before me this ____ day of ________________,
2012 by Charles Adams Wayland and Sandra F. Wayland.
______________________________
Notary Public
My commission expires: ______________________________
Notary Registration No.: ______________________________
Attachment C
RESOLUTION APPROVING DEED OF EXCHANGE
INVOLVING PARCEL 39-29C
WHEREAS, the County has received a request to release its water rights previously
acquired by deeds dated April 30, 1947 and April 1, 1952 over Tax Map Parcel 39-29C, adjacent
to Mint Spring Park; and
WHEREAS, the current owners and prospective purchasers of Parcel 39-29C are willing
to convey a limited conservation easement to the County in exchange for the County’s release of
those water rights over that property.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors hereby
approves the acquisition of a limited conservation easement over Parcel 39-29C in exchange for
the release of the County’s water rights previously acquired by deeds dated April 30, 1947 and
April 1, 1952 over that property, and further authorizes the County Executive to execute all
documents necessary for completing the exchange.
I, Ella W. Jordan, do hereby certify that the foregoing writing is a true, correct copy of a
Resolution duly adopted by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County by vote of ___ to
___, as recorded below, at a meeting held on _________________________.
Return to exec summary
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
FY 2012 Budget Amendment and Appropriations
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Public Hearing on the Proposed FY 2012 Budget
Amendment in the amount of $ 4,128,498.89 and
approval of Budget Amendment and Appropriations
#2012061, #2012062, #2012063, #2012064, #2012065,
#2012066, and #2012067 for local government and
school division programs and projects.
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Messrs. Foley, and Davis, and Ms. L. Allshouse
LEGAL REVIEW: Yes
AGENDA DATE:
April 4, 2012
ACTION: X INFORMATION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS: Yes
REVIEWED BY:
BACKGROUND:
Virginia Code § 15.2-2507 provides that any locality may amend its budget to adjust the aggregate amount to be
appropriated during the fiscal year as shown in the currently adopted budget; provided, however, any such amendment
which exceeds one percent of the total expenditures shown in the currently adopted budget must be accomplished by
first publishing a notice of a meeting and holding a public hearing before amending the budget. The Code section
applies to all County funds, i.e., General Fund, Capital Funds, E911, School Self-Sustaining, etc.
The total of the new requested FY 2012 appropriations, itemized below, is $ 4,128,498.89. Because the cumulative
amount of the appropriations exceeds one percent of the currently adopted budget, a budget amendment public
hearing is required.
DISCUSSION:
The proposed increase of this FY 2012 Budget Amendment totals $ 4,128,498.89. The estimated expenses and
revenues included in the proposed amendment are shown below:
ESTIMATED EXPENDITURES
General Fund $ 306,183.48
Special Revenue Funds $ 180,260.00
School Fund $ 122,515.45
School Programs $ 1,621,964.10
Capital Improvements Funds $ 828,494.82
ECC $ 1,069,081.04
TOTAL ESTIMATED EXPENDITURES – All Funds $ 4,128,498.89
ESTIMATED REVENUES
Local Revenue (Non-Tax)* $ 161,825.39
State Revenue $ 856,678.00
Federal Revenue $ 640,894.43
Loan Proceeds $ 20,000.00
General Fund Balance $ 200,000.00
Other Fund Balances $ 2,249,101.07
TOTAL ESTIMATED REVENUES – All Funds $ 4,128,498.89
*The local revenue in this amendment includes $63,517.28 in donations and contributions, $34,600.00 in grants,
$32,500.00 in fines, and $31,208.11 in miscellaneous local revenue.
The budget amendment is comprised of thirty-one (31) separate appropriations as follows, 24 of which have already
been approved by the Board as indicated below:
AGENDA TITLE: FY 2012 Budget Amendment and Appropriations
April 4, 2012
Page 2
Approved November 2, 2011:
One (1) appropriation (#2012034) totaling $18,045.11 for various school programs;
One (1) appropriation (#2012035) totaling $91,974.00 for the replacement of various servers, modems and
batteries at the Emergency Communications Center (ECC); and
One (1) appropriation (#2012036) totaling $52,567.82 for various Capital projects.
Approved December 7, 2011:
One (2) appropriations (#2012040 and #2012042) totaling $70,150.81 for various school programs;
One (1) appropriation (#2012041) totaling $49,175.00 for the State Criminal Alien Assistance Program;
One (1) appropriation (#2012043) amending the scope of a Police grant approved and appropriated on October
5, 2011 as part of appropriation #2012027. This adjustment will not increase the total budget;
One (1) appropriation (#2012044) totaling $60,000.00 for repairs to the Emergency Communication Center’s Bi-
Directional Amplifiers system; and
One (1) appropriation (#2012045) allocating $58,000.00 from budgeted contingency funds for JAUNT. This
adjustment will not increase the total budget.
Approved January 4, 2012:
One (1) appropriation (#2012046) totaling $18,008.48 for the completion of bonded improvements at Abington
Place;
One (1) appropriation (#2012047) totaling $203,447.18 for school division programs;
One (1) appropriation (#2012048) totaling $102,000.00 for a Virginia Department of Emergency Management
grant; and
One (1) appropriation (#2012049) totaling $133,087.00 for the Firearms Range.
Approved January 11, 2012:
One (1) appropriation (#2012050) totaling $200,000 for the Claudius Crozet Park Aquatics and Recreation
Center Project.
Approved February 1, 2012:
One (1) appropriation (#2012052) totaling $5,110.00 for a Byrne Grant to support one-time equipment
purchases at Offender Aid and Restoration (OAR); and
One (1) appropriation (#2012053) totaling $6,500.00 for contributions to the Sheriff Department’s volunteer
reserves programs.
Approved March 7, 2012:
One (1) appropriation (#2012051) totaling $29,540.00 for Scottsville Library Roof Maintenance;
One (1) appropriation (#2012054) totaling $13,300.00 to install security windows at Albemarle County Police
Department;
Three (3) appropriations (#2012055, #2012056, and #2012057) totaling $1,397,393.47 for various school
division programs and projects;
One (1) appropriation (#2012058) totaling $145,150.00 for a grant awarded to the Commission on Children and
Families from the U.S. Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration’s (SAMHSA) Center for
Substance Abuse Prevention (CSAP); and
One (1) appropriation (#2012059) totaling $30,000 for a Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Planning
Grant awarded to the County.
Approved March 14, 2012:
One (1) appropriation (#2012060) totaling $800,000.00 for reimbursements to be paid to the Lewis and Clark
Exploratory Center for its Project costs.
The seven (7) new appropriations requested for Board approval on April 4, 2012 are as follows:
One (1) appropriation (#2012061) to extend funding for a housing counselor position through the end of the
fiscal year. This adjustment will not increase the total budget;
Three (3) appropriations (#2012062, #2012064, and #2012065) totaling $55,442.98 for various school division
programs and projects;
One (1) appropriation (#2012063) totaling $32,500.00 to pay court-appointed attorney fees;
AGENDA TITLE: FY 2012 Budget Amendment and Appropriations
April 4, 2012
Page 3
One (1) appropriation (#2012066) reallocating $20,000.00 for the emergency elevator replacement at the
Central Branch Library. This adjustment will not increase the total budget; and
One (1) appropriation (#2012067) totaling $815,107.04 for several Emergency Communication Center requests.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
After the public hearing, staff recommends approval of the FY 2012 Budget Amendment in the amount of $4,128,498.89
and approval of appropriations #2012061, #2012062, #2012063, #2012064, #2012065, #2012066, and #2012067 to
provide funds for various local government and school projects and programs as described in Attachment A.
ATTACHMENTS
Appropriation Descriptions
Return to agenda
Attachment A
1
Appropriation #2012061 $0.00
Revenue Source: Transfer from CDBG Funds $ 11,155.00
Transfer from Comm. Dev. Fund $ 22,000.00
This request is to provide funding for six months of staffing costs totaling $33,155.00 for the County’s homebuyer
counselor position. Funding will be provided utilizing CDBG funds and funding from loan repayments from the Down
Payment Assistance Program. This position was eliminated from the General Fund budget on December 31, 2010,
but has been maintained with a variety of grant sources since then. Duties for the position have been changed, and
the position devotes much of the time to grant management and assistance with one active and one proposed
CDBG grant. This appropriation will fund the position through the end of FY 12. No future funds are anticipated to
maintain this position. Because this appropriation is from existing funding, it will not inc rease the total County
budget.
Appropriation #2012062 $9,572.28
Revenue Source: Contributions $ 5,072.28
Miscellaneous Local $ 4,500.00
This request is to appropriate various School Division requests as approved by the School Board on February 9,
2012. This appropriation request of $9,572.28 includes the following:
A donation received by Greer Elementary School in the amount of $5,072.28 from the Darden School
Student Association at UVa. The donor requested that this contribution be used to help with enrichment
program costs at Greer Elementary School.
Funding from Western Albemarle High School (WAHS), which is reimbursing its school division budget in
the amount of $4,500.00. These local funds are being provided to compensate the County for a boat and
accessories purchased for the Western Albemarle Rowing Club. The funds were raised by the Rowing
Team and came from their Activity Accounts at WAHS. The Rowing Club obtained a Hudson boat, oars, a
boat cover, a roof rack with fastening hardward, a speedcoach, and straps.
Appropriation #2012063 $32,500.00
Revenue Source: County Fines $ 32,500.00
This request is to appropriate $32,500.00 for Court-appointed attorney’s fees utilizing County fines revenues. Many
offenses, especially traffic offenses, can be cited as violations of either state law or County ordinance. When this
option exists, citing violators under the County ordinance allows the County to collect the resulting fines. However,
under this arrangement, the County is also responsible for payin g the defendants’ Court-appointed attorneys’ fees,
which may or may not be reimbursed later. Ultimately, the revenues collected in fines far outweigh the costs
incurred in unreimbursed attorneys’ fees. In recent years, revenues from County fines have incre ased dramatically,
but partly as a result, Court-appointed attorneys’ fees have also exceeded budget. The present supplemental
appropriation request of $32,500.00 is to pay Court-appointed attorneys’ fees incurred, but not yet paid this year.
The recent increase in both fines collected and attorneys’ fees incurred will be reflected in future budgets.
Appropriation #2012064 $41,278.35
Revenue Source: Contributions $ 33,724.86
Miscellaneous Local $ 7,553.49
This request is to appropriate various School Division requests as approved by the School Board on February 23,
2012. This appropriation request of $41,278.35 includes the following:
Contributions
Cale Elementary School received donations totaling $23,741.50 from the Cale PTO. The donor has
requested that this contribution be used to help fund various programs at Cale, such as the Dalmatian
musical, Kids Night Out (month of November), Triple C field trip, and various miscellaneous educational and
recreational supplies for the entire School.
Attachment A
2
Murray High School received a donation in the amount of $250.01. The donor has requested that this
contribution be used to help with any educational expenses at Murray High School.
Henley Middle School received a donation in the amount of $807.38 from Henley’s Parent and Teacher
Support Organization. The donor has requested that their contribution be used to help fund the “Enrichment
Time before 9” program for the month of December and January at Henley Middle School. These local
funds are from community members comprised of parents and teachers at Henley Middle School.
Meriwether Lewis Elementary School received a donation in the amount of $6,000.00 from the Meriwether
Lewis PTO. The donor has requested that this contribution be used to help with any Book Room expenses
at Meriwether Lewis Elementary School.
Red Hill Elementary School received a donation in the amount of $825.97 from the Red Hill PTO. The donor
has requested that this contribution be used to help with purchasing gym mats at Red Hill Elementary
School.
Scottsville Elementary School received a donation in the amount of $2,100.00 from the Scottsville PTO. The
donor has requested that this contribution be used to help with Triple C field trip expenses at Scottsville
Elementary School.
Miscellaneous Local Revenue
Western Albemarle High School (WAHS) is reimbursing its School Division budget in the amount of
$4,412.00. These local funds are to compensate the School Division for the purchase of 1,200 student
agendas from School Specialty. The funds came from the Activity Accounts at WAHS.
Albemarle High School (AHS) is reimbursing its School Division budget in the amount of $3,000.00. These
local funds are to compensate the School Division for District Band Honorariums that were paid through
their operating budget. The funds came from the Activity Accounts at AHS.
Albemarle High School (AHS) is reimbursing its School Division budget in the amount of $141.49. These
local funds are to compensate the School Division for expenses from the drama club and strings activities.
The funds came from the Activity Accounts at AHS.
Appropriation #2012065 $4,592.35
Revenue Source: Miscellaneous Local $ 4,592.35
This request is to appropriate various School Division requests as approved by the School Board on March 8, 201 2.
This appropriation request of $4,592.35 includes the following:
Albemarle High School (AHS) is reimbursing its School Division budget in the amount of $3,038.25. These
local funds are to compensate the School Division for expenses pertaining to a choral concert on February
10 – 11, 2012. The funds came from the Activity Accounts at AHS.
Jack Jouett Middle School is reimbursing its School Division budget in the amount of $1,554.10. These local
funds are to compensate the School Division for expenses pertaining to field trips at Jack Jouett Middle
School. The funds came from the Activity Accounts at Jack Jouett Middle School.
Appropriation #2012066 $0.00
Revenue Source: Transfer from Pantops Sidewalk $ 20,000.00
This request reallocates $20,000.00 in CIP funding currently available in the completed Pantops Route 250
Sidewalk project account to help cover the County’s share of the emergency elevator replacement at the Central
Branch Library which is jointly owned by the City and the County. The Pantops sidewalk project was completed in
December and $10,500 will continue to remain in the Pantops account per an established purchase order for
Pantop sidewalk drainage improvements.
The emergency elevator replacement project is anticipated to begin this spring and the total project cost is
Attachment A
3
estimated to be $195,000.00 with the County’s share being $97,500.00. The additional $77,500.00 in County
funding will be provided utilizing $47,500 in available FY 12 Library maintenance funds and $30,000 in FY 13
Library maintenance funds. Because this $20,000.00 appropriation is from existing funding, it will not increase the
total County budget.
Appropriation #2012067 $815.107.04
Revenue Source: ECC Fund Balance $ 815.107.04
At its March 15, 2012 meeting, the ECC Management Board approved the following appropriations of funds and is
requesting that the County, acting as fiscal agent for the ECC, make an appropriation from ECC’s available fund
balance as follows:
$21,256.08 for the costs of salary and benefits for the new Emergency Management Coordinator during a
transition period. This funding will cover the time period that the new employee will be working with the
current retiring Emergency Management Coordinator.
$97,620.96 for the lease of the Carters Mountain Tower site. The funding is to fufill the ECC’s obligation
under the previous lease, which had been underbilled over the last ten years.
$696,230.00 for the radio system augmentation project to provide better coverage for system users in the
Scottsville, Howardsville, Schuyler and Black well Hollow areas of the County. This funding has been held
in reserve for this project until ECC could procure the additional 800 MHz frequencies needed to allow them
to move forward with project completion. The first part of the project will start in th e Scottsville area.
Return to exec summary
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road, North Wing
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
Phone (434) 296-5832 Fax (434) 972-4126
March 9, 2012
Jo Higgins
2564 Mt Torrey Road
Lyndhurst, Va. 22952
RE: SP201100031 Greenbrier Emergency Animal Hospital
TAX MAP/PARCEL: 061W0-01-0A-00500
Dear Ms. Higgins:
The Albemarle County Planning Commission, at its meeting on February 28, 2012, 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. There shall be no outside exercise area. However, walking of animals is permitted and shall be
delineated with either post and cable or fencing to an area in the northwest corner of the parcel as
shown on the attachment (described in 3);
2. No animals are to be confined outside;
3. Use is limited to 370 Greenbrier Drive as shown on the attached Land Title Survey Showing Parcel B-
1 Section One Westfield created by B. Aubrey Huffm an and Associates, LLC, dated April 13, 2005;
4. No overnight boarding shall be permitted, except for those animals under emergency medical care.
Please be advised that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors will review this petition and receive
public comment at their meeting on April 4, 2012.
View staff report and attachments
View PC minutes
Return to 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,
Joanne Tu Purtsezova
Planner
Planning Division
cc: Greenbrier Drive LLC
416 East Main St Suite 301B
Charlottesville Va 22902
SP-2011-031
PC: February 28, 2012
Staff Report p. 0
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
PLANNING STAFF REPORT SUMMARY
Project Name:
SP201100031 Greenbrier Emergency Animal Hospital
Staff:
Joanne Tu Purtsezova
Public Hearing: February 28, 2012 Board of Supervisors Public Hearing: N/A
Owner: Greenbrier Drive, LLC Applicant: Greenbrier Drive, LLC
Acreage: Approximately 1.98 acres Special Use Permit for: Request to amend
SP200900030 to extend veterinary services to
include specialty medical care and expand the
space in the existing building. The emergency
animal hospital use remains. No residential units
proposed.
TMP: 061W0-01-0A-00500
Location: 370 Greenbrier Dr. approximately 675 feet west of the
intersection of Greenbrier Drive and Route 29 (Seminole Trail)
By-right use: HC Highway Commercial –
commercial and service; residential by special use
permit (15 units/ acre) and C-1 Commercial – retail
sales and service; residential by special use
permit (15 units/ acre)
Magisterial District: Rio Proffers/Conditions: Yes
Proposal:
1. Add a designated dog walking area.
2. Expand veterinary services to include specialty veterinary
services beyond typical clinical services.
3. Expand the use within the existing building from 2625 sq.
ft. to the entire building (13,782 sq. ft. gross area, 9,000
sq. ft. net area).
4. Amend conditions of SP-2009-030.
Requested # of Dwelling Units: N/A
DA (Development Area): Yes
RA (Rural Area): No
Comprehensive Plan Designation:
Office/R&D/Flex/Light Industrial – commercial,
professional office; research and development,
design, testing of prototypes; manufacturing,
assembly, packaging in Neighborhood 1 of the
Places 29 Master Plan
Character of Property:
The property is developed with office, warehouse space and
related parking located on it.
Use of Surrounding Properties:
Surrounding properties are primarily commercial
uses, including warehousing, restaurants, offices,
and convenience store.
Factors Favorable:
1. All reviewing agencies have no objections
2. Compatible with the Places 29 Master Plan
3. Expansion of specialty veterinary services in the Development
Area
Factors Unfavorable: None
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of SP-2011-031 Greenbrier Emergency Animal
Hospital with revisions to the conditions approved with SP-2009-030.
SP-2011-031
PC: February 28, 2012
Staff Report p. 1
STAFF PERSON: Joanne Tu Purtsezova
PLANNING COMMISSION: February 28, 2012
AGENDA TITLE: SP201100031 - Greenbrier Emergency Animal Hospital
APPLICANT: Greenbrier Drive, LLC
PROPERTY OWNER(S): Greenbrier Drive, LLC
PETITION:
PROJECT: SP201100031 Greenbrier Emergency Animal Hospital
PROPOSED: Request to amend SP200900030 to extend veterinary services to include
specialty medical care and expand the space in the existing building. The emergency animal
hospital use remains. No residential units proposed.
ZONING CATEGORY/GENERAL USAGE: HC Highway Commercial – commercial and service;
residential by special use permit (15 units/ acre) and C-1 Commercial – retail sales and service;
residential by special use permit (15 units/ acre)
AIRPORT IMPACT AREA: Yes
ENTRANCE CORRIDOR: Yes
SECTION: Sections 22.2.2.5 and 24.2.2.4 of the Zoning Ordinance which allows for veterinary
office and hospital uses.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE/DENSITY: Office/R&D/Flex/Light Industrial –
commercial, professional office; research and development, design, testing of prototypes;
manufacturing, assembly, packaging in Neighborhood 1 of the Places 29 Master Plan
LOCATION: 370 Greenbrier Dr. approximately 675 feet west of the intersection of Greenbrier
Drive and Route 29 (Seminole Trail)
TAX MAP/PARCEL: 061W0-01-0A-00500
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Rio
CHARACTER OF THE AREA AND ADJOINING PROPERTIES
The subject property lies at 370 Greenbrier Dr., approximately 675 feet west of the intersection
of Greenbrier Drive and Route 29 (Seminole Trail). The property has split zoning of C-1 and HC,
commercial. In both districts, veterinary hospitals and clinics are allowed by special use permit
only. 7-Eleven is located across the street and businesses such as Benjamin Moore, Sunshine
Laundromat, and a Girl Scouts office are within the immediate vicinity. Loaves & Fishes Food
Pantry, the office of Virginia Lube, Inc. dba Jiffy Lube, XDOT Engineering and Analysis, Status
Solutions and Nature Neutral Green Building Supply are all located within the same building as
the current emergency veterinary hospital. See Attachment A for the Zoning Map, including the
location of the existing veterinary hospital and clinic and Attachment B for the Vicinity Map. The
surrounding area consists of commercial development.
SPECIFICS OF PROPOSAL:
The applicant is requesting the following changes to the site, uses, and conditions as approved
with SP-2009-030.
1. Add a designated dog walking area.
2. Expand veterinary services to include specialty veterinary services such as:
3. Expand the use within the existing building from 2625 sq. ft. to the entire building (13,782
sq. ft. gross area, 9,000 sq. ft. net area).
4. Amend conditions of SP-2009-030 as follows:
SP-2011-031
PC: February 28, 2012
Staff Report p. 2
Proposed Revised Conditions (additions in italics, redactions stricken out )
1. There shall be no outside exercise area. However, walking of animals is permitted and
shall be delineated with either post and cable or fencing to an area in the northwest corner
of the parcel as shown on the attachment (described in 3.)
2. No animals are to be confined outside.
3. Use is limited to the existing two thousand, five hundred (2,500) square feet and the
proposed expansion of two thousand, six hundred twenty five (2,625) square feet at 370
Greenbrier Drive as shown on the attached Land Title Survey Showing Parcel B-1 Section
One Westfield created by B. Aubrey Huffman & Associates, LLC, dated April 13, 2005;
4. The hours of operation for the Emergency Clinic shall be between 5:30 P.M. each Monday
through Thursday; and all day each federal holiday. The days and hours of operation for
the Specialty Veterinary Clinic shall be between 9:00 AM and 5:30 PM Monday through
Friday; and
5. Animals shall be permitted on site only during hours of operation as specified above in
Condition number 3. 4. No overnight boarding use, other than those animals under
medical care.
(Note: The planner has verified that the above proposed conditions meet requirements, but
standard language needs to be applied. The applicant is requesting to delete the specific hours
of operation. See Recommended Conditions below.)
AP PLICANT’S JUSTIFICATION OF THE REQUEST
The applicant currently operates the existing emergency animal hospital. This request is to allow
expansion into the other units. The applicant states that specialty services for animals are not
located in the Charlottesville/Albemarle area and that residents often travel to Richmond and
Northern Virginia for services to diagnose and treat animal patients involving respiratory
disease, endocrinology, infectious diseases, oncology, cardiology, kidney disease and others.
An internist may perform services and need equipment related to ultrasound, rhinoscopy,
bronchoscopy, gastroscopy, colonoscopy, cystoscopy, and others. Surgeons may perform
services related to orthopedics, hip dysplasia, cruciate ligament tears, complex fractures,
arthroscopy, joint replacements, hernia repairs, and gastrointestinal, liver and spleen surgeries.
SP-1996-008, SP-2006-039, SP-2008-009, and SP-2008-059 have conditions of approval
consistent with the current proposal.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN:
The Comprehensive Plan and Places 29 Master Plan designate this area as
Office/R&D/Flex/Light Industrial – commercial, professional office; research and development,
design, testing of prototypes; manufacturing, assembly, packaging in Neighborhood 1 of the
Places 29 Master Plan. The veterinary clinic with expanded special services is compatible with
the office designation, even though it allowable only by special use. The emergency veterinary
hospital portion is also compatible, even though it is allowable only by special use. The site will
not be used for residential purposes. An analysis for consistency with the Neighborhood Model
was not done for this project since it is an existing development.
SP-2011-031
PC: February 28, 2012
Staff Report p. 3
PLANNING AND ZONING HISTORY:
APPLICATION DATE BODY RECOMMENDATION/ACTION
SDP-1983-045 January 13, 1984 PC APPROVED: Pargo’s Restaurant and Office Condominium
site plan
SDP-1983-045 -- DEFERRED-INDEFINITE: Pargo’s Restaurant site plan
ZMA-1984-032 February 14,
1985
PC DENIAL: Rezoning request from C-1 to HC with proffers;
PC stated that scope and possibilities of uses were too
broad
ZMA-1984-032 February 20,
1985
BOS APPROVED: This action rezoned the property from C-1 to
HC with proffers
SDP-1985-030 June 11, 1985 PC APPROVED: Greenbrier Park site plan
ZMA-1985-018 July 30, 1985 PC APPROVAL: Previous rezoning was amended to allow
Motels. APPROVED: Super 8 Motel site plan.
ZMA-1985-018 August 7, 1985 BOS APPROVED: This ZMA added [hotels, motels, and inns]
as an allowed use for a portion of the site (Proffered).
SDP-1985-033 -- Super 8 Motel site plan
ZMA-1990-001 March 21, 1990 BOS APPROVED: This ZMA added Fast Food Restaurant to
the list of allowed uses (Proffered)
ZMA-1990-015 November 7,
1990
BOS APPROVED: This ZMA permitted churches
ZMA-1991-006 October 1, 1991 PC APPROVAL: Request to rezone the property to C-1,
Commercial (Proffered) and HC, Highway Commercial
(Proffered).
SP-1991-052 November 20,
1991
BOS APPROVED: a request for an emergency veterinary office.
SDP-2003-003 Greenbrier Square minor site plan amendment
SP-2009-030 June 22, 2010 PC APPROVAL: Request to revise conditions of SP-1991-052
SP-2009-030 August 4, 2010 BOS APPROVED: Revised conditions to SP-1991-052
STAFF COMMENT:
Section 31.6 of the Zoning Ordinance below requires that special use permits be assessed as
follows:
Will the use be of substantial detriment to adjacent property?
There is no record of impacts to adjacent property from the animal hospital that has operated at
this location for a number of years. No detriment to adjoining properties is anticipated from the
requested expanded use into the entire building because all veterinarian activities will continue
to be inside the building. Staff finds that the deletion of the operating hours condition will not
adversely impact the adjacent property.
Will the character of the zoning district change with this use?
The character of the district has not been changed by the existing animal hospital and it is not
anticipated that the character will change with the expansion of hours and space to include
specialty veterinary services.
Will the use be in harmony with the purpose and intent of the zoning ordinance?
The HC zoning district is intended for commercial uses oriented to the highway. Veterinary
offices/hospitals are allowed by special use permit in this district. The veterinary office/hospital
is viewed as a use supportive to Albemarle County residents who will predominantly arrive by
vehicle.
Will the use be in harmony with the uses permitted by right in the district?
SP-2011-031
PC: February 28, 2012
Staff Report p. 4
Section 24.2.1 of the Zoning Ordinance, entitled Highway Commercial, HC, allows a variety of
commercial uses by-right as well as those that are permitted by special use permit. Veterinary
office and hospital are permitted by special use permit in HC districts. The existing animal
hospital has operated in harmony with by-right uses at this location for a number of years. The
existing assigned parking spaces will be adequate for the additional operating hours so traffic
and parking associated with this expanded use should not detrimentally affect by-right uses.
The proposed expansion of the veterinary office/hospital use into the entire building continues to
be compatible with the other permitted uses in this district.
Will the use comply with the additional regulations provided in Section 5.0 of this
ordinance?
Section 5.1.11 is applicable to the proposed animal hospital use and each regulation is
addressed below:
a. Except where animals are confined in soundproofed, air-conditioned buildings, no
structure or area occupied by animals shall be closer than five hundred (500) feet to any
agricultural or residential lot line. For non-soundproofed animal confinements, an
external solid fence not less than six (6) feet in height shall be located within fifty (50)
feet of the animal confinement and shall be composed of concrete block, brick, or other
material approved by the zoning administrator; (Amended 11-15-89)
Animals will be confined to the existing soundproofed, air-conditioned building.
b. For soundproofed confinements, no such structure shall be located closer than two
hundred (200) feet to any agricultural or residential lot line. For soundproofed
confinements, noise measured at the nearest agricultural or residential property line
shall not exceed fifty-five (55) decibels; (Amended 11-15-89; 6-14-00)
There are no residential lot lines located closer than two hundred (200) feet and noise at the
nearest residential lot line is not expected to exceed fifty-five (55) decibels due to the distance
and sound proofed confinement.
c. In all cases, animals shall be confined in an enclosed building from 10:00 p.m. to 6:00
a.m. (Amended 11-15-89; 6-14-00)
The applicant indicated with SP-2009-030, that these requirements would be met. The applicant
has indicated that this requirement will continue to be met.
d. In areas where such uses may be in proximity to other uses involving intensive activity
such as shopping centers or other urban density locations, special attention is required
to protect the public health and welfare. To these ends the commission and board may
require among other things: (Amended 11-15-89)
-Separate building entrance and exit to avoid animal conflicts ;( Added 11-15-89)
-Area for outside exercise to be exclusive from access by the public by fencing or other
means. (Added 11-15-89)
The animal hospital currently has its own separate building entrance and is located in an end
unit of the building with over 40 feet in any direction to the next occupied space. The applicant
anticipates occupation of entire building would occur in phases. Multiple separate building
entrances (for the other businesses/uses) already exist in this facility. There will be no outside
exercise area because the specialty service will be by appointment only and the veterinary
hospital is an emergency based service that returns animals to their primary care provider by
the next business day. However, the walking of animals in a small, designated area is needed in
order to keep animal waste within that area instead of spread out throughout the site. The
walking of animals within the designated area is also anticipated to keep the animals within a
designated area while they await patient services. Animals will not be kenneled or stay for
prolonged service at this facility, unless extended emergency medical care is required.
SP-2011-031
PC: February 28, 2012
Staff Report p. 5
Will the public health, safety and general welfare of the community be protected if the
use is approved?
The public health, safety, and general welfare of the community will be protected through the
special use permit conditions that specifically address this use at this location. In fact,
containment of animal waste to the designated walking area is anticipated. There are no safety
concerns with the proposed expansion of the veterinary clinic use to include specialty services,
nor with the proposed expansion into the entire building.
FACTORS FAVORABLE:
4. All reviewing agencies have no objections to this proposal and the general request for
changes to the conditions of SP-2009-031. Requested changes to conditions have been re-
phrased to match standard language of conditions.
5. The special use permit is compatible with the Places 29 Master Plan.
6. The special use permit will provide an opportunity for the expansion of specialty veterinary
services in the Development Area.
FACTORS UNFAVORABLE:
Staff finds no factor(s) unfavorable to this request.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of SP-2011-031, Greenbrier Emergency Animal Hospital with the
following revisions to the originally approved conditions.
CURRENT CONDITIONS OF SP-2009-030
1. There shall be no outside exercise area;
2. No animals are to be confined outside;
3. Use is limited to the existing two thousand, five hundred (2,500) square feet and the
proposed expansion of two thousand, six hundred twenty five (2,625) square feet at 370
Greenbrier Drive as shown on the attached Land Title Survey Showing Parcel B-1 Section
One Westfield created by B. Aubrey Huffman & Associates, LLC, dated April 13, 2005;
4. The hours of operation for the Emergency Clinic shall be between 5:30 P.M. each Monday
through Thursday and 9:00 A.M. the following day; between 5:30 P.M. Friday and 9:00 A.M.
Monday; and all day each federal holiday. The days and hours of operation for the Specialty
Veterinarian Clinic shall be between 9:00 A.M. and 5:30 P.M., Monday through Friday; and
5. Animals shall be permitted on site only during hours of operation as specified above in
Condition number 3.
RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS:
1. There shall be no outside exercise area. However, walking of animals is permitted and shall
be delineated with either post and cable or fencing to an area in the northwest corner of the
parcel as shown on the attachment (described in 3);
2. No animals are to be confined outside;
3. Use is limited to 370 Greenbrier Drive as shown on the attached Land Title Survey Showing
Parcel B-1 Section One Westfield created by B. Aubrey Huffman and Associates, LLC,
dated April 13, 2005;
4. No overnight boarding use shall be permitted, except those animals under emergency
medical care.
ATTACHMENTS:
A. Zoning Map
B. Vicinity Map
C. Land Title Survey Showing Parcel B-1 Section One Westfield by B. Aubrey Huffman and
Associates, LLC, dated April 13, 2005
D. Planning Commission minutes, dated June 22, 2010
E. Board of Supervisors minutes, dated August 4, 2010
SP-2011-031
PC: February 28, 2012
Staff Report p. 6
Return to PC actions letter
Zoning InfoZoning Entrance CorridorsScenic BywaysNational/Virginia BywayRecommended BywayProffersAirport Impact AreaEntrance Corridors OverlaScenic Streams OverlayNatural Resource ExtractiZoning ClassificationsRural AreasVillage ResidentialR1 ResidentialR2 ResidentialR4 ResidentialR6 ResidentialR10 ResidentialR15 ResidentialPlanned Unit DevelopmenPlanned Residential DevelNeighborhood Model DistriMonticello Historic DistrictC1 CommercialCommercial OfficeHighway CommercialPlanned Development ShPlanned Development MixDowntown Crozet DistrictLight IndustryHeavy IndustryPlanned Development IndTown of ScottsvilleSP201100031 Greenbrier Emergency Animal Hospital - Zoning MapMap is for Display Purposes Only • Aerial Imagery from the Commonwealth of Virginia and Other SourcesFebruary 17, 2012GIS-WebGeographic Data Serviceswww.albemarle.org(434) 296-5832Legend(Note: Some items on map may not appear in legend)139 ft
Points of InterestAIRPORTCOLLEGE/UNIVERSITYCOMMUNITYFIRE/RESCUE STATIONGOVERNMENTHOSPITALLIBRARYPOLICE STATIONPOST OFFICERECREATION/TOURISMSCHOOLParcel InfoParcelsSP201100031 Greenbrier Emergency Animal Hospital - Vicinity MapMap is for Display Purposes Only • Aerial Imagery from the Commonwealth of Virginia and Other SourcesFebruary 17, 2012GIS-WebGeographic Data Serviceswww.albemarle.org(434) 296-5832Legend(Note: Some items on map may not appear in legend)139 ft
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – JUNE 22, 2010
FINAL MINUTES
1
Albemarle County Planning Commission
June 22, 2010
Public Hearing Items
SP-2009-00030 Greenbrier Emergency Animal Hospital (Sign # 25)
PROPOSED: Request to amend SP 91-52 to extend veterinary services clinic hours and expand the
space in the existing building on the site. No residential units proposed.
ZONING CATEGORY/GENERAL USAGE: C-1 Commercial - retail sales and service uses; and
residential use by special use permit (15 units/ acre) and primari ly HC Highway Commercial - commercial
and service uses; and residential use by special use permit (15 units/ acre)
SECTION: Sections 22.2.2.5 and 24.2.2.4 of the Zoning Ordinance which allows for veterinary office and
hospital uses.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE/DENSITY: Community Service - community-scale retail
wholesale, business and medical offices, mixed use core communities and/or employment services, and
residential (6.01-34 units/acre) in Neighborhood 1.
ENTRANCE CORRIDOR: Yes
LOCATION: 370 Greenbrier Dr. Approximately 675 feet west of the intersection of Greenbrier Drive and
Route 29 (Seminole Trail)
TAX MAP/PARCEL: 61W, Section 1, Block A, Parcel 5
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Rio
(Claudette Grant)
Ms. Grant presented a PowerPoint presentation and summarized the staff report.
The applicant requests to amend SP-91-52 to extend veterinary services clinic hours and expand
space within the existing building on the site.
The property is zoned Highway Commercial. There is currently an existing animal hospital located on
this site, which operates from 5:30 p.m. to 9:00 a.m. The applicant wishes to extend business hours
to the day time hours of 9:00 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. in order to provide specialty veterinary care. The
applicant is proposing to use an additional 2,625 square feet of vacant adjacent warehouse space.
Favorable factors:
• The special use permit is consistent with the Land Use Plan.
• The special use permit will provide an opportunity for the expansion of veterinary services in the
Development Area.
Staff finds no factors unfavorable.
Recommendation:
• Staff recommends approval of SP-2009-030, Greenbrier Emergency Animal Hospital subject to the
revised conditions in the staff report. The primary changes to the conditions relate to the hours of
operation for each of the businesses.
Mr. Loach invited questions from the Commission. There being none, the public hearing was opened and
the applicant invited to address the Planning Commission.
Tripp Stewart and Chris Kabbash, of Trip VMD, LLC, represented the request.
Mr. Stewart pointed out the idea is to possibly expand their veterinary services to specialty services,
which are not currently offered in Albemarle County or Charlottesville. They currently operate only on
nights and weekends. The idea is to potentially operate during the day.
Mr. Loach asked if it would be for a 24-hour period at times.
Mr. Stewart replied that it will be open for 24 hours, but not necessarily in the same hospital. The animals
will strictly be seen on an appointment basis during the day for a specialty service, but at night they will
continue to operate as an emergency service. The idea is not to have the two connected.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – JUNE 22, 2010
FINAL MINUTES
2
Mr. Loach invited public comment. There being none, the public hearing was closed and the m atter
before the Planning Commission for action.
Motion: Mr. Lafferty moved and Mr. Morris seconded the motion for approval of SP-2009-00030,
Greenbrier Emergency Animal Hospital subject to the conditions recommended by staff.
1. There shall be no outside exercise area.
2. No animals are to be confined outside.
3. Use is limited to 370 Greenbrier Drive.
4. The hours of operation for the Emergency Clinic shall be between 5:30 P.M. each Monday
through Thursday and 9:00 A.M. the following day; between 5:30 P.M. Frida y and 9:00 A.M.
Monday; and all day each federal holiday. The days and hours of operation for the Specialty
Veterinarian Clinic shall be between 9:00 A.M. and 5:30 P.M., Monday through Friday.
5. Animals shall be permitted on site only during hours of operat ion as specified above in Condition
number 4.
The motion was passed by a vote of 6:0.
Mr. Loach noted that SP-2009-00030, Greenbrier Emergency Animal Hospital, would go before the Board
of Supervisors on a date to be determined with a recommendation for approval.
August 4, 2010 (Regular Day Meeting)
Agenda Item No. 17. Public Hearing: PROJECT: SP-2009-00030. Greenbrier Emergency
Animal Hospital (Sign #25).
PROPOSED: Request to amend SP 91-52 to extend veterinary services clinic hours and expand
the space in the existing building on the site. No residential units proposed.
ZONING CATEGORY/GENERAL USAGE: C-1 Commercial - retail sales and service uses; and
residential use by special use permit (15 units/acre) and primarily HC Highway Commercial -
commercial and service uses; and residential use by special use permit (15 units/acre)
SECTION: Sections 22.2.2.5 and 24.2.2.4 of the Zoning Ordinance which allows for veterinary
office and hospital uses.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE/DENSITY: Community Service - community-scale retail
wholesale, business and medical offices, mixed use core communities and/or employment
services, and residential (6.01-34 units/acre) in Neighborhood 1.
ENTRANCE CORRIDOR: Yes.
LOCATION: 370 Greenbrier Dr. Approximately 675 feet west of the intersection of Greenbrier
Drive and Route 29 (Seminole Trail).
TAX MAP/PARCEL: 61W, Section 1, Block A, Parcel 5.
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Rio.
(Advertised in the Daily Progress on July 19 and July 26, 2010.)
Mr. Wayne Cilimberg, Director of Planning, said that this application amends an existing special
use permit to allow this facility to provide daytime specialty veterinary services in addition to the current
emergency clinic hours. The petition also allows the applicant to expand into some adjacent space that is
available for them to use within the existing building on the site. He explained that the property is located
on Greenbrier Drive to the west of Seminole Trail, and the existing building would continue to be used for
the expanded service.
Mr. Cilimberg stated that favorable factors include consistency with the land use plan and
providing expansion of veterinary services in the development area. There were no unfavorable factors.
The staff and the Planning Commission are recommending approval with five conditions. He stated that
the third condition has been expanded to be more specific on the space being used because 370
Greenbrier Drive is the entire building. He said that it also establishes the hours of operation for the
emergency clinic and special veterinary clinic.
Mr. Boyd commented that the proposed hours of operation are confusing.
Mr. Cilimberg said that he asked that question also, as the facility is going to be open 24 hours, 7
days a week, but Zoning needed to differentiate between the two activities for parking purposes, and
because of that the condition is showing the overnight hours that the emergency clinic would operate and
the daytime hours that the special veterinary clinic would operate. He explained that the clinic shares
parking with other operations in the facility during the daytime.
At this time, the Chair opened the public hearing.
The applicant, Tripp Stewart, addressed the Board and offered to answer questions.
Mr. Dorrier asked how many animals are served in the facility. Mr. Stewart responded that last
night, there were three in emergency care, and six the night before that. The number varies. He added
that he has no problem with the conditions as presented. He also stated that it is two separate entities
with the idea being to maximize the space.
Mr. Rooker said that it is a real service to the community to have it there, and he has not heard
any complaints about the operation, just a lot of good things.
There being no further public comment, the public hearing was closed and the matter placed
before the Board.
August 4, 2010 (Regular Day Meeting)
Motion was then offered by Mr. Thomas to approve SP-2009-00030 subject to the five
recommended conditions. The motion was seconded by Mr. Snow. Roll was called, and the motion
carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Dorrier, Ms. Mallek, Mr. Rooker, Mr. Snow, Mr. Thomas and Mr. Boyd.
NAYS: None.
(The conditions of approval are set out in full below:)
1. There shall be no outside exercise area;
2. No animals are to be confined outside;
3. Use is limited to the existing two thousand, five hundred (2,500) square feet and the proposed
expansion of two thousand, six hundred twenty five (2,625) square feet at 370 Greenbrier Drive
as shown on the attached Land Title Survey Showing Parcel B-1 Section One Westfield created
by B. Aubrey Huffman & Associates, LLC, dated April 13, 2005;
4. The hours of operation for the Emergency Clinic shall be between 5:30 P.M. each Monday
through Thursday and 9:00 A.M. the following day; between 5:30 P.M. Friday and 9:00 A.M.
Monday; and all day each federal holiday. The days and hours of operation for the Specialty
Veterinarian Clinic shall be between 9:00 A.M. and 5:30 P.M., Monday through Friday; and
5. Animals shall be permitted on site only during hours of operatio n as specified above in Condition
number 4.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – FEBRUARY 28, 2012
DRAFT PARTIAL MNUTES – SP-2011-29 VERIZON WIRELESS - TIER III PWSF, KESWICK, SP-2011-31 GREENBRIER
EMERGENCY ANIMAL HOSPITAL & SP-2010-42 DAVID BROWN AUTO DETAILING & REPAIR
SUBMITTED TO BOS
1
Albemarle County Planning Commission
February 28, 2012
Public Hearing Items:
SP-2011-00031 Greenbrier Emergency Animal Hospital
PROPOSED: Request to amend SP-2009-00030 to extend veterinary services to include specialty
medical care and expand the space in the existing building. The emergency animal hospital use remains.
No residential units proposed.
ZONING CATEGORY/GENERAL USAGE: HC Highway Commercial – commercial and service;
residential by special use permit (15 units/ acre) and C -1 Commercial – retail sales and service;
residential by special use permit (15 units/ acre)
AIRPORT IMPACT AREA: Yes
ENTRANCE CORRIDOR: Yes
SECTION: Sections 22.2.2.5 and 24.2.2.4 of the Zoning Ordinance which allows for veterinary office and
hospital uses.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE/DENSITY: Office/R&D/Flex/Light Industrial – commercial,
professional office; research and development, design, testing of prototypes; manufacturing, assembly,
packaging in Neighborhood 1 of the Places 29 Master Plan
LOCATION: 370 Greenbrier Dr. approximately 675 feet west of the intersection of Greenbrier Drive and
Route 29 (Seminole Trail)
TAX MAP/PARCEL: 061W0-01-0A-00500
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Rio
(Joanne Tu Purtsezova)
Joanne Tu Purtsezova presented a Power-Point presentation and summarized the staff report for SP-
2011-00031, Greenbrier Emergency Animal Hospital, as follows.
- The main purpose of Planning Commission review is to amend the conditions of SP-2009-30
specifically to add an outdoor dog walking area to expand the veterinary services to include
internal medicine and surgery and to expand into the entire building. The proposed designated
dog walking area is shown on the 2005 survey done by Aubrey Huffman.
- All of the factors currently are favorable. None of the reviewing agencie s have any objections to
the proposal. Staff recommends approval with conditions as stated in the staff report.
Mr. Morris invited questions for staff. He asked the proximity of this to the hotel or motel that is in the
area
Ms. Purtsezova replied the hotel was pretty close at about 100’ and staff has not heard anything from
them.
Mr. Morris opened the public hearing and invited the applicant to address the Planning Commission.
Jo Higgins representative for the owner, pointed out there was a building closer towards 29 between the
hotel and this building. Therefore, the building at 370 Greenbrier Drive is completely isolated. On
Westfield Drive there is another veterinary clinic that this building backs up to. The Flowers Baking
Service is kind of an industrial use. There is really no proximity to residential in that whole blocked area.
She explained the request as follows.
- This building is called Greenbrier Emergency Veterinary Clinic. This service in the end of the
building provides services to all veterinarians because it stays open all night and closes in the
morning. Right now the injured animals that are typically brought in at night and on weekends are
moved to possibly the person’s primary veterinary care person. There is a veterinarian who has
moved into the area who is doing chemo therapy, oncology and things like that for animals,
mostly dogs and cats. She had one of her previous clients who were actually transporting their
dog to northern Virginia to receive chemo therapy use this service. The clients were extremely
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – FEBRUARY 28, 2012
DRAFT PARTIAL MNUTES – SP-2011-29 VERIZON WIRELESS - TIER III PWSF, KESWICK, SP-2011-31 GREENBRIER
EMERGENCY ANIMAL HOSPITAL & SP-2010-42 DAVID BROWN AUTO DETAILING & REPAIR
SUBMITTED TO BOS
2
pleased to have this service available locally because Richmond was the other referral that they
got and northern Virginia was a very long tract to bring the dog home each time after these visits.
This is not a normal clinic.
- The clinic that was approved in the special use permit previously in 2009 did not open. This is a
way to give more space to surgeons and specialty veterinary givers. They will actually treat the
animals brought in during an emergency and then referrals from the normal wellness clinics. It
provides a service that is not really based here as yet. As seen in the conditions they are really
just asking for the conditions to be more manageable. The only change, of course, is the square
footage area. It is not like this is going to completely take over the building at one time. They
expect it to be gradual. The first remodeling will be t wo units next to the emergency clinic for
these initial doctors to move in. However, they really hope to establish a practice that provides a
service that is not available in the urban areas. The specialty is now people are spending more
money on their pets.
- The only change to the conditions is about the time limit. The limit imposed in 2009 was
specifically related to the emergency clinic opening and closing. Since they are all internal to the
building it does not make any sense. They will move animals internally and walk them down the
hall. The doctors more readily will walk down to the emergency clinic and see their patient. So
there won’t be any outside activity. It would be impossible to put limits on the hours because the
night time operation would go on, and then they would leave. Then the day time operation would
pick up. They thought that was a reasonable thing to do.
- She went back and researched a lot of special use permits and looked at the language. Of
course, this is not an overnight boarding use. No animals, other than the ones that are under a
doctor’s care are to be in the building. That was the amendment to condition 5. It actually
referenced condition 3, which should reference condition 4. It is to clean it up and reference the
entire building address. There have not been any complaints that they know about. Mr. Loffler
actually is the landlord and the operational person for this and he has not had any complaints.
They have been very good tenants. She believed there were some comments the last time when
the SP-2009 was amended that he had only heard good things. Hopefully, that will continu e.
- The dog walk area is up against the chain link fence in the corner. The real purpose of this is to
designate when people get out of their car to go to a specific area for cleanliness. No dogs will
be left there unattended. It is so they can put in a dog station with a little bag rather people just
searching the whole parking lot wherever they see a green spot. It is not anything that sh ould be
an encumbrance or a bother to the neighbors. It actually backs up to the other veterinary clinic.
Mr. Morris invited questions for the applicant.
Mr. Randolph asked if the owners of the hospital would be comfortable if they indicated that the animals
to be serviced by this facility would not be any mammals other than dogs and cats or animals smaller
than that.
Ms. Higgins replied that in all the other special use permits that she researched there is no limitation on
this. There is a description of veterinary clinic. However, an avian has birds. They don’t do horses,
which is an equine. This is called small animal veterinary center, which is defined in the ordinance. She
has not been asked that question. A horse or cow can’t be taken there. She did not know if they take
swine, as an example. She did not know the answer to that question. She would h esitate to put a
restriction on this when it is not on any of the previous special use permits . She went back through the
records to almost every special use permit that has been issued. Her understanding is the only purpose
for special use permits in this kind of district is just to look at the nuisances, which have to do with outside
barking, kennels, and that sort of thing. Whatever size animal goes in the door she did not think it would
be any different to anyone. However, she would hesitate to say that would be agreeable unless there is
some reason for it.
Mr. Randolph noted the follow up question is that there is no reason why somebody with a sick lama
could not be able to bring the lama to this facility at night.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – FEBRUARY 28, 2012
DRAFT PARTIAL MNUTES – SP-2011-29 VERIZON WIRELESS - TIER III PWSF, KESWICK, SP-2011-31 GREENBRIER
EMERGENCY ANIMAL HOSPITAL & SP-2010-42 DAVID BROWN AUTO DETAILING & REPAIR
SUBMITTED TO BOS
3
Ms. Higgins replied that this is a small animal veterinary hospital and that is livestock. She suggested
that Mr. Cilimberg might know the answer. There is an animal hospital for livestock across the mountain
where people go near Lexington. There is also one in Gordonsville. They are known as having an
operation room for horse deliveries. This would not meet those same criteria.
Mr. Loach asked for clarification. They are talking about basically a 24 hour operation. They are saying
the hours of operation shall be between 5:30 p.m. each Monday through Thursday and 9:00 a.m. the
following days between 5:30 p.m. and 9:00 a.m. Then it says the specialty clinic is 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.
Mr. Higgins replied no, that he was looking at the old conditions. The recommended conditions have no
hourly designated. Those have been removed.
Mr. Loach asked if this is still going to be a 24 hour operation.
Ms. Higgins replied that the emergency veterinary clinic is in one suite at the end. This will expand the
use to allow other surgeons. That use will continue to operate as a tenant in this building. They are
owned by a different veterinary group. This request is to allow other suites. The emergency veterinary
clinic closes at 8:00 a.m.
Mr. Loach asked if they have specialty in the day and then the emergency clinic at night.
Ms. Higgins replied yes, it was all in the same building.
Mr. Loach said it was basically in two different suites and a 24 hour operation for the building.
Ms. Higgins replied yes. The emergency veterinary clinic will be locking their door and they go home.
Then the new people will come in.
Mr. Loach said the operation in itself is wholly an outpatient service with no boarding.
Ms. Higgins replied there was no boarding of animals unless they were there for medic al treatment which
was a condition. That was the condition that seemed to be most often appearing on special use permits.
Rather than wording it differently that was the conditions on some of the other special use permits that
have been approved.
Mr. Loach asked staff on the recommended conditions under 1 it says there shall be no outside exercise
area. He asked how that is differentiated from the walking area.
Ms. Purtsezova replied they discussed this internally already and came to the conclusion tha t the walking
area is really for as Ms. Higgins referred to as an area for cleanliness and making sure that there is an
area for urination and such so there is no issues with that. That area where there are a lot of trees is not
really designed for dogs to be running around.
Ms. Higgins noted the last veterinary clinic she worked with on Rio Road they actually at the end of their
building have a fenced exercise area inside of a privacy fence attached to the building. That was by their
special use. This has no attached exercise area or kennel area, which is what they usually call an
exercise area. This is basically to walk their dog. Anyone might walk in that area versus the people from
inside the building.
Mr. Cilimberg pointed out that the purpose for the second sentence in the condition was to distinguish the
walking of animals from a general outside exercise area.
Mr. Smith questioned if he took his dog in at 7:00 a.m. and he needs a serious operation would they start
and leave at 8:00 a.m.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – FEBRUARY 28, 2012
DRAFT PARTIAL MNUTES – SP-2011-29 VERIZON WIRELESS - TIER III PWSF, KESWICK, SP-2011-31 GREENBRIER
EMERGENCY ANIMAL HOSPITAL & SP-2010-42 DAVID BROWN AUTO DETAILING & REPAIR
SUBMITTED TO BOS
4
Ms. Higgins said that was a very good question. The emergency clinic usually coordinates closely with
one of the other clinics in the area. Some of them do double shifts. They actually staff rotationally.
However, now there are some permanent folks. She would guess that if they took someone in at quarter
of 8 that she would guess they would. However, she had been there at 8:30 a.m. a couple of times and
the door is locked. She has never seen those folks yet.
Mr. Morris invited public comment. There being no public comment, the public hearing was closed and
the matter before the Planning Commission.
Motion: Mr. Franco moved and Mr. Loach seconded to recommend approval of SP-2011-00031
Greenbrier Emergency Animal Hospital with staff’s recommended conditions.
Mr. Kamptner suggested a non subjective revision to condition 4 to read, “No overnight boarding shall be
permitted, except for those animals under emergency medical care.” It is minor grammatical changes to
improve its readability.
Mr. Franco accepted the friendly amendment, which was seconded by Mr. Loach.
The motion passed by a vote of 7:0.
Mr. Morris said the request would be forwarded to the Board of Supervisors with a recommendation for
approval at a time to be determined with the following conditions, as amended.
1. There shall be no outside exercise area. However, walking of animals is permitted and shall be
delineated with either post and cable or fencing to an area in the northwest corner of the parcel
as shown on the attachment (described in 3);
2. No animals are to be confined outside;
3. Use is limited to 370 Greenbrier Drive as shown on the attached Land Title Survey Showing
Parcel B-1 Section One Westfield created by B. Aubrey Huffman and Associates, LLC, dated
April 13, 2005;
4. No overnight boarding shall be permitted, except for those animals under emergency medical
care.
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road, North Wing
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
Phone (434) 296-5832 Fax (434) 972-4126
March 9, 2012
Waller, Stephen, AICP
536 Pantops Center, PMB # 405
Charlottesville, Va. 22911
RE: SP201100029 “Keswick” Verizon Wireless, Tier III PWSF
TAX MAP/PARCEL: 09400-00-00-041A1
Dear Mr. Waller:
The Albemarle County Planning Commission, at its meeting on February 28, 2012, 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. All work shall be done in general accord with what is described in the applicant's request and
conceptual plan , entitled “Keswick Johnson Property 4460 Richmond Road Keswick, VA Existing Co-
location LTE (4G) Upgrade” prepared by Stuart P. Patterson and dated 2/15/12
In addition, the Planning Commission recommends approval of granting the modifications, by a vote of 7:0, of
Sections 5.1.40(c)(3)i and (c)(3)ii for SP-2011-00029 Keswick Tower for reasons outlined in the staff report
and summarized as follows.
• Zoning Ordinance Modifications:
– Section 5.1.40(c)(3)i
– Section 5.1.40(c)(3)ii
Section 5.1.40(c)(3)i - The number of arrays proposed exceeds the three that are permitted by the
ordinance, however the previous Special Use Permit (SP2004-39) modified this condition to allow for five
arrays and placed conditions on them requiring an amendment to the SP if a proposal to relocate any of
the antennas on the structure, increase the number or size of antennas, or increase the distance from the
structure. Thus this application requires an amendment of the SP conditions to address the proposed
addition of three new antennas and relocation of three existing antennas in an existing array on the
existing tower at the 90’ elevation.
Section 5.1.40(c)(3)ii - Maximum standoff distance 12” from tower
Given the existing visual impact of the tower, the resulting additional impact of the 24 inch standoff
distance for the proposed antennas on the existing array is not seen as significant.
The Design Planner has indicated that the proposal will not create additional negative impacts to the
Entrance Corridor.
The proposal supports the use of an existing structure to provide for service needs, and staff can
recommend approval of the modification for this particular proposal.
Factors Favorable:
• No height increase of the existing 149’ tower is proposed and no additional array is needed to provide
the additional service, rather only collocation on the existing tower at the 90’ elevation.
• The proposal is on an existing facility and will not increase or cause any new impacts to adjacent
properties.
• The Design Planner has reviewed the proposal and has recommended approval. Given the size of the
existing tower and the distance from Route 64 an Entrance Corridor, the proposed 24” standoff
distance is not expected to create additional negative visual impact to the entrance corridor.
• According to the applicant, the only viable alternative to the 24” standoff distance is to allow a full-
sectored array similar to those that were approved for three of the carriers located higher on the
tower. It is staff’s opinion that the alternative option would increase visibility far more than the current
proposal.
Staff is able to support all of the recommended modifications described in the staff report because the facility
is existing. The proposal does not appear to increase the visibility of the existing tower based on the existing
conditions of the site.
Factors Unfavorable:
• Alternative mounting style which increases the antenna standoff distance to 24” rather than the
permitted 12”.
Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the proposed changes to the existing personal wireless
service facility, and modifications, based on the analysis provided in the staff report.
Please be advised that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors will review this petition and receive
public comment at their meeting on April 4, 2012.
View PC staff report and attachments
View PC minutes
Return to 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,
Christopher P. Perez
Planner
Planning Division
cc: Crown Communication Inc PMB 353
4017 Washington Road
McMurray Pa 15317
1
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING
STAFF REPORT SUMMARY
Project Name: SP201100029 Verizon Wireless, Keswick - Tier III
PWSF
Staff: Christopher Perez, Senior Planner
Planning Commission Public Hearing: February 28, 2012 Board of Supervisors Hearing: TBD
Owners: Crown Communications Inc – C/O Austin Cornelisse Applicant: Stephen Waller –Verizon Wireless
Acreage: 78 acres +/-
Lease Area: 450 SF existing, 391 SF proposed (total of 891SF)
Rezone from: Not applicable
Special Use Permit for: 10.2.2(48) Special Use Permit,
which allows for Tier III personal wireless facilities in the RA
Zoning District.
TMP: 09400-00-00-041A1
Location: 4464 Richmond Rd. Keswick VA
By-right use: RA (Rural Area) – agricultural, forestal, an
fishery uses; residential density (0.5 unit/acre in
development lots.
Magisterial District: Scottsville Conditions: Yes, there are conditions of approval for
SP200400039
Requested # of Dwelling Units/Lots: N/A DA - RA - X
Proposal: The proposal consists of collocation of three new
antennas and relocation of three antennas in an existing array
on an existing tower, as well as the location of associated
ground equipment. No height increase is proposed.
Comp. Plan Designation: Rural Areas 2 – preserve and
protect agricultural, forestal, open space, and natural,
historic and scenic resources/ density (0.5 unit/acre in
development lots).
Character of Property: A large property that is primarily open
pasture, with a homesite, and an existing tower. The tower site is
located in a field that is bordered by two narrowly wooded tree lines on
both the northern and southern sides. It is accessed by an existing
gravel road. The facility is an existing 149’ tall personal wireless service
facility/tower and associated ground equipment.
Use of Surrounding Properties: With the exception of the
adjacent parcel identified as Tax Map 94 Parcel 39, which
has a split zoning of Rural Areas and C-1, Commercial, all
of the properties surrounding this site are zoned Rural
Areas.
Factors Favorable:
1. No height increase of the existing 149’ tower is proposed and
no additional array is needed to provide the additional service,
rather only collocation on the existing tower at the 90’
elevation.
2. The proposal is on an existing facility and will not increase or
cause any new impacts to adjacent properties.
3. The Design Planner has reviewed the proposal and has
recommended approval. Given the size of the existing tower
and the distance from Route 64 an Entrance Corridor, the
proposed 24” standoff distance is not expected to create
additional negative visual impact to the entrance corridor.
4. According to the applicant, the only viable alternative to the
24” standoff distance is to allow a full-sectored array similar to
those that were approved for three of the carriers located
higher on the tower. It is staff’s opinion that the alternative
option would increase visibility far more than the current
proposal.
Factors Unfavorable:
1. Alternative mounting style which increases the
antenna standoff distance to 24” rather than the
permitted 12”.
Zoning Ordinance Waivers and Recommendations:
1. Included are modification for Sections 5.1.40(c)(3)i and (c)(3)ii. Based on findings presented in the staff report, staff
recommends approval of SP201100029 and all modification requests, with conditions.
2
STAFF CONTACT: Christopher Perez, Senior Planner
PLANNING COMMISSION: February 28, 2012
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS: TBD
AGENDA TITLE: SP201100029: Verizon Wireless, Keswick - Tier III PWSF
PROPERTY OWNER: Crown Communications Inc – C/O Austin Cornelisse
APPLICANT: Verizon Wireless
PROPOSAL:
This is a proposal for the collocation of three new antennas and the relocation of three existing
antennas in an existing array on an existing tower at the 90’ elevation, as well as the location of
associated ground equipment within the existing enclosed compound. To accomplish the
proposed collocation an alternative mounting style, dual antenna mounts, are employed which
differs from the approved flush mounts. The alternative mounting arrangement causes the
maximum standoff distance to be 18 – 24” from the tower requiring a modification to 5.1.40(c)3i
and (c)3ii. The elevation of the existing tower is 149’ and no height increase is proposed. The
property is described as Tax Map Parcel 09400-00-00-041A1 and is located in the Scottsville
Magisterial District and is zoned RA-Rural Area and is located in the Entrance Corridor.
The conditions of SP200400039 limit the number, size and location of the antennas to those that
were shown on the original construction drawings. As stated above, this proposal adds 3 new
antennas on an existing array and relocates 3 existing antennas on the existing array.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN:
The Comprehensive Plan designates the property as Rural Areas 2 – preserve and protect
agricultural, forestal, open space, and natural, historic and scenic resources/ density (0.5 unit/acre
in development lots).
CHARACTER OF THE AREA:
The property is a large 78 acre +/- parcel of land which is primarily open pasture, with a
homesite, and the existing tower site. The tower site is located in a field that is bordered by two
narrowly wooded tree lines on both the northern and southern sides. The tower itself is much
taller than those trees and can be seen from I-64. The site is accessed by an existing gravel road
that meanders through the homeowner’s property. The facility is an existing 149’ tall personal
wireless service facility/tower and associated ground equipment that is located within a
compound surrounded by a 6-foot tall chain link fence. With the exception of the adjacent parcel
identified as Tax Map 94 Parcel 39, which has a split zoning of Rural Areas and C-1,
Commercial, all of the properties surrounding this site are zoned Rural Areas.
PLANNING AND ZONING HISTORY:
SP1997-017 CFW Wireless (Boyd Tavern) – The Board of Supervisors granted approval of the
special use permit to allow construction of the existing 149 foot tall tower that is subject to this
request (August 20, 1997).
SP2004-039 Johnson (Alltel) – The Board of Supervisors granted approval of the co-location of
3
one (1) new array consisting of three (3) new antennas at approximately 90 feet in height on an
existing 149 foot tall lattice tower with additional supporting ground equipment (October 6,
2004). Total arrays permitted on this tower five (5); 4 previously approved and 1 additional.
DISCUSSION:
A Special Use Permit amendment is requested to SP200400039 because the conditions of
approval limit the antennas location, number and size on the tower to those that were shown on
the original construction drawing. Subsequently any modifications to the tower are subject to
Board approval. Thus the facility qualifies for a Tier III review at this time.
The Planning Commission will need to make recommendations on the appropriateness of the
proposal.
ANALYSIS OF THE SPECIAL USE PERMIT REQUEST:
Section 31.6.1 of the Zoning Ordinance below requires that special use permits be reviewed as
follows:
Will the use be of substantial detriment to adjacent property?
It is staff’s opinion that the proposal will not be of substantial detriment to the adjacent
properties. The facility is existing and no height increase is proposed, and no additional arrays
are proposed.
Will the character of the zoning district change with this use?
The collocation of three new antennas and relocation of three existing antennas in an existing
array on an existing tower at the 90’ elevation, as well as the location of associated ground
equipment within the existing enclosed compound will not impact the character of the district.
The tower exists and no height increases are proposed. The color of the proposed antennas
will match that of the existing structure. Also, no significant adverse impacts to the Entrance
Corridor (EC) overlay district are anticipated given the size of the tower and the distance from
the EC, the additional 12” is not expected to be noticed from the EC and is not expected to
create additional negative visual impact. It is staff’s opinion that the character of the zoning
district will not change with this use.
Will the use be in harmony with the purpose and intent of the zoning ordinance?
Staff has reviewed this request as it relates to the “purpose and intent” that is set forth in
Sections 1.4.4 and 1.4.7 of the Zoning Ordinance, and as it relates to the intent specified in the
RA - Rural Area chapter of the Zoning Ordinance (Section 10.1). This request is consistent
with both sections.
Will the use be in harmony with the uses permitted by right in the district?
No significant adverse impacts on adjacent properties in the (RA) Rural Area or C-1
Commercial district are anticipated. This proposal will not restrict any nearby by-right uses
within the Rural Areas District.
Will the public health, safety and general welfare of the community be protected if the
use is approved?
The public health, safety, and general welfare of the community is protected through the
special use permit process, which assures that uses approved by special use permit are
appropriate in the location requested. The proposal is for a collocation of antennas and
associated ground equipment on an existing tower. No height increase is proposed and no
4
additional arrays are proposed. Thus no change to the public health, safety and general welfare
is expected with the approval of the proposal.
Compliance with Section 5.1.40 of the Zoning Ordinance
The county’s specific design criteria for Tier III facilities as set forth in section 5.1.40 (e)
are addressed as follows.
Section 5.1.40 (e) Tier III facilities. Each Tier III facility may be established upon approval of
a special use permit issued pursuant to section 31.6.1 of this chapter, initiated upon an
application satisfying the requirements of subsection 5.1.40(a) and section 31.6.2, and it shall
be installed and operated in compliance with all applicable provisions of this chapter and the
following:
1. The facility shall comply with subsection 5.1.40(b) subsection 5.1.40(c)(2) through (9) and
subsection 5.1.40 (d)(2),(3),(6) and (7), unless modified by the board of supervisors during
special use permit review.
2. The facility shall comply with all conditions of approval of the special use permit.
Requirements of subsection 5.1.40(a) application for approval and section 31.6.1 special use
permits have been met. Compliance with Section 5.1.40(e) of the Zoning Ordinance: The
County's specific design criteria for Tier III facilities set forth in Section 5.1.40(e)(1) and
5.1.40(e)(2) are addressed as follows: [Ordinance sections are in italics]
Subsection 5.1.40(b) (1-5): Exemption from regulations otherwise applicable: Except as
otherwise exempted in this paragraph, each facility shall be subject to all applicable regulations
in this chapter.
The proposed wireless facility meets the required Rural Areas setbacks in addition to all other
area and bulk regulations and minimum yard requirements. Attached site drawings, antennae and
equipment specifications have been provided to demonstrate that personal wireless service
facilities (PWSF) regulations and any relevant site plan requirements set forth in Section 32 of
the zoning ordinance have been addressed.
Subsection 5.1.40(c)(2): The facility shall be designed, constructed and maintained as follows:
(i) guy wires shall not be permitted; (ii) outdoor lighting for the facility shall be permitted only
during maintenance periods; regardless of the lumens emitted, each outdoor luminaire shall be
fully shielded as required by section 4.17 of this chapter; (iii) any equipment cabinet not located
within the existing structure shall be screened from all lot lines either by terrain, existing
structures, existing vegetation, or by added vegetation approved by the county’s landscape
planner; (iv) a whip antenna less than six (6) inches in diameter may exceed the height of the
existing structure; (v) a grounding rod, whose height shall not exceed two (2) feet and whose
width shall not exceed one (1) inch in diameter at the base and tapering to a point, may be
installed at the top of facility or the structure; and (vi) within one month after the completion of
the installation of the facility, the applicant shall provide a statement to the agent certifying that
the height of all components of the facility complies with this regulation.
The proposed changes to the existing tower do not require the installation of guy wires, the
associated ground equipment will be located within the existing compound which is surrounded
by a 6-foot tall chain link fence surrounded by existing evergreen trees which contribute to the
5
screening of the site. All other requirements of this subsection have been met.
Subsection 5.1.40(c)(3): Equipment shall be attached to the exterior of a structure only as
follows: (i) the total number of arrays of antennas attached to the existing structure shall not
exceed three (3), and each antenna proposed to be attached under the pending application shall
not exceed the size shown on the application, which size shall not exceed one thousand one
hundred fifty two (1152) square inches; (ii) no antenna shall project from the structure beyond
the minimum required by the mounting equipment, and in no case shall any point on the face of
an antenna project more than twelve (12) inches from the existing structure; and (iii) each
antenna and associated equipment shall be a color that matches the existing structure. For
purposes of this section, all types of antennas and dishes regardless of their use shall be counted
toward the limit of three arrays.
The number of arrays proposed exceeds the three that are permitted by the ordinance; however,
the previous Special Use Permit (SP2004-39) allowed for five arrays and placed conditions on
them requiring an amendment to the SP if a proposal to relocate any of the antennas on the
structure, increase the number or size of antennas, or increase the distance from the structure.
Thus this application requires a modification of 5.1.40(c)3i to address the proposed addition of
three new antennas and relocation of three existing antennas in an existing array on the existing
tower at the 90’ elevation.
To accomplish the proposed collocation an alternative mounting style, dual antenna mounts, are
employed which differs from the approved flush mounts. The alternative mounting arrangement
causes the maximum standoff distance to be 24” from the tower. Thus this application requires a
modification of the Section 5.1.40(c)(3)ii of the ordinance.
The intent of 5.1.40(c) is to insure minimal visibility of antennas on a structure and a
modification of this provision is generally discouraged. However, for this particular request, the
antennas are proposed on an existing steel tower with five existing arrays, three of which have
antennas that currently exceed the 12 inch standoff distance. The proposed mounting would
allow new service to be provided on an existing (modified) array, thereby eliminating the need to
add a new array to the tower. The modification is needed to allow this dual mounting of
antennas on the existing array. The applicant has indicated that, in this case, the only other
mounting option for the new antennas would be to install a full-sectored array similar to those
that were approved for three of the carriers located higher on the tower. It is staff’s opinion that
the full-sector option would increase visibility more than the current proposal.
Given the existing visual impact of the tower, the resulting additional impact of the 24 inch
standoff distance for the proposed antennas on the existing array is not seen as significant. The
Design Planner has indicated that the proposal will not create additional negative impacts to the
Entrance Corridor. The proposal supports the use of an existing structure to provide for service
needs, and staff can recommend approval of the modification for this particular proposal.
The existing and proposed changes to the tower meet all other relevant design and size criteria of
this subsection.
Subsection 5.1.40(c)(4): Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall submit a tree
conservation plan prepared by a certified arborist. The plan shall be submitted to the agent for
review and approval to assure that all applicable requirements have been satisfied. The plan
shall specify tree protection methods and procedures, and identify all existing trees to be
6
removed on the parcel for the installation, operation and maintenance of the facility. Except for
the tree removal expressly authorized by the agent, the applicant shall not remove existing trees
within the lease area or within one hundred (100) feet in all directions surrounding the lease
area of any part of the facility. In addition, the agent may identify additional trees or lands up to
two hundred (200) feet from the lease area to be included in the plan.
As a condition of approval the plans shall be revised to provide a conservation plan for the site.
Verizon must provide a tree conservation plan prepared by a certified arborist prior to issuance
of a building permit. The plan shall specify tree protection methods and procedures, and identify
all existing trees to be removed on the parcel for the installation, operation and maintenance of
the facility. If no trees are going to be disturbed then a letter or some type of documentation that
is signed by a certified arborist stating that no trees will be harmed shall be required.
Subsection 5.1.40(c)(5): The installation, operation and maintenance of the facility shall be
conducted in accordance with the tree conservation plan. Dead and dying trees identified by the
arborist’s report may be removed if so noted on the tree conservation plan. If tree removal is
later requested that was not approved by the agent when the tree conservation plan was
approved, the applicant shall submit an amended plan. The agent may approve the amended
plan if the proposed tree removal will not adversely affect the visibility of the facility from any
location off of the parcel. The agent may impose reasonable conditions to assure that the
purposes of this paragraph are achieved.
As a condition of approval the plans shall be revised to provide a conservation plan for the site.
Verizon must provide a tree conservation plan prepared by a certified arborist prior to issuance
of a building permit. The plan shall specify tree protection methods and procedures, and identify
all existing trees to be removed on the parcel for the installation, operation and maintenance of
the facility. If no trees are going to be disturbed then a letter or some type of documentation that
is signed by a certified arborist stating that no trees will be harmed shall be required.
Subsection 5.1.40(c)(6): The facility shall be disassembled and removed from the site within
ninety (90) days of the date its use for personal wireless service purposes is discontinued. If the
agent determines at any time that surety is required to guarantee that the facility will be removed
as required, the agent may require that the parcel owner or the owner of the facility submit a
certified check, a bond with surety, or a letter of credit, in an amount sufficient for, and
conditioned upon, the removal of the facility. The type and form of the surety guarantee shall be
to the satisfaction of the agent and the county attorney. In determining whether surety should be
required, the agent shall consider the following: (i) the annual report states that the tower or
pole is no longer being used for personal wireless service facilities; (ii) the annual report was
not filed; (iii) there is a change in technology that makes it likely that tower or pole will be
unnecessary in the near future; (iv) the permittee fails to comply with applicable regulations or
conditions; (v) the permittee fails to timely remove another tower or pole within the county; and
(vi) whenever otherwise deemed necessary by the agent.
Should use of the antennae site in this location become discontinued at anytime in the future,
Verizon Wireless and/or its assignee(s) will be required to remove the facility within 90 days.
Subsection 5.1.40(c)(7): The owner of the facility shall submit a report to the agent by no earlier
than May or and no later than July 1 of each year. The report shall identify each user of the
existing structure, and include a drawing, photograph or other illustration identifying which
equipment is owned and/or operated by each personal wireless service provider. Multiple users
7
on a single tower or other mounting structure may submit a single report, provided that the
report includes a statement signed by a representative from each user acquiescing in the report.
After the proposed PWSF has been installed, Verizon Wireless will submit an annual report
updating the user status and equipment inventory of the facility in the required time period.
Subsection 5.1.40(c)(8): No slopes associated with the installation of the facility and accessory
uses shall be created that are steeper than 2:1 unless retaining walls, revetments, or other
stabilization measures acceptable to the county engineer are employed.
Since this is an existing facility and proposed changes include the addition of antennas on an
existing array and associated changes, no slopes are affected.
Subsection 5.1.40(c)(9): Any equipment cabinet not located within an existing building shall be
fenced only with the approval of the agent upon finding that the fence: (i) would protect the
facility from trespass in areas of high volumes of vehicular or pedestrian traffic or, in the rural
areas, to protect the facility from livestock or wildlife; (ii) would not be detrimental to the
character of the area; and (iii) would not be detrimental to the public health, safety or
general welfare.
The existing facility contains an existing previously approved fenced compound and is therefore
not to be detrimental to the character of the area, nor the public health, safety or general welfare.
Section 5.1.40(d)(2): The site shall provide adequate opportunities for screening and the facility
shall be sited to minimize its visibility from adjacent parcels and streets, regardless of their
distance from the facility. If the facility would be visible from a state scenic river or a national
park or national forest, regardless of whether the site is adjacent thereto, the facility also shall
be sited to minimize its visibility from such river, park or forest. If the facility would be located
on lands subject to a conservation easement or an open space easement, or adjacent to a
conservation easement or open space easement, the facility shall be sited so that it is not visible
from any resources specifically identified for protection in the deed of easement.
Adequate screening of the facility has been addressed in the previous Special Use Permit for this
use. The existing facility has been in place for years and Staff has found that it contains adequate
screening and meets the requirements of this subsection.
Section 5.1.40(d)(3): The facility shall not adversely impact resources identified in the county’s
open space plan.
The facility does not adversely impact resources identified in the county’s open space plan.
Section 5.1.40(d)(6): The top of the monopole, measured in elevation above mean sea level, shall
not exceed the height approved by the commission. The approved height shall not be more than
seven (7) feet taller than the tallest tree within twenty-five (25) feet of the monopole, and shall
include any base, foundation or grading that raises the pole above the pre-existing natural
ground elevation; provided that the height approved by the commission may be up to ten (10)
feet taller than the tallest tree if the owner of the facility demonstrates to the satisfaction of the
commission that there is not a material difference in the visibility of the monopole at the
proposed height, rather than at a height seven (7) feet taller than the tallest tree; and there is not
a material difference in adverse impacts to resources identified in the county’s open space plan
8
caused by the monopole at the proposed height, rather than at a height seven (7) feet taller than
the tallest tree. The applicant may appeal the commissioner’s denial of a modification to the
board of supervisors as provided in subsection 5.1.40(d)(12).
The height of the existing steel tower was previously approved by the Planning Commission and
no height increases are proposed. The facility was established prior to the wireless policy and
there are no trees associated with the tower height, nor are there any comparable trees onsite to
fulfill this requirement.
Section 5.1.40(d)(7): Each wood monopole shall be a dark brown natural wood color; each
metal or concrete monopole shall be painted a brown wood color to blend into the surrounding
trees. The antennas, supporting brackets, and all other equipment attached to the monopole shall
be a color that closely matches that of the monopole. The ground equipment, the ground
equipment cabinet, and the concrete pad shall also be a color that closely matches that of the
monopole, provided that the ground equipment and the concrete pad need not be of such a color
if they are enclosed within or behind an approved structure, façade or fencing that: (i) is a color
that closely matches that of the monopole; (ii) is consistent with the character of the area; and
(iii) makes the ground equipment and concrete pad invisible at any time of year from any other
parcel or a public or private street.
The facility is attached to an existing steel structure/ tower rather than a monopole. Requiring the
existing steel tower to be painted a wood color would not accomplish the intent of this section of
the ordinance. Notably on the plan it is denoted that “Antennas and associated equipment shall
be a color that matches the existing structure.”
Section 5.1.40(e)2: The facility shall comply with all conditions of approval of the special use
permit.
The facility complies with all conditions of approval of the special use permit (Section 31.6.3).
Section 704(a)(7)(b)(I)(II) of The Telecommunications Act of 1996:
This application is subject to the Telecommunications Act of 1996, which provides in part that
the regulation of the placement, construction, and modification of personal wireless service
facilities by any State or local government or instrumentality thereof (I) shall not unreasonably
discriminate among providers of functionally equivalent services; (II) shall not prohibit or have
the effect of prohibiting the provision of personal wireless services. 47 U.S.C.
In order to operate this facility, the applicant is required to comply with the FCC guidelines for
radio frequency emissions that are intended to protect the public health and safety. Neither the
Comprehensive Plan nor the Zoning Ordinance prohibits the provision of personal wireless
services. However, both do implement specific policies and regulations for the sighting and
design of wireless facilities. In its current state, the existing facilities and their mounting
structure all offer adequate support for providing personal wireless communication services. The
applicant has not provided any additional information regarding the availability, or absence of
alternative sites that could serve the same areas that would be covered with the proposed antenna
additions at this site. Therefore, staff does not believe that the special use permitting process nor
the denial of this application would have the effect of prohibiting or restricting the provision of
personal wireless services.
9
SUMMARY:
Staff has identified factors which are favorable and unfavorable to this proposal:
Factors favorable to this request include:
1. No height increase of the existing 149’ tower is proposed and no additional array is
needed to provide the additional service, rather only collocation on the existing tower at
the 90’ elevation.
2. The proposal is on an existing facility and will not increase or cause any new impacts to
adjacent properties.
3. The Design Planner has reviewed the proposal and has recommended approval. Given the
size of the existing tower and the distance from Route 64 an Entrance Corridor, the
proposed 24” standoff distance is not expected to create additional negative visual impact
to the entrance corridor.
4. According to the applicant, the only viable alternative to the 24” standoff distance is to
allow a full-sectored array similar to those that were approved for three of the carriers
located higher on the tower. It is staff’s opinion that the alternative option would increase
visibility far more than the current proposal.
Factors unfavorable to this request include:
1. Alternative mounting style which increases the antenna standoff distance to 24” rather
than the permitted 12”.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the proposed changes to the existing
personal wireless service facility, and modifications, based on the analysis provided herein.
Zoning Ordinance Modifications:
The proposed modifications for additional antennas on the existing tower are part of a larger
project to improve Verizon Wireless’ existing network of facilities by adding fourth generation
(“4G”) services to the existing cellular services. Staff is able to support all of the recommended
modifications described in the staff report because the facility is existing. The proposal does not
appear to increase the visibility of the existing tower based on the existing conditions of the site.
Listed below are the recommended modifications:
1. Section 5.1.40(c)(3)i - The number of arrays proposed far exceeds the three that are
permitted by the ordinance, however the previous Special Use Permit (SP2004-39)
modified this condition to allow for five arrays and placed conditions on them requiring
an amendment to the SP if a proposal to relocate any of the antennas on the structure,
increase the number or size of antennas, or increase the distance from the structure. Thus
this application requires an amendment of the SP conditions to address the proposed
addition of three new antennas and relocation of three antennas in an existing array on the
existing tower at the 90’ elevation.
2. Section 5.1.40(c)(3)ii – Maximum standoff distance 12” from tower
If the Planning Commission recommends approval of this application, Staff recommends the
following conditions:
10
Conditions of Approval:
1. Development and use shall be in general accord with the conceptual plan titled “Keswick
Johnson Property 4460 Richmond Road Keswick, VA Existing Co-location LTE (4G)
Upgrade” prepared by Stuart P. Patterson and dated 2/15/12 (hereafter “Conceptual
Plan”), as determined by the Director of Planning and the Zoning Administrator. To be
in accord with the Conceptual Plan, development and use shall reflect the following
major elements within the development essential to the design of the development, as
shown on the Conceptual Plan:
a. Height
b. Mounting type
c. Antenna type
d. Number of antenna
e. Color
f. Location of ground equipment and fencing
Minor modifications to the plan which do not conflict with the elements above may be
made to ensure compliance with the Zoning Ordinance.
ATTACHMENTS:
A. Site Drawings
B. Vicinity Map
C. Applicant Photo Simulations
Motions- Two Separate:
Motion One: The Planning Commission’s role is to recommend approval or denial of
modifications for Sections 5.1.40(c)(3)i and (c)(3)ii of the Zoning Ordinance.
A. Should the Planning Commission choose to recommend approval of the modifications
of Sections 5.1.40(c)(3)i and (c)(3)ii:
I move to recommend approval granting the modifications for reasons outlined in
the staff report.
B. Should the Planning Commission choose to recommend denial of the modifications for
this Tier III personal wireless service facility:
I move to recommend denial of the modifications outlined in the staff report.
(Planning Commission needs to give a reason for recommendation of denial)
Motion Two: The Planning Commission’s role in this case (SP201100029) is to make a
recommendation to the Board of Supervisors.
A. Should the Planning Commission choose to recommend approval of this Tier III
personal wireless service facility:
I move to recommend approval of SP 201100029 Verizon Wireless, Keswick - Tier
III PWSF with the conditions outlined in the staff report.
11
B. Should the Planning Commission choose to recommend denial of this Tier III personal
wireless service facility:
I move to recommend denial of SP 201100029 Verizon Wireless, Keswick - Tier III
PWSF. (Planning Commission needs to give a reason for recommendation of denial)
Return to PC actions letter
KESWICK
LTE (4G)
UPGRADEREV. NO.DESCRIPTION DATEBY
APPROVAL
CONSULTING TEAM PROJECT SUMMARY
8
REV. NO.DESCRIPTION DATEBY
G-1
INDEX OF DRAWINGS
SITE
PROJECT
SITE
PROJECT
EXISTING CO-LOCATION
LTE (4G) UPGRADE
JOHNSON PROPERTY
GRAPHIC SCALE(S)
SURVEY NOTES
KESWICK
LTE (4G)
UPGRADE
C-1
LEGEND
ABBREVIATIONS
LEASE NOTES
GRAPHIC SCALE(S)
KESWICK
LTE (4G)
UPGRADE
C-2
CONSTRUCTION NOTES
NOTES
LEASE NOTES
DEMOLITION NOTES
KESWICK
LTE (4G)
UPGRADE
C-3
NOTES
KESWICK
LTE (4G)
UPGRADE
S-1
GRAPHIC SCALE(S)
S-1
GENERAL NOTES CONCRETE NOTES EXCAVATION NOTES
DESIGN NOTES
FOUNDATION PLAN NOTES
GRAPHIC SCALE(S)
LEGEND
KESWICK
LTE (4G)
UPGRADE
ELECTRICAL SITE PLAN NOTES
LEGENDABBREVIATIONSGENERAL ELECTRICAL NOTES
KESWICK
LTE (4G)
UPGRADE
POWER RISER EQUIPMENT SCHEDULE
POWER RISER NOTES:
POWER RISER GENERAL NOTES:
POWER RISER DIAGRAM
E-2
GRAPHIC SCALE(S)
KESWICK
LTE (4G)
UPGRADE
PLAN NOTESGENERAL GROUNDING NOTES
INSPECTION PORT DETAIL
GROUND ROD DETAIL
GATE GROUNDING DETAIL
Points of Interest
AIRPORT
COLLEGE/UNIVERSITY
COMMUNITY
FIRE/RESCUE STATION
GOVERNMENT
HOSPITAL
LIBRARY
POLICE STATION
POST OFFICE
RECREATION/TOURISM
SCHOOL
Parcel Info
Parcels
Zoning Info
Zoning Classifications
Rural Areas
Village Residential
R1 Residential
R2 Residential
R4 Residential
R6 Residential
R10 Residential
R15 Residential
Planned Unit Developmen
Planned Residential Devel
Neighborhood Model Distri
Monticello Historic District
C1 Commercial
Commercial Office
Highway Commercial
Planned Development Sh
Planned Development Mix
Downtown Crozet District
Light Industry
Heavy Industry
Planned Development Ind
Town of Scottsville
Map is for Display Purposes Only • Aerial Imagery from the Commonwealth of Virginia and Other Sources February 16, 2012
GIS-Web
Geographic Data Services
www.albemarle.org
(434) 296-5832
Legend
(Note: Some items on map may not appear in legend)
738 ft
KESWI CK 4460 RICHM O ND RO AD KESWICK, VA
EXISTING CONDITIONS
BEFORE LTE INSTALLATION PROPOSED CONDITIONS
AFTER LTE INSTALLATION
NEW LTE
ANTENNAS
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – FEBRUARY 28, 2012
DRAFT PARTIAL MNUTES – SP-2011-29 VERIZON WIRELESS - TIER III PWSF, KESWICK, SP-2011-31 GREENBRIER
EMERGENCY ANIMAL HOSPITAL & SP-2010-42 DAVID BROWN AUTO DETAILING & REPAIR
SUBMITTED TO BOS
1
Albemarle County Planning Commission
February 28, 2012
Public Hearing Items:
SP-2011-00029 Keswick Tower
PROPOSED: Special use permit amendment request to SP-2004-00039 because the conditions of
approval limit the antennas number and size on the tower to those that were shown on the original
construction drawing. The proposal consists of collocation of three new antennas and relocation of three
antennas in an existing array on an existing tower, as well as the location of associated ground
equipment.
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(48) which allows for Tier III personal wireless service facilities in the RA Zoning District.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE/DENSITY: Rural Areas 2 – 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: 4464 Richmond Rd. Keswick
TAX MAP/PARCEL: 09400-00-00-041A1
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Scottsville
(Christopher Perez)
Christopher Perez presented a Power-Point presentation and summarized the staff report for SP-2011-
00029, Keswick Tower. A Special Use Permit amendment is requested to SP-2004-00039 because the
conditions of approval limit the antennas location, number and size on the tower to those that were shown
on the original construction drawing. This is an amendment to an existing tower that is 149 feet tall and
they would be collocating at the 90’ elevation. T he Planning Commission will need to make
recommendations on the appropriateness of the proposal.
This is a proposal for the collocation of three new antennas and the relocation of three existing antennas
in an existing array on an existing tower at the 90’ elevation, as well as the location of associated ground
equipment within the existing enclosed compound. The elevation of the existing tower is 149’ and no
height increase is proposed.
To accomplish the proposed collocation an alternative mounting style, dual antenna mounts, are
employed which differs from the approved flush mounts. The ordinance requires the antennas be no more
than 12 inches from the tower, however the alternative mounting arrangement cau ses the maximum
standoff distance to be 18 – 24 inches from the tower requiring a modification to Sections 5.1.40(c)3i and
(c)3ii.
• Zoning Ordinance Modifications:
– Section 5.1.40(c)(3)i
– Section 5.1.40(c)(3)ii
Section 5.1.40(c)(3)i - The number of arrays proposed exceeds the three that are permitted by the
ordinance, however the previous Special Use Permit (SP-2004-39) modified this condition to allow for five
arrays and placed conditions on them requiring an amendment to the SP if a proposal to relocat e any of
the antennas on the structure, increase the number or size of antennas, or increase the distance from the
structure. Thus this application requires an amendment of the SP conditions to address the proposed
addition of three new antennas and relocation of three existing antennas in an existing array on the
existing tower at the 90’ elevation.
Section 5.1.40(c)(3)ii - Maximum standoff distance 12” from tower. Given the existing visual impact of
the tower, the resulting additional impact of the 24 inch standoff distance for the proposed antennas on
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – FEBRUARY 28, 2012
DRAFT PARTIAL MNUTES – SP-2011-29 VERIZON WIRELESS - TIER III PWSF, KESWICK, SP-2011-31 GREENBRIER
EMERGENCY ANIMAL HOSPITAL & SP-2010-42 DAVID BROWN AUTO DETAILING & REPAIR
SUBMITTED TO BOS
2
the existing array is not seen as significant.
The proposal supports the use of an existing structure to provide for service needs, and staff can
recommend approval of the modification for this particular proposal.
Factors Favorable:
• No height increase of the existing 149’ tower is proposed and no additional array is needed to
provide the additional service, rather only collocation on the existing tower at the 90’ elevation.
• The proposal is on an existing facility and will not increase or cause any new impacts to adjacent
properties.
• The Design Planner has reviewed the proposal and has recommended approval. Given the size
of the existing tower and the distance from Route 64 an Entrance Corridor, the proposed 24”
standoff distance is not expected to create additional negative visual impact to the entrance
corridor.
• According to the applicant, the only viable alternative to the 24” standoff distance is to allow a full -
sectored array similar to those that were approved for three of the carriers located higher on the
tower. It is staff’s opinion that the alternative option would increase visibility far more than the
current proposal.
Staff is able to support all of the recommended modifications described in the staff report because the
facility is existing. The proposal does not appear to increase the visibility of the existing tower based on
the existing conditions of the site.
Factors Unfavorable:
• Alternative mounting style which increases the antenna standoff distance to 24” rather than the
permitted 12”.
Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the proposed changes to the existing personal wireless
service facility, and modifications, based on the analysis provided in the staff report subject to the
conditions of approval, as follows.
• All work shall be done in general accord with what is described in the applicant's request and
conceptual plan , entitled “Keswick Johnson Property 4460 Richmond Road Keswick, VA Existing
Co-location LTE (4G) Upgrade” prepared by Stuart P. Patterson and dated 2/15/12
Mr. Morris invited questions for staff.
Mr. Lafferty asked if it was a 4G installation, and Mr. Perez replied yes.
Mr. Lafferty asked if the request required ARB review since the tower could be seen from I-64.
Mr. Perez replied that it does not require ARB approval. The Design Planner has looked at the request
and found that it was far enough away from the Entrance Corridor that it would not be an impact.
Mr. Morris opened the public hearing and invited the applicant to address the Planning Commission.
Laurie Schweller, attorney with LeClair Ryan, represented Verizon Wireless. In summary they are simply
requesting an amendment to two of the conditions of the existing special use permit. One of thos e would
allow the distance from the tower to any point on the face of the antenna panels to be up to 24” as
opposed to 12”. The other would allow 6 panel antennas in the current array at the 90’ level as opposed
to 3. The way those would be structured is rather than having one antenna come from each of those
three faces they would have a dual mount at each point with two antennas. The whole purpose of this
request is to bring the LTE service. As they know Verizon Wireless is working on a build out of 4 G
through the county and this is an application in that series. The existing panel antennas are dual
technology. They have the PCS in the cell and the new three antennas that would be provided with the
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – FEBRUARY 28, 2012
DRAFT PARTIAL MNUTES – SP-2011-29 VERIZON WIRELESS - TIER III PWSF, KESWICK, SP-2011-31 GREENBRIER
EMERGENCY ANIMAL HOSPITAL & SP-2010-42 DAVID BROWN AUTO DETAILING & REPAIR
SUBMITTED TO BOS
3
three dual mounts would provide the LTE. Other than that there is no change to the facility except
generator LTU equipment that would be screened behind the existing fencing and landscaping.
Mr. Morris invited questions for the applicant.
Mr. Smith asked the distance to I-64.
Ms. Schweller replied that it was very close to the I-64 Corridor. She could not tell him exactly what the
distance is. When traveling around on Richmond Road and Black Cat Road all around the site it is
actually not visible from those surrounding roadways because it sits in sort o f a divot. However, going
both westbound and eastbound on I-64 this is one of those last three towers one sees between here and
Fluvanna County. It is about 7.5 miles east of Charlottesville. The tower itself is very visible from I -64. As
seen in the drawings and the photo simulations their antenna array is the fourth or fifth one down and
they appear flush mounted. With a tower of this size a 24” extension is not going to look any different
from a 12” extension. It won’t look anything like the top three arrays.
Mr. Morris invited public comment. There being no public comment, the public hearing was closed and
the matter before the Planning Commission.
Mr. Cilimberg noted that two motions would be needed.
Motion on Modifications:
Motion: Mr. Franco moved and Mr. Lafferty seconded to recommend approval of granting the
modifications of Sections 5.1.40(c)(3)i and (c)(3)ii for SP-2011-00029 Keswick Tower for reasons outlined
in the staff report.
Mr. Morris invited discussion.
Mr. Randolph noted an observation and concern that there is no compelling reason not to approve this.
However, he thought they need to be mindful of what is best described as “antenna creep” that as
technology changes they are going to constantly have these reapplications on thi s tower with additional
waivers of the zoning ordinance. It is just inevitably and regrettable. So he was just wasting a regret
about that they are forced into a position here that automatically the zoning ordinance is going to have to
be waived over and over again probably in perpetuity as they move forward.
Mr. Cilimberg pointed out it has already been taken care of for us. Mr. Kamptner can describe what was
in the legislation passed last week and signed by the President. Therefore, they may not even have
these kinds of applications before the Commission any more.
Mr. Kamptner said buried in the bill that extended unemployment benefits and the payroll tax deduction
there was a bill that affects the locality’s zoning authority for personal wireless s ervice facilities. It is the
first encroachment by Congress into the authority that reserved to localities under the
Telecommunications Act of 1996. What this provision says is that a state or local government may not
deny and shall approve any eligible facility’s request for a modification of an existing wireless tower or
base station that does not substantially change the physical dimensions of such tower or base station.
They don’t know yet what substantially change means. Does it mean substantially change from the
original approval or as he pointed out each incremental change. However, staff will look at that and, of
course, they need to incorporate these provisions into our Wireless Regulations, which staff is already
looking at updating anyway for a proposed Zoning Text Amendment. This particular application seeing
the graphics he thought it would be hard to argue that this was anything other than a very diminutive
change in the physical dimensions of the facility.
Mr. Morris noted that his point was well taken.
Mr. Lafferty said it was just going from ugly to slightly more ugly.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – FEBRUARY 28, 2012
DRAFT PARTIAL MNUTES – SP-2011-29 VERIZON WIRELESS - TIER III PWSF, KESWICK, SP-2011-31 GREENBRIER
EMERGENCY ANIMAL HOSPITAL & SP-2010-42 DAVID BROWN AUTO DETAILING & REPAIR
SUBMITTED TO BOS
4
The motion passed by a vote of 7:0.
Motion on SP-2011-00029:
Motion: Mr. Franco moved and Mr. Loach seconded to recommend approval of SP-2011-00029 Verizon
Wireless, Keswick - Tier III PWSF with the conditions outlined in the staff report.
1. All work shall be done in general accord with what is described in the applicant's request and
conceptual plan , entitled “Keswick Johnson Property 4460 Richmond Road Keswick, VA Exi sting
Co-location LTE (4G) Upgrade” prepared by Stuart P. Patterson and dated 2/15/12
The motion passed by a vote of 7:0.
Mr. Morris noted that SP-2011-00029 Verizon Wireless, Keswick – Tier III PWSF and modifications would
go to the Board of Supervisors on a date to be determined with a recommendation for approval.
(Recorded and transcribed by Sharon C. Taylor, Clerk to Planning Commission & Planning Boards)
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
W ater Protection Odinance – Appeal of Decision by the
Program Authority Under County Code § 17-321
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Appeal of Decision by the Program Authority Under
County Code § 17-321 to Not Authorize Parking Spaces
to be Located in a Stream Buffer
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Messrs. Foley, Elliott, Davis, Kamptner, Graham and
Brooks
LEGAL REVIEW: Yes
AGENDA DATE:
April 4, 2012
ACTION: X INFORMATION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS: Yes
REVIEWED BY:
BACKGROUND
Beard Enterprises LLC (“Beard”) requested that the Department of Community Development, which administers the
Water Protection Ordinance (County Code Chapter 17) as its “Program Authority,” authorize it to establish parking
spaces and a stormwater management facility in the stream buffer on Tax Map and Parcel Number 056A1-01-00-
12200 (the “Parcel”) as provided under County Code § 17-321 (Attachment A). The Parcel is 0.64 acres in size, zoned
Downtown Crozet District (DCD) and currently has no improvements on it. The Parcel is subject to a portion of a 100-
foot stream buffer that originates from an off -site stream behind the Parcel. The Program Authority authorized the
stormwater management facility, but not the parking spaces, to be established in the stream buffer (Attachment B).
The Program Authority’s reason to not authorize the parking spaces was because those spaces that would be located
in the stream buffer were in excess of the number of spaces required by the Zoning Ordinance, and therefore, were
not necessary to allow a reasonable use of the lot.
Beard has appealed the Program Authority’s decision regarding the parking spaces under County Code
§ 17-311 (Attachment C). County Code § 17-311(B) provides that, on an appeal, “the board of supervisors shall
consider evidence and opinion presented by the aggrieved person, the program authority, and such other persons as
shall be deemed by the board to be necessary for a complete review of the matter.” County Code § 17-311(B) also
provides that the board “may affirm, reverse or modify the program authority's action.”
DISCUSSION
County Code § 17-319 declares that stream buffers retard runoff, prevent erosion, filter nonpoint source pollution from
runoff, moderate stream temperature, and provide for the ecological integrity of stream corridors and networks.
County Code § 17-317(D) provides that each “stream buffer shall be maintained and incorporated into the design of
the land development to the fullest extent possible.”
County Code § 17-321 allows the Program Authority to authorize development in a stream buffer for limited purposes,
and it provides in relevant part:
Development in a stream buffer may be authorized by the program authority in the circumstances
described below, provided that a mitigation plan is submitted to, and approved, by the program
authority pursuant to section 17-322:
1. on a lot within the fifty (50) horizontal feet of stream buffer that is the m ost landward (furthest from
the stream) for necessary infrastructure to allow reasonable use of the lot. In all cases
under this paragraph, any new building site and sewage disposal system shall be located outside
the stream buffer; (boldface added)
The terms “necessary” and “reasonable” are fundamental to the Program Authority’s decision. In the context of
County Code § 17-321 and this appeal, “necessary” means “that which cannot be done without,” “essential” or
“indispensable” and “reasonable” means “not excessive.” Webster’s Third New International Dictionary (2002).
Because Beard could provide sufficient parking for its proposed use to satisfy the Zoning Ordinance without locating
additional parking spaces within the stream buffer, the Program Authority determined that the additional parking
spaces were not necessary “to allow reasonable use of the Parcel.”
AGENDA TITLE: Water Protection Odinance – Appeal of Decision by the Program Authority Under County Code
§ 17-321
April 4, 2012
Page 2
The Program Authority’s decision as to what is reasonable in this case is consistent with its longstanding interpretation
of County Code § 17-321(1). The Program Authority’s decision is also consistent with the directive in County Code
§ 17-103 in that, because the Water Protection Ordinance “protects paramount public interests,” it is to be “liberally
construed to effectuate its several purposes.” As relevant to stream buffers, those purposes include inhibiting “the
deterioration of state waters and waterways resulting from land disturbing activities,” controlling “nonpoint source
pollution, erosion and sedimentation, and stream channel erosion,” maintaining “the integrity of existing stream
channels and networks for their biological functions, drainage, and natural recharge of groundwater,” and protecting
“the condition of state waters for all reasonable public uses and ecological functions.” County Code § 17-102(1), (4)
and (6).
While it is true that the Program Authority’s decision does not allow Beard’s Parcel to be developed as intensively as it
desires, the excess parking spaces are not necessary to Beard’s proposed use.
BUDGET IMPACT
None
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Board affirm the decision of the Program Authority.
ATTACHMENTS
A. Applicant’s Initial Request
B. Response letter
C. Beard’s Appeal Request
D. Beard Appeal Map
View Applicant’s submittal
View resolution from Crozet Community Advisory Council
Return to agenda
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902
10 Jan 2012
Mr. Robert Beard
Beard Enterprises LLC
845 West Leigh Drive
Charlottesville VA 22901
Re: Stream Buffer disturbance request on TM 56A1-01-122
Your request for stream buffer disturbance to provide additional parking has been reviewed.
Disturbance can be allowed with mitigation according to the Water Protection Ordinance section
17-321 for stormwater management and the minimum required parking, similar to the option
provided below.
Additional disturbance for parking beyond the ordinance requirements cannot be approved. The
ordinance only allows disturbance for ”necessary infrastructure to allow reasonable use of the
lot” (17-321.1).
Sincerely,
Glenn Brooks, P.E.
County Engineer
Beard Enterprises LLC
845 W. Leigh Drive
Charlottesville, Virginia 22901
February 10, 2012
Ella W. Jordan
Clerk to the Board of Supervisors
County of Albemarle
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, VA 22902
ejordan@albemarle.org
Dear Ms. Jordan:
This is regarding a letter from Glenn Brooks of Jan. 10, 2012 to me regarding a stream
buffer disturbance request on a lot my wife and I own on Railroad Ave. in Crozet, TM
56A1-01-122.
Please be informed we wish to appeal the decision of the County Engineer, Mr. Brooks,
not to approve disturbance of the stream buffer for additional parking beyond the
ordinance requirements as “necessary infrastructure to allow reasonable use of the lot.”
Thank you for your assistance in this matter.
Sincerely,
Robert Beard
Principal
Beard Enterprises LLC
Points of Interest
AIRPORT
COLLEGE/UNIVERSITY
COMMUNITY
FIRE/RESCUE STATION
GOVERNMENT
HOSPITAL
LIBRARY
POLICE STATION
POST OFFICE
RECREATION/TOURISM
SCHOOL
Parcel Info
Parcels
Beard Enterprises LLC TMP 056A1-01-00-12200
Map is for Display Purposes Only • Aerial Imagery from the Commonwealth of Virginia and Other Sources March 22, 2012
GIS-Web
Geographic Data Services
www.albemarle.org
(434) 296-5832
Legend
(Note: Some items on map may not appear in legend)
208 ft
1645 Redwing Lane, Charlottesville, VA 22911 434.974.1620 bowens@wloarchitect.com www.wloarchitect.com
March 26, 2012
Board of Supervisors
County of Albemarle
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, VA 22902
Re: Beard Crozet Property (TM 56A1-01-122)
Stream Buffer Disturbance Request
Dear Supervisor:
Ivy residents and local business owners, Bob and Ellen Beard, would like to develop a small
retail/office building for her antiques business, Patina Antiques, on a property they own in
Downtown Crozet. The property is located on Railroad Avenue directly behind the BP/Dairy
Queen and the UVA Credit Union building (Exhibit “A”). The parcel is the last on Railroad
Avenue in the Downtown Crozet zoning district and is included in the Downtown land use area
in the Crozet Master Plan (Exhibit “B”).
The proposed building would be a three-story, 4000 sq. ft. (per floor) “apple barn” structure with
two floors of open retail antique space and a top floor of speculative office space. As required by
the zoning district, the project would front Railroad Avenue with two stories and provide parking
in the rear. The owners have already torn down a dilapidated apartment building on the lot are
looking forward to being a part of the economic growth of Downtown Crozet.
Since the property is located at the edge of the downtown district and is obscured by two other
buildings that are within sight of downtown (Exhibit “C”), the owners are concerned their
business will not be part of the established foot traffic patterns and too far from other public
parking downtown (Exhibit “D”). Therefore, they feel the minimum number of required parking
spaces (10) is not adequate for a building of this size, particularly for perspective office tenants,
and desire additional parking spaces beyond the minimum (24 total) (Exhibit “E”). A building of
similar type and size located elsewhere in the county could require as many as 73 parking spaces.
However, a small stream that runs behind the property requires a stream buffer that effectively
reduces the use of the land by 36% and makes providing even the minimum amount of required
parking spaces a challenge (Exhibit “F”).
After an initially positive preliminary conference with County staff, the project has run into a
hurdle with the approval process at the County. At the encouragement of County staff, an
application was made to reduce the stream buffer from 100’ to 50’ to permit the additional
parking spaces. However, that request was denied by the County Engineer as not “necessary
infrastructure to allow reasonable use of the lot” (Exhibit “G”). Our understanding since that
decision is that only the Board of Supervisors has the ability to approve our request.
Page 2 of 2
1645 Redwing Lane, Charlottesville, VA 22911 434.974.1620 bowens@wloarchitect.com www.wloarchitect.com
We are asking that the Board grant our request to permit the additional parking spaces in the
stream buffer. We feel this is a reasonable request given the uniqueness of the property’s location
in Downtown Crozet down Railroad Avenue, its lack of visibility from downtown, and the
restrictions put on the property by a neighboring stream. The owners are proposing providing
additional mitigation plantings in the stream buffer and are willing to consider other mitigation
measures the County staff may require to minimize the impact of the parking on the stream
buffer (Exhibit “H”). The project supports the vision of the Crozet Master Plan by focusing
redevelopment in the Downtown priority area while providing additional retail and office space,
promoting small business growth, and creating employment opportunities downtown as desired
by the Master Plan, and thus meets the guiding principle where “Locally grown businesses are
supported for their contributions in providing both jobs and an enhanced quality of life for
residents”. The property is currently appraised at $352,700 and the approximately 1.5 million
dollar project will contribute to its increased value. The project is also supported by the Crozet
Community Advisory Committee (Exhibit to be submitted prior to hearing), Crozet Downtown
Association (Exhibit to be submitted prior to hearing), and the residential neighbor joining the
property on Railroad Avenue (Exhibit “I”).
We appreciate the Board’s consideration of our request.
Sincerely,
William L. Owens, AIA
Project Architect
Parcel InfoParcelsZoning InfoZoning ClassificationsRural AreasVillage ResidentialR1 ResidentialR2 ResidentialR4 ResidentialR6 ResidentialR10 ResidentialR15 ResidentialPlanned Unit DevelopmenPlanned Residential DevelNeighborhood Model DistriMonticello Historic DistrictC1 CommercialCommercial OfficeHighway CommercialPlanned Development ShPlanned Development MixDowntown Crozet DistrictLight IndustryHeavy IndustryPlanned Development IndTown of ScottsvilleDowntown Crozet Zoning District (Purple)Map is for Display Purposes Only • Aerial Imagery from the Commonwealth of Virginia and Other SourcesMarch 24, 2012GIS-WebGeographic Data Serviceswww.albemarle.org(434) 296-5832Legend(Note: Some items on map may not appear in legend)100 ft
1/8 mile walk
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Community Development
401 Mclntire Road
Charl ottesvill e, Y ir ginia 22902
70 Jan20l2
Mr. Robert Beard
Beard Enterprises LLC
845 West Leigh Drive
Charlottesville VA 22901
Re: Stream Buffer disturbance request on TM 56Al-01-122
Your request for strenm buffer disturbance to provide additional parking has been reviewed.
Disturbance can be allowed with mitigation according to the Water Protection Ordinance section
17-321for stormwater management and the minimum required parking, similar to the option
provided below.
Additional disturbance for parking beyond the ordinance requirements cannot be approved. The
ordinance only allows disturbance for o'necessary infrastructure to allow reasonable use of the
lot" (17-321,.1).
Sincerely,
YE!l$
iin
IT ITr\tLt -l.r
iiF-\ lr
lr
F{
t$II.
II
l*-It?l
=ql
?f't
igt
W^'J3*;,-
Glenn Brooks, P.E.
County Engineer
Resolution of the Crozet Community Advisory Council
Regarding Stream Buffer disturbance request on TM 56A1-01-122
March 15, 2012
WHEREAS the Crozet Downtown Zoning District was created to enhance and improve
the economic vitality and development of businesses in downtown Crozet; and
WHEREAS the Crozet Downtown Zoning requirements for parking recognized that in
downtown areas parking should be shared between nearby businesses and therefore
sets a low minimum required parking for any single lot; and
WHEREAS this parcel sits on the outer edge of the Crozet Downtown Zoning District;
and
WHEREAS other parcels near this one cannot provide as many parking spaces as is
proposed (25); and
WHEREAS this parcel had 25 parking spaces in the same place currently requested for
more than 50 years without negative impacts; and
WHEREAS the so-called creek by which this parking lot is restricted did not naturally-
occur, but is a result of being used as a drainage ditch by a Laundromat until the
early 1980s when public sewer was provided; and
WHEREAS there is space for mitigating landscape barriers as part of the requested
parking design;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Crozet Community Advisory Council
supports additional parking spaces up to 25 to be necessary infrastructure for the use of
the lot and this part of downtown Crozet in order for it to be a viable business that
enhances the economic vitality of downtown Crozet.
I, Meg Holden, do hereby certify that the foregoing was unanimously adopted by the
Crozet Community Advisory Council at its regular monthly meeting held March 15,
2012 by a motion made by John Savage and seconded by Meg West. CCAC Members
present: Meg Holden, Chair; Mary Gallo, Vice-Chair; Tim Tolson, Secretary;
Mike Marshall, Nancy Virginia Bain, Brenda Plantz, John Savage, Bill Schrader, Jon
Mikalson, and Meg West.
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
Cedar Hill Mobile Home Estates – Central Sewerage
System
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Request for approval of central sewerage system at
Cedar Hill Mobile Home Estates; TMP 03200-00-00-022I0
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Messrs. Foley, Elliott, Davis, Kamptner, Graham and
Brooks
LEGAL REVIEW: Yes
AGENDA DATE:
April 4, 2012
ACTION: X INFORMATION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS: Yes
REVIEWED BY:
BACKGROUND:
Cedar Hill Mobile Home Estates is an existing mobile home park on Route 29 North with 78 homes. The property is
identified in the County’s tax records as Tax Map and Parcel Number 03200-00-00-022I0 and is composed of 25.98
acres (“Cedar Hill”). The property is owned by C. Ray Beard, Trustee of the C. Ray Beard Living Trust (the “Owner”).
Cedar Hill is within the Jurisdictional Area of the County, is planned to be served by public water and sewer and is
currently served by private septic systems and public water. A new public sewer line is being constructed along Route
29 North to serve the new National Business College site and the Owner of Cedar Hill desires to connect to the new
public sewer line while keeping the on-site collection system private. As part of this project, the Owner would install
new water and sewer lines and the existing septic system and its lines, along with the existing water lines, would be
abandoned.
County Code § 16-104 requires Board review and approval of proposed central water supplies and central sewerage
systems. The proposed sewer lines within Cedar Hill are a “central sewerage system” as defined in County Code § 16-
101, and that is the sole matter before the Board. The proposed water lines are not a “central water supply” as defined
in County Code § 16-101 and therefore do not require Board approval under Chapter 16 of the County Code.
DISCUSSION:
The proposed central sewerage system is composed of a series of privately-owned pipes that would connect the
Cedar Hill homes to a single pipeline which, in turn, would connect to the public sewer line.
Review and approval of a central sewerage system by the Board is required to assure that the system is properly
engineered. This executive summary serves as the county engineer’s recommendation on the request, as required by
County Code § 16-104.
Under County Code § 16-105(A), the Board may approve or disapprove the proposal, and if it approves the proprosal,
it must specify the number of connections that may be made to the central sewerage system. In addition, County Code
§ 16-105(B) authorizes the Board to condition its approval of the central sewerage system upon the approval of the
applicant's final plans by the county engineer, the Virginia Department of Health and the Virginia Department of
Environmental Quality, and either approval by or proof of notification to, any other applicable state or federal
department or agency.
While the onsite sewage collection system could be part of the public sewer system, the Owner is interested in
retaining flexibility for future development and wants to avoid having to abandon public utilities and vacate public
easements if and when redevelopment occurs. Staff finds this arrangement similar to that of several other mobile
home parks.
Staff recommends approval of the proposed central sewerage system because its design and construction would
comply with the Virginia Uniform Statewide Building Code. However, staff is concerned about maintenance problems
the County has seen with other central sewerage systems where the owners found it difficult to manage the costs and
revenues of the system. Therefore, staff recommends that the Board’s approval be limited to the central sewerage
system serving Cedar Hill on the single tax map parcel and that it not continue if the property is subdivided in the
future. This would assure that the Owner or its successor remains responsible for operating and maintaining the
central sewerage system.
AGENDA TITLE: Cedar Hill Mobile Home Estates – Central Sewerage System
April 4, 2012
Page 2
BUDGET IMPACT:
None. The Owner would pay the connection fees required by the Albemarle County Service Authority for connecting to
the public sewer system .
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends that the Board approve a central sewerage system for Cedar Hills Mobile Homes Estates on Tax
Map and Parcel Number 03200-00-00-022I0 with up to 78 connections, subject to the following conditions:
1. If Tax Map and Parcel Number 03200-00-00-022I0 is subdivided in the future, the central sewerage
system shall be converted in to a public sewage system, provided that Board may approval a central
sewerage system as part of that subdivision.
2. The Owner shall obtain approval of the final plans for the central sewerage system by the County
Engineer before starting construction of the system.
3. The Owner shall obtain a plumbing permit from the County before starting contruction of the central
sewerage system and the system shall not be used until the Building Official has determined the system is
operational.
4. The Owner shall obtain all required approvals from the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality and
the Virginia Department of Health before starting construction of the central sewerage system .
5. The Owner shall obtain approval from the Albemarle County Service Authority before starting construction
of the central sewerage system .
6. The operation of the central sewerage system shall be the responsibility of the owner of Tax Map and
Parcel Number 03200-00-00-022I0.
ATTACHMENTS
A. Applicant’s Request
Return to agenda
Page 1 of 6
Culpeper District
Albemarle County Monthly Report
April 2012
Special Issues
Superstructure Replacement Project Rte 743—bridge over Jacobs Run. The road will be
closed to through traffic at the bridge for a two week period beginning Monday, March 26,
2012. The project has an estimated completion date of April 6th, 2012.
Preliminary Work--Bride Replacement Project Rte 672, Blufton Road—Starting April 6
through April 12, 2012, this road will be closed to through traffic at the bridge between the
hours of 8:00 a.m. – 3:00 p.m. each day in order to perform preliminary work for the
upcoming bridge replacement project which is scheduled to begin on May 8, 2012.
Bridges on Route 745, Arrowhead Valley Road—Norfolk Southern Corporation has
received and evaluated the bids and are in the process of awarding the contract to the
contractor for the bridge replacements. The anticipated completion date quoted by the
contractor is August 15, 2012. These bridges are currently owned and maintained by the
Rail Road. Once the construction is completed the maintenance will become the
responsibility of VDOT.
Preliminary Secondary Six-Year Plan Meetings have been held with the county staff. A
work shop is being scheduled for April with a public hearing to follow in May.
The Commonwealth Transportation Board will be conducting a public hearing to give
citizens the opportunity to review and provide comments on projects and programs to be
included in the Fiscal Year 2013-2018 Six-Year Improvement Program (FY13-18SYIP),
including highway, rail and public transportation initiatives.
These projects and programs represent important improvements to address safety,
congestion and preservation of Virginia’s transportation network. It is important that we
hear from you and your constituents about those projects you feel are the highest priority
for the state’s limited transportation funds.
The public hearing for citizens in our region will start at 6:00 p.m. on May 2, 2012 at the
VDOT Central Office Auditorium, 1401 East Broad Street, Richmond, VA 23219.
Written comments may also be submitted during the hearing, or they may be mailed or e-
mailed afterwards.
Page 2 of 6
Albemarle County
Monthly Report Continued
April 2012
Special Issues--continued
US 250 Shadwell Bridge Replacement over the Buckingham Branch Rail Road —
Contractor is continuing construction on the underside of the bridge in preparation of
closure. VDOT Public Affairs Office is working with County Public Affairs Personnel
to hold coordination meetings with project stakeholders about the upcoming May
bridge closure.
Preliminary Engineering
PROJECT LAST MILESTONE NEXT MILESTONE AD DATE
Route 691, Jarman’s Gap
Bike lanes and sidewalk
improvement
Construction Underway Construction Complete
– September 2012 January 2011
Route 53 Safety Project –
Shoulder Widening 0.4 Mi E.
of Monticello Loop Road
Design Public Hearing Right of Way – May
2012 February 2013
Route 53 Safety Project –
Shoulder Widening 0.06 Mi
E. of Monticello Loop Road
Design Public Hearing Right of Way – May
2012 February 2013
Route 53 Safety Project –
Intersection Improvements at
Route 20
Design Public Hearing Advertisement February 2013
Route 708, Dry Bridge Road
Bridge Replacement over RR Design Public Hearing Right of Way – March
2012 May 2013
Route 53 Safety Project –
Intersection Improvements at
Route 729
Preliminary Design Design Public Hearing
– April 25, 2012 October 2013
Route 616, Black Cat Road
Bridge Replacement over RR Preliminary Design Design Public Hearing
– July 2012 March 2014
Route 677, Broomley Road
Bridge Replacement over RR Preliminary Design Design Public Hearing
– October 2012 December 2014
*Dates to be determined following evaluation of Scoping Team comments.
Page 3 of 6
Albemarle County
Monthly Report Continued
April 2012
Preliminary Engineering Continued:
PROJECT LAST MILESTONE NEXT MILESTONE AD DATE
Route 637, Dick Woods
Road
Bridge Replacement over Ivy
Creek
Preliminary Design Design Public Hearing
– October 2012 December 2014
Route 250, Bridge
replacement over Little Ivy
Creek
Project Kick-off Survey – Spring 2012 January 2018
Route 762, Rose Hill Church
Lane, Unpaved Road Project Scoping Construction Spring 2012
Route 704, Fortune Lane,
Unpaved Road Project Scoping Advertisement March 2012
Route 672, Blufton Road,
Unpaved Road Project Scoping Advertisement April 2012
Route 608, Happy Creek
Road, Unpaved Road Project Scoping Advertisement March 2012
Brocks Mill Road, Rural
Addition -- Project Scoping –
Spring 2012 *
Route 774, Bear Creek Road,
Unpaved Road -- Project Scoping –2016 *
Route 703, Pocket Lane, Unpaved
Road -- Project Scoping –2016 *
*Dates to be determined following evaluation of Scoping Team comments.
CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE:
PROJECT LAST
MILESTONE NEXT MILESTONE AD DATE
Jefferson Park Avenue Bridge
Replacement
Construction
Underway
Construction Complete
– Summer 2012 August 2010
Page 4 of 6
Albemarle County
Monthly Report Continued
April 2012
Construction Activities
Pipe Rehabilitation (NFO) BRDG-967-045, N501; BRDG-967-062, N501
Scope: Pipe Rehab in Culpeper, Louisa, Madison, Albemarle, Fauquier, Orange, and Rappahannock
Counties.
Next Major Milestone: Contract completion.
Contract Completion Date: April 29, 2012.
Guardrail Repair GR07-967-096, N501
Scope: Guardrail repairs – on call – District wide.
Next Major Milestone: Contract completion.
Contract Completion date: July 1, 2012.
McIntire Road U000-104-102, C501
Scope: Construct New Two Lane Road, Bridge and Pedestrian Path.
Next major Milestone: Begin bridge construction
Contract Completion:.July 30, 2012
JPA Bridge Replacement U000-104-V09, C501
Scope: Replace Bridge and Approaches over Railroad.
Next Major Milestone: Complete Bridge.
Contract Completion Date: August 24, 2012.
Jarmans Gap Road (NFO) 0691-002-258, C501
Scope: Grade, Drain, Asphalt Pavement, Planting and Utilities.
Next Major Milestone: Complete Phase Two.
Contract Completion: September 21, 2012.
Route 250 Bridge over Buckingham Branch Railroad (NFO) BRDG-002-797,B644
Scope: Substructure repair and superstructure replacement.
Next major milestone: Substructure work ongoing, Route 250 shutdown May 2012
Contract Completion Date: August 17, 2012.
Bridge Deck Repair and Polymer Overlay (NFO) 0029-002-044, N501, N502
Scope: Patch decks and epoxy overlay on the Route 29 Bypass over Route 29.
Next Major Milestone: Resume Work in the Spring after the Winter Shutdown.
Contract Completion Date: Summer 2012
Traffic Engineering Studies
Completed
Route 1670 (Ashwood Blvd. at Thornridge) School crossing study completed and
recommended for installation with ADA ramps and walkways and 25 MPH school zone
flashers.
Page 5 of 6
Albemarle County
Monthly Report Continued
April 2012
Traffic Engineering Studies Continued:
Completed--continued
Route 706, Dudley Mtn Road from Route 631 (Old Lynchburg Rd) to Route 708 (Red Hill
Rd) – Speed study complete- a 35mph speed zone. Sign installation pending.
Route 631(E Rio Road) at Route 768 (Penn Park Rd.) – Study to review the addition of
pedestrian phasing to the traffic control signal at the intersection. Pedestrian phasing not
recommended due to lack of pedestrian facilities. Study recommends a pavement marking
adjustment for the through movement at the signal. Pavement marking (left-through arrow)
installation pending.
Route 643 (Proffit Rd.) and Route 649 (Polo Grounds Road) Intersection safety review
complete. Awaiting sign installation.
Route 606 and Towncenter Drive Sight distance review. – Review completed; recommended
trimming of vegetation to improve sight distance, and re-install pavement markings through
intersection. Awaiting pavement markings.
US 29 at Stellar One driveway – recommend installation of additional “Right-turn only”
markings and “Right lane Must turn Right” signs w/ additional “Hazard” marker sign on signal
pole. Pending markings installation (signs installed).
Route 6 (Irish Road) at Route 627 (Porters Road) Intersection Study. Study completed and
pending tree trimming, sign adjustments, and sign installations.
Route 601 (Garth Rd) from Route 654 to Route 676 – Study complete, speed limit to remain
and recommending signing and markings solutions.
Route 250 near Boars Head Inn Guardrail review. – Study memorandum complete; awaiting
funding for installation.
Route 643 (Rio Mills Road) from Route 743 (Earlysville Road) to Route 29 (Seminole
Trail) Speed study. - Study completed no change in speed limit, with additional signage
recommended.
Under Review
Route 1140/250 (Peter Jefferson Parkway) – Operational analysis to evaluate double-right
turn lanes to US 250 EB. Under review.
Page 6 of 6
Albemarle County
Monthly Report Continued
April 2012
Traffic Engineering Studies Continued
Under Review--continued
Route 690 – Speed data collected, report documentation drafted, and in final review.
Route 631 at Belvedere Road – Traffic control signal analysis in review.
Rio Rd and John Warren Parkway – Study to investigate U-turn conflicts with right turns;
under review.
Route 1140 (Peter Jefferson Parkway) – Evaluation of pedestrian crossings under review.
Route 240 - Cross walk relocation at the Crozet Library.
Requested a Speed Study and Safety Review for Route 743, Advance Mills Road from the
intersection of Hydraulic Road to the intersection of Airport Road.
Maintenance Activities
On-going routine maintenance activities with specific emphasis on winter pavement deformations.
Preparations for first round mowing.
David Crim Virginia Department of Transportation
Charlottesville Residency Administrator 701 VDOT Way
Charlottesville, VA 22911
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
Review of County’s Priority List of Secondary Road
Improvements and the VDOT Six Year Secondary
Construction Program Budget
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Work session to review the County’s Priority List of
Secondary Road improvements
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Messrs. Foley, Elliot, Davis and Benish
LEGAL REVIEW: Yes
AGENDA DATE:
April 4, 2012
ACTION: INFORMATION: X
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS: Yes
REVIEWED BY:
BACKGROUND:
The County’s Priority List of Secondary Road Improvements establishes the priorities for road improvements in the State’s
Secondary Road system (roads with a route number of 600 or higher). The Virginia Department of Trans portation (VDOT)
Six Year Secondary Construction Program is based on the County’s Priority List and reflects available state road funding
allocated to the County. The County’s Priority List and the VDOT Six Year Construction Program and budget are typically
reviewed annually. Based on the direction provided by the Board regarding projects to be funded, VDOT will draft a
revised Six Year Construction Program.
DISCUSSION:
Attachment A is the priority list of secondary road improvements adopted by the Board in May, 2011. Staff will revise
the list for public hearing based on input received from the Board.
Available Funding – VDOT has provided the following projected funding allocations for Albemarle County:
FISCAL YEAR REG. STATE
FUNDS AVAILABLE
MIN. UNPAVED
ROAD FUNDS FEDERAL FUNDS TOTAL FUNDS
2012-13 $318,031 $0 $0 $318,031
2013-14 $350,034 $0 $0 $350,034
2014-15 $350,034 $0 $0 $350,034
2015-16 $350,034 $0 $0 $350,034
2016-17 $350,034 $0 $0 $350,034
2017-18 $350,034 $0 $0 $350,034
The projected funds for FY12-13 through FY16-17 are allocated to the Black Cat Road bridge project and Bear Creek
Road and Pocket Lane Rural Rustic Road paving projects in the current VDOT Six Year Secondary Construction
Program (approved last year). One other Rural Rustic Road paving project, Happy Creek Road, was programmed for
funding in FY14-15 and FY15-16 in the approved Six Year Road Construction Program; however, VDOT was able to
fully fund the construction of this project in FY11-12 because of its lower construction cost and the availability of
Revenue Sharing Funds.
FY 17-18 is the “new” sixth year of the Six Year Construction Program and the FY 17-18 funds may be needed to
complete funding for the Bear Creek Road and Pocket Lane paving projects. Because the total cost for Rural Rustic
Road paving projects in general have been lower than previously estimated in the Six Year Secondary Construction
Program, funds may also be available for an additional project(s).
Due to the limited amount of State funding over the next six years, major construction projects identified on the
Strategic Priorities list (page 1 of Attachment A) do not appear to be viable projects to include in the VDOT Six Year
Construction Program at this time.
AGENDA TITLE: Review of County’s Priority List of Secondary Road Improvements and the VDOT Six Year
Secondary Construction Program Budget
April 4, 2012
Page 2
Public Requests – Staff has received no new requests for road construction improvements (road paving, widening,
“spot” improvement, etc.). Most of the comments and requests received over the year have been for roads already
listed on the County’s Priority List of Road Improvements, or were associated with primary roads.
Staff has received several public requests for pedestrian/sidewalk and bike related improvements. Secondary road
funds can be used to fund pedestrian and sidewalk improvements. The requested improvements on secondary roads
that are not already programmed for funding in the County’s CIP or the VDOT Six Year Secondary Program are:
Crosswalks at Rio Road/Pen Park Road intersection and sidewalk along Pen Park Road
Sidewalk, crosswalk and streetlight improvements on Old Ivy Road (to connect to Ivy Road)
New sidewalk on Old Lynchburg Road from Fifth Street (bus stop) to Region Ten Offices/nearby residential
areas
New bike lanes on South Pantops Boulevard, State Farm Boulevard, and Riverbend Drive.
While all of these projects have been identified in the County’s CIP as future projects, none are programmed for
funding. The above noted projects, particularly the crosswalks and sidewalk on Rio Road/Pen Park Lane should be
considered as possible projects for funding with secondary road funds. The Rio Road project would improve
pedestrian access and safety in a rapidly developing area of the County that includes a park, two schools and three
recently approved developments, including the Treesdale affordable housing project.
Blenheim Road Paving Proposal – The County has received a proposal from a property owner on Blenheim Road,
Mr. Tom Sullivan, to pave the remaining one-quarter mile section of Blenheim Road (Rt. 795). Mr. Sullivan is
proposing to fund the cost of the paving project. Mr. Sullivan has also agreed with CenturyLink to subsidize the
installation of a fiber based broadband network in this area. Installation of fiber optic lines could be done in
conjunction with the paving project. The road paving project could be done as a VDOT permit project by an individual;
however, VDOT will not issue a permit for this paving project until the Board of Supervisors requests VDOT to approve
the paving project. The project can be paved under the Rural Rustic Road standards. Staff is utilizing the Six Year
Road Plan review work session and public hearing process for the Board to consider and act on this request. Further
information regarding this request is provided in Attachment B.
Road Paving Projects – Because of changes over time in interpreting project eligibility for paving roads under the
Rural Rustic Road Program standards/guidelines, staff requested that VDOT reevaluate the top six projects on the
Regular Road Paving Projects List (Attachment A, Page B2) to determine if any of these projects are now eligible for
Rural Rustic Road paving. VDOT has determined that Doctors Crossing (Rt. 784), Midway Road (Rt. 688), Keswick
Drive (Rt.731), and Gillums Ridge Rd. (Rt. 787) are now eligible for Rural Rustic Road paving, and that Rio Mills Road
(Rt. 643) and Burch’s Creek (Rt. 689) remain not eligible for Rural Rustic Road paving.
All of the above referenced roads have the highest traffic volumes of any unpaved roads on the two Paving Projects
Lists. Should the Board wish to continue funding road paving projects in the Six Year Secondary Road Construction
Plan, staff would recommend that future projects come from this group of projects. Doctor's Crossing is the highest
priority project on the County Priority List. Staff requests that the Board provide County and VDOT staff further
direction regarding its expectations for the funding of unpaved road projects.
BUDGET IMPACT:
The Six Year Secondary Road process establishes the County’s priorities for the expenditure of State/VDOT
secondary road construction funds and does not impact County funding.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff requests that the Board: 1) provide comments on the County’s Priority List for Secondary Road Improvements
(Attachment A) and VDOT Six Year Secondary Construction Program (Attachment B) and 2) schedule a public
hearing on the County Priority List and VDOT Six Year Secondary Construction Program on May 9, 2012.
ATTACHMENTS
A – Albemarle County Priority List for Secondary Road Improvements
B – VDOT Six Year Secondary Construction Program (FY11-12 to FY16-17)
C – Staff Summary: Blenheim Road Paving Request
D – Letter from Mr. Thomas Sullivan, Re: Fiber and Road Improvement (with attached petition)
E – Letter from Peter T. Kleeman, Re: Proposed Paving of Blenheim Road (with attached petition)
Return to agenda
STRATEGIC PRIORITIES FOR ALBEMARLE COUNTY PRIORITY LIST FOR SECONDARY ROAD IMPROVEMENTS
Adopted May 11, 2011
Strategic Priorities (Projects 1-23)
VDOT's
Secondary
Program
County's
Proposed
Ranking
Route Number and Name Location From - To
Estimated
Advertisement
Date
Estimated Cost Description/Comments
Justification for
project/Source of
Request
Year Project
was placed on
Priority List
Most Current Traffic
County and year of
Count
Y 0 County wide County wide N/A varies County services/improvements: signs,pipe,plant mix projects,
raised median, crosswalks, restripe, lighting, etc
safety, maintain
function/staff, public req.
Y 0 County wide Traffic mgmt. Program N/A varies Designated for traffic calming projects through out the County
that meet requirements and sidewalk improvements.
Safety/Public Request,
studies-plans
Y 1 Meadow Creek Pkwy Melbourne Rd to Rio
Rd
under constr.$32,587,196 Two lane design approved by County and Comm. Transport. Bd.,
includes bridge over CSX RR
Capacity/ CHART 20,000-2006
Y 2 691 Jarmans Gap Road Rt 240 to Gray Rock Construction--
Spring 2011
$13,555,315 Curb &Gutter, sidewalk/crosswalk/bikelanes, turn lane
improvements
Capacity,safety/Land Use
Plan
2,700-2006 anticpates 4,500 in
future)
Y 3 656 Georgetown Road Rt 654 to Rt 743 Construction--
Spring 2011
$2,756,882 Curb &Gutter, sidewalk/crosswalk, improvements to certain turn
lanes
Capacity,safety/G'town Rd
Plan, Public
17,000-2007
Y (Urban
Program)
4 Hillsdale Drive Greenbrier Dr. to
Seminole Sq.
under design by
City/VDOT
$9,800,000 Connector Rd from Greenbrier Dr to Hydraulic Rd; constr. w/
urban system funds; $15.5 M. in donated ROW expected
Places29 Master Plan;
UnJAM 2035
N/A
5 Berkmar Dr Ext. &
Bridge
End of Berkmar Dr to
HTC
38,000,000 New parallel road in Rt. 29 Corridor; Bridge location design first
phase; ROW cost variable w/ development approvals
Places29 Master Plan;
UnJAM 2035
2006 23,500
6 649 Proffit Road Rt 29 to 1.6 miles east $10,000,000 improve alignment, urban x-section with bikelanes/sidewalk and
multi-use path
Capacity, safety/Land Use
Plan
6,800-2007
7 781 Sunset Avenue Fontaine/Sunset
Connector
Improvements to Sunset Ave. and Fontaine/Sunset Ave.
Connector
Area B Study,Capacity/ LU
Plan
2007 4,600-2006
8 631 Old Lynchburg Rd 1.35 MI. S. I-64 to Rt
708
Spot improvements at various locations to serve development in
Southern DA/County
Capacity/Land Use Plan 2,300-2007
Y 9 Bridge Improvement
Projects
Various locations (See
Att. A)
Improve/replace low sufficiency rated bridges based on County
and VDOT priority
varies
10 726 James River Road Rt 795 to Rt 1302 Spot improvement to improve sight distance Safety/Scottsville 1,900-2006
11 601 Old Ivy Road Ivy Rd to 250/29 Byp Widen, improve alignment , coordinate with UVA Gateway
project
Capacity/Land Use Plan 6,900-2007
12 Southern Parkway Avon St to Fifth St Extend to 5th St., with pedestrian/bike facility, and Neighborhood
street design/speed
Capacity/Southern City
Study
15,000-2004
13 795 Blenheim Road Intersection of Rt 790 Intersection improvement. Safety/Scottsville Request 670-2007
14 Eastern Avenue Rt 240 to Rt 250 Interconnect future neighborhood streets, includes RR
underpass and bridge over Lickinghole Crk
Capacity/Crozet Master
Plan
4,100-2003
Bold-- Projects in Development Area
Italics -- New Projects Page 1
STRATEGIC PRIORITIES FOR ALBEMARLE COUNTY PRIORITY LIST FOR SECONDARY ROAD IMPROVEMENTS
Adopted May 11, 2011
VDOT's
Secondary
Program
County's
Proposed
Ranking
Route Number and Name Location From - To
Estimated
Advertisement
Date
Estimated Cost Description/Comments
Justification for
project/Source of
Request
Year Project
was placed on
Priority List
Most Current Traffic
County and year of
Count
15 631 Rio Road Rio Rd @ Pen Park Ln Improve substandard intersection (may be funded in part with
City/private developer funds)
Safety/City 26,000-2007
16 643 Polo Grounds Road Rt 29 to Rt 649 Improvement alignment, spot improvements. Safety/Public Request 1,300-2006
17 Main Street Crozet Ave to Eastern
Ave
New road as recommended in the Crozet Master Plan, to be built
with development of site
Capacity/Crozet Master
Plan
2003 3,600-2003*
18 743 Hydraulic Road Intersection with Rt 29
(29H250)
Improvements recommended from 29H250 Phase 2 Study Capacity,safety/29H250
Study
2003 18,000-2007
19 866 Greenbrier Drive Intersection with Rt 29
(29H250)
Improvements recommended from 29H250 Phase 2 Study Capacity,safety/29H250
Study
2003 8,200-2006
20 Eastern Connector Rt 250 to Rt 29 Initial study of new road concept completed. Further study of
alignment on hold
Capacity/CHART 2006
21 702 Reservoir Road Fontaine Ave. Ext to
Dead end
Paving and spot improvements, to be done as part of the
reservoir reconstruction project
Safety/Public Request 2003 2,000-2006
22 Dickerson Road N. of Rt 805 to just S.
of Rt 1030
Paving of unpaved road segments--no state unpaved road funds
available for the foreseeable future
UnJam 2030; DA location;
Rt 29 alternate route
2008 200- 2003
Y 23 Brocks Mill Road, Rural
Addition
Rural addition projects to be funded upt the available $250 ,000
in VDOT Six Year Secondary Road Construction Program
Public Request 2011 N/A
Bold-- Projects in Development Area
Italics -- New Projects Page 2
DRAFT ALBEMARLE COUNTY PRIORITY LIST FOR SECONDARY ROAD IMPROVEMENTS FOR BRIDGE IMPROVEMENTS
Adopted May 11, 2011
[Some projects may not be completed as prioritized due to project complexity and/or available funding]
Bridge Priorities - In Priority Order
VDOT's
Secondary
Plan
Route Number, Road Name Location From-To Sufficiency
Rating**
Traffic
Count Description/Comments Estimated cost/funding source
Y Route 708, Dry Bridge Road Buckingham Branch Railroad 26 950 suff rating, high traffic count -- Advertisement Date
(EAD) Oct. 2012
$2,736,912 / federal bridge funds
Y Route 616, Black Cat Road Buckingham Branch 54.4 780 suff rating, high traffic count -- EAD Mar. 2014 federal bridge funds
Y Route 677, Broomley Road Buckingham Branch 42.2 730 suff rating, high traffic count -- EAD Dec. 2014 $4,499,373 / federal bridge and
secondary funds
Y Route 637, Dick Woods Road Ivy Creek 36.1 1100 suff rating, high traffic count -- EAD Dec. 2014
Route 795, Presidents Road Hardware River 19.4 147 low sufficiency rating
Route 745, Wheeler Road Norfolk Southern Railroad 20.9 87 RR to reconstruct bridge in 2012 & dedicate to
State/VDOT (low sufficiency rating)
Route 641, Frays Mills Road Marsh Run 49.6 391 low sufficiency rating
Route 649, Proffit Road Norfolk Southern Railroad 35.2 5094 upgraded in Summer 2007, has high traffic count
Y Route 606, Dickerson Road Jacobs Run 480 low suff. Rating; in Devel. Area; parallel road to Rt.
29
Y Route 606, Dickerson Road North Fortk of Rivanna River 480 low suff. Rating; in Devel. Area; parallel road to Rt.
29
* Programmed into future allocations of federal bridge funds in Culpeper District.
**Sufficiency Rating is utilitzed by VDOT to rate bridge structure.A
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PRIORITY LIST FOR SECONDARY ROAD IMPROVEMENTS FOR PAVING PROJECTS
Adopted May 11, 2011
[Some projects may not be completed as prioritized due to project complexity and/or available funding]
POTENTIAL ROAD PAVING PROJECTS
RURAL RUSTIC ROAD PAVING PROJECTS IN PRIORITY ORDER (HIGH TO LOW)
VDOT makes the determination on whether a road is eligible for RRR paving. All projects are placed on the regular paving list until the determination is made by VDOT.
Route Number, Road
Name,County Priority Location From - To Funding Status Estimated Cost
Regular/RRR
Most Current
Traffic County and
Year of Count
Description/Comments
Year Project
placed on
Priority List
Estimated
Advertisement
Date
762 Rose Hill Church Ln Rt 732 to Dead End Not Funded $292,444 120-2006 Public request. At current ranking due to traffic count.2012
704 Fortune Lane Rt 715 to Dead End Not Funded $561,676 140-2009 Public request. At current ranking due to traffic count.2012
672 Blufton Road Rt 810 to Dead end Not Funded $562,402 170-2009 School Request in 2007 2003 2012
608 Happy Creek Road Route 645 to Route 646 Not Funded $442,700 100-2009 Public request. At current ranking due to traffic count.2012
774 Bear Creek Road NCL to dead end Not Funded 80-2006 Public request. At current ranking due to traffic count.no date
703 Pocket Lane Rt 715 to Dead end Not Funded 110-2006 Public request. At current ranking due to traffic count.2005 no date
637 Dick Woods Road Rt 691 to Rt 758 Not Funded $754,377 110-2006 Public request. At current ranking due to traffic count.2005 no date
747 Preddy Creek Road Rt 600 to Rt 640 Not Funded 110-2006 School request. At current ranking due to traffic count.no date
600 Stony Point Pass 2.5 miles east to Rt. 231 Not Funded 80-2006 Public request. At current ranking due to traffic count.no date
769 Beam Road Rt 1484 to dead end Not Funded 60-2006 Public request. At current ranking due to traffic count.no date
629/624 Browns Gap
TP/Headqrters Ln
Rt 810 to end of Rt 624 Not Funded 90/50-2006 Public request. ranking due to traffic count/new project
2010.
2010 no date
Italics -- new projects
Staff and VDOT will further evaluate the cost closer to construction, which may decrease or increase. B1
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PRIORITY LIST FOR SECONDARY ROAD IMPROVEMENTS FOR PAVING PROJECTS
Adopted May 11, 2011
[Some projects may not be completed as prioritized due to project complexity and/or available funding]
POTENTIAL ROAD PAVING PROJECTS
REGULAR PAVING PROJECTS IN PRIORITY ORDER (HIGH TO LOW)
VDOT makes the determination on whether a road is eligible for RRR paving. All projects are placed on the regular paving list until the determination is made by VDOT.
Route Number, Road
Name,County Priority Location From - To Funding Status Estimated Cost
Regular/RRR
Most Current
Traffic County and
Year of Count
Description/Comments
Year Project
placed on
Priority List
Estimated
Advertisement
Date
643 Rio Mills Road Rt 29 to Rt 743 Not Funded $3,218,665 650-2003 Staff request. At current ranking due to traffic count. 2003 Dec-15
784 Doctors Crossing Rt 600 to Rt 640 Not Funded $1,842,855 260-2006 School Request in 2007, public request as well Aug-11
688 Midway Road Rt 635 to Rt 824 Not Funded $213,513 300-2006 Public request. At current ranking due to traffic count.no date
689 Burch's Creek Rd Rt 250 to Rt 635 Not Funded 140-2006 Public request. At current ranking due to traffic count.
(previously Pounding Creek Rd)
no date
731 Keswick Drive Rt 744 to Rt 22 Not Funded 310-2006 Public request. At current ranking due to traffic count.2005 no date
no date
671 Wesley Chapel Rd Rt 609 to Rt 674 Not Funded 820-2006 School transportation request 2007 no date
685 Bunker Hill Road Rt 616 to Dead end Not Funded 310-2003 Public request. No longer qualifies for RRR due to align-
ment and utility problems, will have to be reg. paving project.
784 Doctors Crossing Rt 600 to Dead End Not Funded 260-2006 Public request. At current ranking due to traffic count.2004 no date
720 Harris Creek Road Rt 20 to dead end Not Funded 250-2006 Public request 2007 no date
736 White Mtn Road Rt 636 to dead end Not Funded (sect.
btwn Rt 635 & 636
doesn't meet VDOT
requirements)
230-2006 Public request. At current ranking due to traffic count.no date
731 Keswick Road .60 ME Rt 744 to Rt 744 Not Funded (short
road seg. btwn P.O &
K.C.C.-may be eligible
for RRR)
230-2003 Public request. ranking due to traffic count. Possible
RRR
2004 no date
683 Shelton Mill Road Rt 751 to dead end Not Funded 230-2006 Public request. At current ranking due to traffic count.2007 no date
712 North Garden Lane Rt 692 to Rt 29 Not Funded 220-2006 Public request. At current ranking due to traffic count.no date
712 Coles Crossing Rd Rt 713 to Rt 795 Not Funded 220-2006 Public request. At current ranking due to traffic count.no date
Staff and VDOT will further evaluate the cost closer to construction, which may decrease or increase. B2
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PRIORITY LIST FOR SECONDARY ROAD IMPROVEMENTS FOR PAVING PROJECTS
Adopted May 11, 2011
[Some projects may not be completed as prioritized due to project complexity and/or available funding]
POTENTIAL ROAD PAVING PROJECTS
REGULAR PAVING PROJECTS IN PRIORITY ORDER (HIGH TO LOW)
VDOT makes the determination on whether a road is eligible for RRR paving. All projects are placed on the regular paving list until the determination is made by VDOT.
Route Number, Road
Name,County Priority Location From - To Funding Status Estimated Cost
Regular/RRR
Most Current
Traffic County and
Year of Count
Description/Comments
Year Project
placed on
Priority List
Estimated
Advertisement
Date
712 North Garden Lane Rt 29 to Rt 760 Not Funded 220-2006 This project will be paved as part Rt. 712 -btwn Rt. 713
to Rt. 795
no date
671 Wesley Chapel Rd Rt 609 to Rt 749 Not Funded 100-2006 School transportation request 2007 no date
829 Horseshoe Bend Rd Rt 601 to Dead End Not Funded 210-2006 Public request. At current ranking due to traffic count.2004 no date
645 Magnolia Rd Rt 608 to Orange CL Not Funded 190-2006 Public request. At current ranking due to traffic count.no date
637 Dick Woods Rd Rt 691 to Rt 635 Not Funded 180-2006 Public request. At current ranking due to traffic count.2006 no date
674 Sugar Ridge Road Rt 614 to Rt 673 Not Funded 180-2006 Public request. At current ranking due to traffic count.no date
761 Briery creek Road Rt 622 to County Line Not Funded 160-2006 Public request. At current ranking due to traffic count.2005 no date
682 Broad Axe Road Rt 637 to to current paved
sections
Not Funded 160-2006 Public request. At current ranking due to traffic count.no date
678 Decca Lane Rt 676 to Rt 614 Not Funded 160-2006 Public request. At current ranking due to traffic count.no date
640 Gilbert Station Road Ashleigh Way Dr to paved
section
Not Funded $1,500,000 120-2006 Public request. At current ranking due to traffic count.no date
856 Burton Lane Rt. 711 to dead end Not Funded 120-2006 Public request. At current ranking due to traffic count.2007 no date
687 Shifflett Mill Road Rt.601 to Rt 810 Not Funded 45-2006 School Department Request 2007 no date
668 Fox Mountain Trail Rt 601 to Rt 810 Not Funded 30-2006 School Department Request 2007 no date
605 Durrett Ridge Road Rt 743 to Swift Run
(including bridge)
Not Funded 140-2006 Public request. At current ranking due to traffic count.no date
723 Sharon Road Route 6 to Route 626 Not Funded 130-2006 Public request. At current ranking due to traffic count.no date
Staff and VDOT will further evaluate the cost closer to construction, which may decrease or increase. B3
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PRIORITY LIST FOR SECONDARY ROAD IMPROVEMENTS FOR PAVING PROJECTS
Adopted May 11, 2011
[Some projects may not be completed as prioritized due to project complexity and/or available funding]
POTENTIAL ROAD PAVING PROJECTS
REGULAR PAVING PROJECTS IN PRIORITY ORDER (HIGH TO LOW)
VDOT makes the determination on whether a road is eligible for RRR paving. All projects are placed on the regular paving list until the determination is made by VDOT.
Route Number, Road
Name,County Priority Location From - To Funding Status Estimated Cost
Regular/RRR
Most Current
Traffic County and
Year of Count
Description/Comments
Year Project
placed on
Priority List
Estimated
Advertisement
Date
633 Cove Garden Rt 29 to Rt 712 Not Funded 130-2006 Public request. At current ranking due to traffic count.2004 no date
707 Blair Park Road Rt 691 to Dead end Not Funded 130-2006 Public request. At current ranking due to traffic count.no date
698 Hungrytown Road Rt 633 to DE Not Funded 90-2006 School transportation request 2006 no date
813 Starlight Road Rt 712 to Dead End Not Funded 80-2006 Public request. At current ranking due to traffic count.2004 no date
600 Stony Point Pass 2.5 miles west to Rt 20 Not Funded 80-2006 Public request. At current ranking due to traffic count.no date
634 Spring Valley Road Rt 633 to Rt 635 Not Funded 80-2006 Public request. At current ranking due to traffic count.2007 no date
637 Dick Woods Road Rt 151 to Nelson CL Not Funded 70-2006 Public request. At current ranking due to traffic count.2007 no date
721 Old Dominion Rd Rt 6 to Rt 630 Not Funded 70-2006 Public request. At current ranking due to traffic count.2006 no date
776 Buck Mtn Ford Lane Rt 667 to Rt 664 Not Funded 20-2006 Public request. At current ranking due to traffic count.2004 no date
Staff and VDOT will further evaluate the cost closer to construction, which may decrease or increase. B4
ATTACHMENT C
Blenheim Road Paving Proposal – Summary Information
Proposal:
The County has received a proposal from a property owner on Blenheim Road, Mr. Tom Sullivan, to pave the
remaining one-quarter mile section of Blenheim Road (Rt. 795) located just north of the intersection of Glendower
Road and Blenheim. This section of road is located approximately 3 miles north of the Scottsville Town limit and is
in the Scottsville Magisterial District.
The road would be paved to Rural Rustic Road (RRR) standards. VDOT has verified that this project would
qualify for RRR paving.
The proposed improvements can be completed within the existing right of way or prescriptive easement.
No additional right of way or drainage easements are needed on adjacent properties in order to complete
the project.
Mr. Sullivan is proposing to fund the cost of the paving project.
Current Road conditions:
The Annual Average Daily traffic count for section of Blenheim Road, From Glendower Road to Secretary’s
Road is 160 trips (2006 VDOT count).
This section of the road is flat and is relatively wide when compared with many other sections of unpaved
roads in the County.
Some rutting is occurring along the unpaved road section. As with as with many unpaved roads, dust is
likely a problem during long dry weather periods.
History:
In 2003, approximately 3.5 miles of Blenheim Road was paved from the current unpaved section north to
Secretary’s Road.
This section of the road was not paved due the inability to obtain the 50 foot right of way required at that
time for the paving project.
Some residents did express opposition to the paving the original paving project and paving this gravel
section of the road.
On June 1, 2005, VDOT staff provided a status report to the Board on Blenh eim Road paving project,
noting that Mr. Sullivan was requesting to pave the r quarter-mile section of unpaved road. VDOT staff
indicated a resolution from the Board supporting this project would be needed before VDOT would
permit the project. The consensus of Board was to not approve the paving of this section of the road due
public opposition to the proposal.
Review Process for this Request:
VDOT is requesting Board of Supervisor approval of this project before permitting this work to take place. The
Board’s consideration and action on this request is being incorporated in the Board’s annual review and approval
of the County’s Priority List of Secondary Road Improvements and VDOT Six Year Secondary Road Construction
Program. The Board could approve the project by adding the project to the adopted County Priority List of
Secondary Road Improvements. The public hearing process for this annual review will provide an opportunity for
individuals to comment on proposed project.
Mr. Sullivan was asked to provide the following information to VDOT and County staff (Attachment D):
Verification from a register Civil Engineer that:
-Roadway geometrics post-paving are generally adequate for the proposed traffic and that any increase in
speeds expected after the improvement can be safely accommodated;
-Roadway drainage system, post construction, will accommodate run-off created by the improvements;
-Daily traffic volume will not exceed 1500 vehicles per day after paving is complete
-All improvements can be completed within existing right of way or prescriptive easement
Status: information was submitted and VDOT has verified the adequacy of the road’s drainage system.
Status: This information has been submitted, reviewed and verified by VDOT.
A petition signed by all adjoining property owners located between Jefferson Mill Road and 6903
Blenheim Road supporting the paving of this section of road .
Status: A petition supporting the project has been submitted. It does not appear that all property owners along
this section of the road have signed the petition supporting the project. It appears that 15 residents along this
section of road have not signed the petition. A separate petition in opposition of the project has been submitted
Peter Kleeman, on behalf of Laura Dollard. Ms. Dollard lives along the unpaved section of road and opposes the
paving project (Attachment E).
Certification the all approved and necessary improvements will be completed at no cost to the County .
Status: Mr. Sullivan has stated in his response letter that “Murcielago LLC will subsidize the entire cost of the road
improvement in the event it receives a permit.”
The Project’s Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan:
From a policy standpoint, the Comprehensive Plan does not state that roads in the Rural Areas should not be
paved. The Plan’s principles and recommendations attempt to strike a balance between providing for public safety
while supporting the County’s growth management policies and minimizing the impacts of road projects to
natural, scenic and historic resources (from a resource allocation perspective, priority is given to unpaved roads in
the Development Area). Ideally, a road improvement that improves public safety minimizes clearing/construction
activities and maintains the existing rural character of the road would be consistent with Comp rehensive Plan’s
vision for the road improvements in the Rural Area. This proposed project would use Rural Rustic Road design
standards which would minimize the land disturbing activities. The road section would be paved in places.
Staff has provided the following assessment of the favorable and unfavorable factors of this paving project.
Factors Favorable:
According to VDOT, paving would reduce cost of maintenance;
Provides a safer road surface for vehicular travel (if speed limits are observed);
Would greatly reduce/eliminate dust issues.
Factors unfavorable:
Opposition to the project from two property owners adjacent the unpaved section of the road;
The historic rural character of the area would be negatively impacted to some extent by the elimination of
the gravel road surface;
Speeds may increase along this section of the road.
Next Steps:
Receive public comments on this request at the public hearing on the County’s Priority Lis t of Secondary Road
Improvements and VDOT Six Year Secondary Road Construction Program.
MEMBER
TERM
EXPIRES
NEW TERM
EXPIRES
WISH TO BE
RE-APPOINTED?
DISTRICT IF
MAGISTERIAL
APPOINTMENT
Agricultural & Forestal District Advisory Council Steve Murray 4/17/2012 4/17/2016 No Advertised, No applications recv'd
Local Board of Building Code Appeals Raymond Gaines 11/21/2011 11/21/2016 No Advertised, No applications recv'd
Crozet Community Advisory Council Charles Mitchell 3/31/2013 Resigned Advertised, 1 application recv'd
Crozet Community Advisory Council Tim Tolson 3/31/2012 3/31/2014 Ineligible
Crozet Community Advisory Council William (Bill) Schrader 3/31/2012 3/31/2014 See Resolution from CCAC
Crozet Community Advisory Council Nancy Virginia Bain 3/31/2012 3/31/2014 See Resolution from CCAC
Crozet Community Advisory Council Jessica Mauzy 3/31/2012 3/31/2014 Ineligible
Crozet Community Advisory Council Jon Mikalson 3/31/2012 3/31/2014 Ineligible
Following application received:
Kim Guenther
Community Policy and Management Team Vacant, Parent Rep.Three year term Vacant Advertised, No applications recv'd
Following application received:
Susan Bressack
Fiscal Impact Advisory Committee Don Franco 12/31/2013 Planning Commission member
Fire Prevention Board of Appeals Raymond Gaines 11/21/2011 11/21/2016 No Advertised, No applications recv'd
Fire Prevention Board of Appeals Christopher Dumler 11/21/2012 Resigned
Natural Heritage Committee John Foster 9/30/2011 9/30/2015 No Advertised, No applications recv'd
Natural Heritage Committee Diana Foster 9/30/2011 9/30/2015 No
Natural Heritage Committee Phil Stokes 9/30/2011 9/30/2015 No
Natural Heritage Committee Mike Erwin 9/30/2013 Resigned
Natural Heritage Committee Jim Byrom 9/30/2012 Resigned
Natural Heritage Committee Christopher Dumler 9/30/2013 Resigned
Places29 Community Advisory Council Joseph Barnes 1/31/2013 Resigned Advertised, No applications recv'd
Drew Lawrence 1/31/2013 Resigned
Planning Commission Tom Loach 12/31/2011 12/31/2015 No, (White Hall)Advertised, 1 application recv'd
Following application received:
James Fulcher
PRFA Joseph Henley 12/13/2011 12/31/2014 No Advertised, 1 application recv'd
Following applications received:
Adam Hastings
Region Ten Community Services Board Christopher Dumler 6/30/2012 Resigned Advertised, 3 applications recv'd
Following applications received:for 1 vacancy; looking for individual
Deborah Baker w/experience in education or health
Thomas Cooke
Paul Newland
Rivanna Solid Waste Authority Cit. Adv. Comm.Jeffery Greer 12/31/2010 12/31/2012 Ineligible, Joint City/County Advertised, No applications recv'd
Social Services Board Claude Foster 12/31/2011 12/31/2015 No, (White Hall)Advertised, No applications recv'd
Villiage of Rivanna Lindsay Dorrier 12/31/2011 Ineligible Board representative
Revised 03/29/2012
1
Memorandum
To: Bryan Elliott, Assistant County Administrator
From: Lilian Peake, M.D., M.P.H., District Health Director
Date: 3/27/2012
Re: Community Water Fluoridation
Issue: Some concerned citizens have voiced concern to Albemarle County Board of
Supervisors members about the safety of fluoridating community water systems.
Response: Based on review of the current peer-reviewed literature, the Thomas
Jefferson Health District strongly recommends continuing fluoridation of our
community water systems.
For 65 years, community water fluoridation has been a safe and healthy way to
effectively prevent tooth decay.
Dental caries and tooth loss were among the most common causes for rejection of
young men from military service during the two World Wars. Starting with water
fluoridation in the mid-1940s, use of fluorides for preventing dental caries changed
the pattern of disease occurrence.
Despite gains in oral health associated with dental caries, disparities remain. Poverty,
lower income and education, and certain racial/ethnic groups are associated with
higher levels of dental caries among adults and children.
In the United States, an estimated 51 million school-hours are lost per year due to
dental-related illness.
Studies prove water fluoridation continues to be safe and effective in reducing dental
decay by 20-40%, even in an era with widespread availability of fluoride from other
sources, such as fluoride toothpaste.
March 27, 2012
2
Page 2
Since the 1940s, more than 3,000 studies and reports about water fluoridation have
been published. The clear weight of the evidence shows that community water
fluoridation is safe.
The National Academy of Sciences, including its National Research Council (NRC),
has studied the health effects of fluoride in drinking water on several occasions and
found it to be safe.
The Virginia Board of Health states that all public water systems in Virginia should
be optimally fluoridated, as this is the most effective public health measure to prevent
tooth decay.
Among many other organizations, the Virginia Dental Association and the American
Academy of Pediatrics support community water fluoridation.
Water that has been fortified with fluoride is similar to fortifying salt with iodine,
milk with vitamin D, and orange juice with vitamin C.
Studies have concluded fluoridation offers significant cost savings.
The average cost for a community to fluoridate its water is estimated to range from
$3.00 a year per person in small communities to $0.50 a year per person in large
communities.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has stated that for every dollar spent
on fluoridation, $38.00 (1999 dollars) on average is saved on treatment cost.
In all age groups, costs for dental care have been shown to be higher in non-
fluoridated communities.
The percentage of Medicaid eligible children who received one or more dental
procedures related to tooth decay have been shown to be higher in non-fluoridated
communities.
March 27, 2012
3
Page 3
References:
Bailey W, Duchon K, Barker L, Maas W. Populations receiving optimally fluoridated public
drinking water – United States, 1992–2006. MMWR 2008; 57(27):737–741.
July 18, 2008 Unanimous Virginia Board of Health Policy Statement on Community Water
Fluoridation.
Water Fluoridation and Costs of Medicaid Treatment for Dental Decay – Louisiana 1995-
1996 MMWR September 03, 1999 / 48(34); 753-7575.
Griffin SO, Gooch BF, Lockwood SA, Tomar SL. Quantifying the diffused benefit from
water fluoridation in the United States. Community Dent Oral Epidemiology 2001; 29:120–
129.
Griffin SO, Jones K, Tomar SL. An Economic Evaluation of Community Water Fluoridation.
J Publ Health Dent 2001; 61(2):78–86.
Griffin SO, Regnier E, Griffin PM Huntley J Dent Res. 2007 May; 86(5) 410-415
Effectiveness of
Fluoride in Preventing Caries in Adults.
Maupomé G, Gullion CM, Peters D, Little SJ. A comparison of dental treatment utilization
and costs by HMO members living in fluoridated and non-fluoridated areas Journal of Public
Health Dentistry Vol 67, Number 4 Fall 2007.
Kumar J. V. Is Water Fluoridation Still Necessary? Adv Dent Res 20:8-12, July 2008.
The Facts about Bottled Water for the Dental Patient JADA, Vol 134 September, 2003.
CONFIDENTIAL
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
Economic Vitality Action Plan Quarterly Report
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Report on status of Economic Vitality Action Plan for
second quarter (January – March, 2012) of the Plan’s
second year
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Messrs. Foley, Davis and Graham; and Ms. Catlin and
Ms. Stimart
LEGAL REVIEW: Yes
AGENDA DATE:
April 4, 2012
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 established a schedule for staff to provide quarterly reports to the Board on
staff’s progress and activities related to the Action Plan. Staff will present the second quarterly report of the Plan’s
second year of implementation at this meeting. This item is related to one of Albemarle County’s Strategic Action Plan
Strategic Plan 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:
This quarterly update outlines highlights from the last quarter along with key milestones to be achieved by the end of
Calendar Year 2012 in order to stay on track for completing all of the objectives, strategies and actions within the
Plan’s three-year timeframe. A complete report is attached and major items from that report are summarized below.
Objective 1 - Improve Business Climate and Image
Highlights of Progress on the Plan during the last quarter:
Continued engagement with state and local economic development partners.
2012 Milestones:
Communicate target industry information to economic development partners, continue website improvements and
quarterly roundtables, improve marketing materials.
Objective 2 - Simplify and Create Certainty - Continued regulatory reform
Highlights of Progress on the Plan during the last quarter:
Approved Board of Supervisors/Planning Commission process for handling special exceptions, adopted sign
ordinance revisions, introduced fast track concept to the Board, distributed Small Business Toolkit.
2012 Milestones:
Approve legislative and ministerial process improvements, establish regular drop-in opportunities for entrepreneurs to
meet with economic development staff to address their business growth questions , partner with Chamber of
Commerce on training.
Objective 3 - Support Quality Job Opportunities
Highlights of Progress on the Plan during the last quarter:
Completed 46 Albemarle Business First visitations, cosponsored local entrepreneurial workshop, reviewed initial
Target Industry Study results with the Board, continued workforce development support.
2012 Milestones:
Continue Albemarle Business first visitations, establish final target industries and develop marketing and
incentives/tool strategies for expanding and attracting targets, align workforce training and development with targets.
AGENDA TITLE: Economic Vitality Action Plan Quarterly Report
April 4, 2012
Page 2
Objective 4 - Expand Industrial Land Options
Highlights of Progress on the Plan during the last quarter:
Completed Planning Commission work sessions on industrial uses zoning text amendment and industrial
land/interstate interchange sections of the Comprehensive Plan update.
2012 Milestones:
Board approval of industrial uses zoning text amendment, staff continues to work on voluntary rezoning project,
complete Comp Plan update including industrial land to the Planning Commission by Fall 2012.
Objective 5 - Promote Rural Economy/Tourism
Highlights of Progress on the Plan during the last quarter:
Conducted farm winery food service roundtable, obtained Planning Commission direction on rural area uses for Comp
Plan update and adopted resolution of intent to study tourist lodging in the rural areas, consultant selected for CACVB
marketing plan, cosponsored training for Monticello Artisans Trail, Local Food Hub, and tourism ambassadors,
initiated work on USDA Specialty Crop Cider Production Grant.
2012 Milestones:
Increased training and marketing support for the Monticello Artisans Trail and the Monticello Wine Trail,
implementation of CACVB marketing plan, complete Comp Plan update including rural area uses to the Planning
Commission by Fall 2012.
Data reporting
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 proactively and effectively promote economic vitality. The most recent quarterly indicators report is
attached.
BUDGET IMPACT:
There is no budget impact.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
No action is required by the Board.
ATTACHMENTS
Economic Vitality Action Plan Update – April, 2012
Quarterly Economic Indicators – April, 2012
Return to agenda
1 | P a g e
Economic Vitality Action Plan Update – April, 2012 Attachment A
Objective 1 - Improve Business Climate and Image
Highlights from last quarter:
Strategies 1 & 2 - Expand communications and outreach, increase staff visibility
Virginia Economic Development Partnership (VEDP) – Continued partnership working with VEDP to
identify prospects for expansion and relocation
Virginia Economic Development Association (VEDA) – Continued active involvement with this group,
most recently participated in Economic Development Legislation Day at General Assembly
Virginia Department of Agriculture & Consumer Services (VDACS) – Continued active involvement
as a member of the Virginia Agricultural Development Officers (VADO) group, will be participating in
upcoming conference between MD and VA agricultural officers
Virginia Department of Business Assistance – Continued partnership in supporting local companies
with Virginia Jobs Investment Grant program
Thomas Jefferson Partnership for Economic Development (TJPED) – actively serving on Target
Industry Study Steering Committee
Strategy 3 – Improve interaction with the business community
Charlottesville Albemarle Chamber of Commerce – Continued active participation in Agribusiness
and Government and Economy Roundtables
Charlottesville Business Innovation Council (CBIC) – Continued engagement with this important local
group serving on the Board of Directors and actively supporting CBIC programs
Better Business Challenge – Continued involvement working with local businesses on energy
reduction strategies
2012 Milestones:
Strategies 1 & 2 - Expand communications and outreach, increase staff visibility
Communicate County’s targeted industries to state partners i.e. VEDP
Achieve statewide visibility via Virginia Business magazine and other industry publications
Strategy 3 - Improve interaction with the business community
Continue improvements to website including focus group with business partners
Develop general marketing material for County as a desirable business location
Continue quarterly roundtables with business community and staff
Provide regular update to Chamber Local Government and Economy roundtable
Objective 2 - Simplify and Create Certainty - Continued regulatory reform
Highlights from last quarter:
Strategy 1 – Amend development ordinances to reduce complexity
Joint Board of Supervisors/Planning Commission approval for process for handling special
exceptions following state court decision
Initial Board work session conducted on strategic fast track review process – additional details will
developed following the Board’s Target Industry Study discussion on April 11
Cosponsored Selling to the Government training for over 60 local small businesses
Board approved revisions to the sign ordinance which expected to reduce the amount of review time
currently required by ARB staff, permit staff, the Planning Commission, the Architectural Review
Board, the Board of Zoning Appeals and the Board of Supervisors
Strategy 2 – Assist small businesses in achieving compliance
Production and initial distribution of Small Business Toolkit
2012 Milestones:
Strategy 1 – Amend development ordinances to reduce complexity
Legislative and ministerial applications – recommendations to the Planning Commission on April 24,
to the Board by summer 2012
2 | P a g e
Strategy 2 – Assist small businesses in achieving compliance
Expand distribution of Small Business Toolkit
Establish regular “drop in” office hours for conversation with small businesses at COB and selected
satellite locations
Establish single point of contact for application processing
Conduct regular training cosponsored by the Chamber of Commerce – “Starting and Growing Your
Business in Albemarle County”
Objective 3 - Support Quality Job Opportunities
Highlights from last quarter:
Strategy 1 – support small business growth and development
Albemarle Business First – 46 business retention visits in FY 2012 to date compared to annual goal
of 75, visits have focused on workforce recruitment, grant resources, expansion options, funding
resources, and regulatory briefings
Cosponsored Virginia Business Incentives Workshop with the City which partnered high-tech and
bio-tech entrepreneurs with investors to learn about current incentives and proposed legislation
affecting these industries
Strategy 2 – Promote targeted jobs and investment
Target Industry Study – shared overview of preliminary study results with the Board in February
Strategy 3 – Connect residents with opportunities
Continued involvement as Board member for Piedmont Workforce Network and Small Business
Development Center (SBDC)
Provided support for PVCC Job Fair and Charlottesville-Albemarle Job Fair
Assisting with “Workforce has Talent” Job Fair at VA Workforce Center-Charlottesville - each job
seeker for the event has been pre-screened and prepared and applicants have completed the
Career Readiness Certificate (CRC), which is an assessment-based credential that measures key
workplace skills
2012 Milestones
Strategy 1 – support small business growth and development
Expand distribution of Small Business Toolkit
Establish regular “drop in” office hours for conversation with small businesses at COB and selected
satellite locations
Conduct regular training cosponsored by the Chamber of Commerce – “Starting and Growing Your
Business in Albemarle County”
Continue Albemarle Business First outreach
Strategy 2 – Promote targeted jobs and investment
Regional rollout and Board work session on Target Industry Study – April 11
Support for existing entrepreneurs in identified clusters
o Special section on website for clusters
o Special publication highlighting each cluster
Work with TJPED on regional marketing approach for new targets
Work with Charlottesville and UVA on subregional marketing approach for new targets
Identify incentives and tools to retain, grow and attract target industries as specified in the County’s
FY 13 – 17 Strategic Plan
o Finalize fast track process
Peer community research to help assess target industry retention and attraction strategies
Strategy 3 – Connect residents with opportunities
Work with workforce partners to align training with targeted industries including the County School
Division as specified in the County’s FY 13 – 17 Strategic Plan – PVCC has been involved in target
industry study, CATEC is represented on strategic plan team
Continue supporting ongoing School Division partnerships – VA Bio student chapter; new Health and
Science Academy at Monticello High School; Math, Engineering and Science Academy (MESA) at
Albemarle High School
3 | P a g e
Objective 4 - Expand Industrial Land Options
Highlights from last quarter:
Strategy 1 – Amendments to Zoning Ordinance
Completed first Planning Commission work session on Industrial Uses zoning text amendment
Strategy 2 – Options for Increasing Industrial Inventory
Conducted joint Board/PC work session on Comp Plan update schedule
Completed work session with Planning Commission on industrial uses and interstate interchange
sections of the Comp Plan update on March 22
2012 Milestones
Strategy 1 – Amendments to Zoning Ordinance
Industrial Uses zoning text amendment to Board by summer 2012
Strategy 2 – Options for Increasing Industrial Inventory
Board work session on the Comp Plan update work to date scheduled for April 11 including industrial
land and interstate interchanges
Countywide voluntary rezoning to follow completion of industrial districts zoning text amendment
work
Objective 5 - Promote Rural Economy/Tourism
Highlights from last quarter:
Strategy 1 – Assess current programs and investments in agriculture and tourism
Conducted farm winery roundtable with winery owners, county staff, Health Department and
Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services to explore current regulatory environment and
possibilities regarding winery food service
Strategy 2 – Refine goals and objectives
Planning Commission provided direction on rural area section of Comp Plan update
Consultant has been selected to develop CACVB marketing plan
Planning Commission adopted Resolution of Intent to study tourist lodging (bed and breakfasts)in the
rural area
Strategy 3 – Identify targets for more aggressive promotion
Research underway for USDA Specialty Crop Cider Production Grant
Provided advertising support for annual Buy Fresh Buy Local publication
Cosponsored CACVB-City-County-PVCC Customer Service Training (120 participants) for tourism
front line ambassadors
Cosponsored Monticello Artisan Trail Website Training to provide instruction in setting up web pages
and continued promotional support for the trail
Cosponsored Local Food Hub partnership course on Small Farm Financing and provided marketing
partnership for truck advertising
2012 Milestones
Strategy 2 – Refine goals and objectives
Board work session on the Comp Plan update work to date scheduled for April 11 including rural
area uses
Strategy 3 – Identify targets for more aggressive promotion
Continued focus on Monticello Artisans Trail during upcoming Stay Local Play Local summer
campaign including additional website training
Increased training and marketing support for the Monticello Wine Trail
Planning local agribusiness conference in partnership with Chamber of Commerce
Implementation of CACVB strategic marketing plan
Completion of USDA Specialty Crop Cider Production Grant work
Return to exec summary
Albemarle County Economic Vitality Indicators -- Quarterly Data
March 19, 2012
Same Qtr. Same Qtr. Same Qtr.
Time Period
Beginning
Ending
2010-11
of 2007 of 2008 of 2009
Comparison
Quarter
Quarter
Change
Tax Revenue
* Sales Tax 3,474,313 3,276,257 3,049,262 Q4 CY 10 & Q4 CY 11 3,245,290 3,060,356 - 5.7%
Food & Beverage Tax 1,417,973 1,310,669 1,365,553
Q4 CY 10 & Q4 CY 11
1,151,217
1,477,819
+ 28.4%
Transient Occupancy Tax 149,498 197,042 233,497 Q4 CY 10 & Q4 CY 11 302,302 249,910 - 17.3%
Jobs & Income
* Unemployment Rate 2.2% 3.4% 4.9% Q4 CY 10 & Q4 CY 11 5.0% 4.5% - 0.5pp
* Total Number of Jobs 50,431 49,826 48,205
Q3 CY 10 & Q3 CY 11
48,354
49,135
+ 1.6%
Weighted Avg. Weekly
Wage Q3 CY 10 & Q3 CY 11 $887 $941 + 6.1%
Workforce Center Clients
Q3 CY 10 & Q3 CY 11
1,627
1,600
- 1.7%
General Business Activity
* Total Number of Business Licenses Q4 CY 10 & Q4 CY 11 4,377 4,468 + 2.1%
Number of New Business Licenses
Q4 CY 10 & Q4 CY 11
39
40
+ 1
* Small Business Development Center Clients Q3 CY 10 & Q3 CY 11 19 19 0
Small Business Development Center Training Participants
Q3 CY 10 & Q3 CY 11
26
8
- 18
Real Estate Market
Number of Single Family Homes for Sale Q4 CY 10 & Q4 CY 11 501 488 - 13
Monthly Average Number of Single Family Homes Sold
Q4 CY 10 & Q4 CY 11
50.33
51.33
+ 1
* Number of Months Supply of Unsold Single Family Homes Q4 CY 10 & Q4 CY 11 9.95 9.51
- 0.44
Mos.
Attachment B
FHFA Home Price Index for Charlottesville MSA
Q4 CY 10 & Q4 CY 11
218.02
216.24
- 0.82%
Residential Foreclosure Rate per 10,000 Properties Q4 CY 10 & Q4 CY 11 3.54 1.74 - 51.8%
Albemarle County Economic Vitality Indicators -- Quarterly Data (Cont.)
March 19, 2012
Time Period
Beginning
Ending
2010-
2011
Comparison
Quarter
Quarter
Change
Development Activity
* $ Value of New Commercial Building Permits Q4 CY 10 & Q4 CY 11 23.546 M 24.236 M + 2.9%
* $ Value of New Residential Building Permits
Q4 CY 10 & Q4 CY 11
23.509 M
16.080 M
-31.6%
Number of New Residential Building Permits Q4 CY 10 & Q4 CY 11 62 90 + 28
Agricultural Economy
Wine Production (Liters Subject to State Excise Tax) Q4 CY 10 & Q4 CY 11 N/A N/A N/A
Return to exec summary
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
Crozet/Western Albemarle Library – Construction
Bids
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Update on Bids and Budget for Library project
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Messrs. Foley, Davis, Letteri, Henry and Lilley
LEGAL REVIEW: Yes
AGENDA DATE:
April 4, 2012
ACTION: X INFORMATION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS: Yes
REVIEWED BY:
BACKGROUND:
The Board directed staff to obtain construction bids on the Crozet Library plans at its December 7, 2011 meeting. The
Board requested that additional cost-saving ideas be solicited from prospective contractors due to the preliminary
FY13 budget outlook. See attached November 9, 2011 executive summary for additional back ground information
(Attachment A).
The bid documents were completed, with three optional items being identified to allow for certain enhancements to be
chosen if funding allows. The RFQ was advertised on February 12, 2012, and a pre-bid conference emphasizing the
County’s interest in cost-saving ideas was held on February 23, 2012. Eleven bids were received on March 28, 2012,
ranging from a low bid of $5,771,000 to a high of $6,944,261 with many closely clustered around $5.9 million. None of
the bidders proposed cost saving ideas.
DISCUSSION:
The purpose of this agenda item is to report on the bid results and seek board authorization to proceed with
construction of the project. The building and site construction budget on the project is $6,000,000 with an overall
budget of $6,765,497 to complete the project which includes contingency, project management and other construction
related costs. The apparent low bid received on the project for the base scope (building and site construction) is
$5,771,000, or about $229,000 below our estimate.
The low bidder also proposed a total price of $39,000 for three alternates with the following scope:
Roller shades in lieu of horizontal blinds
Color concrete to sidewalks/entrance areas
LEED certified wood product
Staff recommends awarding a contract to the apparent low bidder (MB Contractors, Inc.) in the amount of $5,810,000
which includes the base bid amount of $5,771,000 plus alternates of $39,000. Based on this contract amount, the
revised project contingency for the project would be $565,000, or just below 10% which we think is appropriate given
the nature and complexity of this project. An additional alternative, not including in the bidding, is the additional
excavation in the lower level to allow for future expansion of the facility. If desired by the board, staff can further study
the feasibility and cost of this plan modification with our design firm and successful low bidder.
If the Board adopts the budget as recommended, the anticipated schedule is to award the contract in mid May and to
give the notice to proceed to the contractor in June, with construction to commence in July and to be substantially
completed twelve months from mobilization.
BUDGET IMPACT:
The proposed FY13 CIP includes $6,765,497 for project completion, and that amount has been maintained in the
Board’s budget reviews and actions to date.
The portion of the construction cost necessary for the street and stormwater infrastructure is included in the
Streetscape project budget. The stormwater connection will be constructed as part of the Library project to ensure
proper coordination and to ensure any timing issues with Streetscape construction will not delay the library work, and
the money for this component will be transferred from the Streetscape project to this project.
AGENDA TITLE: Crozet/Western Albemarle Library – Construction Bids
April 4, 2012
Page 2
The Friends of the Library are responsible for $1.6M of the total project cost, which is expected to cover furniture and
books.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends the Board authorize staff to proceed with executing a contract with the lowest, responsive bidder
and proceed with construction of the project. This action is also contingent upon the Board’s adoption of the propose d
FY 13 budget as recommended and as will be acted upon in a subsequent agenda item.
ATTACHMENTS
A – November 7, 2011 Executive Summary
Return to agenda
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
Calendar Year 2012 Tax Rate Resolution
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Request Board Approval of the Calendar Year 2012 Tax
Rates
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Messrs. Foley, and Davis; and Ms. L. Allshouse
LEGAL REVIEW: Yes
AGENDA DATE:
April 4, 2012
ACTION: X INFORMATION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS: Yes
REVIEWED BY:
BACKGROUND:
On March 28, 2012, a public hearing was held on the Board of Supervisors’ proposed budget for FY 12/13. A public
hearing also was held on the calendar year 2012 tax rates.
The attached resolution to set the calendar year 2012 (tax year) tax rates must be approved by April 15, 2012.
However, adoption of the tax rate at the April 4th meeting would assist in the timely printing and mailing of the tax bills
that are due on or before June 5th.
STRATEGIC PLAN:
Develop a comprehensive funding strategy/plan to address the County’s growing needs.
DISCUSSION:
The attached resolution sets the tax rates for calendar year 2012. The proposed rates are set at $0.762/$100
assessed valuation for real estate, public service, and manufactured homes and at $4.28/$100 assessed valuation for
personal property, including machinery and tools.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Unless there is a change based on the public hearing, staff recommends adoption of the attached resolution to set
the proposed calendar year 2012 tax rates.
ATTACHMENTS
A – Tax Rate Resolution
Return to agenda
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
Crozet Library Update – 5 Year Financial Plan
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Crozet library project update for purposes of discussion
during the 5 Year Financial Plan
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Messrs. Foley, Letteri, Davis, Henry, and Lilley
LEGAL REVIEW: Yes
AGENDA DATE:
November 9, 2011
ACTION: INFORMATION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: INFORMATION: X
ATTACHMENTS: Yes
REVIEWED BY:
BACKGROUND:
In December of 2004, the Board adopted the Crozet Master Plan, which identified the need for a new Crozet Library to
provide enhanced library services to the community and to serve as a catalyst for redevelopment in downtown Crozet.
In November of 2006, the Board authorized the design and construction of the library.
In May of 2008, the Board approved the formation of the Crozet Library Steering Committee to, along with the design
team of Grimm and Parker, facilitate the engagement of stakeholders and the public, to evaluate and balance the
various needs and objectives, and to oversee the schematic design phase of the project. The Committee
recommended a preferred design, which was reviewed and approved by the Board on June 3, 2009. In December of
2010, the Board further directed staff to complete the Detailed Design phase of the project for purposes of establishing
accurate cost estimates and bringing the project to a “bid ready” state.
In June of 2011, an update on the status of the Crozet Library and parking lot projects was provided to the Board,
noting that parking lot construction would occur during the summer of 2011, and that building plans would be
completed to the point necessary to determine a detailed cost estimate.
Since the Board approved the schematic plans for the Crozet Library project in June, 2009, the following project
highlights have occurred:
Nov 2009 – building design stopped due to capital project funding shortages
Dec 2009 – parking lot portion authorized to proceed
May 2010 – site plan review required on-site SWM (for parking phase)
Nov 2010 – ARB reviewed parking lot plan
Dec 2010 – Board directed completion of building design
Apr 2011 – ARB approved parking phase and building phase
May 2011 – parking lot bid documents issued
May 2011 – building design details with user group completed
May 2011 – updated cost estimate completed
June 2011 – updated cost information provided to Board of Supervisors
Aug 2011 – plans and cost estimate update received from architectural engineer (AE)
Sep 2011 – independent local cost estimate and value engineering requested
Oct 2011 – updated cost estimate based on independent review and AE feedback completed
DISCUSSION:
The purpose of this agenda item is to provide a brief update on the status of the Crozet Library and parking lot projects
for background information in preparation of the 5 Year Financial Plan review.
The parking lot construction is nearly completed, and is expected to be substantially completed and in use in
November of this year.
The building plans, ready for bidding, are expected to be completed by late fall and a summary cost estimate
associated with the plans is attached (Attachment A). Current estimates assuming a bid in early 2012 and utilizing
current construction industry economic conditions predict a savings of approximately 8.7% compared to the May 2011
AGENDA TITLE: Crozet Library Update – 5 Year Financial Plan
November 9, 2011
Page 2
estimate. The estimated construction cost is now approximately $6.25M, bringing the total project cost to
approximately $9.83M. The Board previously appropriated $2.0M for the land acquisition and design and construction
of the parking lot, leaving a funding need of $7.83M to complete the project. Friends of the Crozet Library have
pledged to reimburse the County $1.6M of that $7.83M, leaving an additional net funding need of $6.23M to complete
the project.
BUDGET IMPACT:
Approximately $1.5M has been spent to date on acquisition of property and design services, and on parking lot
construction. Approximately $0.25M is encumbered for completion of design services, and approximately $0.25M is
unencumbered and available for this project.
Unless alternative funding is identified, a $7.83M funding is needed for completion of this project, with an expectation
that $1.6M of that amount will be funded or reimbursed by Friends of the Crozet Library. Staff will present additional
considerations and options in the context of our discussion of the 5-year plan, including impacts to the operations
budget.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
This summary is provided for information only and no action is required.
ATTACHMENTS
Cost Estimates Update
Return to exec summary
Attachment A
RESOLUTION TO SET
CALENDAR YEAR 2012 TAX RATES
BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, does hereby set
the County Levy for Calendar Year 2012 for general County purposes at Seventy-Six and Two-Tenths
Cents ($0.762) on every One Hundred Dollars of assessed value of real estate; at Seventy-Six and Two-
Tenths Cents ($0.762) on every One Hundred Dollars of assessed value of manufactured homes; at
Seventy-Six and Two-Tenths Cents ($0.762) on every One Hundred Dollars of assessed value of public
service assessments; at Four Dollars and Twenty-Eight Cents ($4.28) on every One Hundred Dollars of
assessed value of personal property; and at Four Dollars and Twenty-Eight Cents ($4.28) on every One
Hundred Dollars of assessed value of machinery and tools; and
FURTHER orders that the Director of Finance of Albemarle County assess and collect the taxes
on all taxable real estate and all taxable personal property.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
I, Ella W. Jordan, do hereby certify that the foregoing writing is a true and correct copy of a
resolution duly adopted by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County by a vote of _____ to _____, as
recorded below, at a meeting held on April 4, 2012.
Return to exec summary
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
Finalizing FY 12/13 Operating and Capital Budgets
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Review Outstanding Budget Issues and Additional
Information. Finalize Proposed Budget for Adoption
on April 11, 2012
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Messrs. Foley, Elliott, Letteri, and Davis, and Ms.
Allshouse
LEGAL REVIEW: Yes
AGENDA DATE:
April 4, 2012
ACTION: X INFORMATION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS: Yes
REVIEWED BY:
BACKGROUND:
On February 24, 2012, the County Executive presented his Recommended FY 12/13 Operating and Capital Budgets to
the Board of Supervisors. On February 29, 2012, the Board held a Public Hearing on the Recommended Budget and
then held four public Work Sessions. On March 14, 2012, the Board authorized the advertising of a $0.762/$100 real
estate tax rate for the 2012 Tax Year. On March 28, 2012, a Public Hearing was held on the Board of Supervisors’
Proposed FY 12/13 Operating and Capital Budgets and on the Calendar Year 2012 Tax Rates.
DISCUSSION:
The Proposed FY 12/13 Operating and Capital budgets currently total $311,438,139. This reflects the County
Executive’s Recommended Budget and changes made during the Board’s work sessions. The changes made during
the budget work sessions are summarized below:
The County Executive’s Recommended Budget included a $1,497,000 reserve for Board decisions. The
Board used the reserve to fund the following:
Unfreeze 3.0 Police Officers $236,068
Restore funding for TJEMS 19,257
Fund the Healthy Transitions Program at Region Ten 42,500
Restore funding for Literacy Volunteers 6,287
Restore funding for VPI Extension Service 27,492
Restore funding for OAR 10,798
*Provide funding to JMRL for salary and medical increases **67,771
Transfer to the School Division to be used for school bus
replacements
648,250
Transfer to Capital Improvement Fund 117,561
Add to Reserve for Contingencies 21,396
Subtotal $1,197,380
***Reduction of Budget (Return to taxpayers) 299,620
Total Use of Reserve for Board Decisions $1,497,000
*Additional funding for JMRL is contingent on a 1% salary increase actually being
provided to JMRL staff and the other localities also providing additional funding for
this purpose.
**During the March 14 work sessions, the Board approximated JMRL staff salary and
medical costs at $65,000 based on the information they had available to them at that
time. The actual impact in FY 12/13 is $67,771.
***The use of the Board reserve funds and the $299,620 returned to taxpayers results
in a decrease in the planned real estate tax rate from $0.764/$100 to $0.762/$100.
Provide $60,000 to the Commonwealth’s Attorney’s budget in FY 13 based on an equal amount of offsetting
revenue associated with the Commonwealth’s Attorney’s delinquency collections.
On March 28, 2012, the Board held a Public Hearing on the Board of Supervisors’ Proposed FY 12/13 Operating and
Capital Budgets and on the Calendar Year 2012 Tax Rates.
During his presentation on the Proposed Budget, Mr. Foley noted the following outstanding budget issues that were
unresolved at that time:
1) Potential new Virginia Retirement System (VRS) mandate
2) Commonwealth’s Attorney’s funding
3) Seminole Trail Volunteer Fire Department Addition
4) Library out-of-area-reimbursement accounting
Also, on March 28, 2012, Board members requested staff provide additional information on the following:
Jefferson Madison Regional Library’s (JMRL) additional funding requests
JABA – Woods Edge Apartments
JABA – Mountainside Senior Assisted Living Center
CIP – Seminole Trail Volunteer Fire Department (STVFD)
CIP – Acquisition of Conservation Easement Program (ACE)
Performance-based recognition pool
Attachment A provides additional details on these items.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends the Board:
1) Items with offsetting Revenue:
a. Continue to include the $60,000 increase in the Commonwealth’s Attorney’s budget in FY 13 per the
Board’s decision on March 14, 2012, based on an equal amount of offsetting revenues associated
with the Commonwealth’s Attorney’s delinquency collections. Additional information about the
collection process and options to consider moving forward for FY 14 will be discussed with the Board
in May 2012.
b. Increase the amount budgeted for JMRL by an additional $30,000, to be offset by $30,000 in out-of-
area fees.
2) Unfunded VRS Mandate: Remain mindful of the potential financial impacts of SB497 to the County’s on-going
operating budget when making any final changes to the FY 12/13 budget. Since the Governor may make
changes to this bill as part of the veto process, staff expects the County will know the full impact of this change
prior to the Board’s appropriation of the budget and will recommend needed adjustments at that time.
3) March 28, 2012 funding requests from JMRL and JABA:
a. JMRL – Additional $15,572 for rent increase at Northside Branch
b. JABA – Additional $30,000 for Woods Edge Apartments and an additional $15,539 for Mountainside
Senior Assisted Living Center
These items do not have an identified funding source and staff strongly recommends that the $250k
contingency must be maintained. Staff recommends the Board consider these requests against those funding
changes the Board already made at the March 14 Budget Work Session. As stated above, staff again
emphasizes the need to be mindful of the unfunded VRS mandate which is likely to have further impact on the
budget.
4) Performance-based Recognition Pool: Review information and provide direction to staff on April 4 if the Board
believes changes are warranted.
5) Adjustments to CIP: Review the CIP information in Attachment A. Staff recommends the Board not make any
changes to the Proposed CIP budget at this time. Staff proposed to bring back more comprehensive
information to the Board in June 2012 that will provide a clearer picture of the available revenues and funding
mechanisms, watch list items, as well as more in depth information on the Seminole Trail Volunteer Fire
Department project. The Board would consider any adjustments to the FY 13- FY 17 CIP program at that
time.
6) Staff recommends the Board provide final direction on the FY 12/13 Operating and Capital Budgets on April 4
and that the Board formally approve the FY 12/13 Budget on April 11.
ATTACHMENTS:
A-Details on Outstanding Budget Issues and Board Requests for Additional Information
Return to agenda
1
Attachment A:
Outstanding Budget Issues and Board Requests for Additional Information
April 2, 2012
OPERATING BUDGET
Items that Include Funding to be Offset by Identified Revenues
Commonwealth Attorney’s Funding
The FY 13 Proposed Budget currently includes an additional $60,000 for the Commonwealth
Attorney’s Budget and assumes $60,000 in offsetting revenues associated with the
Commonwealth Attorney’s delinquency collection efforts.
During the March 14 Work Session, the Board approved an increase of $60,000 for the
Commonwealth’s Attorney’s budget that would be offset by $60,000 in funding associated with
the Commonwealth Attorney’s delinquency collections (fines/fees). The Board requested
additional information to be provided to them on the delinquency collection process.
Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends the Board continues to include this increase of $60,000 for the
Commonwealth Attorney’s budget in FY 13 based on an equal amount of offsetting revenue
associated with the Commonwealth Attorney’s delinquency collections (fines and fees).
Additional information about the delinquency collection process and options to consider
moving forward for FY 14 and beyond will be provided to the Board of Supervisors in May 2012.
Jefferson Madison Regional Library (JMRL) Part One - Out-of-Area Circulation Accounting
The FY 13 Proposed Budget currently includes $3,258,054 in funding for JMRL, which is an
increase of $67,771 over the amount initially included in the FY 13 Recommended Budget.
County funding previously provided to JMRL to support out-of-area circulation is currently not
included.
During the budget work sessions, the Board proposed to increase JMRL’s budget by $67,771 to
support a 1% increase for staff, with the condition that the 1% raise would be supported by all
other jurisdictions in the regional system, and to provide support for JMRL’s anticipated
increases for employee medical costs. This additional funding brings the County’s allocation in
the Proposed FY 13 budget for JMRL to $3,258,054 which is an increase of $37,771 over their FY
12 allocation of $3,220,283.
2
For accounting purposes and pursuant to how the proposed terms of the new JMRL agreement
anticipate the treatment of out-of-area fees, the additional $30,000 for out-of-area fees are
recommended to be included in the amount the County budgets to JMRL, and JMRL agrees to
return the out-of-area fee revenues they receive to the County in the last quarter of FY 13.
Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends increasing the amount budgeted for JMRL by an additional $30,000, as this
increase is to be offset by $30,000 for out-of-area fees.
An Unfunded Mandate
Virginia Retirement System (VRS) Mandate
This mandate is anticipated to impact the general government’s operating budget by $350,000.
Currently, there is no funding for this mandate included in the FY 13 Proposed Budget.
On March 27, 2012, Mr. Foley sent information to the Board regarding the County’s calculation
of the impact of SB 497, which had been recently approved by the General Assembly and
mandates that local government and school division employees pay the 5% employee
contribution to VRS, and that localities and school boards offset the increased contributions to
be paid by their employees with a corresponding pay increase. The County expects an
approximate impact of $350,000 to the FY 13 budget for general government to implement the
required change. If the school system were to maintain commonality rather than spreading it
out over 5 years, its impact would be approximately $1.2M.
The option of a 1% per year phased-in approach for local governments is currently not included
in SB497, however, the Governor is being asked to consider amending SB497 to allow the
option. If localities were permitted to phase in the increase over five years, the annual financial
impact to general government would be approx. $70,000.
Last week, the TJPDC sent a letter to Governor McDonnell outlining locality concerns with SB
497. The letter requests that the governor propose an amendment to the bill to provide an
option for localities to require their employees to pay the 5% member contribution; or in the
absence of this first option, to propose an amendment to allow localities the option of delaying
the bill’s requirements for a year. The letter notes that a local option provision would allow
localities to analyze the budget implications that exist in their locality, and then make a
determination that best suits local needs and desires. It also highlighted the difficulties of
accommodating this mandate in the midst of tight local and school division budgets.
3
Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends that the Board remains mindful of the potential financial impacts of this VRS
mandate to the County’s on-going operating budget when making any final changes to the FY
13 Proposed Budget prior to its adoption of the budget. Since the Governor may make changes
to this bill as part of the veto process, staff believes the County will know the full impact of this
change prior to the Board’s appropriation of the budget.
Requests from Agencies for Additional Funding on March 28, 2012
Jefferson Madison Regional Library (JMRL) (Part Two) Additional Funding Request
During the March 28 Public Hearing, JMRL requested that the County provide an additional
$15,572 to pay for an increase in rent at its Northside Branch.
Rent: The County believes that the amount of rent required for Northside Branch is within
acceptable market rates, and that it would be quite challenging, even in today’s market, to
identify comparable space in the 29 North urban area in a prime location at a rat e of $18.75/s.f.
Prior to renewing this lease in the future, the County will review space requirements and
alternative locations that may be available.
JMRL has reduced operating hours for other branches when other jurisdictions could not fully
fund their budget request. For example, JMRL has cited the closing of Nelson Branch on Fridays
during one fiscal year and reducing Greene County branch hours when these jurisdictions have
been unable to fully fund JMRL’s request. (In FY2008, the County funded an expansion of
operating hours at Northside).
Other: JMRL requested a total of $3,360,145 in funding in FY 13, an increase of $139,862 over
the amount the County provided to JMRL in the County’s FY 12 Budget. The amount of JMRL
funding currently included in the proposed FY 13 Budget is $3,258,054. County staff
recommends the County provide an additional $30,000 for out-of-area circulation that will be
offset by out-of-area revenues. With the addition of the out-of-area funding, the funding for
JMRL in the County’s Proposed Budget would be $3,288,054, or $67,771 more than the funding
provided to JMRL in the current year.
In addition to funding for raises and increasing medical costs for staff, the $139,862 increase
requested by JMRL included funding for additional staffing and outreach as well as other
changes in their budget.
Per an e-mail from JMRL Director John Halliday to Andy Bowman in OMB, other staff-related
cost increases included in the FY 13 request to the County were:
Crozet Library, 8 additional staff hours/week $5,233
4
Scottsville Library, 16 additional staff hours/week $9,226
Central Library Children's Department, additional substitute hours
(330/year) $2,588
Historical Collection, substitute hours (400/year) $3,608
Bookmobile, 20 hours/week for additional outreach to assisted living
facilities $13,973
Gordon Avenue Library, 5 additional staff hours/week $2,023
Northside Library, 12 additional staff hours/week $8,280
Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends the Board considers JMRL’s request for $15,572 in rent assistance at the Northside
Branch in relationship to those funding changes the Board has initially identified for inclusion in the
Proposed Budget at their March 14th Work Session and in light of the unfunded VRS mandate noted
above.
Jefferson Area Board for Aging (JABA) - Woods Edge Apartments
The Proposed FY 13 Budget currently includes $10,000 for Woods Edge Apartments. JABA
requests an additional $30,000 in funding, for a total of $40,000, to support Woods Edge
Apartments in FY 13.
Woods Edge Apartments (96 units) is a Low Income Housing Tax Credit pr oject. JABA
requested, and Albemarle County had agreed, to provide $40,000 annually for eight years to
assist in the financing of the development . The initial eight-year commitment has been met.
At the request of JABA, the Board approved continuing the subsidy for up to seven additional
years at $40,000 for the first of those years, provided that funding was available. The County
provided $40,000 in FY 10, $30,000 in FY 11 and $20,000 in FY 12. The FY 13 Proposed budget
includes $10,000 for Woods Edge Rental Subsidy wit h the anticipation that the subsidy for this
project will be discontinued in FY 14.
In FY 12, Mr. Ron White, Director of Housing, estimates the County’s investment was 62% of the total
rent subsidies provided by JABA, which equates to the support of 15 residents. With or without the
subsidies, rents are controlled by the IRS because of the tax credits in the project. Prior to the FY 13
Proposed budget, support for this Low Income Housing Tax Credit project was provided to JABA
directly from the Office of Housing. For FY 13, the funding would be included in JABA’s budget
so they can receive the funds automatically each quarter along with the other funding provided to them
from the County.
Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends the Board consider this request in relationship to those funding changes the Board
has initially identified for inclusion in the Proposed Budget at their March 14th Work Session and in light
of the unfunded VRS mandate noted above.
5
Jefferson Area Board for Aging (JABA) - Mountainside Senior Assisted Living Center
The Proposed FY 13 Budget currently includes $53,821 for Mountainside Senior Assisted Living
Center. JABA requests an additional $15,539 in funding, for a total of $69,360, to support
Mountain Side Senior Assisted Living Center in FY 13. JABA recommends fully funding their
request.
Mountainside Senior Living Center, formally known as Windham, is JABA’s 106 bed assisted
living facility in Crozet, VA. In their application for FY 13 funding, JABA states that they
anticipate a total of 38 Albemarle County residents in FY 13, 64 from Charlottesville, and 30
from other areas for a total of 133 direct beneficiaries.
An average of 51 residents receives State Auxiliary Grants of $1,112 per month. JABA states it
has to provide approximately $1,075 per month per resident receiving Auxiliary Grants to cover
expenses.
Albemarle County provided $53,821 in support for Mountainside in 2012 and Charlottesville
provided $26,510 in FY 12. The budget request to Albemarle County from JABA for
Mountainside for FY 13 is $69,360, an increase of $15,539 or 29% over the amount Albemarle
County provided in FY 12. The FY 13 Proposed Budget currently includes $53,821 for
Mountainside.
Additional Background on Mountainside:
In January 2002, the County of Albemarle provided $177,617 in one-time monies to assist
Mountainside when it transitioned from Windham and JABA got involved in the project. At that
time the thought was that the County’s one-time grant would net out to be a $17,600 subsidy
over a ten year period. At that time, JABA expected they would require subsidies from the
County and City for a 39 month transition phase as they worked to bring in more private pay
residents so that the project could become self-sufficient.
Later, file documents indicate that JABA believed an additional 32 months may be needed for
JABA to realize sufficient profits to build up an acceptable working capital reserve of one
month’s expenditures.
In JABA’s revised July 06 to June 10 Business Plan for Mountainside, JABA acknowledged that
support from both Albemarle County and the City of Charlottesville would be essential for the
long-term survival of Mountainside due to the lack of support from the state.
6
Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends the Board considers this request in relationship to those funding changes the Board
has initially identified for inclusion in the Proposed Budget at their March 14th Work Session and in light
of the unfunded VRS mandate noted above.
Performance-Based Recognition Pool for General Government Employees
Performance-Based Recognition Pool
$150,000 in one-time funding is currently included in the FY 13 Proposed budget to recognize
high-performing staff.
The objective of the performance incentive pool is to implement one-time bonus awards at the
end of FY12-13 to employees based on demonstrated success in accordance with the General
Government or School Division’s (as appropriate) mission, values, and Strategic Plan goals.
To create a performance incentive program, Human Resources staff researched organizational
incentive programs from several peer localities, as well as national research, which included
gainsharing and organizational recognition programs. Additionally, HR sol icited feedback from
School and General Government leaders to effectively design the incentive program. Finally,
staff reviewed the County’s two existing performance management programs (Employee
Recognition Program and the Merit Pay for Performance) that are designed to recognize and
reward. An overview and critical analysis of these two programs is below:
1-Employee Recognition Program
The Employee Recognition Program gives managers, supervisors, and employees the ability to
formally recognize, acknowledge, and reward exemplary performance within the organization.
The objectives of the Employee Recognition Program are to:
Provide a set of standards for acknowledging, rewarding, and reinforcing exceptional
performance;
Give managers the tools and means to reward exceptional performance on an ad-hoc
basis using monetary and non-monetary rewards;
Contribute to recruitment and retention efforts.
The criteria for recognizing employees include, but are not limited to, the following:
1. Providing exceptional customer service
2. Identifying areas of significant monetary savings
3. Exemplifying county values: Integrity, Innovation, Stewardship, and Learning
4. Initiating a productivity, process, or quality enhancement
7
5. Performing a service above and beyond normal duties
6. Excellence in safe work practices
7. Department-specific performance factors above standard expectations
The program gives as much autonomy at the departmental level as possible to acknowledge
employees. Each department develops their own departmental st andards as a basis of
expectations. Types of rewards include: letters of appreciation, web/newsletter recognition;
custom certificates of recognition, time-off (up to one day), and direct cash bonuses.
Analysis
Departments have not consistently embraced the employee recognition program; some
departments make strong use of this program, while others do not.
Program allows departments to recognize individual contributions and departmental
team efforts but the decentralized aspect of the programs makes the recognition of
cross-departmental teams challenging.
2-Merit Pay for Performance: The performance management system is a competency-based
system. The competencies are based on the County’s values and were established with cross -
functional team input in 2005. Employees are annually rated on eight competencies for all
employees (functional expertise, communication, customer service, innovation, and initiative,
results oriented, learning and development, integrity and ethics, and teamwork) and four
additional competencies for supervisory employees (coaching, influence, strategic and visio nary
leadership, and tactical planning and execution). The overall performance rating is then
rewarded based upon a merit matrix, allowing for performance salary increases to be
differentiated based on a five point rating scale as follows:
Position in Pay
Grade Range
Fails to Meet
Minimum
Expectations
Meets
Minimum
Expectations--
Needs
Development
Successfully
Meets High
Expectations
Meets and
Often Exceeds
High
Expectations
Consistently
Exceeds High
Expectations
Below
Midpoint No Increase Market - 1% Market + 1% Market + 1.5% Market + 2%
Above
Midpoint No Increase Market - 1% Market Market + 0.5% Market + 1%
8
Analysis
Merit Pay for Performance has not been funded since 2008. As a result, higher -
performing employees are not being rewarded for their performance.
Inter-rater reliability between and within departments is an issue.
The goal setting component is inconsistently applied.
Performance Incentive Pool
As the competencies are the performance standards that that are valued by the County, staff
recommends linking the performance incentive pool employee bonuses to the current
performance management program (Merit Pay for Performance). Not doing so would send the
message that we are moving away from the established system. The performance incentive
pool should be awarded to employees who:
1) Achieve an overall performance rating of “Successfully Meets High Expectations”,
“Meets and Often Exceeds High Expectations” or “Consistently Exceeds High
Expectations” ; and
2) Successfully achieve a performance goal that is aligned with the County’s strategic plan.
This will reinforce goal setting so that employees’ goals are explicitly aligned with organizational
goals, and by rewarding employees for consistently demonstrating excellent performance.
Staff will conduct focus groups to assess feedback regarding the process for the performance
incentive pool. Specifics of the plan still to be developed include how the funding will be
allocated and if the incentive should be implemented only for employees below a specific
paygrade, which would provide a greater bonus amount for lower-paid employees.
9
CAPITAL BUDGET
On March 28th, the Board requested additional information be brought forward for the
Seminole Trail Volunteer Fire Department (STVFD) addition and expansion of living quarters
and the Acquisition of Conservation Easement Program (ACE).
Staff Recommendation Regarding the CAPITAL Budget:
Staff recommends that the Board review the following Capital Improvement Plan (CIP)
information; in addition, staff recommends the Board not make any changes to the Proposed
CIP budget at this time. In June 2012, staff proposes to bring back more comprehensive
information to the Board that will provide a clearer picture of the available additional revenues,
watch list items, as well as more in-depth information on Seminole Trail Volunteer Fire
Department project. Staff will make suggestions for adjustments to the FY 13- FY 17 CIP
program at that time.
Revenues: As indicated in the chart below, additional CIP Revenues are anticipated to be
available.
Unbudgeted Reserve currently included in Proposed CIP Budget to put
towards “Watch List” Items*
$ 585,000
Potential General Fund Fund Balance at end of FY 1 2** 2,366,762
Cash Proffers** 930,487
VPSA Credit as Reported 3/12/12** 75,284
Additional funding identified by formula based on Board’s decision on
3/14/12*
117,566
Potential Available Funding for FY 13 $4,075,099
* Funding available each year of CIP
** One-time funding
Seminole Trail Volunteer Fire Department (STVFD)
Request is for $2,164,770
This project request is for an 8,400 sq. ft. addition to the STVFD, consisting of 2 -bay addition
and expansion of living quarters. A renovated building will provide centralized apparatus bays,
asset protection with indoor storage for apparatus, more organized storage space, stud y areas
for student volunteers, adequate training facilities, meeting space and open transition areas
through the station. The renovated station will allow room for an ambulance and ALS support
vehicles.
The CIP Technical Review Committee scored this project the same level as the Crozet Library.
10
STVFD currently occupies a 7,600 square foot 3 bay fire station that was constructed in 1980.
The building design met the call volume, apparatus size, and practice of volunteers responding
from home to pick fire apparatus to respond to emergencies thru the 80’s. In the early 90’s, the
need to staff the building with nightly duty crews became necessary. In 2000, the building was
renovated to add 2 bunkrooms, a dining room, exercise facilities, and restrooms for the
increased crew size.
The apparatus are housed below the living spaces and there is no room for proper storage of
equipment. The size of the bays limits the ability to provide for changing needs and apparatus
size. The new tower 121 vehicle won't fit into the existing building.
STVFD has 63 active volunteer members and 5 fire fighter/paramedics from Albemarle County
Fire & Rescue personnel who supplement its daytime staff. The department operates 3 engine
companies, a ladder tower and EMS quick response vehicle. The department provides fire
protection and suppression, emergency medical services at the basic and advanced level,
heavy/tactical/technical rescues, NFPA-compliant fire training and EMS training/continuing
education.
Crews of 15-20 people at STVFD are routinely on duty but due to space limitations, some
volunteers are forced to sleep on couches and/or roll-away beds. The facility does not have
separate female facilities. The kitchen is undersized and the station lacks room for fire and EMS
supply storage, offices for volunteer and career staff, and room to conduct on-duty training. As
both buildings approach 30 years of heavy use, the cost of maintenance to keep the buildings
functional is increasing substantially. Recent significant plumbing work has been required.
Replacements of the roof and electrical and HVAC systems are anticipated.
ACQUISITION OF CONSERVATION EASEMENT (ACE) PROGRAM
CIP Request is for Return to Prior Funding Level of ACE - one cent of the Tax Dollar Each Year
The acquisition of conservation easement program was established in 2000 to acquire
conservation easements voluntarily offered for sale by land own ers.
In this year’s CIP, staff requested program funding be reestablished at the Board of
Supervisors' prior funding level of an equivalent of one cent of the tax dollar. This would: 1)
provide sufficient funding to return to a protection level of at least 500 acres per year; 2) allow
ACE to acquire farmland easements while values are depressed; 3) provide adequate funding to
cover additional promotional efforts to increase the applicant pool, increased administrative
costs (appraisal/closing costs), and costs connected with monitoring of the easeme nt inventory;
and 4) enhance the County’s ability to leverage funds from outside sources for matching
grants.
11
The ACE program is oriented to provide benefits of donating conservation easements to more
moderate and lower income families. The funding would also provide the match needed to
apply for and receive available grants, which could further support this program.
Since FY04-05, the ACE program has had more eligible properties than it has been able to
purchase. Funding is also needed to cover administrative costs, particularly easement
monitoring efforts, which are necessary to determine compliance with and enfor cement of the
terms of this Easement (section 3(C)(3) of the ACE Deed). For FY12/13, $15,000 is the
estimated cost for contract monitoring services.
A total of 87,000 acres is currently under conservation easement in the County. Other major
easement holders include the Virginia Outdoors Foundation and The Nature Conservancy.
Return to exec summary