HomeMy WebLinkAbout2012-3-07Tentative
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
T E N T A T I V E
MARCH 7, 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. Introduction of TJPED Executive Director, Helen Cauthen.
7. From the Public: Matters Not Listed for Public Hearing on the Agenda.
8. Consent Agenda (on next page).
Public Hearings:
9. 9:30 a.m. - To consider granting water and sewer line easements to the
Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority and the Albemarle County Service Authority
across property owned by Albemarle County adjacent to Hollymead Towne Center, situated on the
south side of and adjoining U.S. Route 29 (Parcel ID 04600-00-00-005A0). These water and sewer
line easements are requested to provide water and sewer service to County properties, including
portions of Hollymead Towne Center.
10. 9:45 a.m. - An ordinance to amend Chapter 5, Building Regulations, of the
Albemarle County Code, by amending Section 5-100, Purpose and Intent, Section 5-101, Building
inspection office established; powers and duties, Section 5-102, Board of appeals established;
powers and duties, and Section 5-103, Appeals of decisions of the building official. The ordinance
would codify that two alternative members are appointed by the Board of Supervisors to the local
board of building code appeals, and would update the local building regulations to conform to
current provisions of the Uniform Statewide Building Code and Virginia Code §§ 36-97 et seq.
Action Items:
11. 10:00 a.m. - Request to Consider SEIS for Proposed Route 29 North Bypass.
12. 10:30 a.m. - Solid Waste Options – Consultant Services.
10:50 a.m. – Recess
13. 11:00 a.m. - County’s FY12/13 - FY16/17 Strategic Plan - Review and approve Plan’s Goals
and Objectives.
14. 11:30 a.m. - Update on Animal care issues/barking dogs/running-at-large County-wide.
15. Closed Meeting.
16. Certify Closed Meeting.
file:////coba-webapp01/BOSForms/Agenda/2012Files/0307/0.0_Agenda.htm (1 of 3) [10/2/2020 12:21:06 PM]
Tentative
17. Boards and Commissions:
a. Vacancies/Appointments.
Presentations:
18. 1:45 p.m. - Region Ten, Peter G. DeMartino.
19. 2:00 p.m. – Discussion: Fast Track Review Process
Work Session:
20. 2:30 p.m. - CPA-2013-01 Comprehensive Plan Update.
21. From the Board: Committee Reports and Matters Not Listed on the Agenda.
22. Adjourn to March 12, 2012, 9:00 a.m., Room 241.
C O N S E N T A G E N D A
FOR APPROVAL:
8.1 Approval of Minutes: October 5, November 2, November 9(A), November 10(A), December
14(A) and (N), and December 15(A), 2011.
8.2 ASCA-2012-01. Charlottesville Volvo. Request to amend the Albemarle County
Service Authority Jurisdictional Area map to designate Tax Map 59, Parcel 23B2 for sewer service.
(Continue public hearing to March 14, 2012 for proper advertisement.)
8.3 Resolution for the abandonment and addition of roads as a result of the John W. Warner
Parkway construction.
8.4 Moores Creek Floodplain Changes – Authorize County Engineer to sign application for
conditional letter of map revision to FEMA maps.
8.5 EMS Cost Recovery Program Update; Resolution to establish new schedule of fees;
consideration of billing policy change.
8.6 FY 2012 Budget Amendment and Appropriations.
8.7 Polo Grounds Road Floodplain Changes – Authorize County Engineer to sign application for
letter of map revision to FEMA maps.
8.8 Amendments to Permanent Part-Time Employee Pension Plan; Authorization to submit
amended Plan to IRS; and Adoption of Resolution to amend Personnel Policy P-63, Retirement.
file:////coba-webapp01/BOSForms/Agenda/2012Files/0307/0.0_Agenda.htm (2 of 3) [10/2/2020 12:21:06 PM]
Tentative
FOR INFORMATION:
8.9 Summary of grant applications submitted and grants received in February 2012.
8.10 VDOT, Culpeper District – Albemarle County Monthly Report, March 2012.
8.11 Cash Proffer Funding – Appropriations and Future Spending plan--Follow up on February 1,
2012: FY 2012 2nd Quarter Cash and Non-Cash Proffer Report – potential uses of available cash
proffers for CIP projects.
8.12 National Association of Counties Prescription Drug Discount Program Status.
8.13 Revised application and review schedule for Personal Wireless Service Facilities.
Return to Top of Agenda
Return to Board of Supervisors Home Page
Return to County Home Page
file:////coba-webapp01/BOSForms/Agenda/2012Files/0307/0.0_Agenda.htm (3 of 3) [10/2/2020 12:21:06 PM]
The Board of County Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, in a regular meeting on the 7th day of
March, 2012, adopted the following:
R E S O L U T I O N
WHEREAS, the Virginia Department of Transportation has provided the Board of County Supervisors
of Albemarle County, Virginia, with a sketch dated October 28, 2011, depicting the additions, discontinuances
and abandonments required in the secondary system of state highways; and
WHEREAS, the portions of Route 631 (Rio Road) identified to be discontinued is deemed to no longer
serve public convenience warranting maintenance at public expense; and
WHEREAS, the new road serves the same citizens as those portions of old road identified to be
abandoned and those segments no longer serve a public need; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Board of Supervisors abandons as part of the
secondary system of state highways those portions of Route 631 (Rio Road), identified as from 0.44 miles
southeast of Route 650 (Seg G) to 0.58 miles south of Route 650 (Seg L), for a distance of 0.14 miles; those
portions of Route 631 (Rio Road) from 0.17 miles southeast to Route 650 (Seg E) to 0.44 miles southeast of
Route 650 (Seg G), for a distance of 0.27 miles; and those portions of Route 631 (Rio Road), identified as
from 0.44 miles southeast of Route 650 (Seg G) to 0.05 miles east, for a distance of 0.05 miles, pursuant to
Section 33.1-155, of the Code of Virginia; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Board of Supervisors hereby requests the Virginia Department
of Transportation to add to the secondary system of state highways those portions of Route 631 (Rio Road)
identified as from 0.17 miles southeast of Route 650 (Seg E) to 0.32 miles southeast of Route 650 (Seg D) for
a distance of 0.15 miles, with a right-of-way width of 80.5 feet; those portions of Route 885 (Dunlora Drive)
identified as from 0.32 miles southeast of Route 650 (Seg D) to 0.36 miles southeast of Route 650 (Seg J) for
a distance of 0.04 miles, with no right-of-way width; those portions of Route 631 (Rio Road) identified as from
0.39 miles southeast of Route 650 (Seg C) to 0.32 miles southeast of Route 650 (Seg D) for a distance of 0.07
miles, with a right-of-way width of 80.5 feet; those portions of Route 631 (Rio Road) identified as from 0.05
miles southeast of Route 2500 (Seg K) to 0.08 miles southeast of Route 2500 (Seg L) for a distance of 0.03
miles, with a variable right-of-way width of 67 feet; those portions of Route 1177 (Dunlora Drive) identified as
from 0.05 miles southeast of Route 2500 (Seg K) to 0.11 miles east of Seg (J) for a distance of 0.11 miles,
with no right-of-way width; those portions of Route 1177 (Dunlora Drive) identified as from 0.07 miles west of
Route 1239 (Seg J) to 0.03 miles west of Route 1239 (Seg H) for a distance of 0.04 miles, with no right-of-way
width; those portions of Route 631 (Rio Road) identified as from Route 2500, a distance of 1.01 miles north of
Route 3412 (Seg C) to 0.05 miles southeast of Route 2500 (Seg K) for a distance of 0.05 miles, with a variable
right-of-way width of 67 feet; and those portions of Route 2500 (John W. Warner Parkway) from A-Melbourne
Road (City street) to 0.70 miles north of Melbourne Route (B-Bridge Structure 6402), a distance of 0.70 miles,
with a variable right-of-way width of 41 feet, pursuant to Section 33.1-229, of the Code of Virginia; and
RESOLVED that a certified copy of this resolution be forwarded to the Resident Engineer for the
Virginia Department of Transportation.
* * * * *
View attached sketch
Return to consent agenda
Return to regular agenda
VDOT Form AM-4.3 (4/20/2007) Maintenance Division
Date of Resolution: March 7, 2012 Page 1 of 3
Street Name and/or Route Number
t , State Route Number 631
Old Route Number: 0
l From: 0.44 Mi. SE Rte. 650 (Seg G)
To: 0.05 Mi. East, a distance of: 0.05 miles.
Street Name and/or Route Number
t Rio Road, State Route Number 631
Old Route Number: 0
l From: 0.17 Mi. SE Rte. 650 (Seg E)
To: 0.44 Mi. SE Rte. 650 (Seg G), a distance of: 0.27 miles.
Street Name and/or Route Number
t Rio Road, State Route Number 631
Old Route Number: 0
l From: 0.44 Mi. SE Rte. 650 (Seg G)
To: 0.58 Mi. S. Rte. 650 (Seg L), a distance of: 0.14 miles.
Project/Subdivision 0631-002-128,C-502
Type Change to the Secondary System of State Highways:Abandonment
The following facilities of the Secondary System of State Highways are hereby ordered abandoned, pursuant to the
statutory authority cited:
Reason for Change:
Pursuant to Code of Virginia Statute:
VDOT Project - Section 33.1-155
§33.1-155
Report of Changes in the Secondary System of State Highways
A Copy Testee Signed (County Official): ____________________________________________
The following VDOT Form AM-4.3 is hereby attached and incorporated as part of the governing body's resolution for
changes in the secondary system of state highways.
By resolution of the governing body adopted March 7, 2012
In the County of Albemarle
VDOT Form AM-4.3 (4/20/2007) Maintenance Division
Date of Resolution: Page 2 of 3
Street Name and/or Route Number
t Rio Road, State Route Number 631
Old Route Number: 0
l From: 0.05 Mi. SE Rte. 2500 (K)
Recordation Reference: N/A
Right of Way width (feet) = 67 ft var
To: 0.08 Mi. SE Rte. 2500 (L), a distance of: 0.03 miles.
Street Name and/or Route Number
t Rio Road, State Route Number 631
Old Route Number: 0
l From: 0.17 Mi. SE Rte. 650 (E)
Recordation Reference: N/A
Right of Way width (feet) = 80.5 ft
To: 0.32 Mi. SE Rte. 650 (D), a distance of: 0.15 miles.
Street Name and/or Route Number
t Dunlora Drive, State Route Number 885
Old Route Number: 0
l From: 0.32 Mi. SE Rte. 650 (D)
Recordation Reference: N/A
Right of Way width (feet) = 0
To: 0.36 Mi. SE Rte. 650 (J), a distance of: 0.04 miles.
Street Name and/or Route Number
t Rio Road, State Route Number 631
Old Route Number: 0
l From: 0.39 Mi. SE Rte. 650 (C)
Recordation Reference: N/A
Right of Way width (feet) = 80.5 ft
To: 0.32 Mi. SE Rte. 650 (D), a distance of: 0.07 miles.
Project/Subdivision 0631-002-128,C-502
Type Change to the Secondary System of State Highways:Addition
The following additions to the Secondary System of State Highways, pursuant to the statutory provision or provisions
cited, are hereby requested; the right of way for which, including additional easements for cuts, fills and drainage, as
required, is hereby guaranteed:
Reason for Change:
Pursuant to Code of Virginia Statute:
VDOT Project
§33.1-229
Report of Changes in the Secondary System of State Highways
VDOT Form AM-4.3 (4/20/2007) Maintenance Division
Date of Resolution: Page 3 of 3
Street Name and/or Route Number
t John W. Warner Parkway, State Route Number 2500
Old Route Number: 0
l From: A - Melbourne Road(City street)
Recordation Reference: N/A
Right of Way width (feet) = 41ft & var
To: 0.70 Mi. N. Melbourne Road (B-Bridge Structure 6402), a distance of: 0.70 miles.
Street Name and/or Route Number
t John W. Warner Parkway, State Route Number 2500
Old Route Number: 0
l From: A - Melbourne Road(City street)
Recordation Reference: N/A
Right of Way width (feet) = 41ft & var
To: 0.70 Mi. N. Melbourne Road (B-Bridge Structure 6402), a distance of: 0.70 miles.
Street Name and/or Route Number
t Rio Road, State Route Number 631
Old Route Number: 0
l From: Rte. 2500 (1.01 Mi. North Rte. 3412 (Seg C))
Recordation Reference: N/A
Right of Way width (feet) = 67 ft var
To: 0.05 Mi. SE Rte. Rte. 2500 (Seg K), a distance of: 0.05 miles.
Street Name and/or Route Number
t Dunlora Drive, State Route Number 1177
Old Route Number: 0
l From: 0.05 Mi. SE Rte. 2500 (K)
Recordation Reference: N/A
Right of Way width (feet) = 0
To: 0.11 Mi. E. (J), a distance of: 0.11 miles.
Street Name and/or Route Number
t Dunlora Drive, State Route Number 1177
Old Route Number: 0
l From: 0.07 Mi. W. Rte. 1239 (J)
Recordation Reference: N/A
Right of Way width (feet) = 0
To: 0.03 Mi. W. Rte. 1239 (H), a distance of: 0.04 miles.
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
Moores Creek Floodplain Changes
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Authorize the County Engineer to sign an application for a
conditional letter of map revision to FEMA maps
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Messrs. Foley, Elliott, Davis, Kamptner, Graham, and
Brooks
LEGAL REVIEW: Yes
AGENDA DATE:
March 7, 2012
ACTION: INFORMATION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: X INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS: Yes
REVIEWED BY:
BACKGROUND:
The developer of Belmont Cottages, a residential development in the City of Charlottesville, has applied to the Federal
Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) for a Conditional Letter of Map Revision (CLOMR) to change the area
subject to inundation during a 100-year flood depicted on the Flood Insurance Study maps prepared by FEMA. These
maps also serve as the source for the boundaries of the County’s flood hazard overlay district.
The proposed map changes show a change in elevation resulting from the deposit of fill dirt the developer is planning
to place in the floodplain on the City side of Moores Creek. FEMA is requiring County signature on the developer’s
application because some of the proposed changes to the floodplain will occur on the County side of Moores Creek.
The developer’s obtaining a CLOMR before placing fill dirt in the Moores Creek floodplain is a FEMA requirement
which, if met, will enable affected property owners to continue to purchase federal flood insurance.
DISCUSSION:
County Code section 30.3.07 allows the Board of Supervisors to modify the flood hazard overlay district as follows:
“30.3.07 AMENDMENT OF THE FLOOD HAZARD OVERLAY DISTRICT
The delineation of the flood hazard overlay district may be revised, amended and modified by the board of
supervisors in compliance with the National Flood Insurance Program when any of the following conditions are
met: (…)
3. There are changes indicated by FEMA issuance of letters of map amendment (LOMA) or letters of map
revision (LOMR). (Added 2-5-05)
4. There are changes indicated by future detailed hydrologic and hydraulic studies.”
The developer’s application includes a plan and analysis that shows slight expansions of the floodplain and floodway
on the County side. The fill on the City side will effectively push floodwaters toward the County. This will affect one
parcel, Tax Map 77E2, Parcel 2, on which is located a self storage facility. The effects will be limited to undeveloped
portions of the parcel that are in the buffer area and greenway. The floodplain encroaches into the parcel
approximately 25 feet more, while the floodway encroaches approximately 35 feet more. Graphical depictions of the
proposal are shown in Attachment A.
The applicant has worked with the owner of the self storage facility and obtained the facility-owner’s permission for the
proposed changes. The facility-owner’s letter expressing his permission is attached (Attachment B). The County
Engineer has no objections to this proposed change to the FEMA map.
BUDGET IMPACT:
There is no budget impact.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends that the Board authorize the County Engineer to sign the FEMA application.
ATTACHMENTS
A. Graphical depictions of changes
B. Letter from Charlottesville Self Storage
Return to consent agenda
Return to regular agenda
Points of Interest
AIRPORT
COLLEGE/UNIVERSITY
COMMUNITY
FIRE/RESCUE STATION
GOVERNMENT
HOSPITAL
LIBRARY
POLICE STATION
POST OFFICE
RECREATION/TOURISM
SCHOOL
Overlays
100 Year Floodplain
Open Space Use Agreem
Water Protection Ordinanc
Park Info
County Parks
Parcel Info
Parcels
Map is for Display Purposes Only • Aerial Imagery from the Commonwealth of Virginia and Other Sources December 1, 2011
GIS-Web
Geographic Data Services
www.albemarle.org
(434) 296-5832
Legend
(Note: Some items on map may not appear in legend)
294 ft
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
EMS Cost Recovery Program Update
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Annual report of the EMS Cost Recovery Program;
Resolution to establish new schedule of fees;
consideration of billing policy change
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Messrs. Foley, Elliott, Davis, Brown, and Eggleston
LEGAL REVIEW: Yes
AGENDA DATE:
March 7, 2012
ACTION: INFORMATION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: X INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS: Yes
REVIEWED BY:
BACKGROUND:
On September 9, 2009, the Board adopted an ordinance authorizing the County to establish an emergency medical
service (EMS) cost recovery program which would charge fees for EMS vehicle transports provided by the
Department of Fire and Rescue or by any volunteer rescue squad issued a permit by the County to charge fees. The
Board directed staff to begin billing by February 1, 2010.
The County procured the services of Diversified Ambulance Billing (now known as Fidelis Billing) to act as the billing
agent for the County. The Board adopted a Resolution to establish fees for EMS transports on December 2, 2009
and directed that fees be periodically reviewed to assure that such fees stay within the industry average and to keep
pace with Medicare and Medicaid rates, which typically increase annually.
In January of 2010, the Scottsville Volunteer Rescue Squad (“SVRS”) applied for and was issued a permit to charge
fees. Staff and members of SVRS worked together to develop and implement an extensi ve public information plan to
inform the public about the EMS Cost Recovery Program. On February 1, 2010, ambulances stationed at Monticello,
Hollymead, and SVRS began billing for EMS transports.
On August 4th, 2010, staff provided an update to the Board on the EMS Cost Recovery program for the five months of
billing in FY10. Staff’s report addressed citizen feedback, administrative workload for SVRS and County staff, FY10
actual revenue, and FY11 revenue projections.
On April 6, 2011, staff provided an update of the first year of billing (February 1, 2010 – January 31, 2011) as well as
an updated revenue projection for FY11.
At the Board’s request, staff is providing its annual review of the Revenure Recovery Program, a report of FY11
expenditures and revenues, an updated revenue projection for FY12.
DISCUSSION:
Customer Feedback:
Staff continues to monitor customer feedback to ensure that the program is operating properly. Since the April 6,
2011 report to the Board, there have been only t hree billing inquiries reported to the Fire Rescue office; two were
hospital bill issues(not related to the ambulance transport bill), and were redirected to the appropriate hospital(s). The
third was a verbal confirmation that a hardship waiver request was accepted and that there would be no billing of the
patient for the balance of the fee after the insurance had been paid.
Fidelis began conducting on-line and telephone customer satisfaction surveys earlier this year. As of this date, Fidelis
informs us there have been no reported complaints regarding Albemarle County’s EMS Cost Recovery Program.
Administrative Workload:
The administrative workload remains low enough that no additional staff is requ ired for processing the necessary
information. There has been a smooth transition from paper Patient Care Reports (PCR’s) to electronic reporting of
PCR’s to the State Office of EMS. Electronic reporting enables Fidelis to obtain their information directly from the
State Office of EMS databases.
Report Data on First Full Year of Billing:
In September 2011, Fidelis provided staff with reports outlining performance of the County’s billing system for the
Fiscal Year 2010-2011. Some of the highlights include:
AGENDA TITLE: EMS Cost Recovery Program Update
March 7, 2012
Page 2
1. Billing Rates: The initial billing rates set by the Board on December 2, 2009 were based primarily on rates no
lower than the usual and customary costs allowed by private insurers and on rates set by surrounding
localities. The current rates are:
$350 – Basic Life Support
$450 – Advanced Life Support 1
$550 - Advanced Life Support 2
$8.50/mile
Fidelis recommends raising our billing rates at this time based on changes to the Medicare Allowable Rates
(2.5% inflationary rate increase) and the current “Usual & Customary Charges” paid by the private insurance
companies. Medicare has approved an inflation increase that began Jan 1, 2012. Fidelis recommends raising
our rates to:
$450 – Basic Life Support
$550 – Advanced Life Support 1
$750 - Advanced Life Support 2
$13.00/mile
Fidelis has made this recommendation to all its central Virginia clients. The recommendation would establish
the fees appropriately 25% above the “Allowable” rates set by Medicare. Most private insurance companies
pay at a higher rate than Medicare. If the fees are established based on the lower Medi care rate, the
insurance companies would pay less than their own rates would allow. As of this date, Augusta, Caroline,
Green, Rockbridge, Orange, Spotsylvania, Warren, Madison, Mecklenburg, Appomattox and Henry counties
have already raised their rates and Nelson County is in the process of doing so.
2. Patient Payer Mix (the type of monies received): Fidelis advised staff that the County patient payer mix is very
good and has improved since last year. Receipts are as follows: approximately 39% Medicare; 3%Medicaid;
30% Private Insurance; 25% Private pay (no insurance); and 3% Military or Auto Insurance. The Private Pay
(no insurance) percent improved (from 31% down to 25%) primarily due to the new electronic billing, process
improvements (such as efforts on the part of ACFR staff to help Fidelis obtain patient data from UVA), and a
new address verification system utilized by Fidelis.
3. Bad Debt Write Off Rate: Fidelis advised staff that the County has a bad debt write-off average of 22%. The
national average is between 23-28%. Our low number reflects the low percent of Private Pay (no insurance.)
4. Cash Collections as a Percent of Net Billable: (amount of money collected after deducting the mandatory
contractual adjustments from the insurance companies). As of June 30th, the County collected approximately
63% of net billable, up from 57% last year. With nine months left to collect FY11 bills, Fidelis expects this
percentage to increase.
5. Average Collections per Transport: Our average collection per transport for FY11 is $278.32, up from $270.88
for FY10. The State average is $260. Fidelis anticipates this will continue to increase and attributes it to the
high quality of documentation staff is submitting, the help we have provided in obtaining information from
UVA, and new systems and processes implemented by Fidelis over the last year.
6. Other data:
Fidelis provided reports on several other aspects of the County’s ambulance transports for FY11:
Number of transports: 2050 (71% ACFR; 29% SVRS); roughly the same as FY10
BLS/ALS: 51% of our transports were BLS; 49% were ALS; the same as FY10
Hospital: 61% went to UVA; 39% went to MJH; slight increase in UVA
Pick up location: 70% transported from a residence; 30% transported from a non-residence;
the same as FY10.
Top three reasons for transport:
10.5% Dyspnea, Abnormal Respiration
8.6% Multiple Injuries
5.7% Weakness, Debility
AGENDA TITLE: EMS Cost Recovery Program Update
March 7, 2012
Page 3
Hardship Waivers: 27 hardship waivers were requested and approved for $13,039.82. None were
denied.
Electronic Patient Care Reporting System
The Electronic Patient Care Reporting System continues to evolve. Staff and volunteers at Hollymead, Monticello and
SVRS are using laptops to capture patient care information. The information is transmitted electronically to the State
Office of EMS and is assessable by Fidelis for patient billing. The next phase of the project includes incorporating
hospital data along with patient care data.
Proposed Billing Policy Change:
The County currently has a compassionate billing policy that provides that no person is required to pay any portion of
a bill that they determine they cannot afford. Although this policy has worked well and no such request has been
denied, staff recommends that the Board consider implementing an additional policy not to bill County residents for
more than the amount covered by Medicare, Medicaid, or private insurance. This policy ca n be implemented if the
Department of Health & Human Services, Office of Inspector General provides an advisory opinion letter that the
County’s Revenue Recovery Program meets federal requirements to treat revenue received from taxes as payment of
otherwise applicable cost-sharing amounts owed by bona fide County residents for EMS transportation to hospitals.
This opinion letter is necessary to assure that the County remains in compliance with billin g requirements mandated
by the Social Security Act. Under this policy, the County would not bill County residents for co-pays, deductibles, or
any balance due that was not paid by an insurance company. The County would be required to continue to bill non-
County residents the full amount of the fees. Staff estimates that the financial impact of implementing this policy
would be small (a reduction in roughly 5-8% of net revenue) and could encourage additional community support for
the Revenue Recovery Progrm. Other localities that have implemented this policy include: Orange, Madison, Page,
King & Queen, King George, W arren and Caroline counties.
BUDGET IMPACT:
As of July 31 (for 13 months of collection: 7/1/10 – 7/31/11 per County Finance accrual policy), revenue for FY11 was
$638,564.89. Revenue for 12 months (7/1/10 – 6/30/11) was $584,838.92. Going forward, revenue will be reported
for the time frame of August 1 through July 31.
FY11 Revenue: $584,839. (Budgeted Revenue $444,000)
FY11 Expenditures: $ 37,861
Net Revenue: $546,978
If no rate change is implemented:
FY12 budgeted Revenue: $585,000
FY12 budgeted Expenditures: $ 42,315
Anticipated Net Revenue: $542,685 Not billing County residents for fees not covered by insurance
reduces revenue by ~ $43,415
With recommended rate change:
FY12 anticipated Revenue: $668,253
FY12 anticipated Expenditures: $ 47,315
Potential Net Revenue: $620,938 Not billing County residents for fees not covered by insurance
reduces revenue by ~ $49,675
FY13 anticipated Revenue* $740,000
*includes billing anticpated by ACFR from programmed Pantops rescue squad operation
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends that the Board adopt the proposed Resolution to Establish a New Schedule of Fees for
Emergency Medical Services Vehicle Transport Services to increase EMS Cost Recovery billing rates. (Attachment A)
Staff also recommends that the Board direct staff to take the necessary steps necessary to implement a policy change
that would provide that County residents would not be billed for fees not covered in insurance.
ATTACHMENTS:
A – Resolution
Return to consent agenda
Return to regular agenda
RESOLUTION TO ESTABLISH A NEW SCHEDULE OF FEES FOR
EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES VEHICLE TRANSPORT SERVICES
WHEREAS, on September 9, 2009, the Board enacted Chapter 6, Article V of the
Albemarle County Code, which authorizes the Albemarle County Department of Fire and Rescue
and any volunteer rescue squad that obtains a permit from the County to charge fees for emergency
medical services (EMS) vehicle transports; and
WHEREAS, on December 2, 2009, the Board established a schedule of fees for EMS
vehicle transport services; and
WHEREAS, based on a market review of the current fees for EMS vehicle transport
services, the Board has determined that an increase in fees is reasonable.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the following EMS vehicle transport
service fees are hereby increased and a new schedule of fees is established, effective April 1, 2012,
for all EMS vehicle transport services provided in accordance with Chapter 6, Article V of the
County Code:
1. For Basic Life Support (BLS) transport services: $450. BLS is defined as the emergency
response and transport of a patient that requires assessment and treatment by a BLS
Technician and no Advanced Life Support procedures.
2. For Advanced Life Support Level 1 (ALS1): $550. ALS1 is defined as the emergency
response and transport of a patient that requires assessment and treatment by an ALS
Technician and one or more Advanced Life Support procedures.
3. For Advanced Life Support Level 2 (ALS2): $750. ALS2 is defined as the transport of a
patient that requires defibrillation, pacing, intubation, or the administration of 3 or more
Schedule IV medications.
4. For Ground Transport Miles (GTM): $13.00/mile. GTM is defined as the charge per
patient transport mile.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT no person shall be denied transport services due
to his or her inability to pay.
Return to exec summary
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
FY 2012 Budget Amendment and Appropriations
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Approval of Budget Amendment and Appropriations
#2012051, #2012054, #2012055, #2012056, #2012057,
#2012058 and #2012059 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:
March 7, 2012
ACTION: INFORMATION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: X INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS: Yes
REVIEWED BY:
BACKGROUND:
Virginia Code § 15.2-2507 provides that any locality may amend its budget to adjust the aggregate amount to be
appropriated during the fiscal year as shown in the currently adopted budget; provided, however, any such amendment
which exceeds one percent of the total expenditures shown in the currently adopted budget must be accomplished by
first publishing a notice of a meeting and holding a public hearing before amending the budget. The Code section
applies to all County funds, i.e., General Fund, Capital Funds, E911, School Self-Sustaining, etc.
The total of the requested FY 2012 appropriations itemized below is $1,615,383.47. A budget amendment public
hearing is not required because the amount of the cumulative appropriations does not exceed one percent of the
currently adopted budget.
BUDGET IMPACT:
This request involves the approval of seven (7) FY 2012 appropriations as follows:
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.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends approval of appropriations #2012051, #2012054, #2012055, #2012056, #2010057, #2012058 and
#2012059.
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A – Appropriation Descriptions
Return to consent agenda
Return to regular agenda
Attachment A
1
Appropriation #2012051 $29,540.00
Revenue Source: Use of Gen. Gov’t CIP Fund Balance $ 29,540.00
This request is to appropriate $29,540.00 to paint the Scottsville Library roof and replace the gutters and
downspouts. An inspection revealed that the paint on the roof is peeling and missing in many locations throughout
the surface of the roof and the gutters are in a state of failure and beyond repair. To insure the building stays in
good condition, it is recommended that the roof be painted and the gutters be replaced in the Spring of 2012.
Appropriation #2012054 $13,300.00
Revenue Source: Use of Gen. Gov’t CIP Fund Balance $ 13,300.00
This request is to appropriate $13,300 to install security windows at the Albemarle County Police Department. This
is recommended by the Police Department and the Department of General Services in response to safety concerns
identified during a security evaluation. This is determined to be a cost effective alternative to bring the facility up to
minimum safety standard established for public safety facilities.
Appropriation #2012055 $832,714.70
Revenue Source: Use of School Bus Repl. Fund Balance $ 832,714.70
This request is to re-appropriate $832,714.70 from the FY 10/11 School Bus Replacement Fund balance to fund
school bus replacements as approved by the School Board on Decem ber 8, 2011. Along with funds already
appropriated in the FY 11/12 operating budget, these funds will be used b y the School Division to purchase the
annual schedule of at least 15 school buses during FY 11-12. Any unexpended funds at the end of FY 11/12 will
support future school bus purchases. This re-appropriation is needed in March to place orders for bus es to be
delivered in FY 11/12.
.
Appropriation #2012056 $530,728.77
Revenue Source: Contributions $ 12,454.39
Miscellaneous Local Revenue $ 6,477.76
State Revenue $ 37,500.00
Use of Comp. Repl. Fund Balance $ 474,296.62
This request is to appropriate various School Division requests as approved by the School Board on January 12,
2012. This appropriation request of $530,728.77 includes the f ollowing:
Contributions:
o Western Albemarle High School (WAHS) received $3,089.05 in donations to reimburse WAHS
Athletic Budget for the cost of athletic tee shirts. These tee shirts were purchased by donations
from local businesses to help promote school spirit. The tee shirts were purchased in compliance
with Albemarle County purchasing policies, and were given away at a home football game to the
first 800+ fans.
o Broadus Wood Elementary School received donations in the amount of $1,050.00 from local
community members. These funds will be used for educational needs at the school.
o Murray High School received donations in the amount of $811.00 from local community members.
These funds will be used for educational needs at the school.
o Brownsville Elementary School received donations totaling $3,500.00 from the Robert E. McConnell
Foundation. The foundation asked that this donation be used to purchase snacks for the students at
Brownsville Elementary School.
o Cale Elementary School received a donation in the amount of $2,325.00 from the Cale Elementary
PTO. The donor has requested that this contribution be used to help with the “Tuesday Clubs”
expenses incurred at Cale Elementary. “Tuesday Clubs” are various clubs offered to Cale students
after school.
o Henley Middle School received a donation in the amount of $1,679.34 from Henley’s Parent and
Teacher Support Organization. These funds will be used to help fund the “Enrichment Time before
9” program for the month of November at Henley Middle School.
Attachment A
2
Miscellaneous Local Revenue:
o Western Albemarle High School (WAHS) desires to reimburse its School Division’s County budget
an amount of $1,076.50 with funds that were generated from its Activity Accounts at WAHS to pay
for athletic personnel. Most stipends for athletics at WAHS are paid through the County rather than
by either their activity funds or their booster clubs.
o Albemarle High School (AHS) desires to reimburse its School Division’s County budget in the
amount of $1,160.00 with funding from its Activity Accounts at AHS to pay for athletic personnel.
Most stipends for athletics at AHS are paid through the County s rather than by either their activity
funds or their booster clubs.
o Albemarle High School received reimbursement for field trip expenses in the amount of $1,542.32.
These local funds are collected from fees assessed for these field trips and are currently included in
the Activity Accounts at AHS.
o The Albemarle Resource Center (ARC) requested that Follett Education Services submit payment
for credits that were accrued by the ARC for returned textbooks. The total amount of credit due to
the Albemarle County Public Schools ARC is $2,698.84. This request is to appropriate the payment
submitted by Follett Education Services to reimburse the ARC for their accrue d credits in November
2011.
State Revenue:
o This request is to appropriate $37,500.00 in annual awards from the Department of Education for
teacher bonuses associated with the National Board Certification Program. The National Board
Certification is an extensive yearlong assessment of actual teaching practice based upon high and
rigorous standards established by the National Board for Professional Teaching Standards.
Through the process, teachers document their subject matter knowledge, provide evidence that
they know how to teach their subjects to students most effectively, and demonstrate their ability to
manage and measure student learning. There are 15 ACPS teachers that meet these standards. In
recognition of this achievement, the Department of Education issues the National Board Incentive
Bonus Payments to these teachers. An initial award is set at $5,000 (pre-tax) with a subsequent
annual award of $2,500 (pre-tax) for the life of the certificate (10 year). This appropriation request is
for the $37,500.00 provided for the annual awards.
Use of Computer Replacement Fund Balance:
o This request is to re-appropriate $474,296.62 from the FY 10/11 Computer Equipment
Replacement Fund fund balance for use in FY 11/12. The purpose of the Computer Equipment
Replacement Fund is to provide students and staff reliable access to technology and support its
use in meaningful ways.
Appropriation #2012057 $33,950.00
Revenue Source: Contributions $ 350.00
CACF Grants $ 33,600.00
This request is to appropriate funding for the School Division as approved by the School Board on January 26,
2012. This appropriation request of $33,950.00 is as follows:
Crozet Elementary School received a donation in the amount of $100.00 from a local community member
and will be used for instructional needs at Crozet Elementary School.
Community Public Charter School received a donation in the amount of $250.00 from a local community
member and will be used for instructional needs at the Albemarle Community Public Charter School.
The Charlottesville Area Community Foundation (CACF) is a permanent endowment dedicated to improving
the quality of life for the people of the City of Charlottesville and the counties of Albemarle, Buckingham,
Fluvanna, Greene, Louisa, Nelson and Orange. Albemarle County schools received grants from CACF
totaling $33,600.00, which are to be distributed as follows:
o Walton Middle School has been awarded a grant in the amount of $1,000.00 from the CACF’s
Community Endowment Fund. The Community Endowment Fund is the CACF’s unrestricted grant-
making program that provides support to nonprofit organizations working to improve the quality of
life in the CACF service area. These funds will be used to purchase LEGO NXT Mindstorm Kits and
will be used to encourage young women to participate in the male-dominated field of robotics.
o Henley Middle School has been awarded a grant in the amount of $15,800.00 from the CACF’s
Prana Fund. The Prana Fund was established for CACF in 2006 by Albemarle County residents
Tom and Karyn Dingledine. Each year, the Dingledines, together with their adult children and
members of CACF’s professional staff and Governing Board, review proposals from eligible
Attachment A
3
nonprofit agencies. This year’s Prana Fund Award was directed toward organizations working in
Charlottesville and Albemarle County that provide programs specifically directed to lowe r and
middle income children and integrates the environment, animals and/or the fine arts.
o Three Albemarle County Schools have been awarded grants from CACF’s Bama Works Fund of
the Dave Matthews Band. This fund supports disadvantaged youth, needs of the disabled,
protection of the environment and the arts and hum anities.
Stony Point Elementary School received a grant in the amount of $1,800.00. The funds will
be used to pay the stipend for a Music Therapist. The Music Therapist will work with “at
risk” students to facilitate song writing and performing using empathy as the central theme.
Henley Middle School received a grant in the amount of $5,000.00. The funds will be used
to implement Phase I: The Edible Garden of the Henley Hornets’ N.E.S.T. (Nature,
Environment, Studio, Teaching). Phase I requires the purchase of materials to build six
raised beds, the purchase of four picnic tables, storage and shelving, garden equipment
and tools, seeds and starter plants, and the purchase of art supplies for murals and
posters.
Burley Middle School received a grant in the amount of $10,000.00. These funds will be
used to support the Burley Middle School Young Women’s Chorus participation in the 2012
World Choir Games being held in Cincinnati, Ohio on July 4-14, 2012.
Appropriation #2012058 $145,150.00
Revenue Source: Federal Revenue $ 145,150.00
This request is to appropriate a $145,150.00 grant from the U.S. Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services
Administration’s (SAMHSA) Center for Substance Abuse Prevention (CSAP) through its subcontractor, Virginia
Commonwealth University for Strategic Prevention Framework – State Incentive Grant (SPF-SIG), which was
awarded to the Commission on Children and Families (CCF) with the County acting as fiscal agent. The purpose of
this grant is to reduce the number of motor vehicle crashes involving alcohol-impaired drivers who are between the
ages of 15 and 24 years by completing a comprehensive needs assessment, developing a strategic plan, and
implementing evidence-based strategies.
Appropriation #2012059 $30,000.00
Revenue Source: Federal Revenue $ 30,000.00
This request is to appropriate a $30,000 Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Planning Grant that will
cover the costs of preliminary work necessary to submit an application to the Department of Housing and
Community Development for a housing rehabilitation project in the Orchard Ac res Subdivision. The preliminary work
will be performed by both the Albemarle Housing Im provement Program and the Office of Housing. Once the grant
monies are appropriated, the County Executive will sign the necessary grant award documents and they will be
submitted to the funding agency.
Return to exec summary
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
Polo Grounds Road Floodplain Changes
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Authorize the County Engineer to sign an application for a
letter of map revision to FEMA maps
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Messrs. Foley, Elliott, Davis, Kamptner, Graham, and
Brooks
LEGAL REVIEW: Yes
AGENDA DATE:
March 7, 2012
ACTION: INFORMATION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: X INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS: Yes
REVIEWED BY:
BACKGROUND:
Monticello United Soccer Club (“MUSC”) is seeking to establish an automobile parking area to serve its soccer fields
located on Polo Grounds Road using an existing entrance on Polo Grounds Road (Tax Map 46, Section A, Parcel
18C) (See Attachment A). This entrance area is located in the floodplain and floodway. MUSC has applied to the
Federal Emergency Management Agency (“FEMA”) for a Letter of Map Revision (LOMR) to have this area removed
from the area subject to inundation during a 100-year flood depicted on the Floor Insurance Study maps prepared by
FEMA. These maps also serve as the source for the boundaries of the County’s flood hazard overlay district. The
proposed map changes show a change in elevation to the entrance area of the Polo Grounds Road soccer fields
based on a recent topographic survey. FEMA is requiring County signature on MUSC’s application.
DISCUSSION:
County Code section 30.3.07 allows the Board of Supervisors to modify the flood hazard overlay district as follows:
“30.3.07 AMENDMENT OF THE FLOOD HAZARD OVERLAY DISTRICT
The delineation of the flood hazard overlay district may be revised, amended and modified by the board of
supervisors in compliance with the National Flood Insurance Program when any of the following conditions are
met: (…)
3. There are changes indicated by FEMA issuance of letters of map amendment (LOMA) or letters of map
revision (LOMR). (Added 2-5-05)
MUSC’s application includes a plan that shows the entrance area as being higher than FEMA’s computed elevations.
It is not clear if the entrance area was always at the elevation shown on MUSC’s plan and there was simply an error in
the FEMA map, or if it was built up over the years. In any case, staff believes that FEMA is likely to approve this
change as an insignificant change due to its location at the edge of a large floodplain. The County Engineer has no
objections to this proposed change to the FEMA map.
BUDGET IMPACT:
There is no budget impact.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends that the Board authorize the County Engineer to sign the FEMA application.
ATTACHMENTS
A. Applicant’s Plan
Return to consent agenda
Return to regular agenda
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
Permanent Part-Time Employee Pension Plan
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Approval of amendments to the Permanent Part-Time
Employee Pension Plan, authorization to submit amended
Plan to IRS, and adoption of Resolution to amend
Personnel Policy P-63, Retirement
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Messrs. Foley, Letteri, Davis and Brown; and Ms. Burrell
and Ms. Gerome
LEGAL REVIEW: Yes
AGENDA DATE:
March 7, 2012
ACTION: INFORMATION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: X INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS: Yes
REVIEWED BY:
BACKGROUND:
In 1985 the Board of Supervisors adopted a Policy to establish a Pension Plan for Permanent Part-Time Employees
(the Plan) to provide a retirement benefit for Albemarle County’s eligible part-time employees. The Policy is found in
Albemarle County Personnel Policy P-63, II (Attachment A). Eligible permanent part-time employees of the Albemarle
County School Board also participate in the Plan. As of January 1, 2012, nine local government employees and 253
school division employees participated in the Plan. The contributions to the Plan for the month of January, 2012
totaled $27,200. The Plan needs to be updated in order to comply with applicable tax law and IRS regulations and to
make several recommended substantive changes. The Human Resources Department has retained outside legal
counsel specializing in local government benefits plans to assist in updating the Plan Document and securing the
Plan’s approval by the IRS. Human Resources also has secured a new plan administrator to maintain the Plan in the
future.
DISCUSSION:
Under the terms of the Plan, the County deposits a contribution each payroll reflecting a percentage of pay of each
eligible part-time County employee. The School Board makes such a contribution for each eligible part-time School
Board employee. The percentage contributed for each employee is based on the employee’s years of service with the
County or the School Board. Part-time employees become eligible for contributions into the Plan once they have
completed five years of continuing service. The percentage of pay contributed starts at 5% and increases 2% every 5
years, capping at 11% for employees with 20 or more years of service. The amount deposited into the employee’s
account is considered taxable income, and the applicable tax is withheld from the employee’s income. The deposits
are included in the employee’s taxable income for W -2 reporting purposes for the year of the deposit. Investment
earnings on the Plan accounts are not reported as taxable income for the year of accrual in the employee’s account.
When an employee terminates employment with the County or School Board, the account balance is distributable at
the request of the employee, with investment earnings reported as taxable income to the employee at that time.
The Plan is intended to be a “tax qualified” retirement plan, meaning that the investment earnings on the accounts are
not taxable to the participants until distributed from the Plan.
Retirement plans intended to be tax qualified are required to be amended from time to time to reflect changes in
federal tax law and IRS regulations. Failure to timely amend the Plan could result in the IRS’s disqualification of the
Plan, and require the immediate taxation of accrued investment earnings in participants’ accounts and penalties
against the County as the Plan Sponsor.
Staff has worked with outside counsel and the new plan administrator to update the Plan to reflect all necessary
changes. A final version of the amended Plan is being prepared. The County’s outside counsel recommends that the
County submit the amended Plan after adoption to the IRS in order to receive a determination letter from the IRS ruling
that the Plan is tax qualified.
In addition to the technical amendments necessary to ensure that the Plan complies with federal tax law and IRS
regulations, staff recommends three substantive changes to the Plan:
AGENDA TITLE: Permanent Part-Time Employee Pension Plan
March 7, 2012
Page 2
1. Any participating employee who terminates employment for any reason but is reemployed must
complete an additional 5 years of continuous employment in order to again become qualified for
participation in the Plan;
2. Contributions to an employee’s account would become taxable upon distribution to the employee
instead of in the year contributed. This amendment would bring the Plan more into line with traditional
tax deferred plans, give the County more investment options, allow the employee to rollover
distributions to other tax deferred investment options, and lower administrative costs for the County;
and
3. A change from part time to full time employment will not be a qualifying event entitling an employee to
distribution of funds from the Plan.
Finally, the County’s outside counsel and third party administrator recommend that the County’s Director of Finance
and Director of Human Resources be named as trustees in the Plan Document for convenience and continuity.
Under the Amended Plan, Albemarle County will remain the Plan’s sponsor, but the School Board has approved the
amended Plan as a participating employer. The School Board approved the Plan amendments and the submission of
the Plan to the IRS at the School Board’s meeting on February 23, 2012.
A Resolution to approve a proposed amendment to Personnel Policy §P-63, Retirement, to require that eligible,
permanent, part-time employees who terminate employment for any reason must complete an additional 5 years of
continuous employment in order to again become qualified for the receipt of annuity benefits as set forth above, is
attached (Attachment B).
BUDGET IMPACT:
The filing fee for the IRS review is $5,000. The fee for obtaining a determination letter from the IRS ruling that the
amended Plan Document is “tax qualified” is $2,500. Attorney’s fees for the filing and related services will be
approximately $1,800. The filing fees and attorney’s fees will be paid through the Human Resources Department,
effectively resulting in a division of the fees between the County and School Board. The third party administrator
advises that the amended Plan should lower administrative costs in a yet to be determined amount.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends that the Board:
1) approve the amended Plan and its submission to the IRS for review in order to receive a
determination that the Plan is tax qualified. The final amended Plan will be subject to the review and
approval of the County Executive and County Attorney to insure that the amended Plan materially
conforms to the provisions set forth above;
2) appoint Betty Burrell and Lorna Gerome as the initial Plan Trustees; and
3) adopt the attached Resolution to approve the proposed amendment to Personnel Policy §P-63
(Attachment B).
ATTACHMENTS
A – Current Personnel Policy P-63, II, Longevity Incentive Program
B – Resolution to approve proposed amendment to Personnel Policy P-63, Retirement
Return to consent agenda
Return to regular agenda
§ P-63 RETIREMENT
***********
II. LONGEVITY INCENTIVE PROGRAM
The County values the service of all of its employees, both full-time and part-time. Since
part-time employees are not covered by VRS, the County has elected to establish a
Longevity Incentive Program (the “Program”) and thereby provide eligible part-time
employees with certain benefits as more fully explained in this section.
A. Scope of Program
All regular, part-time employees of the County will be covered by the Program
provided that they work the minimum number of hours necessary to establish
eligibility for County benefits. Salaried Board Members are not eligible for
participation in this program.
B. Benefits
The following benefits will be provided to eligible part-time employees under the
Program:
1. Life Insurance: A term life insurance policy will be provided equal to twice
the employee’s annual salary with double indemnity for accidental death and
dismemberment payments for the accidental loss of one or more limbs or of
eyesight.
2. Annuity Program: Based on length of service in the County, part-time
employees will be provided with an annuity program. The Board will
contribute an annual amount according to the following formula:
a. 5 - 9 years of County service - five percent of annual salary.
b. 10 - 14 years of County service - seven percent of annual salary
c. 15 - 19 years of County service - nine percent of annual salary.
d. 20+ years of County service - eleven percent of annual salary.
***********
Return to exec summary
1
RESOLUTION
WHEREAS, the County of Albemarle Personnel Policy has been adopted by the Board of
Supervisors; and
WHEREAS, the Board desires to amend the requirements for eligible, permanent, part-time
employees’ receipt of annuity benefits.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle
County, Virginia, hereby amends Section P-63, Retirement, of the County of Albemarle Personnel Policy,
as follows:
Section P-63 RETIREMENT
I. REGULAR RETIREMENT
A. General
Retirement shall be at the discretion of the employee. Full-time regular employees of
Albemarle County who qualify are eligible for the benefits of the Virginia Retirement
System (“VRS”). Additional information describing VRS benefits is available on -line at
varetire.org.
B. Continuing Participation in the County’s Medical and Dental Insurance Plans
1. All employees retiring under VRS and/or the County’s VERIP policy are eligible
for continuous participation in the group medical and dental insurance plans until
they are eligible for Medicare coverage if they participated in the County’s group
medical and dental insurance plans on the day prior to separation from the
County. The age and service criteria for VRS are as follows: 50 years of age
with 10 or more years of continuous regular employment by a VRS-participating
employer; or 55 years of age with 5 or more years of continuous regular
employment by a VRS-participating employer.
2. Individuals eligible to participate in the County’s group medical and dental
insurance plan shall pay the full cost of health insurance coverage, including any
applicable administrative expenses.
3. Any retirees or Board members who participated in the County’s group medical
and/or dental insurance plans as of December 1, 2009 shall continue to be
eligible to participate, at their own cost, until they are eligible for Medicare
coverage.
II. LONGEVITY INCENTIVE PROGRAM
The County values the service of all of its employees, both full -time and part-time. Since part-
time employees are not covered by VRS, the County has elected to establish a Longevity
Incentive Program (the “Program”) and thereby provide eligible part-time employees with certain
benefits as more fully explained in this section.
A. Scope of Program
All regular, part-time employees of the County will be covered by the Program provided
that they work the minimum number of hours necessary to establish eligibility for County
2
benefits. Salaried Board Members are not eligible for participation in this program.
B. Benefits
The following benefits will be provided to eligible part-time employees under the
Program:
1. Life Insurance: A term life insurance policy will be provided equal to twice the
employee’s annual salary with double indemnity for accidental death and
dismemberment payments for the accidental loss of one or more limbs or of
eyesight.
2. Annuity Program: Based on length of service in the County, part-time
employees will be provided with an annuity program. The Board will contribute
an annual amount according to the following formula:
a. 5 - 9 continuous years of County service - five percent of annual salary.
b. 10 - 14 continuous years of County service - seven percent of annual
salary
c. 15 - 19 continuous years of County service - nine percent of annual
salary.
d. 20+ continuous years of County service - eleven percent of annual salary.
Any participating employee who terminates employment for any reason but is
reemployed must complete an additional five (5) years of continuous employment in
order to again become qualified for participation under this subsection.
III. RETIREMENT PAY/PAYMENT UPON DEATH
In recognition of employee service to Albemarle County, regular full -time and part-time
employees who meet the age and service criteria for retirement under VRS and have been
employed a minimum of five (5) years with Albemarle County shall be paid upon their retirement
or death in service $200 per year for each year of service to the County as a regular employee up
to a maximum payment for 25 years of service, less any years previously paid for under this
policy. Years of service do not have to be continuous.
IV. VOLUNTARY EARLY RETIREMENT INCENTIVE PLAN (VERIP)
A. Eligibility
1. Participants in the Albemarle County VERIP must be regular full-time or regular
part-time employees eligible for benefits as defined in P-02, Definition of
Employee Status and meet the following additional requirements:
a. Full-time employees must be eligible for early or full retirement under
the provisions of VRS. Part-time employees must meet the same age
and service criteria as if they were full-time employees covered under
VRS.
b. Have been employed by the County government and/or school division
for 10 of the last 13 years prior to retirement.
2. Employees retiring under the disability provisions of VRS and/or Social Security
shall not be eligible for the VERIP.
3
3. VERIP benefits will cease if the retiree returns to work in a regular full -time or
regular part-time position with the County government and/or school division.
4. VERIP benefits will continue if the retiree returns to work in a temporary part -
time or temporary full-time position with the County government and/or school
division.
B. Benefits
1. VERIP benefits shall be paid monthly for a period of five years after reti rement
or until age 65, whichever comes first. The VERIP benefits consist of a stipend
calculated in accordance with Section B.2 (“stipend”) and an annual monetary
contribution in the amount of the Board’s current contribution to Board
employees for health insurance (“medical contribution”).
2. Stipends under VERIP will be calculated as follows:
a. Compute the annual VRS benefit. This computation shall include any
reductions for early VRS retirement if appropriate.
b. Recompute the annual VRS benefit with the addition of five more years
of service or the number of additional years needed to reach age 65,
whichever is lesser.
c. The difference between these two calculations is the annual VERIP
stipend (“Stipend Value”) to be paid on a monthly basis.
d. Stipends for part-time employees who are eligible to participate in
VERIP shall be determined as if the part-time employees are eligible for
an annual VRS benefit and the amount shall be calculated in the same
manner as benefits for VRS-eligible employees under subsections (a) –
(c) above.
3. The County Executive will recommend to the Board an annual adjustment to the
VERIP stipend after having been apprised of the VRS adjustment for retirees.
4. The Board will pay to the employee an amount equal to the Board’s annual
contribution toward an employee’s health insurance as long as the employee
remains eligible to receive VERIP benefits.
5. Effective December 2, 2009, the VERIP stipend shall continue to be calculated in
the manner provided in Section B.2, but the stipend amount shall be modified in
accordance with the following schedule:
a. Retirements effective on or after July 1, 2012 but before July 1, 2013:
80% of the Stipend Value.
b. Retirements effective on or after July 1, 2013 but before July 1, 20 14:
60% of the Stipend Value.
c. Retirements effective on or after July 1, 2014 but before July 1, 2015:
40% of the Stipend Value.
d. Retirements effective on or after July 1, 2015 but before July 1, 2016:
20% of the Stipend Value.
e. Retirements effective on or after July 1, 2016: No VERIP Stipend.
4
C. Application
Applications for VERIP must be made to the Human Resources Department prior to
December 1st of the year preceding the fiscal year the employee’s participation in VERIP
takes effect. Applications after December 1 may be approved based on the needs of the
County.
D. Approval
All VERIP applications are subject to approval by the County Executive or designee.
E. Duration
The Board of Supervisors reserves the right to modify this policy in its discretion, and all
benefits described in this policy shall be subject to future modifications and annual
appropriations by the Board of Supervisors.
F. Additional Benefits
1. Current employees who apply for VERIP by February 27, 2009 and who meet
the eligibility standards identified below shall be entitled to receive, at their
election, one of the following:
a. Two additional years of Board contributions toward health insurance
beyond the duration established by Section IV.B, paid on a monthly
basis. Employees who retire at 65 years of age or older shall receive two
years of contributions toward health insurance.
b. The cash equivalent of two additional years of Board contributions
toward health insurance, calculated at the FY 2009-10 annual rate and
paid in one or more installments.
2. To be eligible for the additional benefits in this section, employees must:
a. Submit VERIP applications by February 27, 2009;
b. Submit a letter by April 1, 2009 establishing a retirement date no later
than June 30, 2009; and
c. Retire after the effective adoption date of this subsection (F) but no later
than June 30, 2009.
G. Targeted Retirement Incentives
1. Current employees holding positions in paygrades 16 and higher whose
retirement is determined by the County to not impair the essential functions of
the department, who apply for VERIP by March 15, 2010, and who meet the
eligibility standards identified below shall be entitled to receive, at their election,
one of the following:
a. A lump sum payment equivalent to 20% of the employee’s current
salary. “Salary,” for non-exempt employees receiving benefits pursuant
to this section, shall mean the employee’s current annualized pay based
on his regular hourly rate and regularly scheduled work hours.
5
b. Monthly payments, the total of which is equivalent to one week of pay
for every full year of service with the County for up to 20% of the
employee’s salary. The number of monthly payments will be determined
by the County, however, it shall not exceed sixty (60) monthly payments.
c. Continued full Board contributions toward the employee’s health
insurance for an additional 3 years beyond the contributions specified in
Section B of this policy, or until the age of 65, whichever comes first.
2. To be eligible for the additional benefits in this section, employees must:
a. Submit VERIP applications by March 15, 2010;
b. Submit a letter by April 1, 2010 establishing a retirement date no later than June
30, 2010; and
c. Retire after the effective date of this subsection G but no later than June 30,
2010.
3. The County Executive or his designee may extend for up to 6 months the June 30, 2010
retirement date required by G.2.b and G.2.c for an employee who is otherwise eligible
for the benefits in this subsection G upon a finding that such employee’s retirement
serves the interest of the County.
Amended: August 4, 1993; April 19, 1995; June 2, 2004; January 7, 2009; December 2, 2009; March 3,
2010.
Return to exec summary
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
Grant Application Report
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Summary of grant applications submitted and grants
received in February 2012
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Messrs. Foley, Elliott, Davis, and White
LEGAL REVIEW: Yes
AGENDA DATE:
March 7, 2012
ACTION: INFORMATION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: INFORMATION: X
ATTACHMENTS: Yes
REVIEWED BY:
BACKGROUND:
Pursuant to the County’s Grants Policy and associated procedures, staff is to provide periodic reports to the Board on
the County’s application for and use of grants.
DISCUSSION:
The attached information provides a brief description of four applications submitted and two grants received by the
County in February 2012. Grant funds that have been awarded will proceed through the appropriation process, as will
any future funding received on pending applications.
BUDGET IMPACT:
The budget impact is noted in the summary of each grant.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
This report is for information only.
ATTACHMENTS
Grant Report
Return to consent agenda
Return to regular agenda
First Book
Applicant Department/Agency – ACDSS
Local Program – Bright Stars
Amount Requested – No dollar amount (990 books)
Local Match - None
Receipt of this grant does not require future commitment from the County or any funding from
the County.
USDA
Applicant Department/Agency – Community Development
Local Program – Acquisition of Conservation Easements
Amount Requested - $81,410
Local Match - This program has a 1:1 match requirement. Local match will come from the
current department budget.
Planned Use of Grant
Funds Purchase of one or more conservation easements under the ACE Program.
Receipt of funds does not require any future commitment from the County once easements are
acquired.
Planned Use
of Grant
Funds:
Requesting 6 books per child for monthly distribution through the end of the school year. Books will be
requested for 165 Bright Stars preschoolers to take home after introduction in their preschool classroom. In
addition, we will request 48 copies of each book in Spanish to be provided to families identified with Limited
English Proficiency so that they are afforded the best opportunity to engage in a meaningful home-reading
experience with their preschooler.
Department of Homeland Security
Applicant Department/Agency – Police Department
Local Program – CBRNE Replacement of Throw Phone
Amount Requested - $16,900
Local Match - None
Planned Use of Grant
Funds Purchase of a replacement throw phone with video cameras imbedded.
Receipt of funds does not require any future commitment from the County other than normal
maintenance and repairs on the device.
Virginia Department of Criminal Justice Services
Applicant Department/Agency – Police Department
Local Program – Internet Crimes Against Children Fund
Amount Requested - $23,000
Local Match – None
Planned Use of
Grant Funds:
Overtime for undercover operations, computer forensics, and assisting other agencies with ICAC enforcement
activities; and various equipment upgrades and improvements to better perform undercover activities and
collect evidence.
Post-grant monthly cost of a private digital subscriber line (DSL) if initiative is continued.
GRANTS AWARDED
Virginia Department of Housing and Community Development
Applicant Department/Agency – Housing
Local Program – Orchard Acres Housing Rehabilitation Planning Grant
Amount AWARDED - $30,000
Local Matching - None
Planned Use: To complete a housing and community needs assessment in the Orchard Acres
Subdivision in Crozet in partnership with the Albemarle Housing Improvement
Program. DHCD offered the County an opportunity to apply for the grant after
the submission of a letter of interest and preliminary assessment data. The
completing assessment could lead to a grant application being submitted in March
2012 for project funding.
Virginia Commonwealth University
Applicant Department/Agency – Commission on Children and Families
Local Program – Alcohol-related crashes, ages 15-24
Amount AWARDED - $145,150
Local Match – None
Grant's Purpose (short
summary) The intent and purpose of this RFP is to provide SPF-SIG funding to
communities with highest need, coupled with highest contributor, regarding
motor vehicle crashes with alcohol involved drivers who are 15-24 years of
age, so that those communities can in turn, complete all five SPF steps at the
community level. In completing all five steps outcomes will result in
decreasing the MVC rate involving alcohol-impaired drivers who are 15-24
years old by 5%
Return to exec summary
Page 1 of 5
Culpeper District
Albemarle County Monthly Report
March 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 meetings are being held with the County Community Development Staff to
discuss the upcoming Secondary Six-Year Plan. A workshop will then be scheduled with
members of the Board of Supervisors to discuss the priorities and desired modifications.
US 250 Shadwell Bridge Replacement over the Buckingham Branch Rail Road—
Contractor started construction on the underside of the bridge in December and utilities
are being relocated. VDOT Public Affairs Office is in contact with County Public Affairs
Personnel to coordinate the expected May bridge closure. A stakeholders meeting is
scheduled for March 2 at 2:00pm at Albemarle County’s 5th Street Office Building to
discuss the Action Plan for the traffic impacts.
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 2012 October 2013
*Dates to be determined following evaluation of Scoping Team comments.
Page 2 of 5
Albemarle County
Monthly Report Continued
March 2012
Preliminary Engineering Continued:
PROJECT LAST MILESTONE NEXT MILESTONE AD DATE
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
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 3 of 5
Albemarle County
Monthly Report Continued
March 2012
Construction Activities
Bridge Repairs (NFO) BRDG-967-040, N501
Scope: Bridge Repairs - District Wide (Term 2).
Next Major Milestone: Contract Completed February 6, 1012...
Contract Completion Date: February 7, 2012.
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: Sign bridge work order.
Contract Completion: June 10, 2013.
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 Spring 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: August 20, 2011.
Estimated Completion Date: Summer 2012
Page 4 of 5
Albemarle County
Monthly Report Continued
March 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.
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.
Route 784 Advisory speed sign review in progress. Report completed.
Under Review
Route 643 (Rio Mills Road) from Route 743 (Earlysville Road) to Route 29 (Seminole
Trail) Speed study. - Draft complete; final pending.
Route 250 near Boars Head Inn Guardrail review. – Study memorandum complete; awaiting
funding for installation.
Route 601 (Garth Rd) from Route 654 to Route 676 – Draft report complete; under review.
Route 6 (Irish Road) at Route 627 (Porters Road) Intersection Study. Draft report under
review.
Route 631 (Old Lynchburg Road) Speed Study beyond the 4 lane sections south of I-64 to
Route 708 (Red Hill Road). This was reviewed with BOS member, Duane Snow. There is
currently no posting of this section.
Page 5 of 5
Albemarle County
Monthly Report Continued
March 2012
Traffic Engineering Studies
Under Review continued
Route 1140/250 (Peter Jefferson Parkway) – Operational analysis to evaluate double-right
turn lanes to US 250 EB. Under review.
Route 690 – Speed data collected and report documentation in progress.
Route 631 at Belvedere Road – Traffic control signal analysis in review.
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 signs/ markings installation.
Maintenance Activities
On-going routine maintenance activities with specific emphasis on winter pavement deformations.
David Crim Virginia Department of Transportation
Charlottesville Residency Administrator 701 VDOT Way
Charlottesville, VA 22911
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
Cash Proffer Funding – Appropriations and Future
Spending plan
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Follow up on February 1, 2012 FY 2012 2nd Quarter Cash
and Non-Cash Proffer Report – potential uses of available
cash proffers for CIP projects
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Messrs. Foley, Elliot, Letteri. Davis, Graham, and Higgins;
and Ms. McCulley, Ms. Ragsdale, Ms. Allshouse and Ms.
Harris
LEGAL REVIEW: Yes
AGENDA DATE:
March 7, 2012
ACTION: INFORMATION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: INFORMATION: X
ATTACHMENTS: Yes
REVIEWED BY:
BACKGROUND:
On February 1, 2012, the Board received the FY 12 Second Quarter Cash and Non-Cash Proffer Report, which
included information on cash proffer revenue and expenditures and non-cash proffers for October-December 2011.
The report provided information on the status of cash proffers and updates on non-cash proffers that benefit the
County and mitigate the impacts from development. The report included proffer activity (both cash and non-cash
improvements) for the months of October through December 2011 (FY 12 second quarter).
During discussion of this matter, the Board requested staff to provide additional information on the available cash
proffer funding, cash proffers that are currently appropriated, and recommendations for planned spending of the
remaining proffer balance.
DISCUSSION:
The total amount of cash proffers identified in Community Development’s Cash and Non-Cash Proffer Summary
Spreadsheet, which was provided to the Board of Supervisors on February 1 and updated on February 15, 2012
(Attachment 1), is $1,488,607.77, of which $488,728.77 has been appropriated as follows:
Proffer
Currently
Appropriated Project
Avon Park $ 64,596.33 Avon Street Sidewalks
Belvedere Station 58,009.66 Affordable Housing
Grayrock 74,880.00 Crozet Regional Stormwater Management
Liberty Hall 16,098.27 Crozet Streetscapes Phase II
North Pointe 20,359.50 Affordable Housing
Poplar Glenn II 33,016.05 Affordable Housing
Stillfried Lane 83,379.07 Ivy Road Sidewalk
Westhall (1.1) 53,728.70 Crozet Streetscapes Phase II
Westhall (1.2) 10,896.30 Crozet Streetscapes Phase II
Wickham Pond 73,764.89 Crozet Streetscapes Phase II
TOTAL $488,728.77 TOTAL PROFFER FUNDS APPROPRIATED
Community Development Department staff monitor proffer funds on an on-going basis to ensure that associated
projects not currently in the CIP move forward and to ensure that funding is appropriated to projects before any proff er
deadlines. During the CIP budget process, Community Development and the Office of Management and Budget staff
compared the FY 13 CIP project requests to the proffer funds to determine if any projects were eligible for funding
from cash proffers.
AGENDA TITLE: Cash Proffer Funding – Appropriations and Future Spending Plan
March 7, 2012
Page 2
Upon completion of the FY 12 second quarterly proffer report, a more detailed review was undertaken to determine
whether any cash proffer balances could be used for either currently-funded CIP projects or projects included in the
County’s Recommended FY 13 - FY 17 CIP. Staff has determined that a total of $491,676.67 in proffer funding may
be applied to those projects. While a more in-depth review is required before specific appropriations can be presented
to the Board for approval, staff preliminarily recommends the following use of cash proffer balances based on the
terms of the proffers:
Proffer Fund Planned Use
Available
Cash Proffer Recommendation:
CIP Village of Rivanna $ 6,563.41 Burley-Lane Field Poles Lighting
CIP Crozet 167,490.72 Crozet Library or any CIP project in Crozet
CIP Hollymead 183,030.35 Sidewalk program in Hollymead or Revenue Sharing
Parks in Crozet 22,016.44 Park or Greenways in Crozet
Schools in Crozet 22,016.44 School CIP project in Crozet
CIP Non-Specific 90,559.31 Any CIP Project
TOTAL $ 491,676.67 RECOMMENDED USE
The remaining $508,202.33 in cash proffers are required to be expended on specific projects or programs identified in
those proffers as follows:
Proffer
Available
Cash Proffer Required Use of Funds:
Belvedere $ 32,316.79 Affordable Housing
Poplar Glenn II 33,107.00 Affordable Housing
Martha Jefferson Hospital 429,470.00 I-64/250 Improvements and Transit
Westhall (Proffer 3.3) 3,166.21 Greenway Bridge in Westhall
Glenmore 10,027.01 Rt. 250 Pedestrian Crossings or Shadwell Interchange
Avon Park 116.32 Pedestrian Improvements Neighborhood 4 (interest balance)
TOTAL $508,202.33 NO SPECIFIC PROJECTS IDENTIFIED AT THIS TIME
BUDGET IMPACT:
Cash proffers are a valuable source of revenue to address the impacts from development and they supplement
the funding of important County projects which would otherwise be funded through general tax revenue. Using
cash proffer funding for current or planned FY 13 – FY 17 CIP projects can supplement funding in the CIP, freeing
up available funding that may currently be appropriated or planned for in the CIP for these projects for other uses.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
This summary is provided for information only and no action is required at this time. Available cash proffer funding will
be included in future appropriation requests for the CIP projects. The next quarterly proffer report will be on the
Board’s May 2, 2012 agenda.
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A: February 15, 2012 Cash Proffer Funds Appropriations-Future spending plan
Return to consent agenda
Return to regular agenda
ATTACHMENT A-PROFFER FUNDS SUMMARY 2/15/12 FUND # PROFFER NAME CURRENT AVAILABLE FUNDS APPROPRIATED FUNDS APPROPRIATED INTEREST EARNINGS NET CURRENT AVAILABLE FUNDS PROFFERED USE OF FUNDS RECOMMEDED/POTENTIAL USE OF FUNDS 8520 GLENMORE 6,563 0 0 6,563 School CIP/Other CIP-Glenmore. Interest same. CIP-Glenmore (Burley track improvements) 8535 WESTERN RIDGE 7,468 0 0 7,468 Interest/Stop Light at Western Ridge/240. CIP-Crozet-Library 8542 WESTHALL (1.2) 11,916 10,000 896 1,020 CIP-Crozet CIP-Crozet-Library 8541 WESTHALL (1.1) 64,826 51,000 2,729 11,097 Eastern Avenue in Crozet/After 10 years Crozet CIP CIP-Crozet-Transportation projects 8523 GRAYROCK 75,780 62,500 12,380 900 Interest/Jarmans Gap Road Improvements CIP-Crozet-Library 8544 LIBERTY HALL 102,595 16,000 98 86,497 CIP Projects in Crozet CIP-Crozet-Library 8540 WICKHAM POND 134,273 70,968 2,797 60,508 CIP Projects in Crozet CIP-Crozet-Library 8525 UVA RESEARCH PARK 118 0 0 118 Airport Road Project CIP-Hollymead-Sidewalk project 8538 NORTH POINTE 28,811 20,360 0 8,451 CIP-Hollymead-Transportation* CIP-Hollymead-Sidewalk project 8528 HOLLYMEAD AREA D 31,145 0 0 31,145 CIP-Hollymead-Transportation* CIP-Hollymead-Sidewalk project 8527 HOLLYMEAD AREA C 62,263 0 0 62,263 CIP Hollymead CIP-Hollymead-Sidewalk project 8545 HOLLYMEAD TOWN CENTER A1* 81,053 0 0 81,053 CIP-Hollymead-Transportation* CIP-Hollymead-Sidewalk project 8533 STILLFRIED LANE 84,338 78,000 5,379 959 CIP Projects or Affordable Housing CIP-Project TBD 8546 POPLAR GLEN II * (See Tab for Breakdown) 155,723 33,016 0 89,600 CIP CIP-Project TBD 8537 OLD TRAIL VILLAGE 44,033 0 0 44,033 Parks/Schools in Crozet Parks/Schools in Crozet 8536 BELVEDERE STATION 90,325 57,250 760 32,316 Affordable Housing Affordable Housing 8546 POPLAR GLEN II 33,107 Affordable Housing Affordable Housing 8543 WESTHALL (3.3) 3,166 0 0 3,166 Greenway bridge in Westhall Must use for specified project 8534 AVON PARK 64,713 59,000 5,596 116 Pedestrian Improvements Neighborhood 4 Must use for specified project 8529 MJH @ PETER JEFFERSON PLACE* 429,470 0 0 429,470 I-64/250 Improvements and Transit Must use for specified project 8521 GLENMORE** 10,027 0 0 10,027 Transportation or CIP on 250/Glenmore area Rt. 250 Pedestrian Crossings or Shadwell Interchange TOTAL 1,488,608 458,093 30,635 999,879 *Fund balance from Rt. 29N Transportation Study. May also be used as matching funds under Virginia Code Section 33.1-23.05.
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
National Association of Counties Prescription Drug
Discount Program
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Status of the Discount Drug Program
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Messrs. Foley, Elliott and Davis, and Ms. Ralston and
Ms. Catlin
LEGAL REVIEW: Yes
AGENDA DATE:
March 7, 2012
ACTION: INFORMATION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: INFORMATION: X
ATTACHMENTS: No
REVIEWED BY:
BACKGROUND:
In January 2011, Albemarle County launched a discount card program to help consumers reduce the price paid for
prescriptions. The County is making free prescription drug discount cards available under a program sponsored by the
National Association of Counties (NACo) that offers an average savings of 24 percent off the retail price of commonly
prescribed drugs. The cards may be used by all County residents, regardless of age, income, or existing health
coverage for prescriptions that are not otherwise covered by insurance, and are accepted at 23 County pharmacies. A
national network of more than 60,000 participating retail pharmacies honors the NACo prescription discount card. This
executive summary provides results for the first year of the program. The program has now saved $448 million on 35.8
million prescriptions in more than 1,400 counties nationwide.
DISCUSSION:
County residents can visit www.caremark.com/naco to print an ID card and use it immediately at any participating
pharmacy. Cards are also available at the Albemarle County Department of Social Services (ACDSS) at the County
Office Building on 5th Street, the Thomas Jefferson Health District on Rose Hill Drive and Martha Jefferson Hospital.
The following highlights reflect activity in Albemarle County related to the discount drug cards from January 2011
through December, 2011:
920 residents have taken advantage of this program since January 2011 by filling one or more prescriptions.
January 2011 was the lowest month at 42 and August/November were the highest months at 88.
The average price savings per prescription for this period was $14.08, or 20.30%.
The total price savings for the past year for all prescriptions filled using the card was $26,163.90.
For 62.06% of the prescriptions filled, the discount drug card produced a lower price than any other discount
available, including special purchase arrangements offered by individual pharmacies.
Since implementation of the NACo card, two other similar programs have been identified: ProAct, a pharmacy benefit
management company and The Virginia Drug Card sponsored through Restat, a privately held benefits manager.
Additionally, the United Way continues to offer the FamilyWize card for residents of Planning District Ten.
FamilyWize and NACo provide the same kind of benefits with some variations in the number of participating
pharmacies and savings. ProAct provides reductions for vision, dental and hearing medical services in addition to
prescribed medications. NACo anticipates adding vision, dental and other medical services soon. Staff will continue
to assess other options and will recommend any other appropriate discount programs to the Board as these options
are researched and evaluated.
Because the program has benefits for County residents, the County will continue to actively promote and support the
NACO discount drug program.
BUDGET IMPACT:
There is no budget impact related to this program.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
This item is for information only. No action is required by the Board.
Return to consent agenda
Return to regular agenda
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
Personal Wireless Service Facilities
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Revised application and review schedule for Personal
Wireless Service Facilities
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Messrs. Foley, Elliott, Davis, Graham and Fritz
LEGAL REVIEW: Yes
AGENDA DATE:
March 7, 2012
ACTION: INFORMATION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: INFORMATION: X
ATTACHMENTS: Yes
REVIEWED BY:
BACKGROUND:
The FCC has established timelines for the processing of personal wireless service facilities. In order to insure that the
County meets these timelines and to generally improve the review of personal wireless service facilities a revised
application and review schedule has been created.
DISCUSSION:
At the February 1, 2012 Board meeting, staff notified the Board of Supervisors that changes to the application and review
schedule for locating a personal wireless service facility could be done administratively. Following Board direction, staff
has completed the application changes, modified the review schedule, and shared this information with representatives of
the wireless industry. The application has been revised to clarify the information necessary to process the application. The
review schedule has been revised to reduce the review time for a Tier III application by approximately 30 days.
BUDGET IMPACT:
None
RECOMMENDATIONS:
This summary is provided for information on administrative action that has taken place, and no Board action is required.
ATTACHMENTS
A – Personal Wireless Service Facilities Review Schedule
B – Personal Wireless Service Facilities Application
Return to consent agenda
Return to regular agenda
County of Albemarle
Department of Community Development
Memorandum
To: Personal Wireless Service Facilities Applicants
From: Bill Fritz
Date: February 15, 2012
Subject: Review Process
This memorandum is being provided to you in an effort to clarify the new review process for Personal Wireless
Service Facilities. Recently, the County has changed the review procedures for Tier III applications in an effort
to accelerate the review of these applications. As part of these changes we find it necessary to change the
submittal procedures. We believe that these changes will make the processing of applications more timely,
insure completeness of applications and will not place any additional burden on applicants.
All applications for Personal Wireless Service Facilities must fill out a copy of the attached application and
checklist. The information contained in the checklist is taken directly from the ordinance and does not represent
any change in the minimum submittal requirements.
Tier I applications will continue to be processed administratively with a building permit application.
Tier II applications will continue to accepted in accordance with the attached submittal and review schedule.
Due to a recent decision by the Virginia Supreme Court Tier II applications will no longer be heard by the
Planning Commission. Instead, the applications will be heard by the Board of Supervisors. The attached
submittal and review schedule provides a Planning Commission date. However, the Board of Supervisors does
not meet as often as the Planning Commission. Therefore, an adjustment in the hearing dates will be required.
Staff will attempt to place Tier II applications on the Board of Supervisors agenda at the earliest possible date.
However, due to the differences in the number of Planning Commission and Board of Supervisor meetings the
review time for Tier II applications may have to be increased to allow for scheduling with the Board of
Supervisors.
Tier III applications have the most significant change in review schedule. Tier III applications will continue to
accepted on the Third Monday of the Month. However, instead of being reviewed in accord with the Special
Use Permit review schedule they will be reviewed in accord with the Site Plan and Subdivision Review
Schedule. The review schedule to follow will be the timeline based on the submittal date that matches or
follows the Special Use Permit submittal date. (For example: The special use permit deadline for March 2012
is March 19. The next date for Site Plans and Subdivisions in March following the Special Use Permit submittal
date is March 26. The special use permit application would follow the review dates for a March 26 deadline.
The project would be scheduled for Site Review on April 19. Any revisions or additional information would be
due by April 30 and the item would be placed on the Planning Commission’s agenda for May 22. The Board
date would be coordinated with the Clerk of Board based on the Board’s agenda. ) This change in procedure
reduces the time to Planning Commission review by approximately 30 days and it is hoped that it will result in
an equal reduction in the time for Board of Supervisors review.
2012 Submission and Review Schedule
Site Plans and Subdivision Plats
Deadline for Filing
(3 P.M.)
Site Review
Meeting
Revisions Due and
PC Call-up
Planning
Commission
Meeting (If
Needed)
Monday Thursday Monday Tuesday
Tue Dec 27 2011 Jan 19 Jan 30 Feb 28
Tue Jan 3 Jan 26 Feb 6 Mar 06
Tue Jan 17 Feb 9 Tue Feb 21 Mar 20
Feb 6 Mar 1 Mar 12 Apr 03
Feb 27 Mar 22 Apr 2 Apr 24
Mar 12 Apr 5 Apr 16 May 08
Mar 26 Apr 19 Apr 30 May 22
Apr 9 May 3 May 14 Jun 05
Apr 23 May 17 Tue May 29 Jun 19
May 21 Jun 14 Jun 25 Jul 17
Jun 4 Jun 28 Jul 9 Jul 31
Jun 11 Jul 5 Jul 16 Aug 07
Jun 25 Jul 19 Jul 30 Aug 21
Jul 16 Aug 9 Aug 20 Sep 11
Jul 30 Aug 23 Tue Sep 04 Sep 25
Aug 13 Sep 6 Sep 17 Oct 09
Aug 27 Sep 20 Oct 1 Oct 23
Sep 10 Oct 4 Oct 15 Nov 06
Sep 17 Oct 11 Oct 22 Nov 13
Oct 8 Nov 1 Nov 12 Dec 04
Oct 22 Nov 15 Nov 26 Dec 18
Nov 12 Dec 6 Dec 17 Jan 08 2013
Dec 3 Dec 27 Jan 7 2013 Jan 29 2013
Dec 10 Jan 3 2013 Jan 14 2013 Feb 05 2013
Dec 31 Jan 24 2013 Feb 4 2013 Feb 26 2013
Jan 7 2013 Jan 31 2013 Feb 11 2013 Mar 05 2013
Tue Jan 22 2013 Feb 14 2013 Feb 25 2013 Mar 19 2013
Bold Italics means that the submittal day is different because of a holiday on Monday.
Return to exec summary
This form created 2/15/12
Page 1 of 9
Application for
Personal Wireless Service Facility
IMPORTANT: Your application is considered INCOMPLETE until all of the information on the Required Application Content Checklist
on pages 2 thru 4 has been submitted and the appropriate fee has been submitted. (See page 9 for the appropriate fee(s) related to your
application). Staff will assist you with these items.
PROJECT NAME: (how should we refer to this application?): _______________________________________________________
PROPOSAL: Tier I □ Tier II □ Tier III □ Building Permit after Tier II or Tier III approval □
EXISTING COMP PLAN LAND USE/DENSITY: _________________________________________________________________
LOCATION/ADDRESS OF PROPERTY FOR SPECIAL USE PERMIT:
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
TAX MAP PARCEL(s): _______________________________________________________________________________________
ZONING DISTRICT:_________________________________________________________________________________________
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: ___________________________________________________________________________________
# OF ACRES TO BE COVERED BY SPECIAL USE PERMIT (if a portion it must be delineated on a plat): ________________
Is this an amendment to an existing Special Use Permit? If Yes provide that SP Number. _________
Are you submitting any waivers with this application?
YES NO
YES NO
Applicant (Who should we call/write concerning this project?): __________________________________________________________________
Address ________________________________________________ City _________________________ St ate ___________ Zip __________
Daytime Phone (____) ___________________ Fax # (____) ___________________ E -mail ________________________________________
The applicant is a representative of:____________________________________________________________________________________
Owner of Record ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Address ________________________________________________ City _________________________ State ___________ Zi p __________
Daytime Phone (____) ___________________ Fax # (____) ___________________ E -mail ________________________________________
Contractor (Building Permits and Tier I only)___________________________________________________________________________________
Address ________________________________________________ City _________________________ State ___________ Zip __________
Daytime Phone (____) ___________________ Fax # (____) ___________________ E -mail ________________________________________
Does the owner of this property own (or have any ownership interest in) any abutting property? If yes, please list those tax map and parcel numbers:
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
FOR OFFICE USE ONLY History:
Special Use Permits: ____________________________________________
Variances:____________________________________________________
Tier 1 = Building Permit Tier II = Site Plan Tier III = Special Use Permit
ZMAs & Proffers:
______________________________________________
Letter of Authorization YES NO
FOR OFFICE USE ONLY Application # ______________________________________SIGN # (if an SP______________________________
Fee Amount $___________ Date Paid __________By who? ______________________________ Receipt # _____________Ck#_____________ By:_______________
ZONING ORDINANCE SECTION__________________________________________________________________________________________________________
This form created 2/15/12
Page 2 of 9
County of Albemarle Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, VA 22902 Voice: (434) 296-5832 Fax: (434) 972-4126
5/1/06 Page 1 of
REQUIRED ATTACHMENTS
This form provides information on:
1. Required application content checklist
2. Design and review criterion
3. Waiver criteria
4. Definitions associated with Personal Wireless Service Facilities
Required Application Content Checklist for Tier I, Tier II and Tier III
Each request for approval of a facility shall include the following information:
□ 17 copies of supporting plans/plats are required for Tier II and Tier III applications.
(TIER II AND TIER III APPLICATIONS ONLY)
□ 2 copies of supporting plans/plats are required for Tier I and Building Permit Applications.
(TIER I AND BUILDING PERMIT APPLICATIONS ONLY)
□ A completed application form, signed by the parcel owner, the parcel owner’s agent or the contract purchaser, and the propose d
facility’s owner. If the owner’s agent signs the application, he shall also submit written evidence of the e xistence and scope of
the agency. If the contract purchaser signs the application, he shall also submit the owner’s written consent to the applicat ion.
□ A recorded plat or recorded boundary survey of the parcel on which the facility will be located; prov ided, if neither a recorded
plat nor boundary survey exists, a copy of the legal description of the parcel and the Albemarle County Circuit Court deed bo ok
and page number.
□ The identity of the owner of the parcel and, if the owner is other than a real p erson, the complete legal name of the entity, a
description of the type of entity, and written documentation that the person signing on behalf of the entity is authorized to do so.
□ Except where the facility will be located entirely within an existing st ructure, a scaled plan and a scaled elevation view and other
supporting drawings, calculations, and other documentation required by the agent, signed and sealed by an appropriate license d
professional. The plans and supporting drawings, calculations and do cumentation shall show:
□ The location and dimensions of all existing and proposed improvements on the parcel including access roads and structures, th e
location and dimensions of significant natural features, and the maximum height above ground of the facility (also identified in
height above sea level).
□ The benchmarks and datum used for elevations. The datum shall coincide with the Virginia State Plane Coordinate System,
South Zone, North American Datum of 1983 (NAD83), United States Survey Feet North American Vertical Datum of 1988
(NAVD88), and the benchmarks shall be acceptable to the county engineer.
□ The design of the facility, including the specific type of support structure and the design, type, location, size, height and
configuration of all existing and proposed antennas and other equipment.
This form created 2/15/12
Page 3 of 9
□ Identification of each paint color on the facility, by manufacturer color name and color number. A paint chip or sample shall be
provided for each color.
□ Except where the facility would be attached to an existing structure, the topography within two thousand (2,000) feet of the
proposed facility, in contour intervals not to exceed ten (10) feet for all lands within Albemarle County and, in contour int ervals
shown on United States Geological Survey topographic survey maps or the best topographic data available, for lands not within
Albemarle County.
(NOT REQUIRED FOR A TIER I FACILITY)
□ The height, caliper and species of all trees where the dripline is located within fifty (50) feet of the facility that are re lied upon to
establish the proposed height and/or screening of the monopole. All trees that will be adversely impacted or removed during
installation or maintenance of the facility shall be noted, regardless of their distances to the facility.
□ All existing and proposed setbacks, parking, fencing and landscaping.
□ The location of all existing accessways and the location and design of all proposed accessways.
□ Except where the facility would be attached to an existing structure, residential and commercial structures, and residential and
rural areas zoning district boundaries.
(NOT REQUIRED FOR A TIER I FACILITY)
□ If the proposed tower will be taller than one hundred fifty (150) feet, the proximity of the facility to commercial and private
airports.
(NOT REQUIRED FOR A TIER I FACILITY)
□ Photographs, where possible, or perspective drawings of the facility site and all existing facilities within two hundred (200) feet
of the site, if any, and the area surrounding the site.
□ For any proposed monopole or tower, photographs taken of a balloon test, which shall be conducted as follows:
(NOT REQUIRED FOR A TIER I FACILITY)
□ The applicant shall contact the agent within ten (10) days after the date the application was submitted to schedule a date and tim e
when the balloon test will be conducted. The test shall be conducted within forty (40) days after the date the application wa s
submitted, and the applicant shall provide the agent with at least seven (7) days prior notice; provided that this deadline may be
extended due to inclement weather or by the agreement of the applicant and the agent.
(NOT REQUIRED FOR A TIER I FACILITY)
□ Prior to the balloon test, the locations of the access road, the lease area, the tower site, the reference tree and the talle st tree
within twenty five (25) feet of the proposed monopole shall be surveyed and staked or flagged in the field.
(NOT REQUIRED FOR A TIER I FACILITY)
□ The test shall consist of raising one or more balloons from the site to a height equal to the proposed facility.
(NOT REQUIRED FOR A TIER I FACILITY)
□ The balloons shall be of a color or material that provides maximum visibilit y.
(NOT REQUIRED FOR A TIER I FACILITY)
This form created 2/15/12
Page 4 of 9
□ The photographs of the balloon test shall be taken from the nearest residence and from appropriate locations on abutting
properties, along each publicly used road from which the balloon is visible, and other pro perties and locations as deemed
appropriate by the agent. The applicant shall identify the camera type, film size, and focal length of the lens for each phot ograph.
(NOT REQUIRED FOR A TIER I FACILITY)
□ If antennas are proposed to be added to an existing structure, all existing antennas and other equipment on the structure, as well
as all ground equipment, shall be identified by owner, type and size. The method(s) by which the antennas will be attached to the
mounting structure shall be depicted.
(NOT REQUIRED FOR A TIER II OR TIER III FACILITY)
□ If the proposed facility would be located on lands subject to a conservation easement or an open space easement, a copy of th e
recorded deed of easement and the express written consent of all easement holders to the proposed facility.
□ If the facility is to be located closer in distance than the height of the tower or other mounting structure to any lot line the
applicant must submit an easement or other recordable document showing agreement between the lot owners, acceptable to the
county attorney addressing development on the part of the abutting parcel sharing the common lot line that is within the facility’s
fall zone (e.g., the setback of an eighty (80) foot-tall facility could be reduced to thirty (30) feet if an easement is established
prohibiting development on the abutting lot within a fifty (50) foot fall zone). If the right -of-way for a public street is within the
fall zone, the Virginia Department of Transportation shall be included in the staff review, in lieu of recording an easement or
other document.
(NOT REQUIRED FOR A TIER I FACILITY)
□ Notwithstanding section 32.2 of this chapter, a site plan shall not be required for a facility, but the facility shall be sub ject to the
requirements of section 32 and the applicant shall submit all schematics, plans, calculations, drawings and other inf ormation
required by the agent to determine whether the facility complies with section 32. In making this determination, the agent may
impose reasonable conditions authorized by section 32 in order to assure compliance.
□ 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 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.
(TIER I FACILITIES AND BUILDING PERMITS ONLY)
□ The following shall be submitted with the building permit application: (i) certification by a registered surveyor stating the height
of the reference tree that is used to determine the permissible height of the monopole; and (ii) a final revised set of p lans for the
construction of the facility. The agent shall review the surveyor’s certificate and the plans to assure that all applicable
requirements have been satisfied.
(REQUIRED ONLY AT TIME OF BUILDING PERMIT APPLICATION)
Design and review criterion
The following regulations are taken from Chapter 18, Section 5.1.40 of the Code of Albemarle.
c. Tier I facilities. Each Tier I facility may be established upon approval of an application satisfying the requirements of subsection
5.1.40(a) by the agent, demonstrating that the facility will be installed and operated in compliance with all applicable provisions of this
chapter, satisfying all conditions of the architectural review board, and meeting the following conditions:
1. The facility shall comply with subsection 5.1.40(b).
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 emi tted, each outdoor luminaire
This form created 2/15/12
Page 5 of 9
shall be fully shielded as required by section 4.17 of this chapter; (iii) any equipment cabinet not located within the exist ing
structure shall be screened from all lot lines either by terrain, existing structures, existing ve getation, 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 on e 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.
3. Equipment shall be attached to the exterior of a structure only as follows: (i) the total number of arrays of antennas att ached to
the existing structure shall not exceed three (3), and each antenna proposed to be attached under the pending application shall n ot
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 a nd
dishes regardless of their use shall be counted toward the limit of three arrays.
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 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.
5. The installation, operation and maintenance of the facility shall be conducted in accordance with the tree conservation pl an.
Dead and dying trees identified by the arborist’s report may be removed if so noted on the tree conservation plan. I f tree removal
is later requested that was not approved by the agent when the tree conservation plan was approved, the applicant shall submi t 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 t his
paragraph are achieved.
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.
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 ye ar. 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 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.
8. No slopes associated with the installation of the facility and accessory uses shall be created that are steeper than 2:1 u nless
retaining walls, revetments, or other stabilization measures acceptable to the county engineer are employed.
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 ar ea; and (iii)
would not be detrimental to the public health, safety or general welfare.
d. Tier II facilities. Each Tier II facility may be established upon commission approval of an application satisfying the requirements of
subsection 5.1.40(a) and demonstrating that the facility will be installed and operated in compliance with all applicable provisions of this
This form created 2/15/12
Page 6 of 9
chapter, criteria (1) through (8) below, and satisfying all conditions of the architectural review board. The commission shal l act on each
application within the time periods established in section 32.4.2.6. The commission shall approve each application, without conditions,
once it determines that all of these requirements have been satisfied. If the commission denies an application, it shall iden tify which
requirements were not satisfied and inform the applicant what needs to be done to satisfy each requirement.
1. The facility shall comply with subsection 5.1.40(b) and subsection 5.1.40(c)(2) through (9).
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 s cenic 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.
3. The facility shall not adversely impact resources identified in the county’s open space plan.
4. The facility shall not be located so that it and three (3) or more existing or approved personal wireless service faciliti es would
be within an area comprised of a circle centered anywhere on the ground having a radius of two hundred (200) feet.
5. The maximum base diameter of the monopole shall be thirty (30) inches and the maximum diameter at the top of the
monopole shall be eighteen (18) inches.
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 a bove 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 mate rial
difference in adverse impacts to resources identified in the county’s open space plan caused by the monopole at the proposed
height, rather than at a height seven (7) feet taller than the tallest tree. The applicant may appeal the commissioner’s deni al of a
modification to the board of supervisors as provided in subsection 5.1.40(d)(12 ).
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 gro und
equipment and concrete pad invisible at any time of year from any other parcel or a public or private street.
8. Each wood monopole shall be constructed so that all cables, wiring and similar attachments that run vertically from the gr ound
equipment to the antennas are placed on the pole to face the interior of the property and away from public view, as determined by
the agent. Metal monopoles shall be constructed so that vertical cables, wiring and similar attachments are contained within the
monopole’s structure.
9. The following shall be submitted with the building permit application: (i) certification by a registered surveyor stating the
height of the reference tree that is used to determine the permissible height of the monopole; and (ii) a final revised set of plans
for the construction of the facility. The agent shall review the surveyor’s certificate and the plans to assure that all appl icable
requirements have been satisfied.
10. The following shall be submitted to the agent after installation of the mono pole is completed and prior to issuance of a
certificate of occupancy: (i) certification by a registered surveyor stating the height of the monopole, measured both in fee t above
ground level and in elevation above mean sea level, using the benchmarks or reference datum identified in the application; and
(ii) certification stating that the lightning rod’s height does not exceed two (2) feet above the top of the monopole and wid th does
not exceed a diameter of one (1) inch.
11. Notice of the commission’s consideration of an application for a Tier II facility shall be sent by the agent to the owner of
each lot abutting the lot on which the proposed facility will be located. The notice shall describe the nature of the facilit y, its
This form created 2/15/12
Page 7 of 9
proposed location on the lot, its proposed height, the appropriate county office where the complete Tier II facility application
may be viewed, and the date, time and location where the commission will consider the application. The notice shall be mailed
by first class mail or hand delivered at least ten (10) days prior to the commission meeting. Mailed notice shall be mailed to the
last known address of the owner, and mailing the notice to the address shown on the current real estate tax assessment record s of
the county shall be deemed compliance with this requirement. The failure of an owner to receive the notice as provided herein
shall not affect the validity of an approved Tier II facility and shall not be the basis for an appeal.
12. The board of supervisors may consider an application for a Tier II facility only upon an appeal of the denial of the application
by the commission. An appeal shall be submitted in writing in the office of the agent within ten (10) calendar days after the date
of the denial by the commission. In considering an appeal, the board may affirm, reverse, or modify in whole or in part, the
decision of the commission, and its decision shall be based upon the requirements delineated in this subsection (d).
13. Upon the written request of the applicant, the agent may authorize the height of an existing Tier II facility’s monopole to be
increased above its originally approved height upon finding that the reference tree has grown to a height that is relative to the
requested increase in height of the monopole. The application shall include a certified survey of the reference tree’s new height,
as well as the heights of other trees to be considered by the agent. The agent shall not grant such a request if the increase in
height would cause the facility to be skylighted or would increase the extent to which it is skylighted.
e. Tier III facilities. Each Tier III facility may be established upon approval of a special use permit issued pursuant to section 31.2.4 of
this chapter, initiated upon an application satisfying the requirements of subsection 5.1.40(a) and section 31.2.4, 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.
(§ 5.1.40, Ord. 01-18(9), 10-17-01; Ord. 04-18(2), 10-13-04)
Waiver Criteria
If an applicant proposes to submit less information than required or request a modification or waiver of any design criteria the request for
modification or waiver must be received at the time the application is filed or the application shall be deemed incomplete. In requesting a
modification or waiver the applicant shall provide information to allow the Board of Supervisors to find:
1. That complying with the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would not forward the purposes of the Zoning Ordinance or
otherwise serve the public health, safety, or welfare or ;
2. That a modified regulation would satisfy the purposes of the Zoning Ordinance to at least an equivalent degre e as the specified
requirement.
Definitions associated with Personal Wireless Service Facilities
Antenna array: An orderly arrangement of antennas mounted at the same height on a tower or other structure and intended to transmit a
signal providing coverage over a specific area for a single provider of personal wireless services. (Added 10-13-04)
Avoidance area: An area having significant resources where the siting of personal wireless service facilities could result in adverse
impacts as follows: (i) any ridge area where a personal wireless service facility would be skylighted; (ii) a parcel within an agricultural
and forestal district; (iii) a parcel within a historic district; (iv) any location in which the proposed personal wireless service
facility and three (3) or more existing or approved per sonal wireless service facilities would be within an area comprised of a circle
centered anywhere on the ground having a radius of two hundred (200) feet; or (v) any location within two hundred (200) feet of any state
scenic highway or by-way. (Added 10-13-04)
Personal wireless service facility: A facility for the provision of personal wireless services, as defined by 47 U.S.C. § 332 (Section 704 of
the Telecommunications Act of 1996), including those Federal Communications Commission licensed commercial wireless
telecommunications services such as cellular, personal communications services (PCS), specialized mobile radio (SMR), enhanced
specialized mobile radio (ESMR), common carrier wireless exchange access services, unlicensed wireless services and, for the purposes
of this chapter, unlicensed wireless broadband internet access. (Added 10-17-01; Amended 10-13-04; Amended 6-1-11)
Reference tree: A tree designated for determining the top height of a treetop facility’s monopole mounting structure. This may either be
the tallest tree within twenty five (25) feet of the proposed monopole or a shorter tree that has been strategically identified for screening
and camouflaging purposes. (Added 10-13-04)
This form created 2/15/12
Page 8 of 9
Ridge area: All land within one hundred (100) vertical feet of, and including, the ridgeline and peaks of a mountain or chain of
mountains, as identified on a ridge area map approved by the board of supervisors. (Added 10-13-04)
Ridgeline: The uppermost line created by connecting the peaks of a mountain or chain of mountains, and from which land declines in
elevation on at least two (2) sides, as identified on a ridge area map approved by the board of supervisors. (Added 10 -13-04)
Skylight: Locating a personal wireless service facility in such a way that the sky is the backdrop of any portion of the facility. Skylight has
the same meaning as “skylining,” as that term is used in the wireless policy. (Added 10-13-04)
Tier I personal wireless service facility or Tier I facility: A personal wireless service facility that: (i) is located entirely within an existing
building but which may include a self-contained shelter or cabinet not exceeding one hundred fifty (150) square feet that is not within the
building or a whip antenna that satisfy the requirements of section 5.1.40(c); (ii) consists of one or more antennas, other than a microwave
dish, attached to an existing conforming structure other than a flag pole, that do not exceed the height of the structure, and are flush
mounted to the structure, together with associated personal wireless service equipment; or (iii) is located within or camouflaged by an
addition to an existing structure determined by the agent to be in character with the structure and the surrounding district. (Added 10-13-
04)
Tier II personal wireless service facility or Tier II facility: A personal wireless service facility that is a treetop facility not located within
an avoidance area. (Added 10-13-04)
Tier III personal wireless service facility or Tier III facility: A personal wireless service facility that is neither a Tier I nor a Tier II
facility, including a facility that was not approved by the commission or the board of supervisors as a Tier II facility. (Added 10 -13-04)
Treetop facility: A personal wireless service facility consisting of a self-supporting monopole having a single shaft of wood, metal or
concrete no more than ten (10) feet taller than the crown of the tallest tree within twenty-five (25) feet of the monopole, measured above
sea level (ASL), and includes associated antennas, mounting structures, an equipment cabinet and other essential
personal wireless service equipment. (Added 10 -13-04)
Owner/Applicant Must Read and Sign
I hereby certify that I own the subject property, or have the legal power to act on behalf of the owner in filing this application.
I also certify that the information provided on this application and accompanying information is complete, accurate, true, and
correct to the best of my knowledge. I also certify that I have read and understand the regulations for Personal Wireless
Service Facilities and that I understand the annual reporting obligations. I also understand the information that must be
submitted for building permits and certificates of occupancy for Tier II and Tier III facilities.
________________________________________________ _____________________________________
Signature of Owner, Contract Purchaser, or Applicant Date
________________________________________________ _____________________________________
Print Name Daytime phone number of Signatory
This form created 2/15/12
Page 9 of 9
Required FEES to be paid at time of application:
What type of Personal Wireless Service Facility are you applying for?
Tier I Facility $106.50
Tier II Facilities $1820
Tier III Facilities $ 2000
Notification Requirement for Tier II and Tier III for up to 50 notices $200
Notification Requirement for Tier II and Tier III for each notice over 50 notices* $1 plus the cost of
postage
Published notice cost for Tier III Facilities ** Cost is based on a
cost quote from the
publisher.
Building Permit after Tier II or Tier III approval $106.50
*This fee is not collected at the time of initial submittal. This fee, if any, will be calculated by staff and the applicant will be
notified of the fee amount and the deadline for payment. If the fee is not submitted by the deadline the applicant shall be
deemed incomplete.
**To be paid after staff review for public notice:
Most applications for a Special Use Permit require at least one public hearing by the Planning Commission and one public
hearing by the Board of Supervisors. Virginia State Code requires that notice for public hearings be made by publishing
a legal advertisement in the newspaper and by mailing letters to adjacent property owners. Therefore, at least two fees
for public notice are required before a Special Use Permit may be heard by the Board of Supervisors.
The total fee for public notice will be provided to the applicant after the final cost is determined and must be paid before
the application is heard by a public body. Staff estimates the total cost of legal advertisement and adjacent owner
notification to be between $350 and $450 per hearing. This estimate reflects the average cost of public notice fees for
Special Use Permit applications, but the cost of certain applications may be higher.
Other FEES that may apply:
Deferral of scheduled public hearing at applicant’s request $180
Resubmittal fees for Tier III Facilities
First resubmission FREE
Each additional resubmission (TO BE PAID WHEN THE RESUBMISSION IS MADE TO INTAKE STAFF) $1,000
The full list of fees can be found in Section 35 of the Zoning Ordinance.
Return to exec summary
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
Request to grant water and sewer easements across
County-owned property (TMP 46-5A)
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Public hearing to consider granting water and sewer
easements to ACSA and RWSA across TMP 46-5A to
provide water and sewer service to nearby properties,
including portions of Hollymead Towne Center
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Messrs. Foley, Elliott, Davis, and Herrick
LEGAL REVIEW: Yes
AGENDA DATE:
March 7, 2012
ACTION: X INFORMATION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS: Yes
REVIEWED BY:
BACKGROUND:
The Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority (RWSA) and the Albemarle County Service Authority (ACSA) have each
requested that the County grant easements for the installation of water and sewer lines upon and across County-
owned property designated as Parcel ID 04600-00-00-005A0, located on U.S. Route 29 adjacent to the southern
end of the Hollymead Towne Center.
DISCUSSION:
Virginia Code § 15.2-1800 requires that the Board hold a public hearing prior to conveyance of any interest in
County-owned real property. This property was conveyed to the County by the developers of the Hollymead Towne
Center for use as open space and a greenway trail. The water and sewer lines will be buried within the easement
and there will be no above ground facilities. These easements will not interfere with the use of the greenway
property or any activity at the Hollymead Towne Center shopping center. Agreeable terms are being negotiated for
the proposed deeds of easement by the County Attorney’s Office and the attorneys for the Authorities. Staff has
reviewed and approved the proposed Plat.
BUDGET IMPACT:
There is no budget impact.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
After the public hearing, staff recommends that the Board approve the proposed water and sewer line easements
and authorize the County Executive to sign deeds of easement on behalf of the County once the deeds have been
approved for content and form by the County Attorney.
ATTACHMENTS
A – Proposed RWSA Deed of Easement
B – Proposed ACSA Deed of Easement
C – Plat
Return to agenda
This document was prepared by:
Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority
695 Moores Creek Lane
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902
Tax Map and Parcel Number 46-5A
This DEED OF EASEMENT, made this __ day of __________________, 2012 by and
between the COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA Grantor (“Property Owner”) and
RIVANNA WATER AND SEWER AUTHORITY, a body politic and corporate created
pursuant to the Virginia. Water and Waste Authorities Act, whose address is 695 Moores Creek
Lane, Charlottesville, Virginia 22902, Grantee (the “Authority”).
WITNESSETH:
WHEREAS, the Authority has requested and Property Owner has agreed to grant the
Authority various easements shown on the plat attached hereto and recorded herewith entitled
“Plat Showing Two Variable Width RWSA Permanent Easements, 10’ Temporary RWSA
Easement, Variable Width Temporary RWSA Easement, and Two 20’ Permanent ACSA
Easements Across Property of County of Albemarle,” prepared by Draper Aden Associates,
dated October 27, 2011; and
WHEREAS, as shown on the Plat, the proposed easements cross a portion of the property
conveyed to Property Owner by deed recorded in the Clerk’s Office of the Circuit Court of the
County of Albemarle in Deed Book 3704, page 460, corrected at Deed Book 3997, page 637;
and Property Owner is the fee simple owner of the said property as of the date hereof.
NOW, THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the sum of ONE DOLLAR ($1.00) and
other good and valuable consideration, the receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, Property
Owner does hereby GRANT and CONVEY with SPECIAL WARRANTY of TITLE unto the
Authority a perpetual right of way and easement to construct, install, operate, maintain, repair,
2
replace, relocate and extend water lines consisting of pipes, equipment, and appurtenances to
such pipes and equipment, over, under and across the real property of Prop erty Owner located in
the County of Albemarle, Virginia, and to access any other adjacent easement held by the
Authority or the Albemarle County Service Authority, the location and width of the easement
hereby granted and the boundaries of the property being more particularly described and shown
on the Plat as “Proposed Variable Width Permanent RWSA Easement” (the “Waterline
Easement”). The perpetual right of way and easement shall also allow RWSA to install, operate,
maintain, repair and remove a temporary portable pumping system, including temporary
aboveground pipeline and appurtenances, as necessary to adequately maintain water supply to
the Authority and Albemarle County Service Authority service areas. Reference is made to the
Plat for the exact location and dimensions of the Waterline Easement hereby granted and the
property over which the same crosses.
Further, Property Owner does hereby GRANT and CONVEY with SPECIAL
WARRANTY of TITLE unto the Authority two temporary construction easements each for a
term so long as necessary to construct and install those certain water lines comprising the Rte. 29
Watermain Abandonment Project, of which the water lines to be constructed in the Waterline
Easement are a part, and to do all things reasonably necessary and incident to such construction,
the location and size of the temporary construction easements hereby granted and the boundaries
of the property being more particularly described and shown on the Plat as “Proposed Variable
Width Temporary RWSA Easement” and “Proposed 10’ Temporary RWSA Easement” (the
“Temporary RWSA Easements”). Reference is made to the Plat for the exact location and
dimensions of the Temporary RWSA Easements hereby granted and the property over which the
3
same crosses. The Temporary RWSA Easements shall automatically terminate upon the
expiration of the above described term.
Easement Obstructions
Property Owner, its successors or assigns, agree that trees, shrubs, fences, buildings,
overhangs or other improvements or obstructions, except for any Greenway trail improvements,
shall not be located within the Waterline Easement. The Waterline Easement and the Temporary
RWSA Easements shall include the right of the Authority to cut any trees, brush and shrubbery,
remove obstructions, including any Greenway trail improvements, and take other similar action
reasonably necessary to provide economical and safe water line installation, operation and
maintenance. Following the removal of any Greenway trail improvements, the Property Owner
may restore said improvements at its expense, and the Authority shall have no responsibility to
Property Owner, its successors or assigns, to replace or reimburse the cost of trees, brush,
shrubbery, or other obstructions, including any Greenway trail improvements, located in the
Waterline Easement or the Temporary RWSA Easements if cut or removed or otherwise
damaged.
Easement Access and Maintenance
As part of the Waterline Easement and the Temporary RWSA Easements, the Authority
shall have the right to enter upon the above-described property within the Waterline Easement
and the Temporary RWSA Easements for the purpose of installing, constructing, operating,
maintaining, repairing, replacing, relocating and extending the above-described water lines and
appurtenances thereto, including installing, operating, maintaining, repairing and removing a
temporary portable pumping system with aboveground pipeline and appurtenances, within the
Waterline Easement; and in addition, the Authority shall have the right of ingress and egress
4
thereto as reasonably necessary to construct, install, operate, maintain, repair, replace, relocate
and extend such water lines and temporary portable pumping systems. If the Authority is unable
to reasonably exercise the right of ingress and egress over the right-of-way, the Authority shall
have the right of ingress and egress over the property of Property Owner adjacent to the right -of-
way, and shall restore surface conditions of such property adjacent to the right-of-way as nearly
as practical to the same condition as prior to the Authority’s exercise of such right,
notwithstanding the provisions of the section entitled “Easement Obstructions” above.
Excavation
Whenever it is necessary to excavate earth within the Waterline Easement or the
Temporary RWSA Easements, the Authority agrees to backfill such excavation in a proper and
workmanlike manner so as to restore surface conditions as nearly as practical to the same
condition as prior to excavation, including restoration of such paved surfaces as may be damaged
or disturbed as part of such excavation, notwithstanding the provisions of the section entitled
“Easement Obstructions” above.
Ownership of Facilities
The facilities constructed within the Waterline Easement shall be the property of the
Authority, its successors and assigns, which shall have the right to inspect, rebuild, remove,
repair, improve and make such changes, alterations and connections to or extensions of its
facilities within the boundaries of the Waterline Easement as are consistent with the purposes
expressed herein.
Return to exec summary
This document was prepared by:
Albemarle County Service Authority
168 Spotnap Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22911
Tax Map and Parcel Number 46-5A
This DEED OF EASEMENT, made this day of , 2012 by and
between the COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA Grantor (“Property Owner”) and
ALBEMARLE COUNTY SERVICE AUTHORITY, a body politic and corporate created
pursuant to the Virginia Water and Waste Authorities Act, whose address is 168 Spotnap Road,
Charlottesville, Virginia 22911, Grantee (the “Authority”).
WITNESSETH:
WHEREAS, the Authority has requested and Property Owner has agreed to grant the
Authority various easements shown on the plat attached hereto and recorded herewith entitled
“Plat Showing Two Variable Width RWSA Permanent Easements, 10’ Temporary RWSA
Easement, Variable Width Temporary RWSA Easement, and Two 20’ Permanent ACSA
Easements Across Property of County of Albemarle,” prepared by Draper Aden Associates,
dated October 27, 2011; and
WHEREAS, as shown on the Plat, the proposed easements cross a portion of the property
conveyed to Property Owner by deed recorded in the Clerk’s Office of the Circuit Court of the
County of Albemarle in Deed Book 3704, page 460, corrected at Deed Book 3997, page 637;
and Property Owner is the fee simple owner of the said property as of the date hereof.
NOW, THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the sum of ONE DOLLAR ($1.00) and
other good and valuable consideration, the receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, Property
Owner does hereby GRANT and CONVEY with SPECIAL WARRANTY of TITLE unto the
Authority a perpetual right of way and easement to construct, install, operate, maintain, repair,
replace, relocate and extend sewer and water line consisting of pipes, equipment, and
appurtenances to such pipes and equipment, over, under and across the real property of Property
Owner located in the County of Albemarle, Virginia, and to access any other adjacent easement
held by the Authority or the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority, the location and width of the
easement hereby granted and the boundaries of the property being more particularly described
and shown on the Plat as “Proposed 20’ Permanent ACSA Utility Easement, 5,319 Sq. Ft.” and
“Proposed Permanent 20’ACSA Utility Easement, 2,281 Sq. Ft.” (collectively, the “Utility
Easement”). The perpetual right of way and easement shall also allow ACSA to install, operate,
maintain, repair and remove a temporary portable pumping system, including temporary
aboveground pipeline and appurtenances, as necessary to adequately maintain water supply to
the Authority and Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority service areas. Reference is made to the
Plat for the exact location and dimensions of the Utility easement hereby granted and the
property over which the same crosses.
Easement Obstructions
Property Owner, its successors or assigns, agree that trees, shrubs, fences, buildings,
overhangs or other improvements or obstructions, except for any Greenway trail improvements,
shall not be located within the Utility Easement. The Utility Easement shall include the right of
the Authority to cut any trees, brush and shrubbery, remove obstructions, including any
Greenway trail improvements, and take other similar action reasonably necessary to provide
economical and safe water and sewer line installation, operation and maintenance. Following the
removal of any Greenway trail improvements, the Property Owner may restore said
improvements at its expense, and the Authority shall have no responsibility to Property Owner,
its successors or assigns, to replace or reimburse the cost of trees, brush, shrubbery, or other
obstructions, including any Greenway trail improvements, located in the Utility Easement if cut
or removed or otherwise damaged.
Easement Access and Maintenance
As part of the Utility Easement, the Authority shall have the right to enter upon the
above-described property within the Utility Easement for the purpose of installing, constructing,
operating, maintaining, repairing, replacing, relocating and extending the above-described water
and sewer lines and appurtenances thereto, including installing, operating, maintaining, repairing
and removing a temporary portable pumping system with aboveground pipeline and
appurtenances, within the Utility Easement; and in addition, the Authority shall have the right of
ingress and egress thereto as reasonably necessary to construct, install, operate, maintain, repair,
replace, relocate and extend such water and sewer lines and temporary portable pumping
systems. If the Authority is unable to reasonably exercise the right of ingress and egress over the
right-of-way, the Authority shall have the right of ingress and egress over the property of
Property Owner adjacent to the right-of-way, and shall restore surface conditions of such
property adjacent to the right-of-way as nearly as practical to the same condition as prior to the
Authority’s exercise of such right, notwithstanding the provisions of the section entitled
“Easement Obstructions” above.
Excavation
Whenever it is necessary to excavate earth within the Utility Easement, the Authority
agrees to backfill such excavation in a proper and workmanlike manner so as to restore surface
conditions as nearly as practical to the same condition as prior to excavation, including
restoration of such paved surfaces as may be damaged or disturbed as part of such excavation,
notwithstanding the provisions of the section entitled “Easement Obstruction” above.
Ownership of Facilities
The facilities constructed within the Utility Easement shall be the property of the
Authority, its successors and assigns, which shall have the right to inspect, rebuild, remove,
repair, improve and make such changes, alterations and connections to or extensions of its
facilities within the boundaries of the Utility Easement as are consistent with the purposes
expressed herein.
Return to exec summary
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
Ordinance Amendment – Chapter 5, Building Regulations
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Adoption of an ordinance to amend County Code Chapter
5, Building Regulations
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Messrs. Foley, Elliott, Davis, Herrick, Graham and
Schlothauer
LEGAL REVIEW: Yes
AGENDA DATE:
March 7, 2012
ACTION: X INFORMATION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS: Yes
REVIEWED BY:
BACKGROUND:
Chapter 5 of the Albemarle County Code codifies that building construction in the County is regulated by the Virginia
Uniform Statewide Building Code (USBC). Under state law, the USBC is uniformly applicable in all jurisdictions in
Virginia. Updated every three years, the latest edition of the USBC became effective on March 1, 2011.
DISCUSSION:
After recently reviewing Chapter 5 of the County Code to assure accuracy and conformity with the USBC, staff
determined that certain housekeeping updates are in order. The proposed ordinance amendment (Attachment A)
includes the four sections of Chapter 5 (5-100, 5-101, 5-102 and 5-103) in which the need for amendments was
identified.
Sec. 5-100 (A): Delete the word “maintenance” in the first sentence. Although the USBC includes optional
provisions for regulating building maintenance, in order to be locally enforceable, such provisions must be
specifically adopted by the locality. The County has not adopted the maintenance provisions of the USBC.
Sec. 5-101 (B): In the second sentence, replace “code official” with “building official.” By definition in the
USBC, the “building official” is in charge of administering the construction provisions of the USBC. Also,
delete the last sentence in its entirety, as it is no longer necessary.
Sec. 5-102 (A): Add “and two (2) alternates.” The USBC allows localities to designate alternate members of
the local board of building code appeals, but does not require it. This amendment would codify the County’s
existing practice of appointing alternate members on its board of building code appeals.
Sec. 5-102 (C): Delete the phrase “section 121 of.” In the latest update of the USBC, Section 121 has been
renumbered and no longer pertains to appeals boards.
Sec. 5-102 (E): Delete the phrase “section 121 of” for the same reason noted above.
Sec. 5-103 (A): Delete the wording “pertaining to the manner of construction or materials to be used in the
erection, alteration or repair of a building or structure.” Virginia Code § 36-105 no longer limits the local board
of building code appeals’ review to these subjects.
Sec. 5-103 (B): Delete the phrase “section 121 of” for the same reason noted above.
BUDGET IMPACT:
No budget impact is anticipated.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
After the public hearing, staff recommends that the Board adopt the attached ordinance (Attachment A).
ATTACHMENTS
A – Proposed Ordinance Amendment
Return to agenda
Draft: February 16, 2012
1
ORDINANCE NO. 12-5( )
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND AND REORDAIN CHAPTER 5, BUILDING REGULATIONS,
ARTICLE I, ADMINISTRATION, OF THE CODE OF THE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA.
BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of the County of Albemarle, Virginia, that Chapter 5,
Building Regulations, Article I, Administration, of the Code of the County of Albemarle, Virginia, is
hereby amended and reordained as follows:
By Amending:
Sec. 5-100 Purpose and intent
Sec. 5-101 Building inspection office established; powers and duties
Sec. 5-102 Board of appeals established; powers and duties
Sec. 5-103 Appeals of decisions of the building official
Chapter 5. Building Regulations
Article I. Administration
Sec. 5-100 Purpose and intent.
A. The purpose and intent of this chapter is to promote and to protect the public health,
safety and welfare by making the Virginia Uniform Statewide Building Code applicable to all matters
affecting or relating to structures, including the construction, alteration, repair, addition, maintenance,
demolition and removal of all structures, and to the equipment in such structures. The purpose and intent
of this chapter is also to establish a procedure by which unsafe buildings and structures are repaired,
removed, or demolished.
B. The Virginia Uniform Statewide Building Code shall be referred to in this chapter as the
“building code” and shall include the building code in its current form and as amended in the future.
C. A copy of the building code shall be kept on file in the department of community
development.
(§ 5-1; 10-18-73, § 6-1; 4-20-88; § 5-2; 10-18-73, § 6-2; Code 1988, § 5-1; Ord. 98-A(1), 8-5-98; Ord.
08-5(1), 8-6-08)
State law reference--Va. Code §§ 36-97 et seq.; 36-105.
Sec. 5-101 Building inspection office established; powers and duties.
A building inspection office is hereby established in the department of community development,
as provided herein:
A. The building inspection office shall be charged with the administration and enforcement
of the building code and this chapter, the review and approval of plans, the inspection of buildings and
structures and the issuance of permits or certificates pertaining thereto. For purposes of this chapter, the
term “building inspection office” means the “local building department” as that term is used in the
building code.
Draft: February 16, 2012
2
B. The building inspection office shall be directed by a building official appointed by the
county executive. The building official shall be charged with the administration and enforcement of thi s
chapter and the building code and, as such, shall have the duties and powers of a code building official set
forth in the building code. The building official also shall be responsible for the supervision of the other
employees of the building inspection office. For purposes of this chapter, the term “building official”
means the “code official” as that term is used in the building code.
(§ 5-1; 10-18-73, § 6-1; 4-20-88; § 5-2; 10-18-73, § 6-2; Code 1988, § 5-2; Ord. 98-A(1), 8-5-98; Ord.
08-5(1), 8-6-08)
State law reference--Va. Code §§ 36-97 et seq.; 36-105.
Sec. 5-102 Board of appeals established; powers and duties.
A board of appeals is hereby established as provided herein:
A. The board shall consist of five (5) members and two (2) alternates appointed by the board
of supervisors.
B. Each member of the board shall serve a five (5) year term, which shall extend beyond
such term until a successor is appointed.
C. To the extent that such persons may be available, the board shall consist of individuals
who meet the qualifications for board membership set forth in section 121 of the building code.
D. The members of the board shall be compensated as provided in section 2-1105 of the
Code.
E. The organization and duties of the board shall be as set forth in section 121 of the
building code and such duties shall include considering appeals as provided in section 5-103.
(§ 5-4; 10-18-73, § 6-5; Code 1988, § 5-4; Ord. 98-A(1), 8-5-98)
State law reference--Va. Code § 36-105.
Sec. 5-103 Appeals of decisions of the building official.
The board of appeals shall consider and act upon appeals from decisions of the building official
as provided herein:
A. The board shall consider appeals concerning the application of the building code or the
refusal to grant a modification of the provisions of the building code pertaining to the manner of
construction or materials to be used in the erection, alteration or repair of a building or structure.
B. The right of appeal, the parties to an appeal, the scope of an appeal, the procedure for an
appeal, and the conduct of the appeal, shall be as set forth in section 121 of the building code.
(§ 5-4; 10-18-73, § 6-5; Code 1988, § 5-4; Ord. 98-A(1), 8-5-98)
State law reference--Va. Code § 36-105.
Return exec summary
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
Solid Waste Options – Consultant Services
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Contract to evaluate solid waste service options
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Messrs. Foley, Elliott, Davis, Graham, and Shadman
LEGAL REVIEW: Yes
AGENDA DATE:
March 7, 2012
ACTION: X INFORMATION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS: Yes
REVIEWED BY:
BACKGROUND:
In November 2011, staff presented the Board with a summary outlining long-term options for solid waste services.
(Attachment A) Staff recognized it lacked some of the expertise to accurately analyze these options, especially an
evaluation of costs and potential permitting obstacles. Therefore, staff recommended retaining a consultant with
experience in Virginia solid waste programs and estimated that services would cost between $30,000 and $40,000.
The Board directed staff to finalize a scope of services and cost with a consultant, and to bring it back to the Board for
approval. A proposed scope of services and cost estimate is attached (Attachment B) for the Board’s consideration.
DISCUSSION:
Staff has selected Draper Aden Associates for this project for several reasons. First, Draper Aden has a local
presence and has already been pre-selected by the County for providing professional services through an open list of
consultants. Staff considers this important because it reduces the cost of travel time for the consultant and the
County avoids additional costs in procuring services. Second, Draper Aden has worked for the Rivanna Solid Waste
Authority (RSWA) and, more particularly, has worked at the RSWA’s Ivy facility (Ivy MUC). Draper Aden already
understands RSWA’s current operations and challenges. This helps the County avoid the cost of educating a new
consultant. Additionally, Draper Aden was a technical support consultant for RSWA’s strategic planning process,
giving the firm an understanding of local preferences. Third, in staff’s interviews, Lynn Klappich, Draper Aden’s
Program Manager for this project, was found to be both knowledgeable of the issues and insightful about the
difficulties in balancing objectives. When staff considered all of these factors together, Draper Aden was rated the best
choice for this project.
Staff has kept the proposed services focused on the outlined options, but includes some flexibility should additional
questions or issues arise. For this reason, staff is recommending the contract be based on an “hourly, not to exceed”
basis rather than as a fixed sum contract. Should the scope of work adequately address the questions without the
need to study additional issues, the County can limit the cost of the work. Should additional questions or concerns
arise, this form of contract allows the scope to be easily amended to include that work .
Staff recognizes there is some appeal to skipping this analysis of options and proceeding to bid for solid waste
services as quickly as possible. Staff believes the County’s interest is best served by first exploring all three options
and verifying the best direction. This will help assure County citizens are being served in the best way possible and for
the lowest cost. Through fees charged by service providers or through County support of programs, it appears each of
the options could result in a total cost of several million dollars over the next decade. Additionally, even if the decision
is ultimately made to privatize services, this study will help craft that bid to better serve the County’s interest and
hopefully improve the chances of a successful contract.
BUDGET IMPACT:
As shown in Attachment B, the proposal is capped at a not to exceed fee of $32,000 and is within the originally
anticipated cost. The FY12 CIP appropriation to the RSWA for environmental services has been evaluated as a
possible funding source. Based on past expenditures and anticipated services in the year ahead, staff believes
that a portion of this amount could be shifted to a consultant contract while still meeting all obligations under the
RSWA Environmental Support Agreement. If approved, staff will request an appropriation at a future Board
meeting.
AGENDA TITLE: Solid Waste Options – Consultant Services
March 7, 2012
Page 2
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends that the Board:
1) authorize the use of $32,000 from the FY12 CIP appropriation to the RSWA for environmental
services to fund a contract to evaluate solid waste service options;
2) authorize the County Executive to sign a contract with Draper Aden Associates for services as
proposed in Attachment B, subject to the County Attorney’s approval of the contract as to form; and
3) direct staff to present the study to the Board as quickly as possible. Staff anticipates this will be in two or
three months.
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A – November 2011 Executive Summary
Attachment B – Proposed Scope of Services, with Cost Estimate
Return to agenda
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
Long Term Solid Waste Service Options
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Process for evaluating future solid waste service options
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Messrs. Foley, Elliott, Davis, Graham, and Shadman
LEGAL REVIEW: Yes
AGENDA DATE:
November 2, 2011
ACTION: X INFORMATION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS: Yes
REVIEWED BY:
BACKGROUND:
In October 2010, the Board reviewed options for solid waste services based on information provided by staff. The
Board reviewed service level options and costs and decided to maintain the current level of service through short term
agreements with the Rivanna Solid Waste Authority (RWSA). The County currently provides a support payment to
the Authority to cover any operating deficits after revenues are considered. This action was taken after the City of
Charlottesville advised RSWA and the County that they had no interest in continuing to receive services from RSWA’s
Ivy facility. At a December 2010 meeting, staff advised the Board that the City had expressed an interest in
continuing to support recycling services provided by RSWA at the McIntire Rec ycling Facility. The Board established
expectations for the service agreements to continue solid waste and recycling services and directed staff to work with
RSWA staff to develop agreements to continue these services while long term options were considered.
In August 2011, the Board reviewed the RSWA support agreements for both the RSWA Ivy and McIntire Facilities
(Attachments A and B) and authorized the County Executive to sign these agreements. While the agreements
satisfied the Board expectations for services in the short term, questions remained as to whether or not RSWA could
meet the County’s long term needs within the current structure of a regional authority, recognizing that a regional body
with City representatives would be involved in the decisions regarding a service provided solely to County residents.
To address this concern, the Board directed staff to prepare a review of how future services might be provided
following RSWA’s consideration of the current Organizational Agreement. The RSWA Board conducted a review of
the Organizational Agreement in early August and agreed to propose a change to the agreement to “allow” rather than
“require” that RSW A provide services for the City and County. While this did not resolve the County’s long term
direction, it did clarify that RSW A does not advocate to be the sole provider of solid waste services. The purpose of
this agenda item is to seek Board direction on a preferred process for determining a long term strategy to meet the
County’s solid waste needs.
DISCUSSION:
In considering long-term options for delivery of solid waste services, staff believes there are three options that the
Board should consider:
1) Maintain a support agreement by which RSWA would continue to provide these services. The advantages of
this option are that the RSWA has proven to be a cost effective service provider and is very experienced at
providing these services at the Ivy facility. The disadvantages of this option are that the current Authority
structure and the complexity of the service agreement make it difficult for the County to address long-term
capital improvement requirements for services solely provided to County residents. For example, the current
agreement is subject to 2 year periods and has non-appropriation clauses to avoid binding future Boards to
this agreement. Both of those factors present a problem for RSWA financing major capital improvements.
Similarly, the current RSWA Organizational Agreement makes it possible for the County representation on the
RSW A Board to be a dissenting minority when RSWA adopts its annual budget. If the City representatives
and the independent member of the RSWA Board included costs in the budget that the County found
unacceptable, the County is left with the choice of either paying that cost or terminating the agreement. That
would effectively leave the County with an ongoing short term agreement rather than a long -term solution to
meet its solid waste needs.
AGENDA TITLE: Long Term Solid Waste Service Options
November 2, 2011
Page 2
2) Enter negotiations to either purchase or lease the part of the Ivy facility that provides the solid waste services
and then either manage it with County employees or contract out the management to others. The advantages
of this option are that the County assumes better financial control of its solid waste services and uses an
existing facility rather than investing in a new facility. The disadvantages of this option are that the County
has very little experience managing solid waste services and this would likely require a new permit from the
Virginia Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ). The lack of experience could potentially be addressed
by RSWA employees simply shifting to the County, however, the transfer of the operation to the County and
the lease or purchase of the facility would be subject to approval by the RSWA Board. Additionally, with the
potential of needing a new permit from DEQ, it is possible that an upgrade of the facility to meet curren t
standards would be required. However, it is likely that an upgrade will be needed in any case to provide
effective long term operations.
3) Identify a new location for constructing a transfer station and provide solid waste services independent of
RSWA. The advantages of this option are that the County is no longer subject to the approval of the RSWA
Board and the County can establish its own direction for providing long term solid waste services, including
the financial planning and control of capital investments. This potential operation could be overseen by the
Board of Supervisors through a County department or could be set up as an independent Authority similar to
the Albemarle County Service Authority or as an additional responsibility of the Albemarle County Service
Authority. The disadvantages of this option are that the County would need to undertake the often difficult
and controversial siting of this new facility and the complexity of managing this new service. The
management issue is very similar for options 2 and 3. Staff anticipates finding an acceptable location for a
new facility would prove very controversial and the conditions to address concerns would increase the cost of
services.
Staff has not fully evaluated each of these options and has concerns that the information above lacks the
expertise to provide a reliable analysis, especially with respect to the costs and other issues that may be
associated with options 2 or 3. For staff to fairly compare the above options and their costs and assure that
significant issues are not overlooked, we believe contracting with a consultant experienced in solid waste services
is necessary and prudent given the significance of establishing a long term direction. Staff anticipates this would
be contracted as a professional service and that the scope of services would be adjusted through negotiations
rather than requesting a simple quote for a predefined service.
BUDGET IMPACT:
While staff has not discussed these services with potential consultants, it is thought that the cost would likely be in the
range of $30-40,000 for a preliminary analysis adequate to provide the necessary information for the Board to
effectively evaluate the options. The FY12 CIP appropriation to the RSWA for environmental services has been
evaluated as a possible funding source. Based on past expenditures and anticipated services in the year ahead, staff
believes that a portion of this amount could be shifted to a consultant contract while still meeting all obligations under
the RSW A Environmental Support Agreement.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends that the Board:
1) Direct staff to procure consulting services to evaluate the options as described above, as well as any other
options.
2) Direct staff to prepare an appropriation request in an amount necessary for the consultant contract based on
a negotiated scope of services.
ATTACHMENTS:
A – 8/23/11 Ivy Facility Agreement
B – 8/23/11 McIntire Facility Agreement
Return to exec summary
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
County’s FY12/13 -- FY16/17 Strategic Plan
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Review and approve the Plan’s Goals and Objectives
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Messrs. Foley, Elliott, and Davis; and Ms. Catlin and
Ms. Allshouse
LEGAL REVIEW: Yes
AGENDA DATE:
March 7, 2012
ACTION: X INFORMATION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS: No
REVIEWED BY:
BACKGROUND:
On February 1, 2012, staff presented to the Board of Supervisors an overview of strategic planning efforts that have
occurred since the Board’s June 2011 Strategic Planning Retreat. These efforts include finalizing the County’s Vision
Statement and the development of seven goals for implementation for the upcoming five (5) year planning period.
During its briefing to the Board on this matter, staff presented draft objective statements for the following goals:
1. Provide community facilities that meet existing and future needs
2. Encourage a diverse and vibrant local economy
3. Protect the County’s natural, scenic and historic resources
4. Promote individual responsibility and citizen ownership of community challenges
5. Promote a valued and responsive County workforce that ensures excellent customer service
Staff further indicated that during the Board’s March 7, 2012 meeting, objective statements for the following goals
would be presented for consideration:
1. Ensure the health and safety of the community
2. Provide excellent educational opportunities to all Albemarle County residents
This executive summary provides an overview of the proposed objectives for these goals as well as revised
statements for the “Protect the County’s natural, scenic and historic resources” objective based on feedback received
from Board members on February 1, 2012.
DISCUSSION:
Board members expressed general consensus to amend the “Protect the County’s natural, scenic and historic
resources” to also include the County’s parklands and broaden the focus of the objective statements from primary
focus on the Clean Water Act’s Total Maximum Daily Load (“TMDL”) requirements to protect the Chesapeake Bay to
the protection of all local waterways and other critical natural resource s. Based on this feedback, staff proposes the
following amended goal and objectives statement:
Protect the County’s parks and its natural, scenic and historic resources
a. Work in conjunction with key stakeholders to protect the health of our local waterways and other critical
natural resources.
b. Preserve and maintain the quality of the County’s investment in its parks and its recreational trail and
greenway/blueway system .
c. Maintain and preserve County-owned historic resources and facilities and work in conjunction with key
stakeholders to enhance awareness of the rich historic assets of this region .
TMDL compliance will become the focus of one of the action plan items for this goal.
AGENDA TITLE: County’s FY12/13 -- FY16/17 Strategic Plan
March 7, 2012
Page 2
It was the consensus of the Board to also amend the draft objective statements for the “Promote individual
responsibility and citizen ownership of community challenges” as well. The following revised objective
statements reflect staff’s understanding of the Board’s direction:
a. Increase County’s volunteer management capability
b. Increase opportunities for citizen self reliance and responsibility for addressing community issues
Regarding the remaining two (2) strategic plan goals, staff proposes the following objective statements for Board
consideration:
Ensure the health and safety of the community
a. Work in conjunction with key community partners to establish multi-disciplinary teams to address specific
public health and/or safety issues, emerging trends and or vulnerable groups.
b. Enhance the safety of the County by improving emergency response times and increasing prevention
activities and services.
Provide excellent educational opportunities to all Albemarle County residents
a. Increase the availability and quality of pre-kindergarten learning opportunities and adult workforce
development opportunities.
b. Improve coordination to support goals shared between the School Division’s Strategic Plan for K -12
Education and the County’s overall Strategic Plan.
Upon the Board’s acceptance of all goal and objective statements, staff will deve lop action plans for each goal.
Implementation of the Plan will begin on July 1, 2012, and the Board of Supervisors will receive regular updates on
the progress of the Plan through a variety of methods:
Twice a year updates, in July and January, to be presented at Board of Supervisors meetings.
Regular updating of key performance indicators, or KPIs, that can be viewed by Board members and the
public at any time on the County’s website at the following link: www.albemarle.org/performance.
References in executive summaries and budget materials that will connect Board agenda items and funding
to the Strategic Plan goal/objective they support.
Annual Report to Citizens published in February of each year that gives a summary of annual progress.
BUDGET IMPACT:
The FY12/13 – FY16/17 Strategic Action Plan will provide direction for the County’s Five-Year Financial Plan and
annual budget processes.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
After any changes the Board feels are important, staff recommends approval of a ll objective statements for the
County’s FY12/13 – FY16/17 Strategic Plan goals.
Return to agenda
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
Update and Discussion—Chapter 4, Animals and Fowl
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Update on animal welfare matters, running at large and
noise from animals
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Messrs. Foley, Elliot, Davis, Sellers and Schwertfeger;
and Ms. Tevendale
LEGAL REVIEW: Yes
AGENDA DATE:
March 7, 2012
ACTION: INFORMATION: X
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS: Yes
REVIEWED BY:
BACKGROUND:
On June 11, 2008, the Board amended Chapter 4, Animals and Fowl, of the Albemarle County Code by adopting an
ordinance regulating animal noises, which prohibits animal owners from keeping an animal which howls, barks or
makes other such animal noises for thirty consecutive minutes or more. The ordinance restrictions do not apply to
property zoned Rural Areas District of five acres or more, or to any animal in a pound or an animal shelter or
commercial kennel as defined in Chapter 18 of the County’s Zoning Ordinance, or to sounds caused by livestock or
poultry.
On July 8, 2009, the Board adopted a comprehensive amendment to Chapter 4, Animals and Fowl, of the County
Code to update the Code and to bring the County’s animal laws into conformance with State law. During the
comprehensive amendment, the Board adopted regulations consistent with State law regarding the care of companion
animals, and prohibited running at large in all areas of the County not zoned Rural Areas District, and in any Rural
Areas District that was previously identified as a no running at large area and is specifically identified in the ordinance.
The running at large ordinance provides an exemption for dogs running at large that are deemed to be on a bona fide
hunt during hunting season accompanied by a licensed hunter or during field trials or training periods when
accompanied by its owner.
On February 2, 2011, the Board adopted amendments to Section 4-100, Definitions, of Chapter 4 of the County Code,
to amend the definitions of “adequate shelter”, “adequate space”, and “treatment/adequate treatment” in order to
provide the Animal Control Officers (ACO’s) additional tools when responding to animal welfare calls, and to provide
higher care standards and greater clarity to animal owners and concerned citizens.
This report is intended to provide the Board an update on animal welfare matters, running at large, and noise from
animals, in order to assist the Board in its discussion of animal issues in the County.
DISCUSSION:
Animal Welfare—As reported earlier this year in Colonel Sellers’ Animal Welfare Report (Attachment A), the animal
welfare ordinance and definitions continue to work very well. There is no recommendation for additional changes or
“tools” at this time. Colonel Sellers’ Animal Welfare Report provides information on the different types of animal
welfare issues received by the ACO’s from April 1, 2011 to January 2012. The current animal welfare ordinance and
corresponding definitions have proven to be sufficient tools for the ACO’s to respond and address welfare concerns in
the County.
Running at Large—Based on data gathered from April 1, 2011 to January 1, 2012, 43% of dog-related calls-for-
service are regarding dogs running at large (See Attachment A). Approximately 49.8% of those reports were
determined to be dogs at large in the rural areas where running at large is not prohibited. The ACO’s have identified
the following pros and cons if the Board amends the running at large ordinance to prohibit running at large County
wide.
Pros:
Potential reduction in the number of calls related to dog bites, dog versus companion animal
complaints, and dog versus livestock incidents
Potential reduction in the number of stray dog reports received in the rural areas
AGENDA TITLE: Update and Discussion—Chapter 4, Animals and Fowl
March 7, 2012
Page 2
Potential decrease in the number of hazard calls received for dogs being in the roadway, and dogs
being struck by vehicles in the rural areas
Elimination of “invisible” boundary lines between areas where dogs can and cannot run at large
currently defined by the zoning designation of the property
Cons:
Potential resistance from dog owners in rural areas is expected, as many residing in the rural areas
are accustomed to the lack of restrictions f or their dogs
Potential increase in the number of dogs taken to the SPCA due to lack of compliance immediately
after a County-wide prohibition
Expected increase in the number of dogs being tethered, and increase in calls of concerns from
citizens regarding the welfare of tethered dogs
Expected increase in the number of calls regarding running at large complaints, with no additional
staff to handle the volume of calls
Potential confusion and difficulty identifying hunting dogs which may be at large as part of a bona fide
hunt, as allowed under the ordinance. Often times dogs used for hunting are not retrieved for several
days following a hunt and there is the potential for an increase in calls to report dogs running at large
during or after a hunt.
If an ordinance prohibiting dogs running at large County wide is adopted, ACO’s anticipate the initial impact will be an
increase in calls for dogs at large, and welfare and tethering issues. However, no additional ACO’s are anticipated to
be hired to handle the increased phone calls, and response times may be slowed by the number of calls. Should any
change to the running at large ordinance be considered and adopted, the ACO’s recommend an education outreach to
inform citizens.
Barking Dogs/Noise from Animals—On June 3, 2009, an update was provided to the Board after the ordinance had
been in effect for one year (Attachment B). From June 2009 to April 2011, complaints specific to barking dogs were
not tracked by the ACO’s. ACO’s began tracking the number of calls related to animal noises after implementation of
the specific tracking codes as discussed in Colonel Seller’s report (Attachment A). Based on data from April 2011 to
December 13, 2011, there were a total of 51 complaints related to barking dogs. Eleven of the 51 complaints arose
from the Peavine Hollow area of the County. From April 2011 to December 13, 2011, one charge was obtained by a
citizen from the Magistrate, and that charge resulted in a conviction.
ACO’s have found this ordinance to be a useful tool in addressing barking dog complaints, as well as a useful tool for
citizens to use in addressing barking dog issues. However, ACO’s have received complaints from citizens questioning
why the ordinance does not apply to property of five acres or more, assuming that the ordinance should apply
regardless of property size or zoning. Additionally, ACO’s have received citizen complaints regarding the 30-minute
threshold because it is burdensome for complainants. The County has also received a request by a person convicted
of violating the ordinance to make the ordinance less restrictive and to require corroboration of the noise by a third
party. Staff believes the current standard for a violation balances the interests of the complainant and the animal
owner and does not recommend any change.
BUDGET IMPACT:
There is no budget impact related to this update; however, should the Board decide to adopt more extensive animal
ordinance regulations a significant increase in calls for enforcement is expected resulting in increased costs and need
for additional ACOs. The Police Department currently has four ACOs that are responsible for a very heavy call volume.
The estimated annual and one-time cost per ACO is as follows:
Total salary and benefits for ACO ($43,246.57) + Operating and Capital Costs ($47,600) + Overtime ($3,000) =
$93,846.57
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Animal Welfare – As reported earlier this year in Colonel Sellers’ Animal Welfare Report (Attachment A), the animal
welfare ordinance and definitions continue to work very well. Staff is not recommending additional changes at this
time.
AGENDA TITLE: Update and Discussion—Chapter 4, Animals and Fowl
March 7, 2012
Page 3
Barking Dogs/Noise from Animals -- Staff believes the current standard for a violation balances the interests of the
complainant and the animal owner and does not recommend any change to this ordinance at this time.
Running at Large -- Although extending the running at large ordinance to the rural areas of the County is acceptable to
ACPD, limited current staffing levels in both the Patrol and Animal Control Officer Divisions limits the ability of the
Department to effectively enforce any added requirements at this time. As such, extension of this ordinance to the
entire County is likely to result in a gap in citizen expectations for enforcement and the sheer capacity of ACPD to
respond in a timely manner. Because of limited available staffing to enforce this ordinance in the rural areas it is not
recommended that the Board proceed with changes at this time.
ATTACHMENTS
A—Colonel Sellers’ Animal Welfare Report
B—Executive Summary, June 3, 2009
Return to agenda
ANIMAL WELFARE REPORT
BACKGROUND:
On February 2, 2011, the Board of Supervisors amended Section 4-100 Definitions, of Chapter 4, Animals and
Fowl of the Albemarle County Code. Specifically, the ordinance amends the definitions o f “adequate shelter”,
“adequate space”, and “treatment/adequate treatment” as follows:
4-100(5) Adequate shelter—amended to provide examples of structures that are not adequate
shelters. Such inadequate shelters include metal barrels, plastic barrels, airline crates, carrying
crates, and dog houses with no floors. This amendment addresses reported animal shelter
concerns.
4-100(6) Adequate space—amended to further define the length and weight of a tether and/or a
running line. Specifically, the allowable length of a tether for an animal is increased from three
(3) times the length of the animal to five (5) times the length of the animal, and such tether mu st
have a swivel at both ends, weigh no more than 1/8 the animal’s weight, and multiple animals
shall have their own tether. A pulley or running line shall be at least fifteen (15) feet in length,
and less than seven (7) feet above the ground in such a manner to protect the animal from injury
and prevent the line from becoming entangled with other objects or animals. When there is
more than one animal on a pulley or running line, each animal shall have its own tether on the
pulley or running line. This amendment addresses reported animal welfare concerns.
4-100(38) Treatment or adequate treatment—amended to state that tethering a dog six
months old or younger, and tethering a female dog in heat is not deemed to be adequate
treatment. It is also amended to include ways in which an animal may be transported in an
open-bed truck in order for such transportation to be deemed adequate treatment of the animal.
This amendment addresses reported animal welfare concerns.
Prior to these amendments, the Albemarle County Police Department (ACPD) had two Incident Based Report
(IBR) clearing codes to capture animal-related calls-for-service. Those codes were “Dog Bites” and “General
Animal Calls”. After the amendments, several additional codes were created to enhance the capturing of specific
animal-related calls. The following tracking codes were implemented on April 1, 2011:
(310) Animal bite
(311) Animal welfare/neglect
(312) Animal hazard
(313) Animal stray
(314) Animal running at large
(315) Animal aggressive
(316) Animal nuisance
(317) Animal in vehicle
(318) Animal extra patrol
(319) Animal other
These codes are also further differentiated by defining the type of animal involved, [A] dog, [B] cat, [C] livestock,
[D] wildlife and [E] other.
DISCUSSION:
Since April 1, 2011, the following information was extracted from the Police Department’s records management
system and computer aided dispatch (CAD) system related specifically to dogs:
Animal Control calls-for-service (Dog specific)
Code
# of
Calls Type
310 A 102 Bites
311 A 110 Welfare
312 A 63 Hazard
313 A 311 Stray
314 A 166 Running @ Large
315 A 115 Aggressive
316 A 153 Nuisance
317 A 89 Dog in Vehicle
319 A 143 Other
Total 1252
Of the 1,252 dog-related calls for service, roughly 16% or 199 are related to the “welfare” of dogs. These were
captured in the 311A “Welfare” and 317A “Dog in Vehicle” categories. Of the 110 Welfare calls–for-service, 33%
or 36 were initially reported as tethering issues. Of those, only 7 were verified to be tethering issues, 22 found no
tethering issues and 7 calls had no disposition. Of these 36, 2 criminal charges were placed and it should be
noted that neither charge was directly related to tethering but to other violations that were discovered by the
investigating Animal Control Officer.
The other 74 calls–for-service in the “Welfare” category were reported to be issues regarding neglect and
sheltering. There were no charges placed as a result of any of these calls.
Of the 89 calls-for-service related to “Dogs in Vehicles”, 54 were determined to be unfounded. 30 were handled
with educational opportunities, 2 had no disposition and 3 resulted in charges.
It should also be noted that 43% of dog related calls-for-service appear to be related to dogs running at large.
This includes data found in the “Stray”, “Hazard” and “Running at Large” categories. Of those 540 calls, 49.8% or
269 were found to be in rural areas. The other 50.2% or 271 were reportedly in designated “leash-law” areas.
In reference to the 315A “Aggressive Dog” category, there were 115 related calls-for-service. The 310A “Dog
Bite” category recorded 102 calls-for-service. Of those 217 calls-for-service, 43 met the criteria for
dangerous/vicious dogs. Of those 43, the Animal Control Officers pursued designation on 10 of these incidents.
Of those 10, 6 were deemed “Dangerous Dog”, 1 is currently under advisement, 1 is awaiting court and 2 were
deemed not dangerous.
When asked about any additional amendments that would benefit the welfare of dogs in the County, Animal
Control Officers noted that staff should explore changing a part of the welfare code that addresses dogs in the
back of open-bed pickup trucks. When the ordinance was written, the wording only addressed dogs in crates and
dogs tethered in the back of trucks. This was apparently written with the intention to address loose dogs in the
back of the truck. The County Attorney’s Office has interpreted the current wording to read that dogs could, in
fact, be loose, which may not address the issue of safety in transporting dogs in this fashion. They further noted
that any amendment should apply only to public highway transportation due to the speeds involved, distraction,
the risk of dogs jumping out causing a road/traffic hazard or the risk of dogs being thrown from a vehicle if
involved in an accident.
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
Ordinance Amendment – Chapter 4, Animals and Fowl
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Set public hearing to consider a proposed ordinance
to amend Chapter 4, Animals and Fowl to bring it
into compliance with state code.
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Messrs. Tucker, Elliot, Davis, and Ms. Lyttle
LEGAL REVIEW: Yes
AGENDA DATE:
June 3, 2009
ACTION: X INFORMATION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS: Yes
REVIEWED BY:
BACKGROUND:
The 2008 General Assembly re-codified Title 3.1 of the Virginia Code which included the enabling authority for local
animal laws. Effective October 1, 2008, Title 3.2 replaced the provisions of Title 3.1. Chapter 4, Animals and Fowl, of the
Albemarle County Code merits a comprehensive update to ensure conformance with state law and to properly reference
the re-codified Virginia Code animal laws.
STRATEGIC PLAN:
Goal 1. Enhance the Quality of Life for all Albemarle County Residents.
Goal 4. Effectively Manage the County’s Growth and Development.
DISCUSSION:
The attached draft ordinance (Attachment A) reorganizes and updates Chapter 4, Animals and Fowl. The proposed
changes to Chapter 4 encompass both housekeeping and substantive changes. The draft ordinance provides a brief
annotated explanation for each change. The housekeeping changes include re-organizing and re-numbering the articles,
divisions and sections of Chapter 4, amending the wording of existing provisions to mirror Virginia Code language, and
amending the state law references to reflect the newly codified Virginia Code sections. The key substantive changes in
the draft ordinance are:
Section 4-100 Definitions. Addition of “clearly visible sign,” “commercial dog breeder,” “foster care provider” and
“properly cleaned”. Adoption of the definition for “commercial dog breeder” is mandated by Virginia Code, and except
for “clearly visible sign”, these new definitions all mirror the Virginia Code definitions. The Section 4-100 (15), ”clearly
visible sign” definition is included at the request of animal control to clarify a requirement of section 4-219, Dangerous
and vicious animals, which requires the owner of a dangerous dog to post clearly visible signs at the owner’s
residence warning minors and adults of the presence of a dangerous dog on the property.
Section 4-105 Care of companion animals; penalty. Addition of Virginia Code § 3.2-6503 requirements which
require owners of companion animals to provide adequate feed, water, shelter, space, exercise, care, treatment and
veterinary care to their companion animal. This section is also applicable to all pounds, animal shelters, releasing
agencies, foster care providers, animal dealers, pet shops, kennels, groomers and boarding establishments. The
Virginia Code enables localities to adopt an ordinance with these specific animal care requirements and these
requirements have been added at the request of animal control.
Section 4-106 Noise from animals; penalty. A recent Virginia Supreme Court ruling in Tanner v. City of Virginia
Beach held that the “reasonable person” standard in the Virginia Beach noise ordinance was vague and
unconstitutional. Section 4-106(A) has been amended by removing the “reasonable” person standard which is stated
as “unreasonably disturbs the peace and quiet, comfort, or repose of any person” and inserts an objective standard
which states that the excessive, continuous and untimely noise must be “audible on the property of the complainant”.
A minor amendment was also made to section 4-106(C), at the request of the SPCA, by replacing “SPCA” with
“animal shelter”. The Police Department recommends that animal noise continue to be regulated. One issue for
discussion is whether the five acre Rural Areas exception remains appropriate.
Section 4-107 Abandonment of animals; penalty. Addition of Virginia Code § 3.2-6504 provisions, which regulate
the abandonment of any animal, and deems abandonment of an animal to be punishable as a class 3 misdemeanor
with a fine of up to $500.00. Releasing an animal to a pound, animal shelter or other such agency shall not be
considered abandonment. This provision has been added at the request of animal control.
Section 4-200 Running at large prohibited. Currently, running at large is prohibited only in certain areas of the
County as designated by the Board and specifically listed in the ordinance. The list of prohibited areas has increased
over the years and animal control has had difficulty determining which areas of the County the ordinance is applicable
to, thus rendering it difficult to enforce the ordinance. At the request of animal control, Section 4-200 has been
amended to prohibit running at large throughout the County, except in areas zoned Rural Areas District; however,
areas zoned Rural Areas District which were previously identified as a no running at large area will remain a
prohibited running at large area and are listed as such in section 4-200(A). At the suggestion of animal control, an
exemption has been added that a dog is not deemed to be running at large if it is on a bona fide hunt during hunting
season accompanied by a licensed hunter or during field trials or training periods when accompanied by its owner.
Lastly, specific authority has been included to provide that if a dog is observed or captured by animal control while
running at large, the dog will be impounded in accordance with the impoundment provisions, section 4-300 et seq., of
this ordinance.
Section 4-202 Compensation for livestock and poultry killed by dogs. Addition of Virginia Code § 3.2-6553
provisions which set forth the procedures and maximum compensation that an animal owner may seek for livestock,
poultry or fowl killed by a dog. These procedures and compensation have been available to such animal owners
pursuant to the Virginia Code, and has been added to the ordinance at the suggestion of animal control in order to
more readily inform such animal owners of available procedures and remedies, while also providing continuity with
section 4-201, Dogs killing, injuring or chasing livestock or poultry—Generally.
Article II, Dogs and Other Animals, Division 3, Commercial Breeders. The Virginia Code mandates that all
localities adopt the provisions and requirements of Virginia Code § 3.2-6507.1 et seq., which sets forth the licensing
and business practice requirements for commercial dog breeders. The requirements include: obtaining a valid
business license for commercial dog breeding; maintaining no more than 50 dogs over the age of 1 year at any time;
obtaining an annual certification from a licensed veterinarian for female dogs between the ages of 18 months and 8
years, with such certification stating that the dog is suitable for breeding; disposing of only by gift, sale, transfer, barter
or euthanasia by a licensed veterinarian; and maintaining accurate records of the commercial breeding operation for
at least five years. Violations of these requirements are punishable as a class 1 misdemeanor with a fine of up to
$1000.00 or up to 12 months in prison.
Section 4-301 Impoundment; expenses; lien; disposition of animal. Addition of Virginia Code § 3.2-6565
provisions which authorize animal control or law-enforcement officers to impound an animal whose owner has failed
to provide appropriate and adequate care to an animal, which renders the animal in such a condition that it
constitutes a direct and immediate threat to its life, safety or health, and whose owner has failed to remedy the
condition and situation. This provision has been added at the request of animal control.
Section 4-401 Rabid animals, emergency ordinance. Addition of Virginia Code § 3.2-6522 provisions which
address rabid animals. The provisions authorize confinement of animals suspected to be rabid, and when there is
sufficient reason to believe a rabid animal is at large, authorizes the Board of Supervisors to adopt an emergency
ordinance requiring owners of all dogs and cats to keep their dogs or cats confined to prevent the animals from being
bitten by the rabid animal. In addition, any person having knowledge of the existence of an animal that is afflicted
with rabies is required to immediately report the information to the Charlottesville/Albemarle Health Department.
Violation of this section is punishable as a class 1 misdemeanor with a fine of up to $1000.00 or up to 12 months in
prison. This has been added to provide the County with the necessary powers to protect the public’s health and
safety as it relates to rabid animals.
The County currently does not regulate wild, exotic, poisonous and venomous animals (wild animals), nor animal conduct
that might be defined as a nuisance. In reviewing other localities’ ordinances, such regulations are often included in local
animal ordinances. There are a variety of ways in which other localities regulate wild animals, which include an outright
ban of such animals, to allowing certain wild animals to be kept in the locality after receiving a permit from animal control.
An ordinance regulating nuisance animal conduct, such as animals destroying property or chasing bicyclists, is desired by
animal control. What specific types of animal conduct appropriate to be regulated is still being reviewed by animal
control. If the Board desires regulation of wild animals and/or nuisance animal conduct, draft ordinances can be brought
to the Board at a later date for consideration.
BUDGET IMPACT:
Staff anticipates limited additional enforcement by animal control officers under the proposed ordinance and, therefore,
anticipates that there should be a minimal budget impact.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends that the Board authorize a public hearing for the attached proposed ordinance for a July meeting date.
Direction from the Board is requested if any additional modifications to the animal noise ordinance are desired.
Additionally, staff requests that the Board provide guidance on whether there is interest in staff proceeding with future
ordinance amendments to regulate nuisance animal behavior, and/or wild, exotic, poisonous and venomous animals.
ATTACHMENTS
A - Draft Ordinance
Return to exec summary
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
Fast Track Review Process
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Staff proposal for consideration of a Fast Track Review
Process for qualifying projects
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Messrs. Foley, Elliott, Davis, Kamptner, Graham and
Cilimberg; and Ms. Catlin
LEGAL REVIEW: Yes
AGENDA DATE:
March 7, 2012
ACTION: X INFORMATION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS: No
REVIEWED BY:
BACKGROUND:
The Thomas Jefferson Partnership for Economic Development is overseeing consultant work on a Target Industry
Study for its member jurisdictions, including Albemarle County. The target industry analysis matches locality
economic characteristics, resources and advantages with general location and work force requirements for desired
industry segments. Once the study is finalized, it will serve as the basis for strategic economic development and will
help Albemarle County leverage its unique assets to provide economic vitality and diversification and to develop a
place-specific strategy that supports the County’s long-term quality of life.
To encourage the expansion and new location of priority industries, many localities offer expedited plan review among
the incentives available for qualified target industries. Used strategically, expedited review for projects that meet
defined strategic criteria can be an effective tool for encouraging preferred industry growth in a community. In
researching fast track review processes in Albemarle’s benchmark communities, staff found that virtually all counties
who use this option offer it to qualified target industry enterprises that meet certain criteria (e.g., minimum levels of job
creation at certain salary levels).
The Board of Supervisors has expressed interest in considering some type of formalized fast track review process for
projects that provide significant economic benefits, including career-ladder jobs and capital investment, while still
maintaining the high standards that define our community and attract and retain quality employers. The Board’s
desire, as staff understands it, is to consider a formalized fast track review process that works within existing
ordinance requirements and Comprehensive Plan guidance to provide a quicker outcome for desirable applicants.
DISCUSSION:
It is the County’s goal to provide timely and resp onsive review for all applicants. Continued work on legislative and
ministerial review processes will streamline and simplify both of t hose processes across the board. Staff also
recognizes that businesses that bring strong job creation and higher than average wages, and that fit within desirable
target industry categories, are particularly advantageous to the community as a whole. Locating those types of
companies as quickly as possible in Albemarle County is beneficial to County residents and to the local economy.
The best opportunity to fast track projects occurs when land is appropriately designated in the Comprehensive Plan
and is zoned to accommodate the desired use. The Comprehensive Plan review and update currently underway
provides the opportunity to appropriately designate lands for industrial and business deve lopment, thus eliminating the
need for businesses that locate to those areas to go through an additional Comprehensive Plan amendment process.
Once the updated Comprehensive Plan is adopted, all lands planned for industrial and business uses but currently
zoned Rural Areas and R-1 would be considered for a County-initiated rezoning to a proposed new industrial zoning
district. This approach would be similar to what occurred with the Downtown Crozet Zoning District rezoning initiated
by the County. Staff proposes that it would contact the owners of all of the eligible parcels and inform them of the
proposed rezoning and allow them to opt out of the rezoning if they so choose. Like the Downtown Crozet rezoning,
the impacts resulting from a County-initiated rezoning, including those impacts on transportation and other public
facilities and services, and specific impacts to abutting parcels, could not be addressed by proffers. Instead, any
impacts would have to be addressed by existing regulations, including per formance standards, or through new
demands for County funded capital improvements.
AGENDA TITLE: Fast Track Review Process
March 7, 2012
Page 2
These types of strategies are not project-specific, but would streamline the process for general industrial uses that are
valuable to the County. Details about a more project-specific fast track approach are outlined below.
Qualifying Criteria
As noted, County staff already works to move all projects through review quickly and e fficiently, and in the past has
used elements of a fast track review for major projects that have a strategic beneficial impact for the community. In
order to make a formalized fast track process effective, criteria must be clear in order to identify projects that would
bring significant economic benefits to the County and thus are appropriate for special consideration. Selectivity in
granting fast track status would help insure that qualifying projects would receive the significant staff attention required
to expedite processing. Because this is the first conversation with the Board about this process, specific details need
to be further researched and developed based on the Board’s reaction to the initial concepts.
Staff recommends that a formal fast track review process be reserved for qualified target industry enterprises located
within appropriately designated development areas that also meet two or more of the following criteria:
Projects that provide a minimum (amount to be determined) number of jobs with higher wages than the
prevailing County average;
Projects that bring in a minimum (amount to be determined) capital investment;
Projects that are anticipated to result in a minimum (amount to be determined) positive fiscal impact to the
County; and
Projects that generate over 50% of their revenue from outside the TJPED region.
Potential Guidelines for Fast Track Review Process
To be successful, a formalized fast track process must recognize that each project has different needs and
circumstances and that a specific approach must be developed on a case-by-case basis. The following guidelines
provide a general approach with the understanding that a critical part of the initial evaluation of the project review will
include assessing and responding to the project’s specific individual circumstances.
A company must make a request to the County’s Economic Development staff that its project be designated
for fast track. Requests that meet the fast track criteria will then be forwarded to the Community Development
Director who, in consultation with the Economic Development staff, will make the final determination on
eligibility for fast track designation.
Prior to submitting its development application, the company and the Community Development Director and
Economic Development staff shall meet to discuss the County’s fast track process. This structured meeting
will identify issues before the formal application is submitted for review. The applicant also would be advised
to identify a single point of contact (SPOC) for the application process as this has proven to significantly
reduce communication problems. The County will do the same as outlined below.
Once the project is approved for fast tracking and the initial submission meeting has occurred, the fast track
application is submitted to the attention of the Community Development Director.
Priority treatment of the application, or “top-of-the-list” status, will be provided for the project throughout the
entire development review. This priority treatment will include flexibility in submittal deadlines and immediate
processing for qualifying applications.
The Community Development Director will assign the project to a senior project manager who will serve as a
liaison during the application and permitting process. This project manager will provide oversight throughout
the process, and the project will remain prioritized throughout developmental review. The senior project
manager also will be responsible for notifying the Community Development Director of any resource needs or
problems the applicant is unable to address. The senior project manager and the applicant’s SPOC will form
the team leadership throughout the development review process.
A review team comprised of experienced members from all reviewing departments will work on the
application’s review until the project is completed, based on timelines agreed upon and established in order to
ensure efficiency. Normal review processes are replaced by t eam decisions with authority to act broadly in
various areas of review.
Where applicable, the project may be scheduled for a joint Planning Commission/Board of Supervisors public
hearing if required.
Legally required Planning Commission and Board of Super visors advertisements can be run simultaneously.
The site plan process may run concurrently with the rezoning or special use permit application if both are
required.
AGENDA TITLE: Fast Track Review Process
March 7, 2012
Page 3
Economic Development staff will be involved during the pre-submittal process and will act as part of the
review team throughout the process to identify possible federal, state and local incentives and resources.
Again, these guidelines are general in nature due to the individual requirements of specific projects. If a project is
accepted for fast tracking, staff will tailor the most efficient expedited approach while maintaining established
standards of quality and public input. Board members will be kept informed of the progress of any fast tracked
projects in their respective magisterial districts.
BUDGET IMPACT:
There is no immediate budget impact associated with this item.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends that the Board endorse the fast track qualifying criteria and ge neral approach. Details on minimum
levels of jobs, investment and fiscal impact will be developed by staff and brought back to the Board for final approval ,
along with the entire fast track process, including defined criteria. Other strategies discussed in this Executive
Summary will be brought to the Board for its consideration at an appropriate time.
Return to agenda
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
CPA-2013-01 Comprehensive Plan Update
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Status of Planning Commission Actions to date on
Comprehensive Plan Update
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Messrs. Foley, Elliott, Davis, Kamptner, Cilimberg and
Sorrell; and Ms. Echols
LEGAL REVIEW: Yes
AGENDA DATE:
March 7, 2012
ACTION: INFORMATION: X
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS: Yes
REVIEWED BY:
BACKGROUND:
On July 26, 2011, the Planning Commission began the Comprehensive Plan update process with a general review of
the County’s Vision, Goals, and Objectives. The staff report can be found at:
http://www.albemarle.org/upload/images/Forms_Center/Departments/Board_of_Supervisors/Forms/Agenda/2012 Files
\0307\CompPlanPC07262011Report.pdf.
On October 11, 2011, the Commission reviewed existing demographic information, future residential needs based on
population projections, and the nine expansion area requests. The staff report can be found at:
http://www.albemarle.org/upload/images/Forms_Center/Departments/Board_of_Supervisors/Forms/Agenda/2012Files
\0307\CompPlanPC10112011Report.pdf.
On November 29, 2011, the Commission discussed rural area commercial uses. The staff report can be found at:
http://www.albemarle.org/upload/images/Forms_Center/Departments/Board_of_Supervisors/Forms/Agenda/2012Files
\0307\CompPlanPC11292011Report.pdf. The Commission discussed the ways in which the Rural Areas might be
more supportive of tourist-related uses and provide for other agricultural support. Prior to that meeting, staff held a
roundtable for input on possible commercial uses in the Rural Areas to support agriculture and tourism. Notes from
that meeting are provided as Attachment I.
On February 14, 2012, the Commission received additional information on the status of existing housing units in the
County as well as future units in the pipeline. In addition, the Commission received the Board’s Vision and Goals for
the Strategic Plan as well as a proposed format and standard land use categories. The staff report can be found at:
http://www.albemarle.org/upload/images/Forms_Center/Departments/Board_of_Supervisors/Forms/Agenda/2012Files
\0307\CompPlanP02142012Report.pdf.
DISCUSSION:
Conclusions and direction to staff for Vision, Goals, and Format: The Commission concluded that the vision and
relevant goals adopted by the Board of Supervisors for the County’s Strategic Plan should be used for the
Comprehensive Plan. Staff was directed to proceed with the Comprehensive Plan update using the format provided
to the Commission at its February 14, 2012 meeting.
Conclusions and direction to staff on Expansion Areas: The Commission accepted the Virginia Employment
Commission population projections and the Regional Water Demand Forecast population projections as the range of
projections to use for planning purposes. Based on a comparison of these projections with the existing residential
capacity, which was calculated by taking into consideration the rezonings approved over the last 10 years and the
residential land designations in the current Comprehensive Plan, the Commission concluded that there was no need
to expand the development areas for additional residential development , as the existing capacity could support
expected residential needs for the next 20 years. The Commission further noted that expansion and designation of
lands for residential use was not appropriate considering that existing infrastructure would not fully support currently
AGENDA TITLE: CPA-2013-01 Comprehensive Plan Update
March 7, 2012
Page 2
approved but unbuilt projects. The Commission directed that the south side of the Shadwell interchange be studied
for potential business and industrial development. Attachment II contains a portion of the October 11 staff report,
which provides the residential capacity analysis, locations of the expansion ar ea requests and the accompanying
expansion areas staff report.
On February 14, 2012, after receiving additional information on housing, the Commission discussed whether the
market would be able to respond to needs for single family detached housing in the Development Areas and
concluded that it should be able to accommodate those needs because of the flexibility in the approved residential
zoning to-date.
Conclusions and direction to staff for Rural Areas changes for Agri-business and Agri-tourism: The
Commission concluded that changes to the Rural Areas part of the Comprehensive Plan are needed to better support
agri-business and agri-tourism and existing zoning regulations for the RA should be less restrictive. Staff is analyzing
which of these changes are so significant as to require additional policy statements and guidance in the
Comprehensive Plan and which could be more immediately addressed through minor zoning text amendments or are
permissible under existing zoning regulations.
Current Comprehensive Plan Update activities: Staff and the Commission have a full schedule of activities this
spring in anticipation of staff’s work on the Comprehensive Plan. Outreach to Neighborhoods four, five, six and seven
is expected to occur in March. The Commission will also discuss information on light industrial uses and employment
locations. In April, the Commission will look at recommendations for a “mini” Master Plan for Neighborhoods four,
five, six and seven. In May, the Commission will look at recommendations on service standards for County service
providers.
BUDGET IMPACT:
There is no budget impact expected beyond the budgeted staff costs anticipated in the Community Development
Department work program. It should be noted that this staff time is being used as an in-kind contribution leveraging
staff assistance and public participation services under the Regional Livability Grant project.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
This report is provided for the Board’s information. If the Board would like more information on any specific topic, staff
can provide this during the work session or at a subsequent Board meeting.
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment I: Roundtable Notes from November 1, 2011 Agri-business Roundtable
Attachment II: Sections from October 11, 2011 Staff Report
View PC minutes: July 26, 2011; October 11, 2011; November 29, 2011; and February 14, 2012
Return to agenda
AGRICULTURAL ECONOMY ROUNDTABLE DISCUSSION
November 1, 2011 10:00 A.M. – 12:00 P.M. RM. 241 COB
Moderator: Lee Catlin, Asst. to the Co. Executive for Community & Business Partnerships
Presenters: Elaine Echols (CDD- Principal Planner), J.T. Newberry (CDD – Planner)
Other County staff/ officials:
Name Department
Ken Boyd Board of Supervisors, Rivanna District
Ann Mallek Board of Supervisors, White Hall District
Mac Lafferty Planning Commission, Jack Jouett District
Wayne Cilimberg Community Development – Director of Planning
Amelia McCulley Community Development – Director of Zoning
Ron Higgins Community Development – Chief of Zoning
Susan Stimart Economic Development Facilitator
Andy Sorrell Community Development – Senior Planner
Matt Weaver TJPDC – Planner II
Chris Perez Community Development – Planner
Approximately 16 members of the public were in attendance.
Lee Catlin provided a background and overview of the meeting. Next, Elaine Echols reviewed a
PowerPoint presentation on the status of the Comprehensive Plan update and how this workshop fit
into such update.
J.T. Newberry next reviewed uses permitted by-right and by special use permit currently in the county’s
Rural Areas. Mr. Newberry also reviewed recent amendments to the Zoning Ordinance that helped to
clarify and expand the permitted uses in Rural Areas. After concluding the review of the zoning portion
of the presentation, Elaine Echols reviewed how changes to the Rural Areas should be viewed in relation
to the Comprehensive Plan.
Ms. Echols asked those in attendance to consider that additional uses in rural areas should be weighed
against increases in traffic, demands for services, and the accumulated effect of many uses on such
systems. Ms. Catlin concluded the presentation by asking for input from the public in attendance.
During Mr. Newberry’s presentation, several questions were asked by the public. This discussion is
captured below.
Public Comments and Discussion:
Signage
The County should work with VDOT and other groups like the Journey Through Hallowed
Ground to get signs announcing that one is entering a historic district. Such signs tend to slow
down traffic. VDOT has stated in the past that such signs need to direct motorists to a place for
information. (Staff stated that VDOT has the authority to approve signs in their right-of-way
without county approval.)
Page 1
Historic Markers promote tourism and it would be helpful if the county could offset the cost of
such signage.
Tourists like recognizable and standardized signage for similar uses and activities like a cluster of
grapes for a winery. Or a standardized “Made in Albemarle” sign for local products.
Lodging
Regulations regarding Bed and Breakfasts and tourist lodging need review. In particular, there
should be discussion on why 6 or more guests should equal a hotel and why it is necessary for
an operator of a B& B or Inn to live in the dwelling
There should be a middle option between B&B’s and hotels – like Inns.
Regulations need to address intergenerational needs for operating B&Bs or Inns. There need to
be opportunities for for “granny flats” or small accessory cottages.
Special events should be allowed at B&Bs, such as small themed events like wine tastings,
outdoor recreation,etc.
The County needs to review how camping and lodges are permitted in Rural Areas. With the
creation of Biscuit Run State Park, there is likely to be more desire for such activities.
The County should look to other localities like Orange County for examples of successful B&B
activities and promotion.
Food/Dining
There needs to be a way to address food service in the rural areas – people enjoy visiting the
wineries and cideries in the rural areas, but where can they eat?
Restaurants in conjunction with wineries in the rural areas should focus on serving rural and
local cuisine – food and drink and recycling/composting waste. This makes such uses more
sustainable and reduces the trucks bringing food and talking away wastes.
Wineries get their identity from the collective rural setting they are within and do not wish to
change that –there should be more options for eating in the rural areas because wineries make
wine to go with food.
There need to be more options for selling food items at wineries – people who come to buy
Virginia wine often will buy other Virginia-made products such as cheese.
Why are Virginia restaurants not required to carry Virginia wines? How can this be encouraged?
When visiting other places and countries you always see that locations local wines on the menu
and seldom see foreign choices – why is that not the same here?
Restaurants in the Rural areas need to be small and context-sensitive in their relationship to the
rural landscape. Scale and location are key componentsWhat about encouraging locations in
existing structures?
Wineries need more options for minor food preparation, not at the scale of a restaurant, but
something that allows them to pair the wine with a food that enhances the wine – such a pairing
is important because presentation is key to product enhancement.
Special Events/ Concerts
Hosting special events in rural areas has a lot of unknowns. Not knowing how many people will
attend makes it unfair to charge a high application fee up front – these fees should be charged
retroactively based upon actual attendance.
There needs to be a technical discussion on how noise is handled for special events – the
location of an event can impact the level of noise it will have (i.e. acoustic shadowing) as will the
temperature.
Page 2
Hosts of rural concerts and events need to be mindful of their location and impacts to
neighboring properties.
Other Concerns/ Comments
The Comprehensive Plan already has a lot of goals for the rural areas that address a lot of the
rural uses being discussed today, but they are not being implemented.
There has been some confusion on the definition of Farm Stands and that clarification is needed.
Some stated that it was not their impression that such stands would be limited in the rural areas
to only singular farmers selling produce on their property or an off-site location. A rural farm
market at a centralized location(s) would be helpful.
There isn’t a hard line between light industrial and agricultural support activities such as packing
sheds. How can such agricultural uses be supported in the zoning ordinance?
Concerning light industrial / agricultural support activities, what about a distilled product from
what is grown on the property like with apple by-products? Why could not the by-product of
cider production be used to make a distilled product?
Additional recreational opportunities in the rural areas need to be addressed by the zoning
ordinance – canoe/kayak and bike rental was cited.
New agricultural industry needs to be encouraged by inviting groups like VDACS to the county to
provide educational workshops on topics such as aquaculture and growing native plants – it
would be a good idea for the county to have a native plants list. [The County has such a list.]
A large part of rural vitality has been the transition from commodity production to local
production and direct marketing – i.e. local sales to local consumers.
There is inherent tension between rural commercial activities and natural resource
preservation.
There needs to be value-added branding , such as stickers on products noting“sustainable
farming practices”, “made in Albemarle” or a county sustainable agricultural certification
program that the county could implement.
More attention should be giving to the former small crossroad communities as locations for
rural restaurants and other rural industry activities. These communities once served a similar
purpose and people can identify them as community centers and traffic is already there.
There is an inconvenient truth that rural areas are at risk and areas between rural and exurban
areas are places where streams are at a tipping point in relation to water quality and stream
health. The water quality of our rural areas is a key component to our use and economic goals
of rural areas. There is a link between sustainable ag. practices and water and improved water
quality. There needs to be extra caution for run-off and etc. if an area is at risk.
Focus should be on how the County can help people meet the regulations not how we will
regulate you - more sponsored activities from county economic development office, rather than
just an Ag. Development Specialist. Encourage and foster the great revenue stream found in
rural uses like breweries, cideries and wineries This will result in a greater county tax base.
Attention is needed to the County’s role in promoting rural products.
Economic development in the rural areas should look to what is indigenous to the county.
A “hub” or central place for rural landowners/farmers to get information on agricultural
resources and info would connect those interested to the resources they need.
Scale and limitations on uses can be costly to enforce – ensure a balance between limits being
able to be measured and make sure limitations are realistic with parameters in terms of what
can be regulated.
Page 3
The Better Business Challenge is a good model the county could follow – get people to follow
sustainable methods and give them the tools to do so.
There needs to be more economic value given to our local natural resources and biodiversity.
Make sure we work with other nearby localities like Nelson and Charlottesville.
It is important to keep in mind that government does play a role in promoting and helping uses
in our rural areas.
There need to be more trails in the rural areas that lead to destinations (i.e. trails as tourist
features) - not just trails in or leading into our Development Areas.
The roundtable adjourned at 11:30 A.M. after a wrap-up by Elaine Echols and Lee Catlin.
Page 4
CPA 2013 – 01
PC Worksession Oct. 11, 2011
Staff Report Page 19
STAFF PERSONS: ECHOLS, SORRELL, WEAVER
PLANNING COMMISSION WORKSESSION: OCTOBER 11, 2011
CPA 2013-00001 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN REVISION
Part 2: Trends and Projections for Future Populations; Land Capacity for Growth
TRENDS AND PROJECTIONS
As seen in the prior section, the County is growing, but at a slower rate than in the past.
Although economic development policies and activities may affect the rate of future
growth as well as the socio-economic makeup of future populations, the County has
typically relied on population projections of the Virginia Economic Commission (VEC) for
forecasting housing needs. In addition, the recently completed Regional Water Demand
Forecast (RWDF) has provided a higher set of projections which can be used to create a
range of future population.
VEC Projections
The Virginia Employment Commission developed population projections in 2007 for the
population for Virginia, localities within Virginia, and regional groupings of localities or
Metropolitan Statistical Areas. The VEC projections for 2010 ended up slightly lower
than the U.S. Census population number. Growth in 2020 and 2030 is projected at a
rate of 1.11 per year. VEC projects 25,000 more people by 2030.
Population Projections 2010 2020 2030
Albemarle County 96,247* 107,760 120,456
Charlottesville, VA MSA 200,683 226,372 254,873
Thomas Jefferson PD 234,606 268,261 305,612
Virginia Statewide 8,010,239 8,917,396 9,825,019
Population projections provided by Virginia Employment
Commission "Summary Sheet" 2007
*VEC projections made in 2007 were lower than Census figures of 2010 which was 98,970
Regional Water Demand Forecast
The Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority’s Regional Water Demand Forecast, prepared
by AECOM, was published on August 24, 2011. AECOM began with the 2010 Census
total of 98,970. Projections included information from the University of Virginia
regarding expected growth and utilized standard projection tools. Information provided
for the 2008 Rivanna Water & Sewer Authority’s Comprehensive Sanitary Sewer
Interceptor Study was used and the information was further refined through
stakeholder meetings. These population projections are being used in the Metropolitan
Planning Organization’s Regional Transportation Plan forecasts.
Page 5
CPA 2013 – 01
PC Worksession Oct. 11, 2011
Staff Report Page 20
Population Projections 2010 2020 2030
Albemarle County 98,970 115,919 132,868
Charlottesville 43,475 46,894 50,583
Total 142,445 162,813 183,451
Because the City and County provide water and sewer service to the University of
Virginia, their numbers were included in the population projections. According to the
RWDF, approximately 34,000 additional people will be in the County in 2030.
PROJECTED RESIDENTIAL NEEDS
Using the population projections above, one can somewhat predict the number of
additional dwelling units needed to accommodate expected population growth in the
County. To do this, one uses a person-per-unit figure that reflects how many people
would be expected to reside in each dwelling unit. Albemarle County uses a figure
which factors out the residents in group quarters, such as dorms and prisons, and also
factors in a vacancy rate. The multiplier used is 2.19 persons per unit. This multiplier
assumes no change in persons-per-unit over time and also a vacancy rate of 9%.
Because the trend in persons-per-unit is going downward and because vacancy rates are
typically not this high, the resulting projections will be somewhat conservative.
Future residential needs will be accommodated, in part, by existing zoning and, specifically,
rezoned land for which units have not been constructed. A list of the rezonings which have
occurred over the last ten years and for which construction has not taken place is provided on
the following page. It is estimated that, at present, 8,041 units have been approved by
rezoning and not yet built. (See Table 6.) This figure includes only 100 units of the Biscuit Run
rezoning.
Although it will most likely occur, no new units are projected to be provided in the Rural Areas.
Only the Development Areas have been included in the calculations.
2020 and 2030 Projections and Residential Needs
2020 (low) 2020 (high) 2030 (low) 2030 (high)
Additional Population 8,790 16,949 21,486 33,898
Additional Units Needed 4,014 7,739 9,811 15,479
Units from Rezonings
(Subtracted) 8,041 8,041 8,041 8,041
Total Add. Units Needed -4,027 -302 1,770 7,438
For 2020, there appears to be sufficient inventory of approved projects to provide for future
residential needs. By 2030, an additional 1,770 – 7,438 units will be needed. The following
section discusses the quality and quantity of land available for future residential units.
Page 6
CPA 2013 – 01
PC Worksession Oct. 11, 2011
Staff Report Page 21
DEVELOPMENT AREA LAND SUPPLY AND CAPACITY ANALYSIS
To determine the capacity of existing designated and zoned land for future growth, staff
undertook analysis of undeveloped and underdeveloped parcels in the county’s eleven
development areas. Figure 1 shows how staff attempted to find the relationship of
residential supply to expected need. Staff had to first develop the inventory of buildable
land. It did this by removing areas in steep slopes and floodplain, conservation
easements, government owned parcels, parcels for which a rezoning was approved in
the last ten years, and all but 36 acres of Biscuit Run. Although not all rezoned
properties meet their maximum allowance, the maximum number of units was used for
this exercise rather than making a guess at what might be built.
Next, the buildable land in each development area was broken down by the mix of
residential and non-residential land area desired by each land use category. Using the
buildable land available for residential development, staff then applied the desired
residential density ranges by land use type to determine how many additional dwelling
units could be accommodated on the residential buildable land. For the purpose of this
analysis, buildable land included totally vacant land and land that had minimal
improvements located upon it. Table 1 shows additional details on the how land
qualified as buildable or unbuildable. Further staff analysis is needed to examine
developed land that may have redevelopment potential; in this analysis such land is
deemed developed. While staff has determined the amount of non-residential land
supply based on land use designations, additional staff work is needed to determine the
parameters for non-residential land demand.
Out of a total of 23,411 acres located within development areas (5% of the total county
land area) in the County, initial analysis shows that 89% of the land area (20,913 acres)
is already developed, undeveloped with an approved rezoning upon it or otherwise
constrained in some manner. Staff has concluded that 11% or 2,498 acres of the
Development Area designated land is able to accommodate future residential and
non-residential development. More detailed data on the breakdown of the land supply
analysis can be found in Tables 2 and 3 later in the report.
While it may appear there is little land area remaining in the development areas to
support new development, it is important to remember that land with approved units
from rezonings has been included in the analysis as “developed.” As indicated earlier,
there is a large inventory of dwelling units that have been approved since 2001
Page 7
CPA 2013 – 01
PC Worksession Oct. 11, 2011
Staff Report Page 22
that have not been built yet. Table 4 shows how many additional units could be built,
based on the densities recommended in the Comprehensive Plan. It also shows the
potential additional population based on the number of units. Excluding the properties
in the list of rezoned properties over the last 10 years, there is capacity for 6,599–
22,108 additional units based upon the densities recommended by the Comprehensive
Plan.
Together with the inventory of dwelling units approved but not built (8,041 units) and
the additional units recommended by the Comprehensive Plan (6,599 – 22,108), there is
capacity for 14,640 – 30,149 additional dwelling units in our development areas (Table
7). The additional dwelling units needed to meet the projected housing need of 2030 is
1,770 to 7,437 dwelling units. As can be seen, there is significant residential capacity
within the confines of the existing development areas yet to be developed.
Therefore, strictly from the standpoint of accommodating residential capacity, staff can
conclude that even with the removal of Biscuit Run from the development areas, there
exists a sufficient residential capacity to accommodate anticipated population growth
through at least 2030 without adding any new land area to the development areas.
Land designated for residential development in the Comprehensive Plan is not always
the same as land with existing zoning. So staff did a second analysis on capacity of land
zoned to meet the residential needs through 2030. Following the same methodology
and using density allowed by the zoning, staff calculated the land available for
residential development at this time. Excluding the properties in the list of rezoned
properties over the last 10 years, there is capacity for 5,230 – 9,820 additional units
under existing zoning. Adding the approved, unbuilt dwelling units (8,041) to the
additional units possible under existing zoning (5,230-9,820), there is capacity for
13,271-17,861 additional dwelling units (Table 7).
Comparing the desired land use densities of the Comprehensive Plan to the densities
permitted by existing zoning indicates that within the existing development areas, the
Comprehensive Plan would allow for greater residential density than existing zoning
allows. Staff recommends that the Commission consider the needs and capacities
before making decisions related to Development Area Expansions.
Please note that the figures provided in the tables on the following pages are all still
Provisional. Additional refinement is taking place, but, staff believes any changes will
add developable area and not be less than the figures shown here.
Page 8
CPA 2013 – 01
PC Worksession Oct. 11, 2011
Staff Report Page 23
Figure 1: Matching Residential Land Supply with Housing Need
Page 9
CPA 2013 – 01
PC Worksession Oct. 11, 2011
Staff Report Page 24
Determining Buildable Land Inventory
Planning staff worked closely with GDS staff to complete a land supply analysis for each
development area. However, prior to beginning work on the land supply analysis,
planning staff provided GDS with definitions for key terms to be used in evaluating land
availability. Such terms allowed GDS to appropriately categorize and sort tax parcels
based upon the characteristics which are described in the following terms (in order of
use):
Table 1: Definitions Used in Land Inventory Analysis
1. “Total Land” means the total land area in a development area.
2. “Non-parceled Land” means land that is not within the bounds of a tax parcel and
therefore not available for development. Includes right-of-way for roads, railroads and etc
and certain environmental features like rivers. This was subtracted from the total land area
for each development area.
3. “Vacant Land” means: 1. Parcels with $0.00 assessed improvement value, or 2. Parcels of 1
acre or less with <$20,000.00 assessed improvement value, or 3. Parcels more than 1 acre
in area with <$20,000.00 assessed improvement value on the parcel or 4. Parcels within a
named subdivision (i.e. a platted subdivision), where the sum of the subdivision’s assessed
improvement values = $0.00
4. “Developed Land” means land not deemed vacant or partially vacant. This was subtracted
from the total land area in each development area.
5. “Constrained Land” means land constrained by:
a. steep slope (25% or greater),
b. within the Water Protection Ordinance (stream buffers),
c. floodplain,
d. owned by governmental entities (county and state),
e. University owned property (all property owned by the Rectors & Visitors of UVA and land
owned by the UVA Foundation within the institutional land use designation),
f. Approved rezonings and special use permits with residential units since 2001; and
g. Staff corrections such a land owned by a developments community association,
conservation easements, utility substations and cemeteries.
Once the developed and vacant land area was determined, staff deducted the above
constrained land areas from the vacant land to determine the buildable vacant land area.
6. “Unbuildable Land” is the addition of developed land, non-parceled land and constrained
land.
7. “Buildable Land” means vacant land with constrained land removed.
Page 10
CPA 2013 – 01
PC Worksession Oct. 11, 2011
Staff Report Page 25
Table 2: Development Area Buildable Residential and Non-residential Land Area -
Provisional Figures
Development Area
Buildable
Vacant Land
Area (net)
Land Available
for Non-res.
Development
Land Available for
Residential
Development
Piney Mountain 231.47 53.00 178.47
Hollymead 803.77 358.60 445.17
N1 67.71 40.61 27.10
N2 256.87 102.69 154.18
N3 227.05 121.08 105.98
N4 106.49 52.95 53.54
N5 145.29 70.83 74.46
N6 207.88 35.29 172.60
N7 10.74 2.07 8.67
Crozet 342.92 132.41 210.50
Rivanna 97.78 20.15 77.63
Totals: 2,497.97 989.68 1,508.30
23,410.50 10.7% 4.2% 6.4%
total DA land area as % of total DA
land area
as % of total DA
land area
as % of total DA land
area
Table 3: Development Area Land Supply – Provisional Figures
Development
Area
Total Land
Area
Developed
Land Area
Non-
parceled
Land Area
Constrained
Vacant
Land Area
Land Unavailable
for Future
Development
Buildable
Vacant Land
Area (net)
Piney
Mountain 682.20 372.21 38.59 39.93 450.73 231.47
Hollymead 4,507.66 3,378.08 222.02 103.79 3,703.89 803.77
N1 1,182.96 971.47 137.12 6.66 1,115.25 67.71
N2 2,981.32 2,410.57 257.74 56.14 2,724.45 256.87
N3 1,513.52 1,035.81 183.17 67.49 1,286.47 227.05
N4 2,579.10 2,195.99 238.14 38.48 2,472.61 106.49
N5 1,674.86 1,177.15 302.04 50.38 1,529.57 145.29
N6 2,808.06 2,322.75 165.48 111.95 2,600.18 207.88
N7 891.23 779.55 100.40 0.54 880.49 10.74
Crozet 2,881.64 2,240.12 156.68 141.92 2,538.72 342.92
Rivanna 1,707.95 1,554.70 45.64 9.83 1,610.17 97.78
Totals: 23,410.50 18,438.40 1,847.02 627.11 20,912.53 2,497.97
464,622.77 5.04% 78.76% 7.89% 2.68% 89.33% 10.67%
total county
land area
as % of total
county land
area
as % of
total DA
land area
as % of total
DA land area
as % of total
DA land area
as % of total DA
land area
as % of total
DA land area
Page 11
CPA 2013 – 01
PC Worksession Oct. 11, 2011
Staff Report Page 26
Table 4: Additional Units and Population based on Densities in Comprehensive Plan -
Provisional Figures
Residential Capacity Possible on Buildable Land
Added Dwelling Units Range
(Capacity)
Added Population Range
(Capacity)
Growth Area Low High Low High
Piney
Mountain 750.23 3,069.14 1,643 6,721
Hollymead 1,805.25 7,040.68 3,953 15,419
N1 162.90 921.56 357 2,018
N2 590.62 2,116.50 1,293 4,635
N3 396.48 1,366.54 868 2,993
N4 256.00 1,208.45 561 2,647
N5 363.11 1,746.53 795 3,825
N6 526.07 1,112.56 1,152 2,437
N7 51.62 290.28 113 636
Crozet* 1,297.00 2,836.00 2,957 6,508
Rivanna** 400.00 400.00 846 846
Totals: 6,599.28 22,108.24 14,539 48,684
* The added dwelling range and population range is based upon the 2010 Crozet Master Plan adopted in
October 2010.
** The added dwelling range and population range is based upon the 2010 Village of Rivanna Master
Plan adopted in May 2010.
Page 12
CPA 2013 – 01
PC Worksession Oct. 11, 2011
Staff Report Page 27
Table 5: Additional Units and Population based on Zoning Densities -
Provisional Figures
Residential Capacity Possible on Buildable Land
Added Dwelling Units Range
(Capacity)
Added Population Range
(Capacity)
Growth Area Low High Low High
Piney
Mountain 508.95 2,866.41 1,115 6,277
Hollymead 1,135.95 1,596.28 2,488 3,496
N1 283.88 419.75 622 919
N2 967.98 1,431.35 2,120 3,135
N3 343.95 575.88 753 1,261
N4 67.88 77.65 149 170
N5 825.83 1,139.51 1,809 2,496
N6 268.50 479.27 588 1,050
N7 117.70 164.98 258 361
Crozet 695.98 944.92 1,524 2,069
Rivanna 13.47 123.84 30 271
Totals: 5,230.07 9,819.84 11,454 21,505
Page 13
CPA 2013 – 01
PC Worksession Oct. 11, 2011
Staff Report Page 28
Table 6: Residential Units Approved through Rezonings and Special Use Permits – Prov.
Residential Units Approved through Rezonings and Special Use Permits
Since: May 15, 2001 - Undeveloped or Incomplete Last Updated: 9/28/11
Project # Project Name Approval date # of Units
remaining Unit Type Constructed
ZMA 01-07 Albemarle Place/Stonefield 10/22/2003 650 mf/th
ZMA 01-08 Rivanna Village at Glenmore 6/13/2007 521 sfd/sfa/th/mf
ZMA 01-20 Hollymead Town Center Area C 8/6/2003 86 th 34
ZMA 02-04 Cascadia 8/2/2006 330 sfd/sfa/th/mf
ZMA 03-08 Woodbrook Station 1/11/2006 8 mf/th
ZMA 04-09 Cottages at Jefferson Heights 4/20/2005 4 th
ZMA 04-07 Belvedere 10/12/2005 727 48
ZMA 04-18 Fontana Phase 4C 3/29/2008 34 sfd
ZMA 04-22 Treesdale Park 12/12/2007 90
ZMA 04-24 Old Trail 9/14/2005 2,275 sfd/sfa/th/mf
ZMA 05-05 Liberty Hall 12/12/2007 9 44
ZMA 05-07 Haden Place 2/14/2007 34 sfd/th
ZMA 05-17 Biscuit Run 9/12/2007 100
ZMA 05-18 Wickham Pond II 9/13/2006 106 sfd/sfa/th/mf
ZMA 06-01 Westhall Phase V 9/13/2006 36 sfd
ZMA 06-05 Avinity 6/13/2007 124 mf/th
ZMA 06-15 Glenmore - Livengood 10/10/2007 43 sfd
ZMA 06-16 Glenmore Addition: Leake 11/14/2007 110 sfd
ZMA 06-19 Willow Glen 3/14/2007 234 sfd/sfa/th/mf
ZMA 07-01 HTC A-2 9/12/2007 1,228 th/mf
ZMA 07-04 Oakleigh Farm 1/16/2008 109 sfd/th/mf
ZMA 07-05 Avon Park Extended 11/14/2007 31 sfd/th
ZMA 07-11 Patterson 3/19/2008 10 sfd
ZMA 07-12 Blue Ridge Co-housing 11/14/2007 21 sfd/sfa
TOTAL Units from ZMPs 6,920
SP 02-23 White Gables 2002 46 30
SP 02-72 North Pointe 2002 893
SP 03-06 Cedar Hill MHP 2003 32
SP 07-26 Crozet Station 11/14/2007 30
SP 07-31 NGIC 8/1/2007 120 mf
Total Units from SPs 1,121
Grand TOTAL 8,041
Page 14
CPA 2013 – 01
PC Worksession Oct. 11, 2011
Staff Report Page 29
Table 7: Residential Capacity for Additional Dwelling Units - Provisional Figures
Capacity for Additional Dwelling Units
Possible Dwelling Units
on Buildable Land
Approved
Unbuilt
Units
Total Capacity for
Additional Dwelling Units
Low High Low High
Comprehensive
Plan 6,599 22,108 8,041 14,640 30,149
Zoning 5,230 9,820 8,041 13,271 17,861
Page 15
Page 16
Page 17
Page 18
Page 19
Page 20
Page 21
Page 22
Page 23
Page 24
Page 25
Page 26
Page 27
Page 28
Page 29
Page 30
Page 31
Page 32
Page 33
Page 34
Page 35
Page 36
Page 37
Page 38
Page 39
Page 40
Page 41
Page 42
Page 43
Page 44
Page 45
Page 46
Page 47
Page 48
Page 49
Page 50
Page 51
Page 52
Page 53
Page 54
Page 55
Page 56
Page 57
Page 58
Page 59
Page 60
Page 61
Page 62
Page 63
Page 64
Albemarle County Planning Commission
July 26, 2011
Work Session:
Comprehensive Plan Update
Work session to review the schedule, focus areas, and goals for the Comprehensive Plan update
(Elaine Echols)
Mr. Benish introduced the new staff person Andy Sorrell, Senior Planner. Mr. Sorrell and Ms.
Echols have been doing the bulk of the work on this staff report. Unfortunately, Ms. Echols is
out of town.
The following PowerPoint presentation was given:
CPA-2013-00001, Comprehensive Plan update
Planning Commission Work Session
July 26, 2011
Background
• 1989 – Last Overall Plan Rewrite
• Section Updates have been ongoing:
– Land Use Plan Update (1996)
– Natural Resources and Cultural Assets (1999)
– Land Use Plan – Neighborhood Model (2001)
– Affordable Housing Policy (2004)
– Rural Area Plan (2005)
– Land Use Plan - Transportation Section (2005)
– Land Use Plan - Community Facilities (part) (2007)
– Economic Development Policy (2009)
– Land Use Plan – Four Master Plans (2004, 2008, 2010 and 2011)
According to the Code of Virginia, localities are required to review their Comprehensive Plans
every five years. The last adoption of all of the elements of the Comprehensive Plan at the same
time was in 1989. The Land Use element was last reviewed and adopted in its entirety in 1996.
Since 1996, the County has updated sections of the Comprehensive Plan as part of an ongoing
review.
An unintended result of the incremental approach to updating the Comprehensive Plan is that the
document has become very long, somewhat disjointed, and difficult for the public to follow. In
addition, some sections of the Plan have not received a complete review since 1996. In February
2010, the Board directed staff to make the update to the plan a priority project for the
Community Development Department.
Tonight’s Work Session
Page 1
A. Relationship of County Plan update to Livability Project and City Comprehensive Plan
update
B. Provide a summary of the recent citizen survey
C. Review methodology for plan update, including focus areas
D. Review Comprehensive Plan goals, objectives and more concise format
E. PC input on other areas which need revisiting
A. Grant & City-County Work
PDC staff is assisting City and County:
• Facilitating public input opportunities
• Providing background info on areas of mutual interest:
– Land use where the entities abut;
– Regional transportation including Entrance Corridors;
– Environmental systems including greenways;
– Housing and regional economic drivers; and
– Community facilities and services.
• The City and County Planning commission’s held a joint meeting in March to discuss the
Livability Grant, its products and the relationship of the grant to the city and county’s
update of their comprehensive plan. In essence, the grant is intended to measure the
progress of the region of the city and the county along with the MPO’s efforts to
implement the sustainability accords, which were incorporated into our comprehensive
plans in 1998 and to provide recommendations for how to further implement and achieve
those sustainability accord goals.
• Some of the benefits of the grant work are that they are receiving a much more enhanced
public input process than they could have otherwise have done with just county staff.
TJPDC staff through the grant resources and the additional staff that the grant resources
provided that TJPDC staff is developing public input workshops based around topic areas
that are relevant and important both the city’s and county’s comprehensive plan and the
sustainability grant. Those workshops similar to the kick off they had in May is a type of
public input that they did not have the manpower to do just with our county staff. The
TJPDC staff is also providing the data for some of that information particularly for
background areas that are of mutual interest to the city, county and University. Those
areas are transportation, environmental policies, land use, economic drivers, housing,
and facilities-service provisions.
• Staff will bring back more information regarding these topic areas at future joint
City/County Planning Commission meetings. The next joint PC meeting is August 16th
(then September).
• He circulated a six page executive summary
B. 2011 Citizen Survey
• National Citizen Survey (NCS) conducted by IMCA
Page 2
• Gathered citizen input about characteristics of the community & services provided by the
county
• Was timed so results would inform the County’s strategic and comprehensive planning
processes
• Summary of results was included in Attachment A
In 2011, the County contracted with International City/County Management Association (ICMA)
National Citizen Survey (The NCS) to conduct a survey of residents’ opinions about the
characteristics of the community and services provided by Albemarle County. The NCS was
developed by the National Research Center, Inc. in cooperation with the ICMA. The timing of
this statistically valid survey was such that the results would inform both the County’s strategic
and comprehensive planning processes.
The NCS survey is a more standardized approach than the County’s previous effo rts, so the
results can be compared with benchmark communities across the nation. Throughout the country,
certain public services, such as public safety, tend to rank higher than other services, so having
the ability to compare the ranking of services between Albemarle County and benchmark
communities provides additional and significant information for planning purposes.
• Staff distributed the six page summary mentioned in the staff report. He suggested that
they look at summary and come back to discuss it further at a later work session
• He highlighted several of the findings that were relative to the comp plan update.
• Some of the more favorable characteristics of our community were the overall
image and reputation; the overall appearance of our community; the quality of
our natural environment; and the educational opportunities.
• Some of the least favorable characteristics of the community were basically
transportation related, bus travel, rail travel, bicycle travel, and also the
accessibility of affordable childcare.
• For zoning and land use there was a fairly low response 44 percent felt that land
use, planning, and zoning was excellent or good. Interestingly, they were very
consistent with national and like type community bench marks. It tends to be
their observation that is the type of response they get for this sort of question
because change in development is generally seen as a negative. They tend to get
lower scores in this area and the bench marks of other localities tend to merit that.
However, again they did get somewhat lower scores in that area.
C. Methodology & Proposed Schedule
Currently:
• Review consolidation of existing Plan goals and objectives - identifying areas in need of
study;
• Review list of expansion area requests for familiarization by PC;
Sept. 2011 to March 2012:
• Receive general input at workshops for the Livability Project for Land Use, Environment,
Transportation, Economic Drivers, Housing, and Transportation;
• Hold joint PC work sessions with City on areas of mutual interest;
Oct. 2011 to Jan. 2012:
• With PC, hold separate work sessions with the PC on identified focus areas in Plan;
Page 3
February 2012 to May 2012:
• staff will do the writing part of the Comprehensive Plan to then bring back for PC review;
Completion:
• Expected public hearing(s) Summer/Fall 2012 with expected adoption by the Board in
early 2013
Regarding the METHODOLOGY AND GENERAL SCHEDULE FOR COMPREHENSIVE
PLAN UPDATE
• Staff has developed this methodology and proposed schedule for the update:
• Staff requested comments.
C. Focus Areas
• Interstate interchange policy
• Industrial land designations
• Capacity for development in the Development Areas and expansion area requests
• Rural land use
• Urban agriculture
• General land use and transportation for Neighborhoods 4, 5, 6 & 7 (including potential
reduction of the Development Area boundaries to remove the Biscuit Run property)
As with the Crozet Master Plan Update, staff is not anticipating changes to the County’s
overarching goals in the Comprehensive Plan. Discussion is expected in these focus areas where
the Commission may make additional recommendations after study.
In addition to the Focus Areas, staff plans to bring two other sets of changes to the Commission.
The proposed changes are 1) making sections of the comprehensive plan more “current” with
updated information and 2) making changes to the text and maps to standardize format and
reduce bulk. An example in the first area would be eliminating a strategy where action has taken
place, such as adoption of an ordinance to achieve a goal. has been pursued or an objective has
been satisfied. An example in the second area would be to standardize land use colors and
categories that are different among several master plans. All of this information is in the
attachment entitled, “Updates for Comprehensive Plan by Category.”
Staff requested comments.
D. Goals, Objectives –
Plan Hierarchy
• Goals: set direction
• Objectives: guide action
• Strategies: methods of action
All comprehensive planning efforts begin with a set of goals for a community. Albemarle is
fortunate to have a long history of land use planning on which to base land use and fiscal
decisions. Unfortunately, Albemarle also has at least 72 pages devoted to goals, objectives, and
strategies. Some of these goals, objectives, and strategies were developed at different times and
there is considerable overlap. In an effort to remove the overlap and concisely state the goals,
Page 4
staff has consolidated the statements into the attached 20 page set of goals, and objectives
(Attachment B of staff report). The topics fall into 7 major categories:
Vision and Core Values
Growth Management
Natural, Cultural, and Historic Resources
Economic Development and Housing
Land Use
Transportation
Community Facilities
In some cases, staff has retained the exact wording of a goal or objective that is in the existing
Comprehensive Plan. In other cases, where a goal is stated several different ways in several
different sections of the document, staff has tried to state the goal in a way that is simple but
retains the intended meaning. In addition, as staff has consolidated statements, it has also
attempted to add statements which reflect County policy but which are not stated specifically as
goals at this time. For example, the Biodiversity goals in the Natural, Cultural, and Historic
Resources section are written in a way, which suggests that the goals are the same for both the
Rural Areas and Development Areas. To better reflect that these goals are not necessarily the
same, staff has added words. Wherever staff has added language, it is noted. Otherwise, the
goals can be found in the sections of the Comprehensive Plan that are identified in Attachment
B.
Plan Vision & Core Values
VISION
Albemarle County will have beautiful Rural Areas and pedestrian-friendly urban
areas. It will continue to be a desirable place in which to grow up, raise a family
and grow old. The educational system will be world class and the County's
quality of life will be exceptional. The core values of the residents and property
owners will guide planning for Albemarle.
CORE VALUES
The residents and property owners in Albemarle County value:
• natural resources, rural character and visual beauty
• existing neighborhoods and neighborhood identities
• a diversity of businesses and employment opportunities that create a stable economy
• distinctive urban and Rural Areas
• high quality services and facilities
• education and lifelong learning
• a diversity of housing choices which is affordable for all income levels
• public safety
To begin the goals section, staff has added a “vision” and “core values” page. A vision statement
and core values has appeared in strategic plans for the County many times. In the attachment,
staff has attempted to state the vision once again and reflect the core values that have been
Page 5
expressed many times by the community. The Commission is asked to affirm the vision and
core values as part of the overall comprehensive plan update.
Generalized Goals
Growth Management
• Retain distinctions between DA and RA
• Plan for growth
• Don’t allow new development to hurt quality of life
Economy
• Have a diversity of employment opportunities that create a stable economy
Natural Resources
• Retain Systems of mountains and steep slopes
• Protect water quality
• Have undeveloped floodplain
• Have undeveloped wetlands
Cultural and Historic Resources
• Retain and preserve resources that are unique to Albemarle County.
Land Use
• DA: Have high quality development areas as places for new growth and redevelopment
• RA: Have thriving agricultural and forestal activities in the rural areas and minimal with
minimal residential development.
Transportation
• Have safe and efficient transportation networks.
Community Facilities and Utilities
• Have a safe, well-educated community with efficient and excellent facilities and services.
Recommendation
• Focus Areas – review, provide feedback & affirm
• Methodology – review & provide feedback
• Consolidated Goals & Objectives – review & affirm or ask for additional study
• ONGOING WORK OF STAFF:
• At present, staff is working on the capacity analysis for land use and initial reviews of the
expansion area requests. Staff will be contacting the applicants for additional
information on their individual requests in early August. The capacity analysis and the
additional information will be brought to the Commission in October.
• RECOMMENDATION:
• Staff recommends the Commission review and provide feedback on the proposed focus
areas and methodology for framing the goals, objectives, and strategies of the
Comprehensive Plan update. Staff asks that the Commission affirm the Focus Areas.
Finally, staff asks that the Commission review the consolidated goals and objectives to
affirm or ask for additional study in particular areas.
During the work session, the Planning Commission reviewed the schedule, focus areas, and goals
for the Comprehensive Plan update. Staff requested feedback on the following:
Page 6
• Focus Areas – review, provide feedback & affirm
The Planning Commission agreed with the focus areas for the Comp Plan review as presented by
staff.
• Methodology & Scheduling – review & provide feedback
The Commission agreed with the methodology and scheduling submitted by staff
• Consolidated Goals & Objectives – review & affirm or ask for additional study
The Commission was in general agreement with the existing goals with some comments and
suggestions for further consideration.
The Commission expressed interest in organizing the goals and associated objectives and
strategies under the core value(s) they support.
Staff also provided a summary of The National Citizen Survey Albemarle County, VA 2011 for
the Commission’s information.
Public comment was taken from the following persons:
Neil Williamson, Free Enterprise Forum, submitted written comments that he hoped the
Commission would take under advisement. (Attachment A) He thought it was
imperative that they take a good hard look at the process and the methodology they are
going to use. There is one goal in the Comp Plan that he is adamantly opposed to.
Overall, he thought they have a very solid Comp Plan. However, it does not matter what
he or the Commission thinks. In the end it matters what the Board thinks. The
Commission needs to check back with the Board for feedback. It is a laborious process.
They need to take a good hard look at the objectives set forth in step one and then get
step one signed off on by the Board. Then they should come back and do step two and
three.
Jeff Werner, Piedmont Environmental Council, expressed the need for the
Comprehensive Plan to factor in the defense intelligence facilities, the western bypass,
and Route 29 north of the western bypass. He thought they were a place people want to
be because of the documents they have. They still don’t know how much growth has
been approved and how much of that approved growth has been built. They don’t know
how the building permits line up with what has been approved, etc. They need that
information.
The following is a summary of specific suggestions made by Commissioners:
Ms. Monteith’s Comments:
Page 7
Liked having a vision and core values – however, some of the language in the vision was
“feeling” and some was “factual.” It needs to stay consistent with the type of language
used and language should be defensible.
Mr. Franco’s Comments:
Stated that the core values need to more directly relate to the goals and objectives.
Relating core values will further help to reduce redundancy.
Goals could be grouped under the core values.
Goals could be grouped by rural area and development area, though such a grouping
would likely get quite complicated.
Goals should be prioritized and they should recognize what goals are achievable.
Mr. Morris’ Comments:
Questioned what a “World-class education system” actually was – does this phrase
actually add value?
On page 4 of 20 in the last goal – “avoid premature expansion of the development area.”,
he would like to see that in the Pantops Master Plan and Places29.
Ms. Porterfield’s Comments:
Ms. Porterfield indicated that 4 of the 6 suggested focus areas seemed to fit together – the
focus areas of the interstate interchange policy and the industrial land designations and
the focus areas of the DAs capacity for development and the focus area of general land
use and transportation for neighborhoods 4 through 7 (which includes the potential
reduction of DA boundaries to remove the Biscuit Run property).
Stated that some expansion area should be at interstate interchanges – the interstate
interchange policy should be reviewed to include interchange land area.
Stated that having a vision and core values was a good idea – they set the tone.
Stated that in the vision, the portion that said “…in which to grow up, raise a family and
grow old.” It should not imply that everyone will be here from birth to death and that the
last two words should say: “and/or grow old” to ensure the vision is not excluding people.
Ms. Porterfield’s Specific Comments to Attachment B:
Growth Management, “Overall Growth Management,” Goal 1, Objective 5 (page 2 of 20)
– Will a gentler rather than a “hard edge” be better?
Growth Management, “Sustainability,” Goal 1, Objective 4 (page 3 of 20) – Should not
an increase in storage capacity also be addressed here?
Growth Management, “Sustainability,” Goal 1, Objective 8 (page 3 of 20) - Should also
update this objective to reflect the current technology for waste-water disposal/use.
Should specific language be provided for hazards regarding drinking water.
Growth Management, “Growth Management and the Development Areas,” Goal 5,
Objective 1 (page 4 of 20) – Appropriate goal, however should the objective be
rewritten? Does density push the form?
Natural Resources & Cultural Assets, Sustainability, “Water Resources,” “Surface Water
in the Rural Areas,” Goal 1, Objective 4 (page 5 of 20) – Why is the Moorman River the
only one addressed? Needs to be more general.
Page 8
Natural Resources & Cultural Assets, Sustainability, “Water Resources,” “Surface Water
in the Development Areas,” Goal 1, Objective 1 (page 6 of 20) – Why is Crozet the only
one addressed? Needs to be more general.
Natural Resources & Cultural Assets, “Sustainability,” “Scenic Resources,” Goal 1,
Objective 1 (page 8 of 20) – ensure that this objective also permits new technologies such
as telecommunication facilities.
Economic Development & Housing, “Economic Development,” Goal 1 (page 10 of 20) –
add an additional objective to state that Albemarle works to bring new employers to the
County.
Land Use – Rural Areas, “Fiscal & Tax Tools,” Goal 1 (page 13 of 20) – a new goal is
needed to state that rural parcels should pay taxes to at least cover the cost the county
incurs to provide services to these areas.
Transportation, “Streets and Roadways”, “Development Areas,” Goal 1, Objective 1
(page 17 of 20) – Just references Places 29 Master Plan – should be more general.
Transportation, “Streets and Roadways,” “Development Areas,” Goal 2 (page 17 of 20) –
Need to also add to provide for mobility and access for police and emergency medical
vehicles.
Community Services, “Utilities,” “Water Provisions and Sewage Disposal,” Objective 3
(page 20 of 20) – where this objective states “Only allow changes in jurisdictional areas
outside of designated Development Areas in cases where property is: (1) adjacent to
existing lines…” Adjacent to existing lines should also include across a street. This
should also be noted as permitted only on a case-by-case basis.
Community Services, “Service Standards” (page 20 of 20) – Stated that all development
area services should be equal and if not we should strive to ensure each development area
has comparable services.
The Commission commented on the information provided and asked staff to take their comments
into consideration in the continuing work on the Comprehensive Plan. Ms. Porterfield provided
specific suggestions and provided written comments. Some Commissioners provided
suggestions at the meeting, and other Commissioners indicated they would provide any further
comments in writing.
Staff noted additional feedback could be provided by Commissioners via email or in written
form.
No formal action was taken.
Page 9
Attachment A – 7-26-2011 Planning Commission Minutes
July 26, 2011
Comments to the Albemarle County Planning Commission
2012 Comprehensive Plan Vision and Core Values
Good Evening, I am Neil Williamson of the Free Enterprise Forum, a privately funded public
policy organization covering-the City of Charlottesville, as well as-the Counties of Albemarle,
Greene Fluvanna, Louisa and Nelson.
Thank you for the opportunity to speak today regarding your 2012 Comprehensive Goals by
Category Draft document.
I will be very specific in my comments referencing the document.
Page 2 Overall Growth Management Free Enterprise Forum believes you should add an
objective to have adequate land available in the development area to accommodate 20 years of
projected growth. This objective would be agreement with current state law.
Page 3 Sustainability objective 2 The Free Enterprise Forum strongly recommends the
elimination of objective number 2. We have steadfastly opposed Albemarle County getting into
the population control business.
Page 3 Sustainability Objective 7 &8 Sustainability is not well defined in either of these
objectives We encourage a better more concrete definition in these objectives.
Page Growth Management Goal 2 Objective 1 Add the phrase "While protecting property
rights," to the beginning of the sentence
Page 10
Page -4 Growth Management-and the Development Areas Goal #3 reads "Provide
infrastructure and services to support new development" The Free Enterprise Forum believes the
words "existing and" should be inserted prior to new development
Page-4 Growth Management and the Development Areas Goal #5 is Pejorative. Rather than"
Avoid premature expansion of the Development Areas" The Free Enterprise Forum believes the
goal should read "Maximize Development Area Utilization"
Page-5 Water Resources Objective number 2 discusses the proliferation of septic systems in the
rural areas The Free Enterprise Forum does not believe there is significant evidence to support
that the proliferation of health department inspected, well designed and operated septic systems
have a negative impact on the rural areas. We feel this objective should be removed.
Page 5 Surface Water in-the Rural Areas Objective 4 Why identify the Moorman's river over
all other surface water? Isn't the Meechum's river and Rivanna deserving of equal protection?
Page 6 Stormwater Management
Objective 1 add the term or mitigating after the word minimizing
Page 7 Biodiversity and Biological Resources
Goal The Free Enterprise Forum takes exception to the use of the word "ethical" in describing
county benefits. We ask this term be removed.
Page 8 Critical Slopes in the Development Areas The Free Enterprise: Forum is a proponent -
for maximizing the use of land in the development areas for development (as referenced on Goal
5 on Page 4) thus we ask for this goal to be reworded "Protect critical slopes in the development
areas that are a part of stream valleys."
Page 9 Historic Resources Objective 2 The free Enterprise Forum believes the word protection
should be removed from this objective.
Page 11
Page 13 Fiscal and Tax Tools The Free Enterprise Forum questions the use of the words"
negative impacts" and wonders whether "inconsistent with other aspects of the comprehensive
plan" would be a better wording
Page 14 Interstate interchange Development Objective-2 The Free Enterprise Forum. Is
unclear how Objective 2 supports the goal' stated on the same page.
Page 15 Land Use Development Areas Goal 3 Objective, l The Free Enterprise Forum strongly
encourages the inclusion of flexibility to this objective.
Page 16 Transportation Goal The Free Enterprise Forum suggests changing the middle line to
recognize the importance of transportation to economic vitality. The new language would read,
“which supports the growth management policy, the economic vitality policy and provides for
necessary Public Safety".
Page 16. Transportation Objective 2 references Vehicular Miles Traveled. Absent a metric to
accurately determine VMT, we suggest this language be removed.
Thank you for the opportunity to review these concerns with you, I am happy to answer any
questions.
Page 12
Albemarle County Planning Commission
October 11, 2011
Work Session:
CPA-2013-01 Comprehensive Plan Update
Work session on Demographics, Capacity Analysis, and Expansion Area Requests (Elaine Echols)
Purpose: The Planning Commission held a work session to review and discuss three areas of
importance to the upcoming Comprehensive Plan update, as follows:
1. Current demographic and land use information
2. Trends and projections for future populations; land capacity for growth
3. Requests for expansions of the Development Areas
Mr. Morris noted that this evening he would ask the staff to discuss sections 1 and 2, the overall picture of
what they are looking at with the comprehensive plan. They would then discuss it as a Commission,
open it up to the public so the public can focus on that area, and then bring it back, discuss it, and give
staff any feedback that they might want. Then on section 3 there are about 12 specific items that they
want to look at individually. All of those items will be covered by staff. The Commission will open it up for
public discussion and then bring it back to the Commission for discussion. The public as well as the
Commission will have a chance to digest this thing in smaller bites.
Ms. Echols said they have been working on the comp plan quite a bit lately more in a regional sense with
the city. Now they are getting into the County’s comp plan update. This is the first meeting where staff is
going to be bringing the Commission background information that relates to future decisions. They want
to go over the demographic information provided in the staff report, talk a little bit about trends,
projections for population, the capacity they have for growth, and then go over the requests that have
been made for expansion for the development areas boundaries.
Parts 1 and 2: Current Demographics and Future Projections, Trends and Capacity
Ms. Echols presented PowerPoint presentation on Section 1 on demographic changes which will inform
the work with the comprehensive plan. The Commission held a discussion with staff, received no public
comment, and provided comments and feedback to staff.
Ms. Echols noted that Mr. Sorrell had put together a notebook concerning the capacity analysis with
provisional numbers.
Mr. Sorrell continued the PowerPoint presentation on Part 2 Trends and Projections highlighting the major
elements of current county demographics and what future projections were expected to be. Staff next
compared the projected population and need to land supply and residential capacity to show how the
County’s future residential need could be accommodated by our current land supply. Staff presented the
methodology for calculating the housing needs of future populations and a capacity analysis on the ability
of the undeveloped land to provide for future residential growth. The capacity analysis indicated that
there is sufficient developable land area on zoned parcels as well as designated parcels on the land use
plan to accommodate anticipated residential demand through 2030. The Commission held a discussion
with staff, received public comment, and provided comments and feedback to staff.
The Commission then had several questions and comments for staff.
Don Franco –
o Would like to see a breakdown by dwelling unit types in the approved rezonings since
2001 that have not been built (expand upon information in Table 6). This would help in
unit type projections which we do not have now. The biggest competition between the
growth area and rural area is going to be the single-family detached numbers.
Page 13
o In charts 6 and 7 he was looking for the historic information to get an idea of how they are
doing. There was some value in breaking down the price points.
o Asked how non-residential land area was backed out of the “land available for residential
development” column in Table 2.
o Asked what type of development are we producing now and stated that he did not believe
we are currently producing the higher densities the Comprehensive Plan desires.
o Asked what the metrics were for measuring success or failure in the future – is it less
dwellings in the Rural Areas? What do we use to measure success or failure?
Tom Loach-
o Questioned the development in the rural section. T he 35 percent average of
development in the rural growth area is a significant number since they are talking about
one-third.
The Commission next opened the floor for public comment on Parts 1 and 2.
Public Comment on Parts 1 and 2:
Morgan Butler, with Southern Environmental Law Center, stated that the capacity analysis was
conservative in its estimation of buildable lands. The analysis did not include a look at potentially
redevelopable land or the demand for dwelling units in the Rural Area. The analysis backed out
all critical slope and stream buffer land on potentially buildable land, but the county could grant
waivers to use these areas.
Jo Higgins stated that the density planned when developments have been rezoned over the last
10 years is not being achieved. Rezonings approved an upper limit but did not set a lower-limit
floor.
Neil Williamson, with Free Enterprise Forum, said the concurrency of infrastructure is important.
Expansions make sense where utilities already exist or are nearby. He also requested the
Commission to consider how they measure success of growth in the Development Areas (and
non-growth in the Rural Areas).
Jeff Werner pointed out the average persons per unit multiplier used (2.19) is very conservative
and should be higher. He stated that people moving to the Rural Areas are moving to the RA to
be there not to be in some type of country suburbia.
Steve Blaine cautioned the Commission to rely upon on staff’s supply and need analysis because
historically central governments have done a poor job of predicting future need.
Scott Collins stated that if the Commission waits 10-20 years to include property within
Development Areas that is close to it now, it is likely such property will develop by-right and lose
the chance to accommodate greater density. The result would be “leap-frogging” to other parcels
further away from DA boundaries that would result in a less-compact development and utilities
pushed further out.
Requests for expansions of the Development Areas
Part 3: Expansion Area Requests
Ms. Echols continued with a PowerPoint presentation entitled, “To Expand or Not to Expand … that is the
question”, that highlighted expansion area request in Development 7, Hollymead, Pantops, Development
Areas 4 & 5 and the Shadwell interchange area. Section 3 of the report contained analysis of individual
requests for inclusion in the Development Areas.
Staff noted that more up-to-date information was going to be presented for the Redfields request,
since the staff report that went out to the Commission was not correct due to the Zoning Map
Am endment request preceding the Expansion Area request.
They hear a lot about the figure of 5 percent and wonder where did it come from and what does it
Page 14
actually mean. In the staff report it was a matter of things just worked out that way. It has
become a convenient way to convey our goals for the county – 95% undeveloped and 5%
developed. Sometimes they look at that in terms do they want to retain that 5%. The question
should be rephrased more about what they want to have for future residential capacity rather than
land area and see how that all works out.
Staff proposed in the staff report some modifications of the boundaries, as follows.
One area to be removed relates to Biscuit Run and the Forest Lodge property for which a conservation
easement has been requested.
Biscuit Run’s Effect on the 5%
• Proposed staff revisions = 298 ac. net reduction in DA
• Leaving 22,113 acres in DA
• Removal of majority of BR still permits 5.0% DA
Currently: 23, 411 / 464,623 = 5.0% (5.04%)
Reductions: Polo grounds (southern end of 4) 85 acres, BR 561 acres out of 5 = 646 acres
23, 411 – 646 = 22,765 / 464,623 = 4.9% (4.90%)
Additions: Whittington 199 acres, 110 acres Mosby Mountain (what is not in already), 16 acres between
Mosby Mnt. & Redfields and 23 acres of Redfields already in lots = 348 acres
22,765 + 348 = 22, 113 / 464,623 = 5.0% (4.97%)
22,113 is a net reduction
Note: proposed to keep the 231 acres of BR in 4 in due to Breeden property & possibility of public utilities
need for BR property for cabins and etc.
Expansion Area Requests
• Neighborhood 7 on Barracks Road – There are three development area requests outside of that
area.
• Hollymead –Polo Grounds Road
• Pantops – Route 20 North
• Neighborhoods 4 & 5 – Redfields, Somerset Farm -
• Shadwell – Rt. 250 East and Interchange with I-64
The Expansion Area Requests, in this order, are as follows:
• Neighborhood 7 – These Barracks Road requests are not recommended because they are in
the drinking water supply watershed.
• Hollymead – This request on Polo Grounds Road is not recommended due to environmental
impacts.
• Pantops – These two requests might have value if improvements to Rt. 20 and 250 can be made
and sewer extension issues are dealt with.
• Neighborhoods 4 & 5 – Redfields is not recommended for approval. Somerset Farm may have
value if the historic, cultural, and environmental features are respected in conjunction with a
development proposal.
• Shadwell – The request is non-residential in nature. (We are recommending further study of this
area after the Target Industry Study and the area will be larger than shown on the map, at least
for study.)
Other Changes Recommended by Staff
• Biscuit Run – Boundary reduction – Rt. 20 South
• Whittington and Mosby Mountain – Old Lynchburg Road
Neighborhood 7 Expansion Area Requests
Morris, Montvue and Ingleridge Farm
Page 15
1. Morris parcel – interesting question, between existing townhouse development, undeveloped
land, and then an apartment complex. Across the street from the Colonnades. To bring it into
the DA would mean a change in the water supply watershed boundary to the west. Understand
the applicant’s desire is for more than a residential use. Staff cannot recommend.
2. Montvue is further out on Barracks Road. It has some greater environmental constraints than
Morris does. It also has an historic structure on it. The request is for low density residential.
3. The third request on Barracks Road has to do with the Ingleridge Farm. It has a few of the same
issues environmental constraints. It is located in the rural areas and adjacent to a conservation
easement.
Neighborhood 7 Issues are fairly significant in terms of a policy shift.
• Water Supply Watershed – (Note: Ms. Higgins supplied information today on the water supply
watershed.)
• Barracks Rd Improvements
• Environmental and historic features
• How far do you go into the Rural Areas?
Mr. Morris asked as they go further out would they be taking everything from the current boundary of the
development area out to the new area. He asked would that all be included in the new development
area.
Ms. Echols replied that it had to be a contiguous area. .
Polo Grounds Road – Hollymead Expansion Area - Neighborhood 2
The request is for a piece of land between the two development areas of Neighborhood 2 and Hollymead.
Environmental Features and Tree Cover for the Polo Grounds Request was described as an area of
steep slopes with a fair amount of tree cover. There are advantages in keeping the forest cover on that
land for water resources. Staff does not believe this one is a good candidate for expansion due to the
following reasons:
Polo Grounds Road – Hollymead Issues
• Confluence of Rivanna River and Powell Creek
• Polo Grounds Rd. Improvements
• Water resources and forest cover
• Difficulty creating NMD-type development
Pantops
There are two properties:
1. Clara Belle Wheeler property, which formerly was in the development areas. It came out at what
they thought was the request of the owner of the property. The owner of the property said she
wanted to be back in the development areas before the Pantops Master Plan was adopted.
However, at that point the Board decided to go ahead and leave the property out.
2. Franklin Farm – Vermillion – They made a request at the end of the Pantops Master Plan process
to be brought in.
Pantops: Environmental Features for Wheeler and Franklin Farm - Vermillion
• There is a stream buffer in this particular area. This parcel has a fair amount of buildable area if
the issue of access can be taken care of.
• The staff report talked about sewer problems. Staff got some conflicting reports as to how easy it
Page 16
would be to provide sewer to both the Wheeler and the Franklin Farm property. That needs to be
researched more. Pete Gorham, with the Service Authority, indicated that providing sewer under
the Rivanna River is not as imposing as it sounds. However, there would have to be some kind of
sewer extension that would take place on each of these parcels in order for them to be
developed. If this is an area the Commission expresses an interest in getting more information
on, staff can bring that back.
Pantops Issues
• Historic Structures
• Need for Rt. 250 at Rt. 20 Improvements
• Potential Rt. 20 N Improvements
• Access for Franklin Farm
Neighborhoods 4 & 5
Redfields Expansion
In a transactional disclosure statement Mr. Zobrist recused and disqualified himself from CPA-2010-
0001 Comprehensive Plan Update Expansion Area Request – Development Area 5 – Redfields.
Staff thanked Steve Blaine for pointing out some problems and issues with the staff report. Staff did err in
the report provided to the Commission. When staff did the analysis, they were writing the report at the
same time the ZMA report was being done. The CPA analysis got behind the ZMA report. Staff missed
some things that should have been caught. Staff wants to provide a more up-to-date report on the
Redfields expansion.
Last week the Planning Commission made a decision not to recommend approval of the rezoning. That
does not presuppose that the Comprehensive Plan decision has been made. The CPA stands alone.
The Commission’s decision needs to be on the CPA and not on the rezoning. The rezoning proposal has
some influence over it because they can see what is proposed.
Redfields Issues to Consider:
• The CPA stands alone
• Open space for use by residents
• Streams and slopes
• Value as an RA parcel
• Access
• Neighborhood Model Principles
• Adjacencies
Redfields - Value for Rural Areas
• Provides a conservation area for animal and plant habitat.
• A rural area stream will be affected by the crossing; critical slopes may also be affected with the
development.
• Provides for low-impact recreational use to nearby residents.
Value for Development Areas
• Adds units in an area between existing residential developments with old zoning
• Has utilities
• Can meet some of the principles of the Neighborhood Model
Factors Favorable and Unfavorable
Favorable
• Is adjacent to the Development Area and to PRD zoning.
• Near major highway access and utilities.
Page 17
• Available land for development is used as intensively as possible.
• Utilities are available.
• The applicant is proposing the highest density on the buildable part of the land.
Unfavorable
• One way in and one way out of this property
• In looking at the potential to connect to the adjoining properties where there is a stub out that
piece of property is in the rural areas right now. That would be something that needs to be
looked into.
• Sunset Avenue is substandard in design and alignment and not upgrades are planned for or
funded. The additional traffic on Sunset Avenue would need to be considered. This is an issue
to be considered because they have substantial infrastructure in a number of places in the
development areas now.
• Open space/trails that the community has been using will no longer be available.
• New trails are proposed in the area which could otherwise not be developed.
• The community of Redfields would be losing something that is fairly valuable and also provides a
rural area function of conservation.
Staff Recommendation
• Still cannot recommend approval because of the current function of the property for conservation,
slope preservation, and stream quality.
• If the Planning Commission wishes to expand in this area, staff recommends less impact to
critical slopes.
In the rezoning proposal the Commission saw a development plan that was not on the critical slopes.
However, staff believes that critical slopes would still be affected by the development proposal. Staff
would like some considerations given to the amenities that would be provided. Right now the trails
provide a significant amenity to the Redfields development and the trails that would be proposed really
are some difficult trails that would not be the same kind of amenity that they have right now because of
the steepness of the slopes.
Somerset Farm
Proposed Use:
• Up to 1902 units
• 2 centers
• 350K sq. ft. office and commercial
• No dev. Above 700’ elevation
Somerset Farm Issues to Consider:
• Approximately 273 Acres are buildable
• Within historic district; adjacent to Ag-For District and conservation easement
• Transportation improvements needed that would be similar to improvements for which money
was proffered in Biscuit Run
• Water service may be problematic because of the ability to serve at higher elevations.
• Historic structures on-site
• Can meet Neighbor Model Principles
• Would need to provide for extensive preservation on rest of 710 acres
• Current boundary of Rt. 20 forms a very visible edge between Rural Areas and Development
Areas
Staff Recommendation
• Still can’t recommend approval because of the c urrent function of the property for conservation,
slope preservation, and stream quality.
• If the Planning Commission wishes to expand in this area, staff recommends less impact to
slopes. The development rights could potentially be eliminated at the top of the slopes. There
Page 18
may be a good value for getting that for the development areas, again, if they need more
capacity.
Other Changes Recommended
Shadwell Interchange
- Chavan request is for designation to allow for mini-warehouses. There are issues to consider
since it is an economic development opportunity.
Shadwell Interchange Area Zoning
- The old zoning creates some large issues.
- Staff is recommending this whole area be considered for possible expansion area potential since
it might provide areas to meet economic goals and worthly of discussion.
Decisions
• Does the Commission believe expansion is appropriate?
• If so, which areas, if any, deserve more study?
The Commission then had several questions for staff.
Don Franco -
o Reiterated that he would like to see the dwelling unit types that were planned in the
rezoning projects that have unbuilt dwelling units within them.
o Also stated he would like to see how the unit type capacity in our Rural Areas compared
to the unit type capacity that has already been approved in rezoning projects –
specifically, how does the number of single-family detached dwellings we have approved
capacity for compare to what the trend is for such units in the Rural Areas.
o Stated the “Leap Frog” effect mentioned in public comment was an interesting point for
consideration.
o Indicated he liked a larger person per unit multiplier – such as the number Charlottesville
uses.
o Reiterated the need to understand how we measure success.
Tom Loach –
o Responding to the public comment about “Leap-frogging”, stated that the County has
failed to provide the needed infrastructure to support the Development Areas
o Stated that with the large amount of additional residential capacity that we currently have,
we should use this time to better plan for infrastructure improvements.
Linda Porterfield -
o Would also like to know what the number of dwelling unit types are that have been
approved in rezonings.
o Also stated that she would like to know the current number of vacant existing dwelling
units.
o Asked what services the County could really afford to provide in the Development Areas
to accommodate the existing inventory of approved yet unbuilt dwelling units.
Tom Loach -
o Does not support the expansion requests to that are in the watershed areas
o Stated that we need to look at a more micro, community level rather than the macro
Places 29 level.
o Did not feel that any expansions were warranted at this time.
Don Franco –
o Indicated that he needs more information (info he has requested at this meeting) before
he would be comfortable in making a decision on the expansion area request.
o Stated that rather than maximum facility, we should be looking at the “practical capacity.”
Tom Loach –
o Stated that with the impact that expansions would have on county services, it was
important to have the Board of Supervisors weigh-in on the expansion request and if
Page 19
there was going to be enough funding in the CIP to cover needed infrastructure
improvements.
Cal Morris –
o If the Redfields expansion request was appropriate, could the DA boundary connect
differently from Mosby Mountain to Redfields?
o Also stated that the Polo Grounds Road expansion request was problematic with the road
issues.
o The Pantops requests appeared to merit further study, but providing utilities may be
difficult due to past issues in the area.
Linda Porterfield –
o Indicated she was hesitant to expand the development boundaries without knowing who
and how the needed road improvements would be handled. Stated that we need to fix
the road and traffic issues we have now before considering adding more land area to our
Development Areas.
The Commission took at short break at 7:42 p.m. The meeting reconvened at 7:50 p.m. and
returned to accept public comment on Part 3.
Public Comment on Part 3:
Jack Vermillion said he was the applicant for the Franklin Farm request and that while he had no
plans to develop the property at this time, he was surrounded by development and when his well
was damaged he had to get a special exception to have his home connected to public water. He
said he wished he had never suggested the County remove the property from the Development
Area as had occurred at his request years ago.
Steve Blaine, representative for the Redfields expansion request, stated that it was inappropriate
to consider expanding the Development Area to include Whittington and Mosby Mountain and not
include the Redfields property which has public water and sewer.
Nick Leveritt, representative for Wintergreen Land Trust, stated that they would like to include all
of the remaining land of the Wintergreen Land Trust into the development area (a portion of it is in
right now).
Scott Collins, representative for the Somerset Farm expansion request, stated that the property
is close to transportation corridors and the City and there are utilities nearby.
Christina Parker, Redfields resident, indicated opposition to the Redfields expansion request.
Wendell Wood, developer of Somerset Farms, stated that the property was within walking
distance to a several schools and the fire station. He also stated that the property did have the
ability to connection to public utilities.
Susan Murphy, Redfields resident, indicated opposition to the Redfields expansion request.
Cathy Cassidy, Redfields resident, indicated opposition to the Redfields expansion request.
Marcia Joseph, another representative for Redfields, indicated that the property was private and
the developer could put up a fence if they desired. She stated that the property’s relationship to
the rural areas was important and that it also makes sense to put the adjacent Wintergreen Land
Trust Property in the Development Area.
Jo Higgins, representative for the Polo Grounds Road expansion request, stated that the property
was surrounded by development and there were a lot of amenities that the county could get if the
property was developed.
Jeff Warner stated that the County shouldn’t be considering expansions if it cannot fund existing
transportation improvements.
Neil Williamson, with Free Enterprise Forum, reminded the Commission that they are the body
that reviews and considers expansions of the development area boundaries not other advisory
boards.
Jo Higgins, representative for Ingleridge and Montvue expansions, stated that development was
adjacent to it on the north and east and that it was suited to rural farmette type lots of 2 acres.
Not including it in the Development Areas would be an opportunity lost.
Page 20
There being no further public comment, Mr. Morris closed the public hearing to bring the request back to
the Planning Commission for discussion and possible action. He asked exactly what staff expects the
Planning Commission to do tonight and if and when would these things be brought up again.
Ms. Echols replied that staff hoped the Commission might be able to advise them on whether or not they
wanted to do expansions of the development areas. The Commission has not answered that question,
but has listened to the requests. She also heard from at least one commissioner that more information is
needed before they can answer the question on whether or not they want to recommend expanding the
development areas. She thought at this junction what she would like to get is the list of questions the
Commission wants answers for and then they will bring back the answers to them and they can advise
staff on how they want to deal with the expansion area requests.
Ms. Porterfield asked if staff has a feel for when that would happen. She thought that for the people who
came to speak from some of the areas that it would help if they had a clue. It did not have to be a specific
date, but whether staff was talking about a few months or three weeks.
Ms. Echols noted as she made a list of the questions the Commission wants answers for she thinks they
need to look at how much time that will take to get those answers. The information she heard that the
Commission asked for is as follows:
1. Information on the housing mix that is on the market in relation to the hole.
2. How well the zoning is maxing out its density.
3. A matrix on the mix of units that have been approved by a rezoning (Table 6).
4. Something that is more up to date on the rural area capacity,
5. The type of density that is being achieved in Charlotesville.
6. The single-family detached housing in the rural areas versus the development areas broken down
by value, if possible.
7. Several minor changes in the tables suggested by Mr. Lafferty.
8. What the metrics are for measuring success of our policies or plans.
9. How well the County is providing the amenities to the current development areas where the
problems are currently that are not being addressed. Specific areas would be as far as
transportation, the numbers of police, etc. The Commission wanted to know what infrastructure
improvements are needed just to serve the developments that already exist. The big question is
the infrastructure on any of the 12, or possibly 13, expansion requests.
Ms. Echols asked if she missed anything.
Mr. Franco said the only thing he was still looking for would be in staff’s opinion how they would measure
or what are the metrics for measuring success of our policies or plans. He asked if it was the number of
units in the rural area, the amount of acreage lost to development in the rural areas or density that they
achieve in the growth areas. What are the future metrics?
Ms. Echols replied that those are the things that the Livability Project is working on.
Mr. Franco said that is something they need to be considering during their project as well.
Ms. Echols agreed.
Ms. Porterfield added also how well the County is providing amenities to the current development areas
where there are problems that are not being addressed. Specific areas could be as far as transportation
goes, the numbers of police, and do they need more fire stations. Are there certain things that they are
behind on and what is the chance of catching up on that?
Ms. Echols replied the way she worded that was the Commission wanted to know what infrastructure
improvements are needed just to serve the developments that already exist.
Page 21
Ms. Porterfield agreed that would be great.
Mr. Loach noted they would have to project out the 8,000 units, too. They have to be included because
they have already been approved. Therefore, they ought to be factored in. As a matter of fact, they
should probably factor in the 35 percent expected in the rural area on top of that if that is the current
average. Irrespective whether are not it is supposed to be there they will be there and will have an impact
on the roads and infrastructure.
Mr. Morris said that infrastructure is the big question for any of the 12 or 13 expansion requests.
Mr. Franco asked staff to speak briefly on the overall big process. He heard people asking where they
were going from here. He knows it is a slow process and not a decision that is going to be made this
month or year. He asked staff to explain in general that timeline.
Ms. Echols replied that their goal in CPA-2013-1 is to have something to the Board of Supervisors by
January, 2013 that they could potentially adopt. This is a very small piece of the whole.
Mr. Morris asked for staff’s benefit that the Commission go down the list by areas and get a sense of
where the Commission is right now on how strong they feel they should be looking further at areas in NH
7.
- The Planning Commission discussed and did not support expansions areas in Neighborhood 7.
One question was how the Western Bypas would affect this area.
- The Planning Commission did not support the Polo Grounds Road expansion.
Mr. Morris asked for thoughts on Pantops that included Franklin and the Wheeler area.
Mr. Franco said that he did not have strong feelings on either one.
Ms. Porterfield said she was scared to death to have anything else that is going through Pantops right
now. The Village of Rivanna Master Plan is written saying that they have to do something with Route
250. This is part of Route 250 essentially.
Mr. Smith said he did not know how much development could be done on the Franklin property by right.
Mr. Morris replied that he thought it was five.
Ms. Echols replied she did not know since it depends on how many development rights are in that area.
Mr. Smith noted that the owner is not interested in doing the development himself, but just wanted it
included. He was in favor of including Franklin.
Mr. Morris said as far as the Wheeler property was concerned, it was in there in the beginning and could
be put back in. It is not needed. As far as the Franklin property, they heard Mr. Vermillion say why he
wants to include it.
Mr. Loach said that he was against including Franklin and Wheeler properties.
Mr. Lafferty supported the Franklin property.
Mr. Morris advanced to Neighborhoods 4 and 5, which was Redfields and the Sommerset Farm.
Mr. Franco questioned what the benefit is. He thought that the staff report to date has said Sommerset
has a lot of advantages and disadvantages. He thought it warrants additional study. He thought
Redfields warrants additional study, but he could not support the density that was proposed last time in
Page 22
the location within the neighborhood and everything else. There was too much density proposed at the
back of the subdivision. He thought something back there with less of an impact that provides final
resolution to that privately owned land would be a benefit to the community.
Ms. Porterfield suggested Sommerset Farm because it offers both residential and commercial with two
centers that it be moved into the study of the interchanges because it does have interchange access.
Along with that she recommended that the Chavan property in the Scottsville District move into the
interchange section. She thought they both were partially commercial or all commercial in the Chavan
case, and it would be more logical to discuss them knowing that the applications were not totally
residential. She could not support the Redfield proposal.
Mr. Smith said that Sommerset has a lot potential. He did not like the gross numbers that were there
since he felt it was too much. It depends on what the plan does. The utilities are in proximity. If not, they
make pumps and water tanks. He cannot support the Redfields proposal.
Mr. Morris and Mr. Loach both said they have no support.
Mr. Lafferty said they were basically talking about further study on Sommerset Farm. His position has not
changed on Redfields in non-support.
Mr. Morris noted that he assumed with Shadwell they were taking a look at that with the interchange.
Ms. Porterfield said if everyone agreed she felt Shadwell was logical and made sense to be studied with
the interchanges.
Mr. Lafferty pointed out he would not put Sommerset in the interchange study.
Ms. Porterfield replied that she was just saying that since it has commercial in it.
Mr. Lafferty said that it should be independent.
Ms. Porterfield noted it should go with the majority.
Mr. Loach understood with the interchange the commercial was supposed to be low impact and not using
water and sewer. It was for low employment centers and mostly for parking, etc.
Mr. Cilimberg said the way the interchange was described in the economic development plan and
priorities in the economic vitality action plan was to view them where public utilities were not available as
potential areas to support rural agricultural or supplement with potential rural industrial type of use. In this
case he thought they have little different circumstance. In this interchange because there is public water
it is directly adjacent to the development area. So there are areas including the Chavan property that
may actually merit some look as they relate to the development area as well as the interchange. It is a
little different circumstance than the other interchanges that they are going to be looking at as part of the
Interstate Interchange Policy.
Ms. Porterfield said that it also does not say that they can’t look at the interchanges a little bit differently,
too. Obviously, they are a bit down the pike from having started that process. They are also looking at
another financial problem for the County and are already saying that they are not going to meet the
budgetary amount they need again and are going to have to do some cutbacks. It makes sense to start
looking at interchanges as potential areas to bring businesses that could generate income for the County
other than just property tax. The reason she suggests Sommerset Farm is because it has an interchange
that serves it. That is why it might be something they might want to look at both ways at that point.
Mr. Morris asked staff does that help at all.
Ms. Echols replied that it all depends. There was at least one Commissioner supporting everything
Page 23
except Ingleridge and Montvue. She did not know what to do with that. She did not know if that means
that everything but Montvue and Ingleridge there should be further study on that or if there was some kind
of majority that was being taken here that would suggest that they only go with what the majority wants.
Mr. Loach pointed out this was a question first for the Board of Supervisors to give us some direction
where they should consider expansion in view of the financial status of the County. This is going to add
on to that financial obligation. As far as infrastructure do they have money for roads, what is the future of
the road, and what does the six-year plan look like. He thought they need some information before he
was willing to consider the expansions.
Ms. Porterfield said her personal opinion is they don’t need any more residential right now. She was
basically saying she could live without all of the residential applications. The only two she suggested
moving forward were because they have opportunity for commercial. That is a whole different ballgame
than simply talking about property tax. She thought that they have plenty of residential right now.
Somebody mentioned the fact that they need to make a decision as to what they really need. As Mr.
Franco said before, what they may really need are bigger parcels in the development area so that they
can figure out how to get people who might move into the rural area to stay in the development area.
That is a whole different ballgame than anything that is being offered to the Commission tonight.
Mr. Morris asked if there was anything else. He thought Ms. Porterfield hit it right on the head. It seems
that those people who had requested inclusion into the development area need a fair hearing from his
point of view. However, he would agree that based upon the figures they don’t need any more residential
at this particular time or probably for the next five to ten years.
Ms. Echols asked if the Commission was saying that all but those two they should bring back additional
information on, or did the Commission want to vote on whether or not they would bring additional
information back for any on the list.
Ms. Porterfield said she was willing to put a motion on the table.
Motion: Ms. Porterfield moved that based on the information provided by staff the County does not need
any more residential development at this point and for at least five additional years, they do not need to
study these applications anymore.
Mr. Loach seconded the motion.
Mr. Morris invited further discussion.
Mr. Cilimberg suggested that they go back to the list so they were clear. When they say these
applications are they referring to the five bullets in the presentation. He asked if it was the first four
bullets basically.
Ms. Porterfield replied that was correct that it was the first four bullets.
Mr. Morris noted that a motion and second was on the floor. He asked for discussion.
Mr. Franco said he was still nervous about making a decision without having the final data. He was
concerned that single-family detached may be a hole in the analysis at this point. He would like to see
that before everything is thrown out.
Mr. Lafferty asked to give Mr. Franco what he wants on how much delay are they talking about to have a
refinement in the figures.
Ms. Echols asked Mr. Franco if he was saying that he wants to see the metrics on the mix of units that
have been approved by a rezoning and something in relation to the rural areas, the demand in the rural
areas for single-family detached versus in the development areas how much supply they are providing
Page 24
right now for detached
Mr. Franco replied yes that it was along those lines that they keep talking about the projects in the
pipeline. It would be looking at those and figuring out what that product mix is so they can better
understand what is coming down the pipeline as far as single-family detached goes. Then they can sit
down and look at what the past needs have been, which starts to tell him whether there is an adequate
supply of that or not.
Mr. Cilimberg reiterated that Mr. Franco’s interest there is to really have a feel for whether they h ave
enough opportunity for single-family detached in the planning period. He asked if that was really what he
was trying to get at since the market, as they know, is also changing. It is not what it was five or ten years
ago.
Mr. Franco replied yes, which was part of what Mr. Loach was asking for as far as the price points.
Mr. Loach said what he was trying to discern is why people are buying in the rural area versus in the
development area and be able to say in those two acre lots within certain price points. Then they could
see if there is anything they can do as far as changing them. He understands what he is saying as far as
in the growth area, but wondered in the 8,000 units how many would be single-family homes. With that
said he was not sure how they would extract out of that equation the change in market towards the
different types.
Mr. Franco thought they would get the stand alone in what he is asking for. They need the information
Mr. Loach was asking for as well or they have to make some assumptions about that. Right now he
does not have a good idea how many of those 8,000 units they have been talking about tonight are
single-family detached versus multi-family or townhouse. He thought the biggest competition for the rural
area house is a single-family detached house in the growth area. The percentage is changing, but that is
still the bigger component. Therefore, he would like to know how many of those are in the pipeline.
Mr. Morris asked Ms. Porterfield if she would entertain a motion to table her motion until this information is
gained.
Ms. Porterfield asked when they can get it. She asked if another work session is scheduled for this.
Ms. Echols replied that she did not have that information right now. The initial information on what is the
breakdown by unit on what has been rezoned won’t take long. That could be done in a couple of days.
Staff could probably get something out to the Commission in two weeks. As far as the price points that is
questionable.
Mr. Cilimberg pointed out staff does not actually track that information.
Mr. Loach said he thought it was interesting what Mr. Franco was asking for. He did not think it changes
the equation overall what is available. It may give them some information on ways they may be able to
look at rural area development and make some impact on it within the growth area. But, he did not think
it was going to drastically change the capacity now as Ms. Porterfield said for five and possibly ten years.
He would recommend Ms. Porterfield go ahead with the resolution.
Mr. Smith said he would not support Ms. Porterfield’s motion because for five to ten years down the road
they certainly can’t ask these people to sit on their hands for that time period. He did not think any of
them knew the answer.
Ms. Porterfield suggested they vote on the motion. In reading the staff report it made her realize they
have more approved than they need. They may have gotten the wrong things approved. However, that
is the developer’s responsibility to then come back in and say they need to change what they asked for
because it was not selling and he wanted to do this or that. But to sit here and spend time and make the
residents of this County keep coming back to either support or fight a particular application that at this
Page 25
point they really don’t need, she has problems with that. Not only do they not need it, but she is really
afraid that they can’t afford what they have already got. All they are going to do is lower the quality of life
of the people who live in Albemarle County, as Mr. Loach said. Based on that, she would ask to call the
question.
Mr. Morris asked that the motion be repeated.
Ms. Porterfield said the motion was that they do no further study on any of the expansion area requests
except for the Shadwell one that will move into the Interchange Study.
The roll was called.
Mr. Lafferty voted aye. Given the report, which is an excellent report, he believed that they don’t need to
have any further expansion.
Mr. Loach vote aye.
Mr. Morris voted aye.
Mr. Smith vote no.
Ms. Porterfield voted aye.
Mr. Franco voted no. Without an understanding of the product types that are in the pipeline, he can’t
support the motion.
The motion passed by a vote of 4:2. (Franco and Smith voted nay.)
In summary the following action was taken:
Vice-Chairman Morris polled each member on the expansion requests to the 5 areas discussed tonight
(DA 7, Hollymead, Pantops, DAs 4 & 5, and the Shadwell interchange) and each member was given an
opportunity to explain their position on the expansion requests. Following this discussion, a motion was
made:
Ms. Porterfield moved to not consider the proposed residential expansions to DA 7, Hollymead,
Pantops, Development Areas 4 & 5 at this time due in part to the large existing supply of
residential capacity that is currently available in the Development Areas. The motion was
seconded by Mr. Loach.
Vote:
Aye: Morris, Lafferty, Loach, and Porterfield. Nay: Franco and Smith.
Mr. Cilimberg asked to add information on this year’s CIP submittal for the benefit of Mr. Loach’s
question. This year’s CIP submittals were not just a maintenance and replacement CIP. They actually
given the opportunity to request the needs they thought existed based on our development and our future
potential development. Not only was it a five-year CIP request, but it was a second five years of capital
needs requests. So this particular CIP is going to be going through an analysis that is a little different than
it has been for several years based on what are anticipated to be the real needs in the five to ten year
period. How that shakes out in terms of the review and ultimately how the Board decides is yet to be
seen. But, he thinks in this case they will have more of an indication of what kinds of project needs are
out there based on our plans, based on our deficiencies and based on what they expect needs to be.
That is not only for requests they made as community development, but also from other departments.
Mr. Loach noted that was his premise before that maybe this should go to the Board and let them tell us
within the context of this new and upcoming CIP.
Page 26
Mr. Cilimberg noted they won’t actually have that until next year. The answers to the question that might
come from the Board really won’t come until the budget process is done.
Mr. Loach noted that they have to deal with what they have currently.
Mr. Cilimberg pointed out he just wanted to let the Commission know what was coming. He thought there
would be a work session with the Commission in January just to inform them on how those requests were
moving forward.
Mr. Franco said there has also been a potential change in the funding strategies as well. He thought that
there was a two million dollar reserve previously that was lowered and they were encouraged to look at
some other funding sources.
Mr. Cilimberg said there have been a variety of revenue considerations. He did not think any definitive
decisions have been made. That will also happen as part of the budget process.
Mr. Morris pointed out that what would be sent to the Board at this time is the Commission does not
recommend any further increase in the development areas for residential as represented by the four
requests as shown in bullets.
Mr. Franco asked if the Commission was still going to get the information.
Mr. Cilimberg said it could be pertinent to their consideration in what land uses changes may be
necessary in 4, 5, 6 and 7, which are actually non-master planned areas that they will be taking up during
the comp plan work.
Ms. Echols noted that it would also be important as they talk about the housing section of the comp plan.
Mr. Collins asked with that ruling as far as the Shadwell Interchange was the commercial part of
Sommerset included in that motion.
Mr. Morris replied that it was not. However, he understood based upon what they said if Sommerset
Farm is considered in the interchange location that when that is considered it may come up again.
Mr. Cilimberg pointed out the Interstate Interchange analysis is based on some distances from the
interchange, which this would not qualify under. He wanted to be clear so not to mislead anybody.
Mr. Morris noted that Sommerset Farm would not be considered since the interchange would be based
upon the distance factor.
Mr. Cilimberg pointed out that staff will send the Commission’s action taken on to the Board for their
information. They want to keep the Board abreast of decisions that get made during the process of the
comp plan review.
Page 27
Albemarle County Planning Commission
November 29, 2011
Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda from the Public:
Mr. Morris invited comment from the public on other matters not listed on the agenda.
Jeff Werner, Piedmont Environmental Council, spoke to Mr. Franco’s comments from a previous meeting
regarding total residential build out projections and encouraged staff (possibly Steve Allshouse) to contact
the Loudon County fiscal planner to understand how they do that.
There being no further matters not listed on the agenda, the meeting moved to the next item.
Work Sessions:
a. Comprehensive Plan Review - Rural Land Use & Urban Agriculture (Elaine Echols)
Ms. Echols presented a Power Point presentation and summarized the staff report noting the prior
discussion gives some context for some of the work they are doing with the Comp Plan.
PURPOSE OF WORKSESSION
- The purpose of this work session is to set general direction on the issues as noted below and
assess if any changes are needed to the goals, recommendations and objectives in the Plan.
- After discussion, the Commission may wish to recommend changes to the Plan that would
provide future guidance for zoning text amendments.
- The Planning Commission is asked to discuss the possibility of adding a section to the plan on
tourism and to discuss expanding uses in the Rural Areas. Recommendations from this work
session will be used in development of the updated draft of the Comprehensive Plan.
The two parts of the work session are:
A. Tourism as a Goal (mostly in the Rural Areas). The urban agriculture will be brought back later in
this process for discussion.
B. Expanded Uses in the Rural Areas
Tourism as a Specific Goal - Tourism provides:
Economic vitality in the County’s Rural Areas
A link to agriculture, historic and scenic preservation, and maintenance of rural character
Revenue to the County with a limited investment
A way to make historic properties viable
Goals Should Reference These Parameters
Reversible
Appropriately scaled and cited
Minimal impacts to public health and the environment
Viable without requiring increase in infrastructure or services
Recommendation
Add specific goals for tourism
Alternative Uses In the Rural Areas (All alternative uses, except areas of assembly, came out of the
Roundtable held on November 1.)
Transient Lodging
Food Service
Distilleries and Breweries
Special Events
Page 28
Low-impact Commercial Recreation
Areas of Assembly (Re: Special use perm it requests for places of worship)
Comp Plan or Zoning Amendment?
Staff is not talking about zoning text amendments. They are talking about the Comprehensive Plan and
how it can support the goals that they have for both our economy and rural area uses. Some of the
things they will be talking about would be translated into a zoning text amendment potentially in the
future. Special use permits should be kept in mind and are about whether or not a particular use is an
appropriate use in a particular location and at the scale being requested. What staff is saying is it should
be in the Comprehensive Plan as something to be considered under certain circumstances and it would
likely be translated into a special use permit. Then through the zoning text amendment they would be
providing the parameters that would be reviewed.
Transient Lodging
Bed & Breakfasts
Inns that have been used historically as an Inn and are located in a historic landmark identified in
Comprehensive Plan
Bed & Breakfasts:
Part of a home
Resident manager
Inside the home
Limited number of rooms (Five bedrooms can be used)
Part of the reasons they have these fairly restricted measures is they are trying to promote stewardship of
properties in the rural areas and also keep the impacts low. If they have a home that has some additional
bedrooms that are available for transient lodging they are going to be dealing with some similar water
uses, waste water disposal and similar traffic type of things. They are looking at reversible uses. One
could have a B&B in your home, stop operating it, and then the home is still a home. A question has
been raised whether these regulations are too restrictive in promoting tourism and allowing property
owners to be able to use their properties as bed & breakfast or for transient lodging.
Questions raised:
•Could the manager live outside of the home? There has to be a resident manager.
•Could the B&B be in a building other than a home, such as a barn? Or, could the resident
manager be living in a different building other than the home that the bed and breakfast is in?
These issues have been brought up. An email was received from Ann Mallek who is concerned that they
may be too restrictive in terms of bed and breakfast regulations and there ought to be some opportunities
to use other buildings on site. Staff has relooked at that and will be talking to the Commission about it a
little later. Staff thinks there are some conditions under which they could be more flexible in terms of the
bed and breakfast in what buildings could be used and how they would be used.
Inns - Bigger than a B&B but smaller than a “hotel”
Issues: water, wastewater, fire/rescue, roads
Historically they have not allowed for new inns to be constructed or new inns to come into existence
because they have concerns about the above referenced issues. Staff had a meeting during the last
month with the Health Department to discuss what their licensing involves. It was really quite an eye
opener to think about the amount of water that has to be used in any kind of food preparation that would
go along with an inn. For example, laundering the sheets and towels for an inn could create a large
amount of volume associated with the water usage and the corresponding waste water disposal. The
bigger the activity the more impacts it has potentially to roads. So they have been trying to keep those
impacts down. Also, they recognize that fire and rescue service is not at the same level in the rural areas
as it is in the development areas. People cannot expect that they are going to have intermediate fire and
rescue service if they are out in the rural areas.
Page 29
Questions raised:
•Should inns be allowed in buildings other than historic inns?
•Should inns be allowed in historic structures?
•Should new inns be allowed as solely new construction?
Recommendations:
B&Bs remain by-right as they are
Consideration given for unique circumstances such as “accessory unit” for the owner (potential
special use permit)
Inns in historic structures if appropriate in location, size, and scale, and few impacts . When
dealing with historic properties staff thinks that the Historic Preservation Committee will need to
be consulted before they would come back with any strong recommendations about how those
things could happen. They are worried about making sure that our historic properties maintain
their historic characteristics, especially architecturally and in their setting. They could provide
some good guidance that would help us achieve all of those goals.
Health Department Regulations and Local Foods
Food Service in the Rural Areas - Restaurants
Only allowed in historic taverns, inns, or private clubs in Rural Areas
Issues:
Water
Trucks – Food Delivery (Amount of truck traffic)
Wastewater
Destination
Can you keep it local? They want to promote local food production in our rural areas. However, a
restaurant needs more than local food to operate.
Recommendations:
Restaurants in historic structures if appropriate in location, size, and scale, and few impacts
Unique circumstances such as crossroads community or remote area to serve residents of rural
areas with appropriate location, size, and scale, and few impacts
Distilleries and Breweries
Cideries (hard cider) are currently allowed as farm wineries.
They get an ABC farm winery license and can enjoy all those same rights for uses.
Distillation of grapes might have low impact
Beer production and some distilleries require major amounts of hops/grains and water
Microbreweries seem to need a restaurant. (Note: Amelia McCulley, Zoning Administrator is
present and can answer questions concerning microbreweries. She has done a lot of research in
other communities.)
Recommendations:
Very small distillation operation might be appropriate if product being distilled is grown on-site
(example: brandy from grapes) -- more research needed
Most distilleries would not be appropriate
Most microbreweries would not be appropriate
Microbrewery at scale of winery might be appropriate – more research needed
Special Events
200 persons -- by-right at wineries
150 persons -- by special use permit for other uses
Recommendation: Further Study
Page 30
Commercial Recreation
Recommendation:
Update Zoning Ordinance to reflect current commercial uses
Assess impacts of commercial recreational uses to see if there is a threshold for low-impact
commercial operations to be allowed by-right
Areas of Assembly
Recommendation:
Identify thresholds where areas of assembly could be by-right
Staff recommends direction should be given about new or alternative uses that could potentially be put in
the Comprehensive Plan after further study. If they could find a way to put the parameters around what
they would allow in zoning by special use permit and by right, then the Comprehensive Plan can make
some recommendations without having to get solely into the details of the zoning text amendment.
Currently the Comprehensive Plan talks about the importance of improvements that would be in the rural
areas being reversible so they don’t lose that rural area character or a resource they have. One of the
things that came out at the Roundtable was the understanding of the people there and how much they
wanted things to be appropriately scaled and sited. There was no one at the Roundtable that was asking
for a McDonald’s franchise. There was nobody at the Roundtable who was talking about putting in a
Hilton in our rural areas or any kind of a huge operation. There is an appreciation in our business
community for the small scale commercial tourist related uses, which would also need to have minimal
impacts. Finally, the alternatives uses would have to be viable without requiring increases in infrastructure
or services as noted below.
Appropriateness Guidance Recommendations
Reversible
Appropriately scaled and cited
Minimal impacts to public health and the environment
Viable without requiring increase in infrastructure or services
Mr. Morris invited questions for staff.
Mr. Loach commented on staff’s list regarding the appropriateness . He suggested one of the bullet points
to be specific to water quality and usage since almost all of the uses staff outlined in the presentation
were predicated on adequate water supplies, such as transient lodging, food service, distilleries, etc. He
questioned if staff has looked at the density of these businesses to ensure that the character of the area
is not changed, such as the location of more than one winery.
Ms. Echols replied there is consideration for the accumulative effect of a number of these kinds of uses in
a particular location through a special use permit process. Since farm wineries are allowed by right, staff
cannot restrict them in terms of their locations and whether there are three or four on one road. If there
are other uses by special use permit they can consider whether or not the impacts of more than one in a
particular area are going to be great enough to go over the level at which they are comfortable because of
the cumulative impacts.
Ms. Porterfield asked when talking about transient lodging and historic buildings does staff have an age
for historic or will they go with what is national historic. National historic is if they have something that is
50 years or older it could be deemed historic.
Ms. Echols replied there is a list of historic properties in the Comprehensive Plan, which would be the
starting point. They would determine whether the property has been identified as an historic property or
could be added. The list includes properties with both age and significant architectural or historical
characteristics.
Ms. Porterfield pointed out that would exclude the national definition. In other words someone with a
property not listed in the Comprehensive Plan could not have this type of lodging.
Page 31
Ms. Echols replied that right now that is the threshold and their starting point for consideration.
Ms. Porterfield suggested staff look at only allowing a certain number in a specific area on a certain
amount of acreage in the rural area in order to minimize impacts. She was pleased to see the Historic
Preservation Committee mentioned numerous times in the report since it is a really good committee.
Mr. Morris suggested they give thought to expanding their views on bed and breakfast and allowing
restaurants in the rural area. There are a lot of places in other jurisdictions with fewer restrictions. The
competition is there and those businesses are doing very well. It just seems they are denying people who
own property in Albemarle County from taking advantage of the beautiful area that they have. It would be
a preferable place for him to go rather than going to Louisa County and Prospect Hill if he could get the
same dinner. He questioned if that area was on well and septic system. However, they really need to
take a real hard look at whether there is really a problem with excessive use of water and generation of
waste water. He suggested that they expand on this a great deal for bed and breakfast. However, he
was unsure about including inns.
Mr. Lafferty asked if Clifton was an inn.
Ms. Echols replied that Clifton was an historic inn. Currently bed and breakfast are allowed by right. Staff
would be happy to provide the Commission with whatever information they need to determine whether
they want to broaden these parameters.
Ms. Porterfield said right now by right the bed and breakfast is allowed five rooms within the same house.
She asked if staff’s proposal was to look at accessory structures and increased rooms.
Ms. Echols replied staff was looking at accessory structures, but not increased rooms. However,
increasing the number of rooms was something that could be looked at.
Ms. Porterfield suggested if staff was going to have accessory structures it would be worthwhile looking at
increased rooms and possibly being by special use permit since it would be outside of the by right. Mr.
Sullivan had contacted her about the possibility of looking at active farms to see how they could get into
the tourism business. There are people who want to go to farms and spend a certain amount of time. It
would certainly help with the economic feasibility of the big farms in the county.
Mr. Franco said in general staff was on the conservative side. Reversible may include the reuse of
structures as well. If they have an existing structure, he did not know it has to be historic to allow for it to
be reused for an inn or some other use. He would also say that the minimal impact statement ought to be
adjusted to reflect what could occur on the site. One of the reasons he supports these additional uses in
the rural area is to prevent the conversion of that rural land to residential land. When he looks at water
use if he was looking at a several hundred acre farm, he might look at the potential of what it is
residentially and at what the water use for all of those uses would be as opposed to just saying minimal to
give some kind of appropriate scale. He noted that staff talked about their goal to minimize trucks in the
rural areas. To the best of his knowledge cattle, cows, crops, milk, and wood all need trucks in the rural
area. The truck traffic already exists in the rural areas. He agreed they don’t want to have a big increase
in truck traffic and was not looking to overdevelop the county. However, he would like to see it broadened
to make it more feasible for people to preserve the whole sections of rural area land.
Mr. Lafferty said he appreciates the difficulty in trying to structure something like this. When they talk
about appropriate size and things like that he was worried that in the future people might say well we
have too many hoops to jump through and suggest that they streamline this. Then they could lose the
effectiveness of what they were trying to do. He agreed with Mr. Franco that this was probably too
restrictive right now.
Mr. Kamptner pointed out the Board adopted the country stores regulations three years ago. He did not
see where country stores were mentioned particularly in the food service. That was a big issue three
years ago in the 20 percent limitation. He asked if that would be considered in part of this review and has
staff received any input from any owners of country stores.
Ms. Echols asked Ms. McCulley if she had any input from any owners of country stores.
Page 32
Ms. McCulley replied not recently related to this.
Ms. Echols said the health department during their discussion with staff gave such good information
regarding country stores and food service. There are a fair amount of health department regulations that
have to be met. If there is a restaurant or food service use where they are preparing and serving food
they have to do regular water testing and send the samples in along with all the other regulatory aspects.
Therefore, there is some amount of that which would be self regulating. Staff had not intended on
opening up the country stores. If the Planning Commission wants, staff could go into that some more.
Ms. Porterfield suggested that staff take a look at that. If it had not been for the 15 seat maximum for the
Batesville Store, it might still be in operation. If they are going to look at restaurants in the rural areas,
they need to figure out whether there is a way to accommodate country stores and let them have more
seats or something like that.
Mr. Franco pointed out the 15 seats was a state health regulation.
Ms. Porterfield questioned what would be the difference between that and a restaurant.
Mr. Franco replied that he did not think there would be a difference. However, they would have to meet
the state health department standards for a restaurant.
Mr. Morris opened the public hearing and invited public comment.
Public comment was taken from the following persons:
Neil Williamson, Free Enterprise Forum, presented a Power Point presentation and asked the
Commission to take a good hard look at the examples presented in other areas and take in
consideration allowing those types of businesses in Albemarle County. He asked the Commission
to increase the economic opportunity in the Rural Areas; identify and remove unneeded
regulatory barriers, identify and mitigate impacts, grow prosperous new enterprises (and jobs) in
the 95% of Albemarle that is the Rural Areas.
Tom Olivier, chairman of the Piedmont Group of the Sierra Club and an individual representing a
working farm, presented a statement to the Commission. (Attachment 3 – Statement to Planning
Commission Regarding the Update of the Albemarle County Comprehensive Plan By the
Piedmont Group of the Sierra Club dated November 29, 2011) He pointed out the need to
cherish and preserve open spaces and the many resources they contain in order to protect their
sustainability. Some rural resources are priceless and need to be protected. He encouraged
small-scale local production and marketing of agricultural products and arts and crafts in the rural
areas. He encouraged staff to support the “eat local” movement. He supported small-scale
tourism and recreational opportunities in the rural areas provided they are done so in a manner
compatible with preservation of farms, forests, clean water and ecosystems.
Jeff Werner, Piedmont Environmental Council, encouraged staff to go out to the community for
discussion and suggestions regarding the rural areas uses. He agreed with Mr. Olivier they need
to make sure the rural area is preserved and there is some assurance farm land remains intact.
Regarding increased traffic he noted in rural area economic activity there is already truck traffic.
He suggested that tax credits be taken into consideration.
Tom Sullivan, owner and leaser of a collection of farms of over 5,000 acres in the Scottsville area,
asked for changes in the transient lodging so large farms could have some opportunities made
available to increase their income to support and help preserve the large farming operations in
the county. He asked that they be allowed to use their large structures, such as a single-family
home for transient lodging particularly for weddings. They have to become a winery for special
events. It would be great that some part of the wedding party could stay overnight since it is a 40
mile trip into Charlottesville. He has contributed to paving the roads and helped with the fire
department. He was not sure if the structures on his farm would be considered historic.
However, he would like some consideration for the large farms to be allowed to have transient
lodging.
Mr. Morris closed the public hearing to bring the matter before the Planning Commission for further
consideration.
Page 33
The Commission commented on the information provided as follows and asked staff to take their
comments into consideration in the continuing work on the Comprehensive Plan.
Comments in general:
The current goals for reversibility, scale, minimal impact, and viability without increase in services
should be modified. The issue of reversibility isn’t as important for tourist-related activities.
To assess impacts, a comparison should be made between a by-right subdivision and a
requested use.
Incentives should be in place to encourage owners to not subdivide their property. Consider a
tiered approach for new uses where a by-right use could occur if water usage is equivalent to a
subdivision. Above that amount of water usage, a special use permit would be needed.
Consider approving high water usage using activities on the basis of the Health Department’s
approval process.
Farm-tourism should be allowed on a case-by-case basis. Consider an agri-tourist district.
Comments regarding transient lodging and food service (restaurants):
New and existing structures, not just historic structures, should be available for bed and
breakfasts, inns, and small restaurants.
If there is any preferential treatment for historic structures, a definition for historic structures is
needed.
Allowances should be made for bed and breakfasts (tourist lodging) that would increase the
number of guest rooms and also allow for the resident manager to reside in a building on-site that
is not the same as the tourist lodge. Consider allowing the use of two to three outbuildings for
people to stay as well as five or six rooms within main house that serves dinner.
Look for similar uses that have been successful in other localities and what was needed to make
them successful without compromising the rural areas. Be open to alternative water and sewer
systems that could be placed on some of the larger properties.
Review requests on a site-by-site basis for impact and scale.
Consider allowing use of an existing structure by-right. Require a special use permit for a new or
expanded structure.
Re-look at country stores to see if parameters should be broadened for food service.
Comments on distilleries and breweries:
Consider distilleries and breweries in the rural areas on a case-by-case basis.
Although these uses are high water users, there may be sufficient water in an area to support the
use.
Existing infrastructure may be able to handle the traffic.
Comments on Low Impact Commercial Recreation:
Make changes to the zoning ordinance to “modernize” terminology and regulations for outdoor
commercial recreation, such as zip lines and mountain biking.
All commercial recreational uses in the Rural Areas should be by special use permit because of
site specific impacts.
Comments on areas of assembly:
Develop thresholds for by-right uses.
Special uses would still be important for higher impact areas of assembly due to potential scale
and traffic issues
Comments on special events:
Special events need to be more equitable across the board. It is unfair for farm wineries to have
200 person events by-right but all other events have to get a special use permit and only 150
Page 34
persons would be allowed. Farms with large acreage should not have to be a winery in order to
have 200 people come for a wedding.
No formal action was taken.
Attachment 3 –
Tom Olivier, chairman of the Piedmont Group of the Sierra Club and an individual representing a working
farm, presented a statement to the Commission. (Statement to Planning Commission Regarding the
Update of the Albemarle County Comprehensive Plan By the Piedmont Group of the Sierra Club dated
November 29, 2011 on the following 3 pages)
Page 35
Page 36
Page 37
Page 38
Albemarle County Planning Commission
February 14, 2012
Work Session:
Comprehensive Plan Update (Elaine Echols)
Future Housing Supply
General Plan Format
Ms. Echols presented a Power-Point presentation to explain the Comprehensive Plan Update on the
future housing supply and general plan format..
This work session is for general input and comment. No final decision making is being requested.
On October 11 the Planning Commission asked staff about the existing and future housing units and
some information on how cash proffers for affordable housing are being applied. Staff originally thought
Ron White was going to be able to make this meeting to discuss that. He found out last week he had a
conflict and could not attend tonight. Therefore, Ron White will be coming before the Commission in
March.
Future Housing Supply
Existing Housing Supply
Additional information on:
• Breakdown of DU type for pipeline units
• Housing types currently on the market
• SFD units in DA vs. RA
• Approved density vs. Comp. Plan density
• New City DUs - type & density
Mix of Housing Units Types
Page 39
• Developers in City work with more confined space so development is often denser
• Avg. SFD lot: 6,600 sq. ft. = 6.6 DU/ac.
• Avg. SFA lot : 3,800 sq. ft. = 11 DU/ac.
• MF = 14 DU/ac.
• Developers in City work with more confined space so development is often denser
• Avg. SFD lot: 6,600 sq. ft. = 6.6 DU/ac.
• Avg. SFA lot : 3,800 sq. ft. = 11 DU/ac.
• MF = 14 DU/ac.
New Homes in the Rural Area
Page 40
• Significant drop in BP and COs since 2007
• Trend: same or greater # of SFD units being built in RA compared to DA
• SFD in RA: Lifestyle choice, wealth or family land
Will Future Trends be the Same as Past Trends?
• Age of population
• Childbearing later in life
• Cost of gasoline
• Cost in standard of living
What do People Want?
• 508 responded to Livability Project survey on housing & job preferences
• Most County residents and commuters said they would prefer to live in Albemarle’s Rural
Areas
• Commuters:
• 61% of those who live out of the area cite housing cost and a better value for
their money
• Over 50% said housing affordability was major reason for not living where they
work
• Albemarle residents:
• Live here for lifestyle, amenities neighborhoods
• Live where they want to
Approved Density vs. Comp. Plan Density
Diversity of size, type & many unfinished projects make comparisons difficult
Historically, Comp. Plan densities have fallen short of the highest density desired (and the
low end of the range sometimes)
Meeting Comprehensive Plan densities can depend on location: Crozet & Glenmore
Bargamin Park & Avinity – achieving max.
Belvedere – close to max. on MF units
Foothill Crossing – not achieving density
Charlottesville New Dwellings
• Developers in City work with more confined space so development is often denser
Page 41
• Avg. SFD lot: 6,600 sq. ft. = 6.6 DU/ac.
• Avg. SFA lot : 3,800 sq. ft. = 11 DU/ac.
• MF = 14 DU/ac.
Infrastructure
• Available CIP & VDOT funds severely limited for planned projects
• Current needs not being met
Format and Land Use Categories
Reasons for Including Format Issues in Work session
• Bring BOS vision and relevant goals to PC’s attention
• Show how all of the subject areas in the Comprehensive Plan tie back to BOS vision and goals
• Proviso: Some topics may ultimately go under a different heading
Vision, Goals, and Objectives
Board of Supervisors
Vision Statement: A thriving County, anchored by a strong economy and excellent education system
that honors its rural heritage, scenic beauty and natural and historic resources while fostering attractive
and vibrant communities.
Objectives:
• Encompass more than the Comprehensive Plan
• Relate to actions the BOS is working on over the next several years
Board of Supervisors’ Goals
Related to Comprehensive Plan
• Provide community facilities that meet existing and future needs
• Encourage a diverse and vibrant local economy
• Protect the County’s natural, scenic and historic resources
• Ensure the health and safety of the community
Page 42
•
New Standard Land Use Format
• Not set in stone
• Not for Places 29
• Would like to use for Neighborhoods 4 – 7 mini-Master Plans
• Will preserve special aspects of Pantops and Crozet Master Plans
Residential Designations -- essentially the same as now
Commercial Designations become Mixed Use Designations, categories similar to 1996 Land Use Plan
Multiple Industrial Districts become two districts: Office/R&D/Flex /Light Industrial & Industrial (no Light
or Heavy)
Page 43
Schedule
Upcoming Meetings
• Community Facilities Workshop at City Space February 23 4 – 7pm
• Neighborhoods 4 & 5 – Early March
• Neighborhoods 6 & 7 – Late March
• Joint PCs Meeting - April
Questions or Comments
Housing Information
General Format
Land Use Categories
Mr. Morris invited public comment.
Public comment was taken from the following persons:
Morgan Butler, Southern Environmental Law Center, questioned whether there was any need to
expand residential area to this expansion of the comp plan. From the meeting in October it was
clear there was plenty of growth and they decided not to propose an increase in the development
area since there was plenty of residential capacity. There is a fair amount of vacant land
available.
Tom Olivier, chairman of the Piedmont Group of the Sierra Club, recognized the comp plan is
Page 44
extremely important to public. From the state law point of view it is fundamental. He recognized
it was a key vision for developed area. The comp plan needs to offer biodiversity protection for
natural resource protection, which is important for community vision. They need to put in place
environmental protections. The Population growth – with open space – needs to be sustainable
in the comp plan. The update needs to seriously examine conflicts between environmental
protection and economic vitality.
Jeff Werner, Piedmont Environmental Council, submitted a Draft of Combined Information from
12/20/2011 Staff Summary and 01/08/2012 Staff Report for CPA. (Attachment B) This
information was referenced at last week’s Board meeting. The current inventory needs to be
taken into consideration before future growth is allowed. There is a large amount of unbuilt retail.
He would assume the multi-family attached would be shifted.
There being no further public comment, Mr. Morris invited discussion and comments from the Planning
Commission.
The Commission commented on the information provided as follows and asked staff to take their
comments into consideration in the continuing work on the Comprehensive Plan.
Comments in general on Future Housing Study:
There was some question about the form of development taking place in the development areas.
A suggestion made to review the forms, such as large lot subdivisions and compact
developments that have been successful.
There was some fear expressed that the Commission was not looking at expected demand for
housing by type for 20 years but just the number of units that could be built.
One Commissioner said he hoped that houses built in the DA were comparable to those built in
the RA. He said we don’t want to force people to the RA because they can’t find a comparable
house in the Development Areas and don’t have the opportunity. He asked if we need to change
something to make it possible to build the type of unit in DA being built in RA.
Another Commissioner commented that there are some distinctive differences between housing
in the DA and RA that relate to “setting”. He said that sometimes there is not a comparable
option in the DA if someone just wants to live in the RA.
It was suggested that a discussion needs to take place about the building trend in the Rural Area
and on whether that trend should continue or it should be encouraged.
A Commissioner noted that we need to look at available housing stock when analyzing supply
and demand. She asked if we are really representing the amount of housing stock on the market.
Later provided the total number of units by type that are on the market right now as 602 single
family units, 147 townhouses, and 85 condominiums.
A question was asked if cluster development would be useful. Staff responded that it is now by
right, but not used very often.
A question was asked concerning the percentage of 5 acre lots that were available in the RA.
A question was asked whether purchasers of recently built single family homes in the DA would
tell us about why they chose to live in DA versus the RA.
Comments in general on General Plan Format:
A suggestion was made that staff look at what the city is going to use as their format for possible
consistency.
A suggestion was made that the staff see if we could simplify the categories into possibly just
three categories, neighborhoods, centers and areas.
A Commissioner asked that staff explore ways to make sure that recommendations in the comp
plan refer back to the goals established by the Board. In addition, it should be made clear how
ordinance amendments are done to tie into the county’s goals so they can have topic areas that
the board is already using.
Page 45
No formal action was taken.
Staff invited other comments from the Planning Commission. Staff is going out and working with
Neighborhoods 4, 5, 6 and 7 to develop a “mini” master plan to bring back to the Planning Commission.
Page 46
ATTACHMENT 1
2012 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING SCHEDULE
PUBLIC HEARINGS, WAIVERS
AND MINISTERIAL APPEALS
WORK SESSIONS NO SCHEDULED MEETING
JANUARY 10, 2012 JANUARY 31, 2012 JANUARY 3, 2012
JANUARY 24, 2012 JANUARY 17, 2012
FEBRUARY 7, 2012 FEBRUARY 14, 2012 FEBRUARY 21, 2012
FEBRUARY 28, 2012
MARCH 6, 2010 MARCH 13, 2012 MARCH 27, 2012
MARCH 20,2012
APRIL 3, 2012 APRIL 24, 2012 APRIL 10, 2012
APRIL 17, 2012
MAY 8, 2012 MAY 15, 2012 MAY 29, 2012
MAY 22, 2012 MAY 1, 2012
JUNE 5, 2012 JUNE 12, 2012 JUNE 26, 2012
JUNE 19, 2012
JULY 10, 2012 JULY 17, 2012 JULY 3, 2012
JULY 24, 2012 JULY 31, 2012
AUGUST 7, 2012 AUGUST 14, 2012 AUGUST 28, 2012
AUGUST 21, 2012
SEPTEMBER 11, 2012 SEPTEMBER 18, 2012 SEPTEMBER 4, 2012
SEPTEMBER 25, 2012
OCTOBER 9, 2012 OCTOBER 16, 2012 OCTOBER 2, 2012
OCTOBER 23, 2012 OCTOBER 30, 2012
NOVEMBER 13, 2012 NOVEMBER 27, 2012 NOVEMBER 6, 2012
NOVEMBER 15, 2012 NOVEMBER 20, 2012
DECEMBER 4, 2012* DECEMBER 18, 2012
DECEMBER 11, 2012* DECEMBER 25, 2012
JANUARY 8, 2013 JANUARY 31, 2013 JANUARY 1, 2013
JANUARY 22, 2013 JANUARY 31, 2013
FEBRUARY 5, 2013 FEBRUARY 12, 2013 FEBRUARY 19, 2013
FEBRUARY 26, 2013
MARCH 5, 2013 MARCH 12, 2013 MARCH 26, 2013
MARCH 19, 2013
*December meeting dates will be available for public hearings, waivers, ministerial appeals and work
sessions.
Highlighted Planning Commission meeting dates in 2013 are based on application submittal dates in
2013.
Page 47
Attachment 2 –
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
2012 RULES OF PROCEDURE
1. Officers
A. Chairman. At its annual meeting, the Commission shall elect a Chairman who, if present,
shall preside at the meeting and at all other meetings during the year for which elected.
B. Vice-Chairman. At its annual meeting, the Commission shall elect a Vice-Chairman,
who, if present, shall preside at meetings in the absence of the Chairman and shall
discharge the duties of the Chairman during his absence or disability.
C. Secretary. The Director of Planning shall serve the Commission as its Secretary. The
duties of the Secretary shall include keeping and maintaining custody of the records of
the Commission and such other duties as these rules may provide and the Commission
may, from time to time, assign.
D. Recording Secretary. The Director of Planning, or his designee, shall serve the
Commission as its Recording Secretary. The duties of the Recording Secretary shall
include keeping the minutes of the Commission’s meetings, acting as the timekeeper,
and such other duties as these rules may provide and the Commission may, from time to
time, assign.
E. Other Offices. At any of its meetings, the Commission may create and fill any other
offices as it deems necessary.
F. Term of Office. The Chairman and Vice-Chairman shall be elected for one-year terms;
but either or both may be re-elected for one or more additional terms.
G. Absence of Chairman and Vice-Chairman. If the Chairman and Vice-Chairman are
absent from any meeting, a present member shall be chosen to act as Chairman.
2. Meetings
A. Annual Meeting. The first meeting in January of each year shall be known as the annual
meeting. At the annual meeting, the Commission shall establish the day, time, and place
for regular meetings of the Commission for that year, and shall elect the chairman and
vice-chairman.
B. Regular Meetings. The Commission shall meet in regular session at the time and place
and on the day or days established for regular meetings. The Commission
Page 48
may subsequently establish a different day, time, or place to conduct its regular meetings
by passing a resolution to that effect.
If the Chairman, or the Vice-Chairman if the Chairman is unable to act, finds and declares
that weather or other conditions are such that it is hazardous for Commission members to
attend a regular meeting, the meeting shall be continued to the next regular meeting
date. This finding shall be communicated to the members of the Commission and to the
press as promptly as possible.
Without further public notice, a regular meeting may be adjourned from day to day or
from time to time or from place to place, not beyond the time fixed for the next regular
meeting, until the business of the Commission is complete.
A. Special Meetings. The Commission may hold special meetings as it deems necessary at
such times and places as it deems convenient. A special meeting may be adjourned
from time to time as the Commission finds necessary and convenient.
A special meeting shall be held when called by the Chairman or requested by two or
more members of the Commission upon written request made to the Secretary and shall
specify the matters to be considered at the meeting. Upon receipt of the call or request,
the Secretary, after consultation with the Chairman, shall immediately notify each
member of the Commission and the County Attorney. The notice shall be in writing and
shall be mailed or delivered to the person or to his place of residence or business at least
five days prior to the special meeting. The notice shall state the time and place of the
special meeting and shall specify the matters to be considered. The Commission shall
not consider any matter not specified in the notice at the meeting unless all members are
present. The notice may be waived if the time of the special meeting was fixed at a
regular meeting, if all members are present at the special meeting, or if all members sign
a waiver for the notice.
The Secretary shall notify the general news media of the time and place of such special
meeting and the matters to be considered.
3. Order of Business
A. Agenda Established by Secretary. The agenda for each regular meeting
shall be established by the Secretary in consultation with the Chairman.
B. Organization of the Agenda. The agenda of each regular meeting shall be
organized in substantially the following order, subject to change at the request of
the Chairman and with the consensus of the other members of the Commission:
(1) Call to order and establish quorum.
(2) Committee Reports. (Only on first meeting of each month.)
(3) Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda from the Public.
(4) Review of Board of Supervisors Meeting (when applicable).
(5) Consent Agenda. (Includes approval of minutes from previous meetings when
applicable.)
(6) Items Requesting Deferral (when applicable).
(7) Deferred Items (from previous meetings when applicable).
(8) Regular Items.
(9) Public Hearing Items.
(10) Work Sessions (when applicable).
(11) Old Business.
(12) New Business.
(13) Adjournment.
Page 49
C. Matters not on the Agenda. Each regular meeting agenda shall include a
period for matters not on the agenda, during which time up to three persons may
speak on matters that are not on the agenda at the same regular meeting of the
Commission. Each person speaking shall be allowed to speak for not more than
three minutes. The Commission shall neither engage such a speaker in a dialogue
nor engage in a discussion on the matter raised by a speaker at that time.
B. Time Limits for Applicants and Other Speakers. Each applicant shall be allowed to
make a presentation not to exceed ten minutes, and a closing remark at the close
of the hearing on the matter not to exceed five minutes. Each other person
speaking on a matter shall be allowed one appearance not to exceed three
minutes. A speaker may not reserve any time for rebuttal or transfer any time to
another speaker. The time limits set forth herein shall not include any time during
which the applicant or other speaker is responding to questions asked by the
Commission.
E. Deferrals. The Commission may defer any matter at the request of a
member of the Commission, the County staff, or the applicant. The request may be
either oral or in writing, and may be made at any time prior to the vote on the
matter. The person making the request shall state the reasons therefor. A motion
to defer shall either specify the date to which the matter is deferred or defer the
matter indefinitely. If the motion to defer pertains to a matter for which a noticed
public hearing is required and the motion is to defer the matter to a specific date,
the Chairman shall either close the public hearing or, if the public hearing was not
opened, open and then close the public hearing, before the Commission votes on
the motion.
4. Quorum
A majority of the members of the Commission shall constitute a quorum for any meeting of
the Commission. If, during a meeting, less than a majority of the members of the Commission
remains present, no action can be taken except to adjourn the meeting or to adjourn the
meeting to a fixed time and place. If, prior to adjournment, a quorum is again established, the
meeting shall continue. A meeting shall not be adjourned to a date and time beyond that fixed
for the next regular meeting.
5. Voting Procedures
A. Motions. Each action by the Commission shall be initiated by a motion that is seconded.
Any motion that is neither seconded nor immediately followed by debate shall not be
further considered.
B. Approval of Motion by Majority. Except for a decision on a motion of the previous
question, each decision of the Commission shall be made by approval of a majority of the
members present and voting on a motion.
C. Time for Vote. Any matter before the Commission requiring a public hearing shall not be
decided by the Commission until the public hearing has been held. The Commission
may, however, in its discretion, defer the holding of a public hearing or consideration of
such matter.
D. Manner of Vote. The vote on a motion pertaining to a matter for which the Commission is
making a recommendation to the Board of Supervisors shall be by roll call vote. The vote
on a motion pertaining to any other matter may be either by roll call vote or voice vote, in
Page 50
the discretion of the Chairman; provided that a roll call vote on such a motion shall be
required if requested by a member of the Commission. For each roll call vote, the
Recording Secretary shall record the name of each member voting and how the member
voted on the motion. For each voice vote, the Recording Secretary shall record the result
of the vote.
E. Tie Vote. A tie vote shall only defeat the motion voted upon. Any matter receiving a tie
vote shall not be deemed to have been acted upon and a tie vote shall not be deemed to
be either a denial or a recommendation of denial.
F. Effect of Defeat of Motion to Deny or Recommend Denial. The defeat of a motion to
deny or to recommend denial of a matter shall not be deemed to be approval of the
matter. In such a case, the Chairman shall call for another motion.
G. Abstention. If any member abstains from voting on any motion, he shall state his
abstention. The abstention shall be announced by the Chairman and recorded by the
Recording Secretary.
H. Motion to Amend. A motion to amend a motion before the Commission shall be
discussed and voted by the Commission before any vote is taken on the original motion
unless the motion to amend is accepted by both the members making and seconding the
original motion. If the motion to amend is approved, the amended motion is then before
the Commission for its consideration. If the motion to amend is not approved, the original
motion is again before the Commission for its consideration.
I. Previous Question. The discussion of any motion may be terminated by any member
moving the “previous question.” Upon a proper second, the Chairman shall call for a vote
on the motion of the previous question. If approved by a two-thirds majority of those
voting, the Chairman shall immediately call for a vote on the original motion under
consideration. A motion of the previous question shall not be subject to debate and shall
take precedence over any other matter.
J. Motion to Reconsider. Any decision made by the Commission may be reconsidered if a
motion to reconsider is made at the same meeting or an adjourned meeting held on the
same day at which the matter was decided. The motion to reconsider may be made by
any member of the Commission. Upon a proper second, the motion may be discussed
and voted. The effect of the motion to reconsider, if approved, shall be to place the
matter for discussion in the exact position it occupied before it was voted upon.
Page 51
1
6. Amendment of Rules of Procedure
These Rules of Procedure may be amended by a majority vote of the Commission at the next
regular meeting following a regular meeting at which notice of the motion to amend is given.
7. Suspension of Rules of Procedure
These Rules of Procedure may be suspended by the majority vote of the members of the
Commission present and voting. The motion to suspend a rule may be made by any member of the
Commission. Upon a proper second, the motion may be discussed and voted. The effect of the
motion to suspend a rule, if approved, is to make that rule inapplicable to the matter before the
Commission; provided, however, approval of a motion to suspend the rule shall not permit the
Commission to act in violation of a requirement mandated by the Code of Virginia, the Constitution
of Virginia, or any other applicable law.
8. Rules of Procedure not Covered by These Rules of Procedure
Any rules of procedure not covered by these Rules of Procedure shall be governed by the current
Robert’s Rules of Order.
9. Nature and Effect of These Rules
The purpose of these Rules of Procedure is to facilitate the orderly conduct of public meetings
and decision-making. The parliamentary Rules of Procedure (those rules other than Rules 2(B),
2(C), 4 and 5(B)) are procedural, not jurisdictional, in nature, and Rules 2(B), 2(C), 4 and 5(B) are
jurisdictional only to the extent that Virginia law makes them jurisdictional. The failure to comply
with the parliamentary Rules of Procedure shall not invalidate any decision of the Commission.
* * * * *
(Adopted 01/12/99; Amended and/or Readopted 01/11/00 (§3(C)), 01/09/01(§2(B)), 01/15/02, 01/14/03,
01/13/04 (§§1(C), 1(D)), 01/05/05, 01/11/06, 01/09/07, 01/15/08, 01/06/09, 01/12/10, 01/11/11 (§§ 1(D),
2(C), 3(C), 3(D), 4, 5(A)(added), 5(B
Page 52
2
Attachment 3 –
PLANNING COMMISSION COMMITTEE MEMBERSHIP AS OF 2/14/12:
ACE Committee Liason:
Bruce Dotson
CIP Technical Committee:
Don Franco
Charlottesville Albemarle Regional Transportation Advisory Committee (CHART):
Mac Lafferty
City/County/University Planning & Coordination Council Tech Committee (PACC Tech):
Mac Lafferty
Crozet Community Advisory Council:
Tom Loach
Fiscal Impact Committee:
Don Franco
Historic Preservation Committee:
Rick Randolph
Metropolitan Planning Organization Tech Committee (MPO Tech):
Bruce Dotson
Pantops Community Advisory Council:
Cal Morris
University of Virginia Master Planning Council:
Ed Smith
Places 29 Community Advisory Council:
Don Franco, Mac Lafferty
Village of Rivanna Community Advisory Council:
Rick Randolph
Page 53
3
Attachment 4 – Consent Agenda –
Conditions of Approval
SDP-2011-00082 Boar’s Head Sports Club (squash expansion) - Major – Approved site plan
amendment to expand squash club associated with this request are a 20’ buffer zone waiver, a critical
slopes waiver and a curb waiver with staff’s recommended conditions as follows:
The amended site plan shall not be signed until the following conditions have been met.
1. Planning/Zoning approval.
2. Engineering approval.
3. Albemarle County Service Authority approval.
4. Virginia Department of Transportation approval.
Page 54
CPA 2013-01
PC February 14, 2012
Staff Report Page 1
STAFF PERSONS: ECHOLS, SORRELL, WEAVER
PLANNING COMMISSION WORKSESSION: FEBRUARY 14, 2011
CPA 2013-00001: COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE
Worksession 4: Future Housing Supply and General Plan Format
PURPOSE OF WORKSESSION
The purpose of this worksession is to review and discuss characteristics of existing and
expected housing as well as the general plan format (Vision and Goals) and standard land use
categories. The Housing Director, Ron White, will make a presentation on the status of
affordable housing, proffered units, and cash proffers for affordable housing at the
Commission’s March worksession.
PART 1: FUTURE HOUSING SUPPLY - BACKGROUND
At the Planning Commission worksession on October 11, 2011, the Commission discussed: 1)
current demographic and land use information; 2) trends and projections for future
populations and land capacity for growth; and 3) requests for expansions of the Development
Area boundaries. At that worksession, the Commission asked staff to provide the following
additional information as part of future deliberations on land use and housing. The
Commission asked for:
the breakdown of dwelling unit type for the approved but unbuilt units
the mix of housing types currently on the market , asking price, and location
the number of single family detached units in the Development Areas versus the
number in the Rural Areas and differences in their assessed value
the dwelling unit types being built and density being achieved in the City
information on whether current development has been achieving its approved
density and the density recommended in the Comprehensive Plan
information on infrastructure
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ON EXISTING HOUSING SUPPLY
Mix of Unit Types
Questions from the Commission at the October 11 meeting revolved around how well the
existing and future supply of housing would meet future needs. To understand the future
needs it is helpful to know the mix of housing types available now. A table showing the mix of
housing types in the County by location was provided with the October 11 staff report and
has been updated on Table 1. From analysis of the table, 63% of the housing supply is in
single family detached product. Of Development Areas land, 40% of the units are single
CPA 2013-01
PC February 14, 2012
Staff Report Page 2
family detached. The lower percentage is in keeping with County policy to increase density
and diversify housing mix in the Development Areas and discourage sprawl.
Table 1: Housing by Comprehensive Plan Areas
Comprehensive Plan Area
Single
Family
Attached
Units
Multi-
Family/
Condos
Mobile
Home
Units
Total
Dwelling
Units
Crozet Community 1,719 494 43 132 2,388
Hollymead Community (Places 29-North) 1,917 611 300 331 3,159
Piney Mt. Community (Places 29-North) 135 329 0 1 465
Village of Rivanna 788 2 0 1 791
Neighborhood 1 (Places 29-South) 499 820 2,255 152 3,726
Neighborhood 2 (Places 29-South) 1,760 875 1,245 0 3,880
Neighborhood 3 (Pantops) 225 249 1,371 0 1,845
Neighborhood 4 825 327 481 5 1,638
Neighborhood 5 663 231 1,020 406 2,320
Neighborhood 6 436 100 467 0 1,003
Neighborhood 7 412 291 1,144 0 1,847
Rural Area 1 4,741 208 430 173 5,552
Rural Area 2 3,081 21 0 130 3,232
Rural Area 3 5,337 46 69 152 5,604
Rural Area 4 3,681 16 16 279 3,992
Development Area Units 9,379 4,329 8,326 1,028 23,062
Rural Area Units 16,840 291 515 734 18,380
Total 26,219 4,620 8,841 1,762 41,442
Source: Albemarle County GDS Department, 2012
Mix of housing types currently on the market now, location, and value
On January 31, 2012 staff reviewed listings provided by the Charlottesville Area Association of
Realtors (CAAR). Because each listing would have to be reviewed individually and put into a
data base for sorting by County staff, staff has been unable to tell which units are in the
Development Areas and which are in the Rural Areas. Table 2 (following page) provides the
following snapshot1 of all listings in Albemarle County as of that date.
1 The snapshot includes speculative units yet to be built but proposed to be a certain unit type. With the
information available, staff was unable to separate listings by RA or DA.
CPA 2013-01
PC February 14, 2012
Staff Report Page 3
Table 2 indicates that while there is a larger supply of single family detached units for sale,
the units are also more expensive than the other housing types. In addition, the higher listing
price of SFD may be due to their location on larger parcels of land in the Rural Areas. The
lower number of attached units and condominiums for sale and their lower listing price could
mean that demand is high and supply is low right now. Anecdotal evidence from the County
Assessor’s Office and the number of site plans and plats for townhouses being processed by
staff suggest that this is the case.
Table 2: January 31, 2012 MLS Albemarle County Listings – Total on Market 834
Value of Single Family Homes
To see if any trends could be ascertained on location of homes by housing value throughout
the County, staff attempted to make a comparison using County assessments. After speaking
with the Assessor’s office, staff found that a comparison could be made but was not totally
reliable in drawing conclusions because of the number of variables which go into
assessments. A house setting, it’s location in a part of the County, amenities, and
comparables cannot be accounted for in such a comparison. Other factors such as age and
quality of construction also come into play. Staff is still working on putting together data for
review which should be available at the Commission meeting.
New houses in the Rural Areas
In October, staff brought information to the Commission on building permits for new
residential units over the last twenty years. From that information, it appeared that , on the
average, approximately 250 new detached units per year were being built in the Rural Areas.
Price Detached Attached Condominiums
Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent
>
$1,000,000 110 18% 0 0 0 0%
$999,999 -
$750,000 56 9% 3 2% 0 0%
$749,999 -
$500,000 123 20% 10 7% 2 2%
$499,999 -
$300,000 158 26% 15 10% 1 1%
$299,999 -
$200,000 103 17% 75 51% 10 12%
< $200,000 52 9% 44 30% 72 85%
CPA 2013-01
PC February 14, 2012
Staff Report Page 4
This figure has dimini shed significantly over the last few years. Table 3 below shows the
building permits for single-family detached housing in the Development Areas and Rural
Areas over the last ten years. Table 4 shows the certificates of occupancy for single-family
detached housing over the last five years.
Table 3: Building Permits Issued for Single Family Detached Housing (SFD) 2001-2011
Year
Development
Area % DA Rural Area %RA
Total SFD
Units
2001 205 47% 232 53% 437
2002 296 50% 293 50% 589
2003 273 51% 261 49% 534
2004 228 47% 256 53% 484
2005 269 48% 287 52% 556
2006 135 36% 245 64% 380
2007 103 35% 194 65% 297
2008 93 37% 157 63% 250
2009 82 52% 77 48% 159
2010 125 57% 95 43% 220
2011 123 55% 101 45% 224
1,932 2,198 4,130
Source: Albemarle County GDS Department, 2012
Table 4: Certificates of Occupancy for Single Family Detached Housing 2007 -2011
Year
Development
Area % DA
Rural
Area %RA
Total SFD
Units
2007 136 39% 211 61% 347
2008 75 33% 153 67% 228
2009 85 37% 147 63% 232
2010 125 48% 135 52% 260
2011 120 60% 80 40% 200
541 726 1,267
Source: Albemarle County GDS Department, 2012
These tables show at least as many single-family permits being issued for housing in the Rural
Areas as the Development Areas on an annual basis, if not more. The percent of certificates of
occupancy for houses in the Rural Areas for the last five years is even greater except for 2011.
CPA 2013-01
PC February 14, 2012
Staff Report Page 5
As preservation of the Rural Areas has been a longstanding goal for the County, staff and
many members of the community have tried to gain insight on why the number of new
single-family detached units being built is as high as it is in the Rural Areas.
Staff believes that there have been three main reasons people have moved to or built in the
Rural Areas other than to be involved in agriculture. These reasons are lifestyle choice,
wealth, or family land. The Rural Areas routinely receive the highest amenity rating by
Albemarle residents and there are many people who enjoy that lifestyle which includes open
space and privacy. Albemarle has seen its share of millionaires who have bought property in
the Rural Areas of the County with the most recent examples being Donald Trump and Jim
Justice II. There are also families who own large tracts of land which divide it into smaller
parcels for family members on which to either build on place a mobile home. In addition, gas
prices have been relatively cheap. Rising gasoline prices and an aging population may change
a part of this picture.
Compact Development vs Large Lot Subdivisions
In addition to the issue of affordability, there has been speculation by members of the
development community that compact Neighborhood Model type developments have not
met the demand of a sector of the population that is building in the Rural Areas. This group
of homeowners would prefer to have larger lots typical of suburban development. It is
difficult to know if this situation is the case or how many people might be a part of that
sector. Staff can only note that Bargamin Park, Parkside Village, and Waylands Grant all built
out very quickly during the boom years of the mid 2000s. In addition, two large
Neighborhood Model developments – Old Trail and Belvedere – appear to be successful and
are filling the needs of some of the population moving in to Albemarle or moving out of the
Rural Areas. It must also be noted that there continue to be large-lot subdivisions built in the
Development Areas (Foothill Crossing was the last example) where property owners declined
to rezone to get maximum density. The same situation occurred with the Foxchase
development which is no longer in the Crozet Development Area. So, choice continues to
exist, even if it is sometimes at the expense of density in the Development Areas.
FUTURE HOUSING SUPPLY
Breakdown of dwelling unit type for the approved but unbuilt units
For the October 11 packet, staff provided a list of rezoning and special use permits that
include residential units that have been approved since 2001. That list has since been
updated to include units currently under construction. Findings from the table in Attachment
A are below:
CPA 2013-01
PC February 14, 2012
Staff Report Page 6
Since 2001, 12,566 units have been approved. Changes to Biscuit Run and the
rezoning of the Fontaine Townhomes to Morey Creek Offices, leaves a total of 9,505
units now available from approved rezonings and special use permits in the last ten
years.
Since 2001, 1,729 units approved by rezoning and special use permit have been built,
leaving 82% of the units unbuilt.
Due to the flexibility for several different unit types in several of the rezoning (Old
Trail, Hollymead Town Center, Belvedere), the true mix of units remaining unbuilt
cannot be ascertained
If the unbuilt rezoned units are evenly distributed within the corresponding development, the
following conclusions can be made:
24% (2,316 units) of approved units are SFD of which 94% (2,174) are unbuilt;
33% (3,142 units) of approved units are Attached/TH of which 79% (2,473) are unbuilt;
and
43% (4,042 units) of approved units are MF of which 77% (3,124) are unbuilt.
It should be noted that the mix of unit types shown above is not a fixed figure. The County
purposely approved Planned Districts with flexibility to allow for developers to respond to
market demand for housing types. This same flexibility means that where single family
detached units are chosen over attached or multi-family units, the high end of the
recommended density shown on the Comprehensive Plan will not be met.
Rural Area Capacity for Residential Development
While the Rural Areas are not intended to be places for new residential development,
opportunity for development is fairly high. At present, staff believes that the Rural Areas has
the potential for over 50,000 new houses. In 1996, the Thomas Jefferson Planning District
Commission performed a buildout analysis where an estimate was made on the capacity for
new units in Albemarle’s Rural Areas. At that time, the PDC estimated that the Rural Area
capacity would allow for 54,867 new homes in the Rural Areas. Since that time, 3,687 new
units have been constructed which leaves the potential for approximately 51,180 additional
dwelling units in the Rural Area using the PDC’s methodology. This figure is speculative
because the County has never done an inventory of development rights in the Rural Areas,
which would be extremely labor intensive; however, it does give a measure of magnitude for
additional by-right development.
CPA 2013-01
PC February 14, 2012
Staff Report Page 7
Achieving approved density and the density desired by the Comprehensive Plan
A question posed by one Commissioner was whether or not residential units are being built to
the maximum capacity allowed. This question is difficult to answer because of the diversity of
size and type of developments as well as projects which are unfinished. For example,
Bargamin Park and Avinity (currently under construction) have achieved or will achieve their
maximum number of units allowed. Both projects provided density in keeping with the
Comprehensive Plan. In Belvedere, a new apartment complex has almost maxed-out the
allowable multi-family units allowed for the development. However, in Avemore, there are
106 units which have not been built and the remaining undeveloped area likely could not
support that many units.
There is also a lot of variability among approved projects in relation to densities shown in the
Comprehensive Plan. For example, the Old Trail development was proposed at the high end
of density shown for the Crozet Master Plan. In Glenmore, the Leake and Livengood
developments were rezoned at a much lower density than the Comprehensive Plan
recommended. The same is true in by-right developments. The new by-right multi-family
project, Arden Place, received density bonuses on that R15 zoned property. The Foothill
Crossing project was approved at R1 density, even though the Crozet Master Plan
recommended a minimum of 3 units per acre. As shown with these examples, some projects
are built at the high end of what the Land Use Plan would recommend and some are not.
Dwelling unit types and density being achieved in the City of Charlottesville
Vacant land in Charlottesville is typically different than vacant land in the Development Areas.
The County has much larger tracts of land for new residential development. City developers
work with more confined spaces. As such, new development is often more dense in the City
than in the County. From the building permits approved in 2010 and 2011 for new residential
units in the city, the average lot size for SFD buildings is 6600 square feet and the average lot
size for SFA is 3800 square feet which equates to densities of 6.6 units per acre for SFD and 11
units per acre for SFA. Density for multi-family projects is approximately 14 units per acre.
Staff will try to provide a similar analysis for the Development Areas at the February 14
meeting.
WHAT DO PEOPLE WANT?
Livability Workshop Questionnaire
On December 1, 2011, a workshop with the Livability Project was held for input on housing
and economic drivers. In addition to the summary provided with the packet for the February
8, 2012 joint Planning Commission and Board of Supervisor’s worksession a questionnaire
was provided. The questionnaire about housing and job preferences and was available to
attendees at the workshop. A link to the survey on-line was also sent to all City, County, and
CPA 2013-01
PC February 14, 2012
Staff Report Page 8
UVA employees. Staff was looking for information from people who live in the community
but also from people who work in the community but don’t live here. The total number of
respondents was 508. Attachment B provides responses by County and City residents and
persons who live outside the City and County (commuters).
The responses were different among City, County, and commuters’ responses. Most
Albemarle residents said they live in Albemarle because they like the lifestyle, amenities,
neighborhoods, etc. These same people said they are currently living where they want to.
Most of the commuters said that the cost of housing prevents them from living where they
want to; however, the difference between those responders and the ones who said they are
living where they want to was only 11%. Most of the respon ders (Albemarle and commuters
alike) said they would prefer to live in the Rural Areas of Albemarle County if there were no
barriers in choice of housing. Sixty-one percent of the commuter respondents said they live
out of the area because of the cost of housing or a better value for their money. Thirty-nine
percent had reasons such as privacy, family, taxes, location near church, or preferred the
schools where they live.
As shown in the questionnaire, over half of the commuters said that affordability of housing
was a major reason why they don’t live where they work. Some responders said that they get
more house and land for the money they spend on housing. This situation has long been the
case. Would these same people buy a townhouse in Charlottesville or the Development
Areas if it were within their housing budget? Staff ventures that the answer depends on a
number of variables but likely not. However, as mentioned before, rising gasoline prices may
change a part of this picture.
It should be noted that this questionnaire was not conducted as a scientific survey.
Answering the survey was a self-selecting process and there might be multiple forms filled
out from the same person. In addition, there was no way to ensure that respondents who
don’t live in the City or County actually work in the City or County and are commuters.
Individual comments are being reviewed for a greater understanding of respondents’ needs
and desires for housing and jobs. Nevertheless, it does provide a window into percept ions of
about availability of housing in this community, affordability, and jobs.
Will future trends be the same as past trends?
In 2011 the National Association of Realtors conducted a consumer preference study on
choice of location for housing. The results of that study were that an overwhelming majority
(89%) of respondents said they preferred a single-family house on a large lot. A slightly
smaller majority (78%) said that a short commute was an important consideration. Three
quarters of the respondents said that walkability to a grocery store was important. These
CPA 2013-01
PC February 14, 2012
Staff Report Page 9
preferences were from a nationwide survey of 2,000 people. While the desire for a single-
family house on a large lot reflected current preferences, there was a desire for walkability to
mixed-use areas as well.
Staff believes that trends of the past in housing choice will likely not be the trends of the
future. Many young adults are waiting longer to start families and are looking f or a more
urban lifestyle before they start their families. Baby boomers are downsizing rather than
increasing the size of their house and yard responsibilities. An aging population is looking to
be closer to services and transit. Rising gasoline costs will impact disposable income causing
more persons to opt for closeness to work rather than a larger detached house on a large lot.
While demand for single family detached housing will continue; it will likely not be at the
same rate and in the same form.
INFRASTRUCTURE IN RELATION TO NEW DEVELOPMENT
One of the concerns of the Commission at the October 11 meeting was with expansion and
infrastructure. The statement was made that the County does not have sufficient money to
build infrastructure to meet current needs, much less future needs. At the January 31, 2012
Commission meeting, County staff presented the Capital Improvements Program and current
budget for new projects. Each of the completed Master Plans as well as the area’s Long
Range Transportation Plan provides a list of implementation projects needed for now and the
future. However, available CIP and VDOT funds have severely limited the abil ity to undertake
projects. This means that, in addition to future needs, current needs are not being met which
is an issue best dealt with by the Board of Supervisors.
CONCLUSIONS
The following conclusions are made about the information above:
A variety of housing types exists in the County
A variety of housing types and prices is available for sale at this time
There are fewer townhouses than apartment units in the housing mix and for sale at
this time where market demand for townhouses may be high
Except for 2011, SFD homebuilding in the Rural Areas has occurred historically at
higher rate than the Development Areas
Although national trends would suggest that walkability to mixed -use centers is
desirable, a local survey indicated that commuters continue to have a preference for
larger houses on larger lots in nearby counties
If expense were not a barrier, many of these commuters would prefer to live in
Albemarle’s Rural Areas
There is flexibility in the inventory of approved residential units to respond to market
demand
CPA 2013-01
PC February 14, 2012
Staff Report Page 10
Demands of the past may not be the same as demand in the future
There are current needs for infrastructure which must be met and will affect future
development
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION
No action is needed from the Planning Commission at this time unless the Commission wishes
to revisit the topic of expanding the Development Areas. If this is desired, the Commission is
asked to advise staff on any additional information needed for that dis cussion.
PART 2: FORMAT AND LAND USE CATEGORIES - BACKGROUND
On July 26, 2011, the Planning Commission reviewed a recommended format for the plan as
well as a vision statement. These items are provided as Attachment C which is a portion of
the multi-page set of goals and objectives. On October 5, 2011, the Board of Supervisors
adopted a vision and strategic plan goals. Knowing that the Board was working on a vision
statement and a strategic plan, Commissioners asked staff to return with that information to
inform the Comprehensive Plan. Once the Commission has agreed to a general format, staff
will start putting together the goals and objectives in that format for Commission review.
DISCUSSION - Format
The Board of Supervisors adopted a vision statement and goals which can be found in
Attachment D. Also in Attachment D is staff’s recommendation of how existing sub -goals can
fit under the Board’s headings of goals. If the Commission is in agreement with this format,
staff can begin to place sub-goals under the umbrella of this overarching vision and goals
statement. Staff will bring back the sub-goals for further discussion by the Commission.
DISCUSSION – Standard Land Use Categories
Since the Crozet Master Plan was adopted in 2004, Master Plans have been developed with
an expanding list of land use categories. This list became even larger with adoption of the
Places 29 Master Plan. One of the goals of this Update is to simplify and standardize the
categories for ease of use. At this time, the only plans which would be affected by a change
in the names of categories and colors on the map would be the Crozet Master Plan, the
Pantops Master Plan, and the Village of Rivanna Master Plan. There would be no change in
substance to any of these plans. The general descriptions of the land use categories would be
the same across all of the plans. Particular areas, such as Downtown Crozet and the Village
Center in the Village of Rivanna would include their own descriptions. Other specifics would
be stated in the Master Plans so that there would be no difference in expectations of the
plans with the modified colors and categories.
CPA 2013-01
PC February 14, 2012
Staff Report Page 11
Attachment E provides the recommended categories along with a chart showing how the
standard land use categories would be applied to the existing plans. Future charts showing
expected building heights and scale of development within the land use categories will follow
later in the update process. Staff is asking for a general affirmation of these categories as it
begins work on the southern urban neighborhoods plan. There may still be tweaking
necessary and staff will bring this information back to the Commission later in the update
process.
SCHEDULE
The Commission’s review schedule for the Comprehensive Plan is a very aggressive schedule,
especially when the work with the City and Livability Project is factored in. In order to stay on
this schedule, staff will be conducting outreach to the southern urban neighborhoods later in
the month to get input into their desires for a general land use plan. The results of their input
will be brought to the Commission in April.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION
The Planning Commission is asked to generally affirm the vision and goals format as well as
the land use categories for staff to begin the next steps needed with the plan.
ATTACHMENTS
ATTACHMENT A: Updated Table of Residential Units approved since 2001
ATTACHMENT B: Jobs-Housing Questionnaire 2011
ATTACHMENT C: July 26, 2011 Vision and Goals Statement
ATTACHMENT D: BOS Strategic Plan Vision and Goals and Staff Recommendations
ATTACHMENT E: Recommended Standard Land Use Categories
CPA 2013-00001 Comprehensive Plan Update
Planning Commission 7/26/11
Staff Report Page 1
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
STAFF REPORT
AGENDA TITLE: Comprehensive Plan
Update
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Worksession to review the schedule,
focus areas, and goals for
Comprehensive Plan update
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Benish, Echols, Sorrell
AGENDA DATE: July 26, 2011
ACTION: X INFORMATION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS: YES
BACKGROUND: According to the Code of Virginia, localities are required to review their
Comprehensive Plans every five years. The last adoption of all of the elements of the Comprehensive
Plan at the same time was in 1989. The Land Use element was last reviewed and adopted in its
entirety in 1996. Since 1996, the County has updated sections of the Comprehensive Plan as part of an
ongoing review.
An unintended result of the incremental approach to updating the Comprehensive Plan is that the
document has become very long, somewhat disjointed and difficult for the public to follow. In addition,
some sections of the Plan have not received a complete review since 1996. In February 2010, the
Board directed staff to make the update to the plan a priority project for the Community Development
Department.
DISCUSSION: Staff has begun the process for updating the Comprehensive Plan and this
worksession is the first in a series of upcoming worksessions. With this report and at the
worksession, staff intends to
a. Provide information on how this project relates to the Livability Project and City/County joint
comprehensive planning
b. Provide a summary of the recent citizen survey
c. Review a methodology for getting through the project, including focus areas
d. Review existing Comprehensive Plan goals and objectives in a more consolidated and
concise format than currently appears in the Comprehensive Plan
e. Ask if there are any areas which need to be revisited
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Commission review and provide feedback on the
proposed focus areas and methodology for framing the goals, objectives and strategies of the
Comprehensive Plan update. Staff asks that the Commission affirm the Focus Areas. Finally, staff
asks that the Commission review the consolidated goals and objectives to affirm or ask for
additional study in particular areas.
CPA 2013-00001 Comprehensive Plan Update
Planning Commission 7/26/11
Staff Report Page 2
STAFF PERSON: Benish, Echols, Sorrell
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: JULY 26, 2011
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE
BACKGROUND:
The Commonwealth of Virginia requires localities to have a Comprehensive Plan and to review
it every five years. As indicated in the Executive Summary, the last adoption of all elements of
the Comprehensive Plan at the same time was in 1989. The Land Use Section was redone in
1996. Since 1996, the County has updated the following sections:
Natural Resources and Cultural Assets (1999)
Land Use Plan (LUP) – Neighborhood Model (2001)
Affordable Housing Policy (2004)
Rural Area Plan (2005)
Transportation Section (2005)
Community Facilities (part) (2007)
Economic Development Policy (2009)
Land Use Plan – Four Master Plans (2004, 2008, 2010 and 2011)
The addition of each of these sections has added to the bulk of the plan which has become
somewhat unwieldy. In 2010, the Department of Community Development added the Comp.
Plan update to its work program for 2011 – 1013. In February 2011, Community Development
again reviewed its work program with the Board, noting the Comprehensive Plan review was
starting and provided the anticipated schedule.
In March 2011, staff introduced the Commission to the Livability Project which is being done by
the Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission (TJPDC) staff. TJPDC received a grant to
measure progress towards achieving the goals of the 1998 Sustainability Accords as well as
make recommendations on how to better achieve those goals. Because there is overlap
between the work of the Livability Project and both the City and County’s Comprehensive Plan
updates, Community Development is able to augment its staff with grant resources provided to
the PDC. For the County’s Comprehensive Plan Update, the PDC staff is assisting the City and
County by:
Setting up public input opportunities on topic areas of transportation, environmental
policies, land use, economic drivers, housing, and facilities-service provision.
Providing background information and mapping on areas of mutual interest between the
City, County, and UVA identified as:
1. land use where the entities abut
2. regional transportation including entrance corridors
3. environmental systems including greenways
4. housing and regional economic drivers
5. community facilities and services
CPA 2013-0001 Comprehensive Plan Update
Planning Commission 7/26/11
Staff Report Page 3
Staff will be bringing back information on these topics at joint meetings of the City and County
Planning Commissions. The next joint meeting is August 16, 2011. The remaining ones will be
in September 2011 and February and April 2012.
2011 ALBEMARLE COUNTY CITIZEN SURVEY
In 2011, the County contracted with International City/County Management Association (ICMA)
National Citizen Survey (The NCS) to conduct a survey of residents’ opinions about the
characteristics of the community and services provided by Albemarle County. The NCS was
developed by the National Research Center, Inc. in cooperation with the ICMA. The timing of
this statistically valid survey was such that the results would inform both the County’s strategic
and comprehensive planning processes.
The NCS survey is a more standardized approach than the County’s previous efforts, so the
results can be compared with benchmark communities across the nation. Throughout the
country, certain public services, such as public safety, tend to rank higher than other services,
so having the ability to compare the ranking of services between Albemarle County and
benchmark communities provides additional and significant information for planning purposes.
Provided under separate cover is Survey Report. Also attached (Attachment A) is a summary of
the survey results provided to the Board of Supervisors for their information and consideration
for their June “Board Retreat.” Likewise, the survey and summary is being provided to the
Commission for information and consideration as one form of public input which can used
during the update of the Comprehensive Plan.
METHODOLOGY AND GENERAL SCHEDULE FOR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE
Staff has developed the following methodology and proposed schedule for the update:
1. Review of existing Comprehensive Plan goals and objectives (consolidated) and
identification of any areas which need to be studied.
2. Review a list of the expansion area requests for initial familiarization by the Commission.
3. Receive general input at workshops for the Livability Project for Land Use, Environment,
Transportation, Economic Drivers, Housing, and Transportation from Sept. 2011 to
March 2012.
4. Between Sept. 2011 and March 2012, hold joint PC worksessions with the City on areas
of mutual interest
5. Between October 2011 and January 2012 hold separate worksessions with the PC on
the identified focus areas for the Albemarle Comprehensive Plan
6. From February 2012 to May 2012 staff will do the writing part of the Comprehensive
Plan to then bring back for PC review.
7. Expected public hearing(s) would be in the Summer/Fall of 2012 with expected adoption
by the Board in early 2013.
FOCUS AREAS
As with the Crozet Master Plan Update, staff is not anticipating changes to the County’s
overarching goals in the Comprehensive Plan. Discussion is expected in the following focus
areas where the Commission may make additional recommendations after study:
Interstate interchange policy
Industrial land designations
Capacity for development in the Development Areas and expansion area requests
Rural land use
CPA 2013-0001 Comprehensive Plan Update
Planning Commission 7/26/11
Staff Report Page 4
Urban agriculture
General land use and transportation for Neighborhoods 4, 5, 6 & 7 (including
potential reduction of the Development Area boundaries to remove the Biscuit Run
property)
In addition to the Focus Areas, staff plans to bring two other sets of changes to the Commission.
The proposed changes are 1) making sections of the comprehensive plan more “current” with
updated information and 2) making changes to the text and maps to standardize format and
reduce bulk. An example in the first area would be eliminating a strategy where action has
taken place, such as adoption of an ordinance to achieve a goal. has been pursued or an
objective has been satisfied. An example in the second area would be to standardize land use
colors and categories that are different among several master plans. All of this information is in
the attachment entitled, “Updates for Comprehensive Plan by Category”.
EXISTING GOALS AND STRATEGIES
All comprehensive planning efforts begin with a set of goals for a community. Albemarle is
fortunate to have a long history of land use planning on which to base land use and fiscal
decisions. Unfortunately, Albemarle also has at least 72 pages devoted to goals, objectives,
and strategies. Some of these goals, objectives, and strategies were developed at different
times and there is considerable overlap. In an effort to remove the overlap and concisely
state the goals, staff has consolidated the statements into the attached 20 page set of goals,
and objectives (Attachment B). The topics fall into 7 major categories:
Vision and Core Values
Growth Management
Natural, Cultural, and Historic Resources
Economic Development and Housing
Land Use
Transportation
Community Facilities
In some cases, staff has retained the exact wording of a goal or objective that is in the
existing Comprehensive Plan. In other cases, where a goal is stated several different ways
in several different sections of the document, staff has tried to state the goal in a way that is
simple but retains the intended meaning. Also, as staff has consolidated statements, it has
also attempted to add statements which reflect County policy but which are not stated
specifically as goals at this time. For example, the Biodiversity goals in the Natural, Cultural,
and Historic Resources section are written in a way which suggests that the goals are the
same for both the Rural Areas and Development Areas. To better reflect that these goals
are not necessarily the same, staff has added words. Wherever staff has added language, it
is noted. Otherwise, the goals can be found in the sections of the Comprehensive Plan that
are identified in Attachment B.
To begin the goals section, staff has added a “vision” and “core values” page. A vision
statement and core values has appeared in strategic plans for the County many times. In
the attachment, staff has attempted to state the vision once again and reflect the core
values that have been expressed many times by the community. The Commission is asked
to affirm the vision and core values as part of the overall comprehensive plan update.
CPA 2013-0001 Comprehensive Plan Update
Planning Commission 7/26/11
Staff Report Page 5
With the consolidated goals, staff is also attempting to standardize the format for stating
goals and actions. Staff has translated the terms: principles, values, goals, objectives,
policies, actions, strategies, and recommendations into a 3-tiered hierarchy. The hierarchy
is: goals, objectives and strategies. At present, only goals and objectives are included in the
Attachment for ease in reviewing the “big picture”. As focus areas are discussed and
sections of the plan brought back to the Commission, the strategies will be added back in.
For clarity,
Goals are seen as generalized statements of community values that set direction and
indicate a general end to which the County will direct effort.
Objectives define a specific end or target and can be an intermediate step or one of
several steps to reaching a defined goal. Objectives can be a means to measure
progress for goal attainment and serve as a guide for public policy action.
Strategies provide a plan or method for taking action to achieve
objectives that realize future goals.
As mentioned previously, the strategies are not included with Attachment B, but will be brought
back to the Commission by topic during the review process.
Staff asks that the Commission review the draft goals and objectives. If there are areas where
staff has not adequately or accurately captured the essence of the goals and objectives from the
Comprehensive Plan, they should be identified. If there are places where the Commission
wishes to revisit a goal or objective, staff asks that they be discussed at the meeting.
ONGOING WORK OF STAFF:
At present, staff is working on the capacity analysis for land use and initial reviews of the
expansion area requests. Staff will be contacting the applicants for additional information on
their individual requests in early August. The capacity analysis and the additional information
will be brought to the Commission in October.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends the Commission review and provide feedback on the proposed focus
areas and methodology for framing the goals, objectives and strategies of the
Comprehensive Plan update. Staff asks that the Commission affirm the Focus Areas.
Finally, staff asks that the Commission review the consolidated goals and objectives to
affirm or ask for additional study in particular areas.
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment A: National Citizen Survey for Albemarle County 2011
Attachment B: Draft 2012 Comprehensive Plan Vision and Goals by Category
CPA201300001 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE
Purpose of Worksession Report
Section 1: Current Demographic and Land Use Information Report
Section 2: Trends and Projections for Future Populations; Land Capacity for Growth Report
Section 3: Expansion Area Requests Report which include the following areas:
Neighborhood 7 Expansion Area Map
Neighborhood 7 Expansion Area Requests
Polo Grounds Road-Hollymead Expansion Area Map
Polo Grounds Road-Hollymead Expansion Area Requests
Pantops Expansion Area Map
Pantops Expansion Area Requests
Neighborhood 4 & 5 Expansion Area Map
Neighborhood 4 & 5 Expansion Area Requests
Shadwell Area Expansion Area Map
Shadwell Area Expansion Area Requests
OCTOBER 11, 2011
PLANNING COMMISSION WORKSESSION
CPA 2013-01
PC November 29, 2011
Staff Report Page 1
STAFF PERSONS: ECHOLS, SORRELL
PLANNING COMMISSION WORKSESSION: NOVEMBER 29, 2011
CPA 2013-00001: COMPREHENSIVE PLAN REVISION: RURAL AREAS AND THE ECONOMIC
VITALITY ACTION PLAN
BACKGROUND
The Board of Supervisors has been actively promoting business development as a
response to the economic downturn of the last few years. In 2009, the Board updated
the Economic Development Policy and in 2010, it adopted an Economic Vitality Action
Plan. One of the objectives of the Economic Vitality Action Plan is to work with
stakeholders to promote agriculture, the local agricultural industry (at a scal e
compatible with the county’s Rural Areas) and tourism as part of a comprehensive
economic development program that recognizes the importance to the rural economy.
Since the Rural Areas plan was amended in 2007, the County has actively been involved
in increasing agribusiness opportunities. Over the last two years, the Zoning Ordinance
has been amended to broaden opportunities for special events at farm wineries, farm
sales and farmers markets, and home occupations. The Community and Business
Partnerships office has been involved in helping develop an Artisan Trail and promoting
the wine industry as well as helping with other business development.
PURPOSE OF WORKSESSION
The purpose of this worksession is to set general direction on the issues discussed below
and assess if any changes are needed to the goals, recommendations and objectives in
the Plan. The first part of the worksession will be to discuss tourism which is referenced
in several parts of the Comprehensive Plan but not called out as a specific objective.
The second part of the worksession will be to discuss expanded uses as part of the
target areas promoting agriculture, local agricultural industry and tourism. After
discussion, the Commission may wish to recommend changes to the Plan that would
provide future guidance for zoning text amendments. The Guiding Principles from Rural
Areas section of the Comprehensive Plan are provided as Attachment A. The Economic
Vitality Action Plan is provided as Attachment B.
Tourism
In several sections of the Comprehensive Plan, tourism is cited as one reason for
protection and maintenance of natural, cultural, historic, and scenic resources. A list of
places in the Comprehensive Plan where tourism is cited is provided as Attachment C.
CPA 2013-01
PC November 29, 2011
Staff Report Page 2
The rich historic resources in the County, the success of the wine industry, and visitors
to the University of Virginia, have increased tourism activity in recent years. One of the
challenges for Rural Area protection is finding the r ight balance between promoting
tourism and retaining the quality and character of the Rural Areas. Many of the features
which tourists enjoy, such as mountain views, rural roads, and clean water are the same
ones that can be negatively affected by construction activity, traffic, and major water
and wastewater activities.
At present, there is no independent section in the Comprehensive Plan related to
tourism activity. In light of the emphasis placed on this activity by the Board of
Supervisors, staff believes that more policy direction on tourism should be placed in the
Rural Commercial Uses portion of the Plan. In developing or expanding policy, the Plan
provides the following guidance:
GUIDING OBJECTIVES FOR FURTHER POLICY DEVELOPMENT:
Ensure that Rural Areas policies are developed in accord with the Guiding Principles
(page 11) and the Facilities Planning goal of the Land Use Plan (“[s]trongly support and
effectively implement the County’s growth management priorities in the planning and
provision of transportation infrastructure, public facilities, and public utilities”—p.5,
Land Use Plan), and that policy changes are designed to avoid any increased demand for
public infrastructure in the Rural Areas.
Ensure that Rural Areas policies are developed in accord with the Natural Resources and
Cultural Assets Plan, and protect resources identified as important in the Critical
Resources Inventory.
STRATEGIES:
The County should:
1. Continue and increase current efforts on behalf of agricultural, forestal, open-space and
natural resource protection through existing and new Codes and programs.
2. Amend Codes and programs affecting the Rural Areas and the County as a whole to
protect biodiversity, reflect the recommendations of the Biodiversity Work Group and
the standing Biodiversity Committee once adopted, and incorporate policy responses to
issues raised by the ongoing biological resources inventory.
3. Amend codes and programs affecting the Rural Areas to protect historic resources and
reflect the recommendations of the Historic Preservation Plan.
4. Protect potential trail areas as recommended in the Greenways Plan.
CPA 2013-01
PC November 29, 2011
Staff Report Page 3
5. Locate trails to provide public access to natural and cultural resources without negatively
impacting those resources.
6. Protect scenic resources for residents and visitors. Approach protection of scenic
resources by fostering viable rural economies, healthy ecosystems and protected cultural
resources.
Staff believes the section on tourism should be inserted into the Rural Commercial part
of the Rural Areas Plan. The current section related to Rural Commercial activities is
provided as Attachment E. A new section on tourism would
Affirmatively state that tourism provides for economic vitality in the County’s
Rural Areas and, within the confines of the existing goals and objectives for the
Rural Areas, is a benefit to the County.
Emphasize the importance of a linkage between tourism and agriculture, historic
and scenic preservation, and maintaining rural character.
Provide guidance on how for tourism activities can be expanded without
negatively impacting the resources which attract tourists.
As with other rural commercial uses, activities and improvements would need to be:
reversible (so that the land can easily return to farming, forestry, conservation, or
other preferred rural uses);
scaled and sited to cause minimal impacts on their rural surroundings;
minimal in their public health and environmental impacts; and
viable with no increase in public infrastructure or services, either at time of
approval or later.
Expanded Uses in the Rural Areas as Part of the Economic Vitality Action Plan
Agri-business Roundtable
One of the strategies stated in the Economic Vitality Action Plan is to complete a series
of roundtables with individuals and groups that have an interest in agriculture, the local
agriculture industry, and tourism in the County. To that end, a roundtable session was
held on November 1, 2011 with eighteen members of the public who represented
various sectors of the Rural Areas including three vineyards, two orchards, three
working farms, a campground/resort, a cidery, and the local food hub. Also present was
staff from the Southern Environmental Law Center, the Piedmont Environmental
Council, and the Rivanna River Basin Commission. Two interested residents of the Rural
Areas, including the chair of the Natural Heritage Committee were also present. A
complete set of notes from that roundtable is provided as Attachment E.
CPA 2013-01
PC November 29, 2011
Staff Report Page 4
The group in attendance made a number of suggestions that relate to the
Comprehensive Plan such as ways in which the County can support and promote
tourism, providing educational opportunities about sustainable agriculture, provide for
more public trails within the Rural Areas and loosening restrictions on certain uses
which are identified in the zoning ordinance. A list of some of the suggestions is as
follows:
Provide uniform signage to better promote tourism
Work with neighboring localities on regional promotion of rural uses like
wineries, cideries, and breweries
Provide more educational opportunities to support sustainable agricultural
practices, such as “demonstration farms”
Provide public trails to destination points like the trail to Monticello
Allow for non-resident Bed and Breakfasts (B&Bs) and Inns
Increase opportunities for food service in the Rural Areas for wineries, cideries,
crossroads communities, and in conjunction with B&Bs and Inns, especially if they
are serving locally grown foods
Increase opportunities for income-producing use of historic structures
Provide more opportunities for agricultural-industrial uses, such as distilleries
Provide more opportunities for recreational uses
Provide better opportunities for special events
Persons in attendance understood and expressed the importance of scale, sustainability,
and local production. One person reminded the group that water quality is a key
component to the economic goals of rural areas – poor stream health will adversely
affect agricultural and tourism activities . Another attendee cautioned that there be
realistic expectations in the types of regulations that can be enforced, should zoning
regulations be changed.
Not all of the items raised by the public at the roundtable are discussed in this report.
Business development activities related to signage, marketing, and promotion are not
addressed here because they relate more to implementation than policy development.
The topic of public trail development will be discussed later in the process with other
County trails and greenways. The following sections of the report concentrate on “uses”
that would be affected by the Rural Areas Plan recommendations.
CPA 2013-01
PC November 29, 2011
Staff Report Page 5
Alternative Uses Related to Agribusiness and Tourism
Staff has analyzed the Rural Commercial Activities section of the Comprehensive Plan in
conjunction with the Economic Vitality Action Plan. In reviewing the section on
Alternative Uses and hearing from the public at the Roundtable, staff believes further
guidance on tourist related activities and agricultural industrial uses is needed in the
Plan. If adopted, the guidance will help with future zoning text amendments.
Alternative uses which staff has analyzed are: transient lodging and the need for
resident managers, restaurants including those in association with wineries or in historic
structures, areas of assembly, and agricultural/industrial uses.
Transient Lodging
Transient lodging is currently allowed in the zoning ordinance by-right as “tourist
lodging” which is essentially a Bed and Breakfast (B&B). The B&B must be secondary
to the residential use, which means that someone must live in the home to manage
the business. No more than five bedrooms are allowed to be used for the B&B.
These requirements are in place to limit the scale of the use in terms of water usage,
wastewater disposal, and traffic impacts as well as promote stewardship of the land.
Because of the small number of bedrooms allowed in the B&B operation, the
building remains a house when the owner no longer wishes to operate the B&B.
At the roundtable, and over time, requests have been made to increase the number
of bedrooms allowed for transient lodging to the level of an “inn”. Inns are like small
motels and may or may not have a resident manager. They are currently allowed by
special use permit in the Rural Areas if a building historically has been used as an inn
and is located in a historic landmark identified in the Comprehensive Plan. The
structure is to be restored as faithfully as possible to the architectural character of
the period. Staff believes that consideration should be given to allow for inns in
historic landmarks, regardless of whether they have been used historically as an inn.
This commercial use of a historic building would provide income for the owner to
help defray restoration and maintenance costs.
In consideration of how large the inn should be, impacts on water, roads, fire/rescue
services, and neighboring rural properties would need to be assessed. The larger the
facility, the greater the need for water for guests, for food preparation, for laundry,
and for sanitization of dishes. Disposal of the wastewater could be problematic as
well. Building code requirements increase for fire safety and there is an increase in
the need for fire suppression services in the event of a fire. Parking needs and
CPA 2013-01
PC November 29, 2011
Staff Report Page 6
outdoor activities would need to be minimal so as to retain as much of the rural
character of the area as possible. Staff notes that the Historic Preservation
Committee has not reviewed this concept and their input would be essential before
amending the Comprehensive Plan to include this recommendation.
At present, staff does not see a need to change the requirements for B&Bs, including
the need for a “resident manager”. Resident managers are usually homeowners
who have a vested interest in maintaining those aspects of the Rural Areas that
make it special. The income also helps to allow for homeowners to more easily
maintain their property which also furthers goals in the Comprehensive Plan. Staff
believes that having a non-resident manager may open the door for having the Rural
Areas properties become commercial investments where the owner does not accept
or embrace the County’s policies to retain the Rural Areas as Rural.
Food Service in the Rural Areas
As part of efforts to promote tourism and develop new business, the County receives
many requests for restaurants in the Rural Areas. Restaurants which are open to the
public are prohibited in the County’s Rural Areas. This prohibition relates to water
needs and wastewater disposal as well as the impacts of food service delivery trucks
and potential need for fire and rescue service. A restaurant must have a large water
supply for food preparation, sanitization, restrooms, and customer needs. The
potential for fires is greater and fire suppression service is much lower in the Rural
Areas than in the Development Areas. Historically there have also been concerns
about the potential commercialization of the Rural Areas. Restaurants that serve
food in historic taverns and private clubs is allowed. Limited food service is allowed
in conjunction with wineries and country stores.
At the Roundtable held in early November, staff heard from several winery owners
who desire to have expanded opportunities for food-pairing with wine-tasting. At
present food pairing with wine-tasting is not prohibited. Such a use is allowed so
long as Health Department regulations can be met. Primary issues for on-site food
preparation are the need for water to wash and sanitize dishes, water for
consumption which must be routinely tested, and commercial kitchen requirements.
Some of the winery owners were not aware of the distinctions between zoning and
Health Department requirements at the Roundtable. Staff is working to develop a
presentation for local wineries in relation to both zoning and Health Department
requirements to assist their understanding of food service on site.
CPA 2013-01
PC November 29, 2011
Staff Report Page 7
Staff believes that “destination” restaurants are not appropriate in the Rural Areas,
especially large restaurants, franchises, or restaurants with a potentially large
clientele. However, there may be instances where restaurants are appropriate at a
small scale and in a particular location. Conversion of a historic structure to a
restaurant might make preservation and maintenance of the building possible. A
small café might be needed in a remote part of the County which could help serve
needs of rural residents without those residents needing to travel into the
Development Areas. The impacts of food delivery trucks, water usage, waste water
disposal, parking, and traffic would need to be analyzed. As with inns, the Historic
Preservation Committee should be consulted prior to decisions made about historic
structures. Further research is needed to establish parameters that relate to the
Rural Area goals and allow for a small scale restaurant use to be viable in the
County’s Rural Areas.
Distilleries and Breweries
Interest in placing distilleries and breweries in the Rural Areas has also been
expressed by some property owners. One specific request was from a vintner who
wishes to distill brandy (which is made from grapes) and another request was for
distilling cider. Both of these distilleries have a direct relationship to agricultural
products being produced and neither would have a large water requirement.
Distillation of corn or other crops not locally grown would be different and have a
much greater impact on trucking and water needs. The scale of the grape or apple
distillation operation would need to be small enough that it didn’t generate a major
trucking or water demand. The Commonwealth’s Alcoholic Beverage Commission
would also need to be consulted to see if distilleries would be allowed as “farm
wineries”.
Microbreweries with restaurants are very popular in some nearby rural counties
which has raised the issue here. Full-scale breweries use complex manufacturing
processes and large quantities of water. These are more “industrial -type” uses that
more appropriately belong in the Development Areas.
Microbreweries share some characteristics with wineries but the difference between
them has to do with crops grown locally and the need for a major water supply.
Hops and grains for beer typically are not grown in Albemarle County and the
quantity needed for a brewery would likely require a fair amount of trucking in of
those products. If a microbrewery were to be developed at a small scale where
tasting resembled that of a winery, it might be an appropriate use. If it needs a
CPA 2013-01
PC November 29, 2011
Staff Report Page 8
restaurant use in order to be viable, it would need to be located in the Development
Areas.
Special Events
Several persons suggested that greater flexibility should be allowed for non -farm
wineries in hosting special events. Examples given were corn mazes and apple
festivals. By special use permit, the County allows for up to 24 events per year for no
more than 150 people in the Rural Areas. In contrast, wineries are allowed by-right
to have as many events as they like with no more than 200 people. Requests for
more than 200 people can be granted by special use permit. While these events can
be permitted by special use permit, some agribusiness owners believe that obtaining
a special use permit is too expensive and, even if one can be obtained, the
limitations are too restrictive. Staff notices a possible inequity between farm
wineries and other agricultural or tourism uses and believes further study is needed
to see if the same thresholds for farm wineries could or should be allowed in
conjunction with other types of special events.
Low-impact Commercial Recreation
Staff has been approached by several potential business owners the last few years
about obtaining approval for recreational uses in the Rural Areas. Some of these
uses were zip-lines, mountain bike trails, and canoe rentals. The zoning ordinance
currently allows these type of uses under the heading of “swim, golf, tennis, or
similar athletic facilities”. At a minimum, the Zoning Ordinance definitions should be
reworked to provide better guidance on outdoor commercial activities which could
be approved by special use permit. Additional study may uncover low-impact uses
which might be allowed by-right under certain circumstances.
Areas of Assembly
One other topic which has been raised many times in recent years has to do with the
special use permit requirements for places of worship. Small churches desiring to
add restroom facilities or a social hall sometimes must go through a special use
permit process even though no increase in membership is expected. Any ch urch
without a special use permit which desires any kind of expansion must go through a
special use permit process. The SP process can be onerous for a small place of
worship.
There are other areas of assembly that share characteristics with places of worship.
They include community centers, clubs/lodges/civic/fraternal organizations, some
CPA 2013-01
PC November 29, 2011
Staff Report Page 9
commercial recreational activities, outdoor theaters, and private schools. Staff
believes that there are thresholds that would establish an appropriate scale for the
Rural Areas that would allow for by-right church use. The goal would be that areas
of assembly expected to have substantive impacts on the Rural Area character,
transportation systems and natural and cultural resources would need to go through
the special use permit process. Analysis has not been done on those potential
thresholds, but this activity could be made a higher priority in the staff’s work
program to result in a zoning text amendment.
Recommendations
As mentioned earlier in this report, the “big-picture” Rural Areas goals are proposed to
remain intact. Staff is recommending that additional language be added related to
tourism as an objective under the category of Rural Commercial Uses. At this juncture,
staff recommends that more study be done on some expanded uses in the Rural Areas .
While staff cannot support changes to the current tourist lodging regulations, the
following recommendations can be made:
Explore ways to allow for Inns in historic structures. It should be noted that the
Historic Preservation Committee’s input would be essential in any
recommendations to allow for conversions of historic properties. Care will be
needed to maintain the historic character and qualities of the structure, site and
setting. Inns in historic structures would need to cause minimal impacts on their
rural surroundings, have minimal public health and environmental impacts so
that they could viable with no increase in public infrastructure or services, either
at time of approval or later. Care should be taken such that the Inn could be
converted back to a residential use or converted to another use appropriate for
the Rural Areas.
Explore circumstances in which small scale, “non-destination” restaurants would
be appropriate. A “destination restaurant” is one which would be looking to
develop a large clientele which have large needs for parking, water supply, and
large drainfields. Because of Health Department requirements for water and for
wastewater disposal as well as parking needs, it may be difficult to identify
appropriate locations. However, there may be places where a small scale
restaurant, potentially in an existing building, could fit in. Such a restaurant
would need to have minimal impact to natural, cultural, and scenic resources and
fit in with the rural character of that area.
CPA 2013-01
PC November 29, 2011
Staff Report Page 10
Assess zoning restrictions for special events to see if changes might be needed to
create a greater equity with farm wineries.
Explore the possibilities of allowing for distilleries in association with orchard
production. Any operation would need to be at the same scale as that of a farm
winery. More research is needed in this area because of potential Alcoholic
Beverage Commission regulations which might prohibit the distilling of spirits at
farm winery locations. Trucking needs would also need to be considered.
Revise the Zoning Ordinance to more appropriately address rural commercial
recreational activities. Explore opportunities for low-impact activities which
might be allowable by-right within established parameters.
Establish thresholds which would allow for by-right areas of assembly. Special
use permits should continue to be required for large-scale areas of assembly to
assess appropriateness in terms of impacts on transportation and
water/wastewater needs.
Planning Commission Action
The Planning Commission is asked to discuss possibility of adding a section to the plan
on tourism and to discuss expanding uses in the Rural Areas. Recommendations from
this worksession will be used in development the updated draft of the Comprehensive
Plan.
Attachments
Attachment A: Rural Areas Guiding Principles
Attachment B: Economic Vitality Action Plan
Attachment C: Sections of the Comprehensive Plan that cite Tourism
Attachment D: Section of the Rural Areas Plan relating to Rural Commercial activities
Attachment E: Notes from Agri-tourism Roundtable held November 1, 2011