HomeMy WebLinkAbout2013-9-11Tentative
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
T E N T A T I V E
SEPTEMBER 11, 2013
COUNTY OFFICE BUILDING
AUDITORIUM
3:30 p.m.
1. Call to Order.
Work Session:
2. CPA-2013-01. Comprehensive Plan Update.
3. Closed Meeting.
6:00 p.m.
4. Call to Order.
5. Certify Closed Meeting.
6. Pledge of Allegiance.
7. Moment of Silence.
8. Adoption of Final Agenda.
9. Brief Announcements by Board Members.
10. Recognitions:
a. Proclamation recognizing September, 2013 as National Emergency Preparedness Month.
b. Proclamation recognizing September, 2013 as World Alzheimer’s Awareness Month.
c. Proclamation recognizing Women’s Equality Day.
11. From the Public: Matters Not Listed for Public Hearing on the Agenda.
12. Consent Agenda (on next sheet).
PUBLIC HEARINGS:
13. SP-2013-00006. Commonwealth Offices (Sign #24). PROPOSAL: Construct a
professional office building on 1.15 acres under Section 18.2.2.11 of zoning ordinance. No dwelling units proposed.
ZONING: R-15 Residential – 15 units/acre, Professional Office by special use permit; AIA Airport Impact Area – Overlay to
minimize adverse impacts to both the airport and the surrounding land. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Urban Density
Residential – residential (6.01 – 34 units/ acre); supporting uses such as religious institutions, schools, commercial, office
and service uses in Neighborhood 1. LOCATION: The property is located on Commonwealth Drive (State Route 1315),
approximately .35 mile north of the Hydraulic Road-Commonwealth Drive intersection. TAX MAP/PARCEL:
061w0030001400 MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Jack Jouett.
14. ZTA-2013-00004. Family Day Homes. Ordinance to amend Secs. 3.1, Definitions, 5.1.06, Day
care centers, family day homes, 10.2.1, By right (RA), 12.2.1 By right (VR), 13.2.1, By right (R-1), 14.2.1, By right (R-2),
15.2.1, By right (R-4), 16.2.1, By right (R-6), 17.2.1, By right (R-10), 18.2.1, By right (R-15), 19.3.1, By right (PRD), 20.3.1,
By right (PUD), 20A.6, Permitted uses (NMD), and 20B.2, Permitted uses (DCD) of, and add Sec. 5.1.56, Family day
homes to, Chapter 18, Zoning, of the Albemarle County Code. This ordinance would amend Sec. 3.1 to revise the
definition of “family day home,” amend Sec. 5.1.06, to reorganize the section and revise it to apply only to day care centers
but not family day homes, add Sec. 5.1.56 to establish regulations and performance standards for family day homes
file:////coba-webapp01/BOSForms/Agenda/2013Files/0911/0.0_Agenda.htm (1 of 3) [10/5/2020 1:24:14 PM]
Tentative
providing care for 6 to 12 children related to traffic generation, parking, entrance and access, State licensure, and fire
official inspections, and establish procedures for the review and approval of family day homes, and amend the district
regulations delineated above (10.2.1 through 20B.2) to allow family day homes as a by right use subject to the substantive
and procedural requirements of Sec. 5.1.56.
15. ZMA-2012-00004. Avon Park II (Signs #89&91). PROPOSAL: Rezone 5.262 acres from
R-6 zoning district for which allows residential uses at a density of 6 units per acre to PRD zoning district which allows
residential uses with limited commercial uses at a density of 3 - 34 units/acre. 32 maximum units proposed for a density of
6 units/acre. ENTRANCE CORRIDOR: Yes. PROFFERS: Yes. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Neighborhood Density
Residential– residential (3-6 units/acre); supporting uses such as religious institutions, schools, and other small-scale non-
residential uses. LOCATION: 1960 Avon Street Extended. Approximately 1000 feet north of the intersection of Avon Street
Extended and Route 20, south of existing Avon Court. TAX MAP/PARCEL: 09000000003100. MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT:
Scottsville (deferred from August 14, 2013).
Discussion/Action Item:
16. SDP-2013-41. Stonefield-Special Exception to Authorize Variations from Application Plan and Code of
Development (ZMA-2011-7).
17. From the Board: Committee Reports and Matters Not Listed on the Agenda.
18. From the County Executive: Report on Matters Not Listed on the Agenda.
19. Adjourn.
CONSENT AGENDA
FOR APPROVAL:
12.1 Approval of Minutes: July 3, 2013.
12.2 Resolution to accept road(s) in The Farms at Turkey Run Subdivision into the Secondary System of Highways.
12.3 Resolution to adopt a revised Administrative Plan for the Housing Choice Voucher Program.
FOR INFORMATION:
12.4 ZMA-2013-0006. Este Park - Proffer Amendment (deferred at applicant’s request to October 2, 2013).
12.5 Board-to-Board, September, 2013 Monthly Communications Report from School Board, School Board
Chairman.
CLICK HERE TO SIGN UP TO SPEAK AT PUBLIC HEARINGS ONLY
file:////coba-webapp01/BOSForms/Agenda/2013Files/0911/0.0_Agenda.htm (2 of 3) [10/5/2020 1:24:14 PM]
Tentative
Return to Top of Agenda
Return to Board of Supervisors Home Page
Return to County Home Page
file:////coba-webapp01/BOSForms/Agenda/2013Files/0911/0.0_Agenda.htm (3 of 3) [10/5/2020 1:24:14 PM]
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
CPA-2013-01 Comprehensive Plan Update
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Work session – Background, Values and Vision,
and Growth Management
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Foley, Walker, Davis, Kamptner, Graham,
Cilimberg, Benish, Echols
PRESENTER (S): Elaine Echols
LEGAL REVIEW: Yes
AGENDA DATE:
September 11, 2013
ACTION: X INFORMATION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS: Yes
REVIEWED BY:
BACKGROUND:
At the Board’s August 14, 2013 work session, staff provided an overview of the Comprehensive Plan update as
recommended by the Planning Commission and options for the Board to undertake its review of the Plan document. It
was the consensus of the Board to “review each chapter and/or policy issue raised by Board members followed by a
public hearing.”
It was noted by staff at the Board work session that the Planning Commission still needed to complete its review of the
following sections of the Comprehensive Plan document: Southern and Western Neighborhoods Master Plan, the
Implementation Chapter, and the Plan Summary. On August 27, 2013, the Commission recommended approval of all
three sections with minor changes as indicated in the August 27 Planning Commission Action Memo (Attachment A). The
revised chapters have been previously provided to the Board separately to be added to the Board’s July 23, 2013 draft of
the Comprehensive Plan document.
STRATEGIC PLAN:
Mission: To enhance the well-being and quality of life for all citizens through the provision of the highest level of public
service consistent with the prudent use of public funds.
DISCUSSION:
The purpose of this work session is for staff to present to the Board the Planning Commission’s recommended
changes to the first three chapters of the Plan: Background, Values and Vision, and Growth Management
(Attachments B, C and D). For each chapter, staff will note any major differences between the existing and proposed
recommendations, specific changes from the existing to recommended Goals, Objectives and Strategies, and
significant issues/topics associated with each chapter . (See Attachment E)
BUDGET IMPACT:
The Comprehensive Plan establishes the framework for potential public investment through strategies and
recommendations for future work program initiatives, capital improvements and public services. Initial estimates
of the cost and timing for capital improvements are provided in the Plan and the associated individual Master
Plans.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff requests that the Board reach a consensus regarding its desired changes to the first three chapters of the
Comprehensive Plan Update so that staff can prepare a final draft for a future public hearing.
ATTACHMENTS:
A - Planning Commission Action Memo from August 27, 2013
B - Revised Background Chapter, dated September 4, 2013
C - Revised Values and Vision Chapter, dated September 4, 2013
D - Revised Growth Management Chapter, dated September 4, 2013
E - Comparison on Growth Management Goals, Objectives and Strategies from Existing Plan to Proposed Plan
PC minutes of April 2 and April 23, 2013
Return to agenda
ATTACHMENT A
BOS September 11, 2013
FINAL PC ACTION MEMO 8-27-2013 1
FINAL ACTIONS
Planning Commission Meeting of August 27, 2013
AGENDA ITEM/ACTION
FOLLOW-UP ACTION
1. Call to Order.
Meeting was called to order at 6:00
p.m. by Mr. Morris, Chair. PC
members present were Mr. Morris,
Mr. Lafferty, Vice-Chair; Mr. Dotson,
Mr. Loach, Mr. Smith, Mr. Randolph
and Mr. Franco. Ms. Monteith was
present.
Staff present was Elaine Echols,
Andy Sorrell, Sharon Taylor, Wayne
Cilimberg and Greg Kamptner.
2. From the Public: Matters Not Listed
for Public Hearing on the Agenda.
The following individual spoke:
Brian Roy, 1647 Hubbard Court,
offered a letter of support for the
proposed changes to the
Comprehensive Plan as it affects the
Southern and W estern Areas of the
County, particularly in the area
where Light Industrial is being
proposed and modified so it will be
more flexible. (Attachment A - on
file with the printed minutes in the
office of the clerk.)
Clerk:
No action required
3. Consent Agenda
Approval of Minutes: June 11, 2013
APPROVED CONSENT AGENDA, by a
vote of 7:0.
Clerk:
Finalize Minutes for signature – June 11,
2013
3. Work Session
CPA 2013 -01 Comprehensive Plan
Update
Review of Southern and Western
Neighborhoods Master Plan,
Implementation Chapter, and Summary
RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF CPA-
2013-00001 Comp Plan Update for
Southern and Western
Clerk:
Action Letter – CPA-2013-00001 -
recommended approval of the
Implementation Chapter, the Summary,
and the Southern and Western
Neighborhoods Master Plan as
recommended by staff with changes
shown in Attachment 1.
The matter will go before the Board of
Supervisors at a date to be determined.
ATTACHMENT A
BOS September 11, 2013
FINAL PC ACTION MEMO 8-27-2013 2
Neighborhoods Master Plan, by a vote
of 7:0, as recommended by staff with the
changes shown in Attachment 1.
RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF CPA-
2013-00001 Comp Plan Update for
Chapter 13 Implementation, by a vote
of 7:0, as recommended by staff with the
changes shown in Attachment 1.
RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF CPA-
2013-00001 Comp Plan Update for the
Summary, by a vote of 4:3, (Dotson,
Morris and Lafferty voted nay) using the
short version plus paragraphs 2, 3, and
5 from Attachment C in the staff
information and with reference to the
Virginia Code sections applicable to the
Comprehensive Plan.
4. Old Business
None
Staff:
None
5. New Business
Long Range Transportation Plan
Meeting to be held on August 28,
2013 from 5 to 7 p.m. at the Water
Street Location.
Stonefield Community Meeting
associated with their latest rezoning
request to be held on August 28,
2013 at 5 p.m. in room #235.
Rivanna Village meeting to be held on
August 28, 2013 at 7 p.m. at the
Rivanna Firehouse.
No meeting on Tuesday, September
3, 2013
THE NEXT PLANNING
COMMISSION MEETING WILL BE
ON TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 10,
2013 AT 6:00 p.m.
Staff:
None
6. Adjourn to September 10, 2013, 6:00
p.m.
The meeting was adjourned at 7:40
p.m.
Attachment 1 – CPA-2013-00001 Comp Plan Update Work Session – Review of
Southern and Western Neighborhoods Plan, Implementation, and Summary Draft –
Comments and Recommendations
ATTACHMENT A
BOS September 11, 2013
FINAL PC ACTION MEMO 8-27-2013 3
ATTACHMENT 1 –
CPA-2013-00001 Comp Plan Work Session – Comments and Recommendations for
Southern and Western Neighborhoods Plan, Implementation, and Summary Draft.
The Planning Commission held a work session on CPA -2013-00001 Comprehensive
Plan Update to review the following:
Southern and Western Neighborhoods Master Plan,
Implementation Chapter, and
Summary
Staff provided an overview chapter by chapter and answered Commission questions.
Staff Overview/Planning Commission Questions
Planning Commission discussion and consideration of recommendation
Commission Comments
The Planning Commission reviewed the Comprehensive Plan draft of the three sections
individually and provided the following recommended changes:
Southern and Western Neighborhoods
1. Improve map in Figure 1 in A-8-1 to better distinguish the different neighborhoods by
using different colors.
2. Improve Area B map to make blue and red colors the same shade throughout.
3. Page A.8.11; update the community facilities to document the upcoming closing of
the Ivy Landfill.
4. Page A.8.12; add trail connections to other master planned areas that appear on the
map, such as Schenk’s Branch trail.
5. On Figure 7, make note that the text of the plan includes additional details which
relate to the Land Use Plan.
6. On page A.8.27, note that the floodplain is included in the area shown in green.
7. On page A.8.35 as well as other places, replace the term “steep slopes” with “critical
slopes.”
8. Page A.8.48, Sunset-Fontaine Ave. Connector Road, eliminate the second “not” in
the sentence which begins, “There are four main reasons that staff from
Charlottesville, Albemarle County, and UVA are…”
9. For the inset maps, please put the figure number on the right hand side.
10. In A-8-11 under the water and sewer service, make reference to the loca tion for
additional information in the Comprehensive Plan and correct typo that says,
“Rugged Mountain Reservoir.”
11. Provide a reference in Land Use Table A-8-20 that there is text in the master plans
that further explains the expectations provided in the land use table at different
locations. Also correct the photographic reference of First National Bank to Virginia
National Bank.
12. Under Transportation Improvements, mention the potential widening of Route 29 on
the Route 250 Bypass being studied in conjunct ion with the Long Range
ATTACHMENT A
BOS September 11, 2013
FINAL PC ACTION MEMO 8-27-2013 4
Transportation Plan. Such a widening project hasn’t been reviewed by the public.
The upcoming Long Range Transportation Plan activities will bring this project to
light.
Implementation Chapter
1. Add a note which indicates that Indicators of Progress for Growth Management are
found throughout the document.
2. Natural Resource Priorities – change “1991” in Strategy 1b to “1998.”
3. Natural Resource Priorities -- add Strategy 1d to the list of priorities. “Promote the
concept of water conservation and pollution prevention as a community wide issue.”
4. Historic, Cultural, and Scenic Resources Implementation Priorities – add a strategy
or add to Strategy 1c wording that emphasizes the need to retain “significa nt historic
records contained in County archives . . .”
5. Historic, Cultural, and Scenic Resources Implementation Indicators – Add Route 250
East and Route 22/231 to Strategy 7a.
6. Economic Development Implementation Priorities – add all target industries to
Strategy 2c.
7. Economic Development Implementation Indicators -- add an indicator related to
increase jobs in agriculture.
8. Economic Development Implementation Indicators – check to see if Susan Stimart
has any ideas on how to track jobs that provide upward mo bility. If there are ways,
add them to the list of Indicators.
9. Rural Areas Implementation Priorities – add wording to Strategy 1d to clarify its
meaning.
10. Rural Areas Implementation Priorities -- change the word “limits” in Strategy 2d to
“minimum amount of produce grown on site.”
11. Rural Areas Implementation Priorities – reference the text in Strategy 6d to clarify
the strategy’s intent.
12. Rural Areas Implementation Priorities – clarify Strategy 7a.
13. Rural Areas Implementation Indicators -- delete the “target” language in the first
indicator. The indicator should say, “Decrease in the number and percentage of new
single-family homes in the County constructed in the Rural Area.”
14. Rural Areas Implementation Indicators – change the word “lost” to “converted” in
Indicator 2.
15. Rural Areas Implementation Indicators – reword indicator 6 so it does not read as if
the County is creating more land.
16. Rural Areas Implementation Indicators – change the word “grape” to “agricultural” in
indicator 10.
17. Rural Areas Implementation Indicators – add an indicator, “No reduction in the
number of parcels less than or equal to 100 acres in size.”
18. Development Areas Implementation Priorities – incorporate “complete streets” into
the priorities.
19. Development Areas Implementation Priorities -- clarify in Strategy 9a that the
animals listed are not intended to be pets; also include noise and nuisances as
points to consider when studying whether or not to amend the zoning ordinance for
urban agriculture.
20. Development Areas Implementation Indicators – add “public transit” to indicator 5.
ATTACHMENT A
BOS September 11, 2013
FINAL PC ACTION MEMO 8-27-2013 5
21. Housing Implementation Priorities – add “affordable units” to strategy 6e.
22. Housing Implementation Indicators – reorder the indicators so that affordable
housing indicators are put together and that indicators 1 – 3 are put at the bottom of
the list.
23. Housing Implementation Indicators—add “for affordable units” to indicator 11.
24. Parks and Recreation, Greenways, Blueways, and Green Systems Implementation
Indicators – change indicator 1 to indicate the progress relates to accessibility to
City-owned parks in the Rural Area.
25. Parks and Recreation, Greenways, Blueways, and Green Systems Implementation
Indicators – Add the James River to indicator 5.
26. Parks and Recreation, Greenways, Blueways, and Green Systems Implementation
Indicators – Provide information on where in the Plan to find details on specific trail
connections for indicator 8.
27. Community Facilities Implementation Priorities – Include the number of linear feet in
bike lanes as an indicator of progress. See if you can combine this with information
on additional sidewalk length.
28. Community Facilities Implementation Priorities – correct strategies 3h and 3j – they
are the same.
29. Community Facilities Implementation Priorities – clarify that 2c near the bottom of
the page relates to the Police Department.
Actions:
Southern and Western Neighborhoods Master Plan
RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF CPA-2013-00001 Comp Plan Update for Southern
and Western Neighborhoods Master Plan, by a vote of 7:0, as recommended by staff
with the changes shown in Attachment 1.
Implementation – Chapter 13
RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF CPA-2013-00001 Comp Plan Update for Chapter 13
Implementation, by a vote of 7:0, as recommended by staff with the changes shown in
Attachment 1.
Summary Section
RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF CPA-2013-00001 Comp Plan Update for the
Summary, by a vote of 4:3, (Dotson, Morris and Lafferty voted nay) using the short
version plus paragraphs 2, 3, and 5 from Attachment C in the staff information and with
reference to the Virginia Code sections applicable to the Comprehensive Plan.
Conclusions and Directions to Staff
The Planning Commission’s recommendation for approval is to be forwarded to the
Board of Supervisors to be heard at a date to be determined.
1.1
Albemarle Comprehensive Plan Draft for September 11, 2013
BACKGROUND
Introduction + Context
Albemarle County has many attributes that have defined its unique character throughout its history and
continue to make it a very desirable place to live, work and play. It’s nationally and world recognized
heritage, university, scenic beauty, natural resources and local enterprises have made the County one of
the nation’s most noted places to live and popular places to visit. This has been both a catalyst for and
resulted from a strong tradition of protecting and enhancing these attributes in concert with planning for
anticipated population and business growth.
The purpose of the Comprehensive Plan is to set County government policy that helps guide public and
private activities as they relate to land use and resource utilization. In this regard, the Plan is the County’s
most important policy document. It establishes the blueprint for future decisions regarding resource
protection, land use and development, transportation systems, public facilities and utilities, economic
development, housing and public services.
The County’s Comprehensive Plan over time has established one overriding policy – growth management
– with an emphasis on channeling growth to the Development Areas and protecting the Rural Areas. An
important part of this effort has been recognizing and incorporating the rights of individual property
owners into initiatives on behalf of the larger community. Periodic reviews and amendments have not
changed this emphasis. The Planning Commission, early in its review of this Plan, reaffirmed this approach
and focused on strategies that can be both actionable and measurable in effectuating the goals and
objectives set out in the Plan.
The Comprehensive Plan is the result of a dynamic planning process. Because the Plan is for the citizens of
the County, the process, by necessity, considers many diverse interests. While the Plan cannot totally
satisfy the particular interest of every citizen, active participation from individuals and groups is essential
to the process. The intended result is a Plan that addresses the health, safety and welfare of the County
citizenry in a fair and equitable manner.
Comprehensive planning does not end with this document. A number of implementation actions will need
to take place in support of this Plan, and they are identified throughout the Plan. The Plan’s priorities will
be subject to on-going monitoring, and may be amended by future action.
Maintaining a balance between the diverse individual and collective interests of the County’s citizenry in
a growing, changing community can be challenging. With the guidance of an ultimate vision along with
goals, objectives and strategies directed to that vision, the Comprehensive Plan can better prepare the
County to meet these challenges.
The Comprehensive Plan
State law governing the development of a Comprehensive Plan (Virginia Code § 15.2-2223) requires
every county, city and town to adopt a comprehensive plan for the physical development of its territory.
It also requires that the Comprehensive Plan be reviewed every five years. Regardless of State Code
requirements, it is important to periodically revisit and update the Plan to ensure that it is consistent with
community views and is addressing current issues within the community.
1.2
Albemarle Comprehensive Plan Draft for September 11, 2013
Brief History of Planning in Albemarle County
Planning in Albemarle County has been occurring for many years. It was first formalized about 70 years
ago with establishment of the first Planning Commission. Key activities have included adoption of the first
subdivision regulations in 1949, hiring the first professional planning staff in 1967, adopting the first
zoning ordinance in 1969 and adopting the first Comprehensive Plan in 1971. Successive Comprehensive
Plan updates occurred in 1977, 1982, and 1989. After 1989 came a series of “updates” which included
the Land Use Plan for the Development Areas in 1996, Natural and Cultural Resources in 1999, and the
Neighborhood Model adoption in 2001. The first Master Plan was adopted in 2004 for Crozet and the
Master Plan for Pantops was adopted in 2007. The Rural Area Plan was also adopted in 2007, along
with some updates to Natural and Cultural Resources. Other Master Plans were adopted in 2011. Each
amendment to the Comprehensive Plan was followed with changes to development regulations to help
achieve Comprehensive Plan goals. The chart on the next page provides information on planning
milestones and reflects the longstanding commitment of the County for looking ahead to the future.
Regional Planning and Albemarle County
Albemarle County planning is influenced by the larger region within which the County participates in a
number of regional planning and service delivery organizations, including, but not limited to, the Thomas
Jefferson Planning District (TJPDC), the Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO), the Central Virginia
Partnership for Economic Development (CVPED) and the Housing Directors Consortium. Cooperative
initiatives of these various organizations better enable exchange of information, coordinated planning for
the future, avoiding duplication of services and greater efficiencies in the provision of infrastructure.
Source: TJPDC, 2013
Figure 1: Geographic Area of Thomas Jefferson Planning District
1.3
Albemarle Comprehensive Plan Draft for September 11, 2013
1944 First Planning Commission created
1949 First Subdivision Regulations adopted
1963 Last successful annexation by City of
Charlottesville
c.1965 Beaver Creek Reservoir built by
Albemarle County Service Authority to
provide water to Crozet
1967 Department of Planning and Community
Development established
1969 First Zoning Ordinance adopted
1971 First Comprehensive Plan adopted, first
Growth Areas established
1973 Use value [land use] taxation enacted
1974 New Subdivision Ordinance adopted
1975 Soil Erosion and Sedimentation
Ordinance enacted
1976 Reservoir "runoff control " ordinance
adopted; major comprehensive plan
revision adopted; First Comprehensive
Plan update, Growth Areas slightly
reduced in area
1977 First capital improvements program (CIP)
adopted; Urban stormwater ordinance
adopted; Position of Watershed
Management Official created; Decision
by Board of Supervisors to build Crozet
sewer interceptor
1978 Growth area Land Use Plan amendments
adopted [removed most land areas
draining to any water supply from the
growth areas]
1980 Current Zoning Ordinance and zoning
maps adopted [first major revision to the
Zoning Ordinance, based on the
Comprehensive Plan]
1982 Annexation agreement with City of
Charlottesville (including revenue
sharing) ratified Comprehensive Plan
updated, Downzoning of all lands
located outside of growth areas [zoning
now matched Comprehensive Plan,
except in jurisdictional area]
1985 CATS (Charlottesville Area
Transportation Study) adopted by
Metropolitan Planning Organization
(MPO); Land Use Regulation Committee
(LURC) Report completed, addressing
improvements to County development
review procedures
1986 Three Party Agreement signed
(formalized cooperative planning
procedures among the City, County and
University)
1988 Crozet sewer interceptor goes on line
1989 Comprehensive Plan Updated
1990 Rural Preservation Development added
to Rural Areas zoning district
1991 Architectural Review Board (ARB) and
Entrance Corridor overlay district
established
1993 Lickinghole Basin completed [for
sedimentation control]
1994 Town of Scottsville boundary adjustment
1996 Current Land Use Plan, Comprehensive
Plan adopted
1997 Development Area Initiatives Steering
Committee established
1998 Water Protection Ordinance adopted
Subdivision Ordinance revised
1999 Comprehensive Plan Chapter Two
revised (Natural Resources and Cultural
Assets)
2001 The Neighborhood Model adopted,
Neighborhood Master Planning begins
2003 Neighborhood Model Zoning District
adopted
2004 Crozet Master Plan adopted
(Comprehensive Plan Amendment)
2005 Monticello Historic District approved
2007 Comprehensive Plan Chapter Rural Area
adopted; Natural Resources and Cultural
Assets section was updated
2008 Pantops Master Plan (Neighborhood 3)
adopted
2010 Village of Rivanna Master Plan adopted
2010 Crozet Master Plan update adopted
2011 Places 29 Master Plan adopted
(Neighborhoods 1&2, Hollymead and
Piney Mountain)
Land Use and Planning Milestones
Albemarle County, Virginia
1944 – 2013
1.4
Albemarle Comprehensive Plan Draft for September 11, 2013
Planning and Coordination Council
One of the most important places regional cooperation occurs is between the County, the City, and the
University of Virginia. Established in 1986, The Planning and Coordination Council (PACC) exists to
promote cooperation in planning and community development between the City of Charlottesville,
Albemarle County, and the University of Virginia (UVA). PACC began with the “Memorandum of
Understanding,” which is provided in the reference section of this Plan. The three-party agreement
established areas where collaborative planning would take place – Areas A, B, and C. The areas are
defined as follows:
Area A – All properties now owned by the University of Virginia and its related foundations that are
used for educational purposes as designated on the Map.
Area B – Land that lies at the boundaries of the University in either the City or the County, or has
otherwise been designated as part of Area B, and on which the activities of any or all three of the
parties might have a significant effect, as designated on the Map. Development in these areas
continues to be guided by the current City and County Comprehensive Plan and the current University
of Virginia Grounds Plan.
Area C – All land on the Map not included in Areas A and B
A map of Areas A and B is provided on the following page. Joint planning by the City, the County, and
the University of Virginia takes place for Area B. In the County, plans for Area B are reflected in the
Development Area Master Plans and also in the Rural Area Chapter of this Plan. These recommendations
have been approved by the City of Charlottesville City Council and the Albemarle County Board of
Supervisors. This successful regional planning effort, and continued participation in PACC remains a
priority for the County.
Regional Sustainability and Livability
The Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission
has afforded Albemarle County a number of
opportunities to cooperate with regional partners
in furthering principles of shared importance to the
County and the Region’s future. One such effort,
the Thomas Jefferson Sustainability Council created
in 1994, grew out of the 1990 -1992 Thomas
Jefferson Study to Preserve and Assess the
Regional Environment. It contained 34 members
who represented Albemarle, Fluvanna, Greene,
Louisa, and Nelson Counties, and the City of
Charlottesville. The diverse group of farmers,
business people, foresters, environmentalists,
developers and elected officials was given the
charge to “describe a future where our economic,
human, social, and environmental health are
assured.”
The Council addressed the areas of human
population, basic human needs, economic
development, transportation, land development,
waste, values, ethics, community awareness,
inter-dependence/balance, government, natural
environment, and agriculture/forestry.
1. Encourage and maintain strong ties between the Region’s
urban and rural areas, fostering healthy economic,
environmental, social, and political interactions.
2. Strive for a size and distribution of human population that
will preserve the vital resources of the Region for future
generations.
3. Retain the natural habitat required to support viable plant
and animal communities that make up the Region’s biological
diversity.
4. Ensure that water quality and quantity in the Region are
sufficient to support the human population and ecosystems.
5. Optimize the use and reuse of developed land. Promote
clustering in residential areas and the integration of
business, industry, recreation, residential, and open space.
6. Promote the consideration of appropriate scale in all
development and land use decisions.
7. Retain farmland and forest land for the future.
8. Broaden the use of sustainable forestry practices among
loggers and landowners.
9. Promote the sale of locally produced farm and forest
products in local, national, and international markets.
10. Develop attractive and economical transportation
alternatives to single occupancy vehicle use.
11. Promote the conservation and efficient use of energy
resources.
12. Provide, at all levels, educational opportunities open to
every member of the community.
13. Ensure that every member of the community is able to obtain
employment that provides just compensation, mobility, and
fulfillment.
14. Increase individual participation in neighborhood and
community organizations.
15. Encourage greater understanding of sustainability issues as
they affect individuals and the Region, using formal and
informal education and local media coverage.
Figure 2: Sustainability Accords
1.5
Albemarle Comprehensive Plan Draft for September 11, 2013
Source: Planning and Advisory Council 2012
Figure 3: Map of Areas A and B
Blurriness to be fixed in final version
1.6
Albemarle Comprehensive Plan Draft for September 11, 2013
The Sustainability Council developed the 1998 Sustainability Accords which were adopted into
the County’s Comprehensive Plan in 1998 and reaffirmed in 2007. The fifteen Accords shown in
Figure 2 continue to be important aspirational principles for the County.
As a next step in moving toward more actionable sustainability initiatives, the County, the City of
Charlottesville, and the University of Virginia began work on a U.S. Housing and Urban
Development funded Livability Implementation Plan in 2011. The project, known as the Livability
Project, has provided cross-cutting strategies for land use,
The Performance Measurement System and the recommended Livability Project Goals are part of
this Comprehensive Plan. The Performance Measurement System provides base line information
for measuring future progress in implementing the County’s and community’s planning goals. It is
provided in the Reference documents and its use is further described in the Implementation Section
of this Plan.
A more detailed report on the Livability Project Goals also is provided in the Reference
documents. The report also identifies the two areas both the City and the County wish to work on
jointly over the next five year period. These two areas are the Rivanna River corridor on the
City’s eastern border and overcoming physical barriers to walkability. Expectations for planning
in the Rivanna River Corridor are described in the Parks and Recreation, Greenways, Blueways,
and Green Systems Chapter. Developing ways to overcome physical barriers to walkability can
be found in the Transportation Chapter.
The list of recommended Livability Project Goals is provided on the following page. They goals
have been integrated into each Chapter of the 20 Year Plan. They are intended to guide future
actions of each community. They also provide direction on future planning activities of both
communities. Working together, the City and the County can continue to make the community a
more liveable and sustainable.
1.7
Albemarle Comprehensive Plan Draft for September 11, 2013
Economic Development
Recognize the necessity of vibrant regional economic relationships and
will work together toward a strong, diversified economy creating
stability and opportunities for advancement in our communities by:
Continuing to coordinate staff efforts to support regional
economic development, including collaboration with the
University of Virginia.
Improving opportunities for employment centers that are
connected to community amenities, housing, and services in the
City and in the County’s Development Areas.
Coordinating with education partners – elementary, middle,
high schools, as well as Piedmont Virginia Community College
and the Charlottesville Albemarle Technical Education Center,
to provide training for locally based jobs.
Supporting a range of businesses in identified target industry
areas (bioscience and medical, business and financial,
information technology & defense, and agribusiness).
Encouraging land use practices and policies that promote
vibrancy in the local economy through cultural industries
including heritage tourism, entertainment, agritourism, local
food, and art, and entertainment.
Improving opportunities for entrance and re-entry into, and
advancement within the workforce by encouraging a diversity
of training and placement programs designed to help all
citizens, regardless of education or income, secure and retain
jobs in our community.
Identifying opportunities for small businesses and
entrepreneurship and develop policies that encourage
innovation.
Entrance Corridors
Work together to more consistently enhance the visual quality and
multi-modal experiences along the corridors by
Enhancing communication among the University of Virginia and
City and County Boards and Commissions related to proposed
changes within Entrance Corridors and other shared
boundaries.
Creating distinctive destinations and places through multiple
means, such as landscaping and urban area walkability.
Establishing a consistent approach to signage.
Coordinating continuity of corridor guidelines between the City
and County.
Enhancing and improving the scenic and historic character of
each corridor, while connecting historic resources, such as
Monticello, Ash Lawn-Highland, the University of Virginia, and
Court Square, within the community.
Environment
Continue to promote a community of green neighborhoods, healthy
waterways, clean air, and sustainable natural resources by:
Air Quality
Encouraging multi-modal transportation & focus development
and redevelopment in urban areas that are supported by
multi-modal transportation facilities that will help to reduce
emissions of air pollutants and greenhouse gases.
Encouraging industries to be clean and environmentally
responsible.
Water Quality
Protecting drinking water supplies and associated watershed
protection areas.
Improving water quality of all of our waterways.
Recognizing the connection between land use practices and
water quality in decision making.
Coordinating actions intended to address and meet all
appropriate water quality standards.
Stormwater
Improving stormwater infrastructure and reducing stormwater
runoff.
Encouraging low-impact development techniques and practices
through land development regulations, education, and
incentives.
Agriculture
Improving viability of local agriculture through concentrating
development in the City areas identified for greater intensity
of use and higher densities and County Development Areas ,
while strengthening measures that protect agriculture in the
Rural Areas.
Recognizing the shared interests between the City and County
in promoting a strong local food economy.
Vegetation and Biodiversity
Recognizing the benefits of biological diversity and encour -
ageing the retention and use of native plants.
Encouraging establishment, maintenance, and replenishment of
urban tree canopy in the developed areas as a means of
promoting urban green space, as well as supporting
stormwater runoff reduction efforts
Energy Efficiency and Conservation
Continuing to develop resource and energy conservation
strategies and practices applicable to both public and private
facilities.
Disposal Practices
Promoting re-use and recycling.
Encouraging programs to eliminate roadside litter.
Historic Preservation
Enhance the historic character of the region by fostering community
awareness of our historic and cultural resources and promoting the
preservation of designated structures and areas by:
Preparing and maintaining coordinated information detailing
requirements, responsibilities and support programs for
eligible, significant, and designated resources.
Collaborating on tourism outreach related to historic resources.
Preparing, maintaining, and making publically available a
single map of formally designated City and County historic
resources - available as a layer on both City and County data
systems.
Encouraging designation of historic buildings, sites, districts,
structures, and objects through state and federal programs.
Encouraging local historic designations where appropriate in
cooperation with neighborhoods.
Collaborating with the University of Virginia, Ashlawn-
Highland, Monticello, and other community organizations on
historic preservation matters.
Housing
Have a range of housing types that support various incomes, ages,
and levels of mobility. These housing types should be connected to
community amenities, parks, trails and services in the City and in the
County’s Development Areas by:
Developing joint City-County housing goals, both for market-
priced and affordable units.
Exploring the idea of a Regional Housing Authority.
Encouraging mixed income communities.
Facilitating collaboration and coordination among various
housing staff, committees, builders, and organizations to ensure
an appropriate range of housing choices for all community
members.
Developing policies to encourage housing opportunities
suitable for healthy aging and for people with disabilities
located in close proximity to community services and amenities,
recreational resources, and connected to multi-modal
transportation corridors.
Promoting housing located near employment centers in the City
and County Development Areas and optimal multi-modal
transportation links between those areas and major
employment centers.
Increasing the range of housing type choices, focusing
especially on the creation of additional workforce (60%-120%
AMI), affordable housing (25%-60% AMI), and deeply
affordable (0%-25% AMI) units in the City and the County.
Land Use
Support neighborhoods and places that allow residents to live, work,
and play near their homes and where attention to the character of
new development and redevelopment enhances quality of life by:
Encouraging development and redevelopment in areas of the
City identified for increased density and greater intensity of
use, and in County Development Areas where appropriate in
order to preserve open space, rural areas, and agricultural
areas.
Promoting land use patterns that encourage multi-modal
transportation opportunities.
Coordinating City and County Development Areas land use
and infrastructure policies.
Maintaining the distinct character of the Rural Areas.
Continuing to actively participate in the PACC, which brings
City, County and University leaders together to discuss issues of
common concern and interest, as a means of decision
coordination.
Establishing policies that provide for consideration of
development effects on the neighboring locality and shared
community resources.
Creating a unified vision for land uses adjacent to the Rivanna
River that supports the river corridor as a destination while
ensuring the protection and improvement of the river’s water
quality.
Parks and Recreation
Provide a system of high quality public parks, recreation facilities and
programming to meet the needs of all residents of the community by:
Share community visions
Exploring shared-use facilities as a first option when
contemplating new or replacement recreation facilities within
either jurisdiction.
Exploring the possibility of a Regional Park Authority to
manage shared resources including, but not limited to Ivy
Creek Natural Area and Darden Towe Park.
Developing and implementing a shared vision for parks, trails,
and recreation opportunities associated with the Rivanna River.
Working with the Virginia Department of Conservation and
Recreation (DCR) to develop a shared vision for recreation
opportunities associated with Biscuit Run State Park.
Encourage healthy choices among all of our residents.
Creating multi-modal connections to and between parks and
recreation areas and employment centers.
Coordinate shared parks and recreation resources.
Utilizing existing Needs Assessment documents to initiate a
dialogue on meeting recreation needs.
Evaluating existing user fees associated with all parks,
facilities, and programs to explore reciprocity programs.
Coordinating with UVA to identify both active and passive
recreation opportunities that may be shared with the larger
community.
Creating a common City-County park, recreation and
programming "amenity matrix," and an associated map of
amenity locations.
Creating a regional plan to address need for additional
recreational fields.
Transportation
Promote regional multi-modal and accessible transportation options
by coordinating transportation planning between Charlottesville,
Albemarle County, and the University of Virginia through the
Metropolitan Planning Organization by:
Storing transportation data in the same format.
Coordinating collection of transportation data to facilitate
sharing information among Charlottesville, Albemarle County,
the University of Virginia, and the Metropolitan Planning
Organization.
Increasing and expanding transit network efficiency and use.
Coordinating building the sidewalk network across City-County
boundaries and addressing barriers to pedestrian connectivity.
Providing community education regarding transportation
options.
Collaborating to strengthen intrastate and interstate rail and
air transportation opportunities.
Coordinating to provide and enhance multi-modal connections
between employment centers and areas of high residential
density.
Creating dedicated bike-pedestrian connections across
physical barriers within the community for:
o Rivanna River
o Route 250 – East and West
o Interstate 64
o Railroad network
o City and VDOT system connection
o Route 29
Figure 4: Livability Project Goals
Through the following activities, the City of Charlottesville and Albemarle County will:
1.8
Albemarle Comprehensive Plan Draft for September 11, 2013
[This page left intentionally blank]
1.9
Albemarle Comprehensive Plan Draft for September 11, 2013
Town of Scottsville
The Town of Scottsville is located in the southeastern
corner of Albemarle County and the northwestern corner
of Fluvanna County. The portion to the northwest of the
Albemarle/ Fluvanna County boundary line, wholly
within Albemarle County, comprises approximately 961
acres and 536 residents; the portion to the southeast of
the Albemarle/Fluvanna County line that lies within Fluvanna County includes approximately 18 acres
and 19 residents. Scottsville property owners, residents, and business owners pay real estate and
property taxes to that County in which their property lies at the tax rate charged throughout their
respective counties.
For their part, the counties are
obliged to provide to Scottsville
residents and property owners the
same level of service provided to
other county residents and property
owners, including primary and
secondary education, police
protection (supplemental to the
Town’s Police Department), fire and
rescue protection, social services,
library services, park and
recreational services, and the like.
Scottsville has its own comprehensive
plan and zoning ordinance although
utilities are provided by Albemarle
County.
Portion of
Scottsville in
Fluvanna
County
Portion of Scottsville in
Albemarle County
Source: TJPDC 2013
Source: Town of Scottsville, 1993 Plan. Updated plan will replace this image
in final version.
Figure 5: Land Use Plan for Scottsville
1.10
Albemarle Comprehensive Plan Draft for September 11, 2013
The County Today
Planning for Current and Future Populations
The current and future residents of Albemarle are the people for whom we plan. Figures 6 – 12 provide
historic and current information on key characteristics of the population. From that information we see
that:
The population is growing. In 2012, there were approximately 100,000 people living in the
County, representing about 15,000 more than in 2000. This increase represents an average
annual growth rate from 2000 of 1.5%. Approximately 11,000 residents in the County are
students at the University of Virginia (UVA) who live both on and off campus grounds.
The population is aging. In 1970, the largest age group was aged 5 – 19. In 2010, the largest
group was aged 40-64. In 1970, seniors aged 65 and older comprised less than 5,000 persons.
Now, they are almost 15,000 persons. The number of adults in the 40 – 64 and 65+ age groups
has consistently grown since 1970 while the groups that were less than 40 years in age showed
no clear trend.
The racial composition in the County is also changing. In 2010, Albemarle County’s population
was approximately 78% Caucasian, 10% Black, 6% Hispanic, and 5% Asian or other nationality.
In 1980, 85% of the population was Caucasian and about 3% was Hispanic. The percentage of
Blacks has not changed.
Albemarle County residents, overall, continue to have higher incomes than most residents in the
State and the United States. In 2010, the estimated per capita income was over $33,000, while
the U.S. per capita income was approximately $26,000. The median household income was
$63,000 while the U.S. median household income was just over $50,000.
Households with the highest incomes are increasing with the highest growth occurring in the
households making over $150,000 per year. There were almost 8 times as many households in
this category than in 1990. Income in Albemarle County generally comes from earnings,
although, this is not universally the case as anecdotal evidence indicates many residents have
unearned income. Households in the lowest income category also increased; however this
category also contains many of the students at the University who have little or no income of their
own.
Unemployment continues to be low in Albemarle County, typically, at half the rate of the U.S. The
stability of Albemarle County’s employment base has kept unemployment at lower levels than the
State and Country. Figure 11 seems to indicate that the economic downturn that began in 2007
has reversed course, and economic growth is occurring again in Albemarle County and other
places.
The County’s economic base continues to be fairly diverse. Although government related jobs
comprised the largest employment sector in Albemarle County in 2011, due primarily to the large
presence of UVA, Albemarle County, and the Department of Defense, other sectors also provided
jobs. Retail trade was the second highest employment sector. The third highest sector was in
Health Care. Other industries that provided more than 1,500 jobs in Albemarle County in 2011
include Accommodation and Food Services, Professional and Technical Services, Construction,
Manufacturing, and Other Services. These larger industries are comprised of higher skill
occupations or support occupations for those highly skilled.
1.11
Albemarle Comprehensive Plan Draft for September 11, 2013
Source: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics
0
20,000
40,000
60,000
80,000
100,000
120,000
1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 Source: U.S. Census
Figure 6: Population Growth in Albemarle County 1960 - 2010
Year
Albemarle
County Charlottesville
Charlottesville
MSA Virginia
United
States
2000 1.7% 2.9% 2.1% 2.3% 4.0%
2005 2.8% 3.8% 3.1% 3.5% 5.1%
2010 5.4% 6.9% 5.9% 6.9% 9.6%
2012 4.5% 6.7% 5.9% 5.5% 8.1%
0
2000
4000
6000
8000
10000
12000
Figure 12: Employment by Industry
(larger than 1,500 jobs) Number of Jobs Source: Virginia Employment Commission 2011
0
5,000
10,000
15,000
20,000
25,000
30,000
35,000
1970 1980 1990 2000 2010
Under 5
5-19
20-39
40-64
65+
Figure 7: Population by Age Group
Source: U.S. Census
Figure 8: Change in Per Capita Income in Albemarle
County, Charlottesville, and Virginia 1990 - 2010
Per Capita
Income
Albemarle
County Virginia United
States
1990 $17,448 $15,713 $14,420
2000 $28,852 $23,975 $21,587
2010 $33,421 $31,180 $26,409
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 2010
Median Household
Income Albemarle County Virginia United
States
1990 $36,886 $33,328 $30,056
2000 $50,749 $46,667 $41,994
2010 $63,474 $59,330 $50,221
Figure 10: Median Household Income in Albemarle County 1990 - 2010
Figure 11: Average Annual Unemployment Rates 2000 - 2012
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 2010
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 2010
0
1,000
2,000
3,000
4,000
5,000
6,000
7,000
1990
2000
2010
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 2010
Figure 9: Change in Median Household Income in
Albemarle County, Charlottesville, and Virginia 1990 - 2010
1.12
Albemarle Comprehensive Plan Draft for September 11, 2013
Expectations for the Future
The County is expected to grow in the future. Population growth is dependent on in-migration,
out-migration, births, and deaths. In projecting future populations, the County has typically relied
on population projections of the Virginia Economic Commission (VEC). In 2012, VEC contracted
with the Weldon Cooper Center for Public Service to produce projections for all localities in the
State. The 2012 projections are provided in Figure 12.
Area 2,020 2,030 2,040
Albemarle County 115,642 134,196 154,814
Charlottesville 46,636 47,252 48,545
Virginia 8,811,512 9,645,281 10,530,228
Source: U.S. Census and Weldon Cooper Center for Public Service, 2013
With this future population, the following changes will also likely take place:
The population will continue to increase and for the near future, growth will probably
occur at a rate of about 1.5% per year. When this rate might change is unknown. The
further into the future one attempts to project, however, the more difficult it becomes.
Growth at the University of Virginia and with the Federal Defense agencies will likely
have the most influence.
As with the rest of the United States, the age sector containing seniors will continue to
grow. It is expected that the 40 – 64 age group will begin to diminish some as the 65+
age group grows. The 18 – 24 year age group will likely grow in conjunction with UVA.
The racial composition will continue to change and racial diversity will likely increase.
More Hispanic residents will live in the County in the future, following nationwide trends.
Albemarle County residents will continue to have higher incomes than most residents in the
State and the United States. This prediction is based on past trends.
Households with the highest incomes will also likely increase, at least for the near term.
This prediction is also based on past trends.
Unemployment will continue to be low, following its historic trend in the County.
The County’s employment makeup will likely increase in diversity, as a result of efforts to
target specific industries for assistance and support. Jobs in health care and social
assistance industry are expected to increase with the recent relocation of the Martha
Jefferson Hospital to Albemarle County and the expansion projects at UVA Health
Systems. Also, more small boutique farms are expected as the local food movement
continues to grow.
The County has prepared the Comprehensive Plan update with these expectations for the future.
Figure 12: Projected Population 2020-2040
1.13
Albemarle Comprehensive Plan Draft for September 11, 2013
This Document
When work began on the 2013 update, the Comprehensive Plan was divided into five different
sections: the Natural and Cultural Resources section, the Land Use Plan for the Development
Areas, the Rural Area Plan, the Economic Development Policy, and the Affordable Housing Policy.
Within each of the first three sections were multiple appendices. This update has brought the
different chapters together under the single vision for the County and provided consistency within
and among chapters.
This 2013 Comprehensive Plan Update contains two volumes—A Summary and the 20 Year Plan.
Information on these two volumes as well as the reference documents is provided below.
Summary of the Plan
The Summary is an abridged version of the Plan, containing only the goals, objectives, and
strategies of the 20 Year Plan. It contains the Plan’s expectations and those actions required to
achieve the expectations. Because of its brevity, it can provide a general understanding of the
Plan’s flow. Unlike the full Plan, it does not provide explanations as to why the goals, objectives,
and strategies exist or shoe details on how to implement the Plan. The Summary has extracted
the most important parts of the Plan, but, is not intended to be used in place of the 20 year Plan.
The 20 Year Plan
The 20 Year Plan provides flesh to the skeletal Summary. It explains what it important to the
County and why it is important. It provides guidance on how the strategies work to achieve the
objectives and goals. This chapter is an introduction to help set the context for the Plan. The
succeeding chapters are: Growth Management, Natural Resources, Historic/Cultural/Scenic
Resources, Economic Development, the Rural Area Plan, the Development Areas Plan, Housing,
Transportation, Parks and Recreation, Greenways, Blueways, and Green Systems, and Community
Facilities.
The ordering of these chapters is intentional. The County’s growth management goal sets the stage
for all of the other goals. Natural resource protection, scenic, historic, and cultural resources
represent the highest set of priorities from residents in citizen surveys for many years. The chapter
on economic development follows resource protection because a thriving economy is both affected
by and affects all other aspects of planning. Land use expectations follow with the Rural Area
Chapter and the Development Area Chapter. Because the Rural Area occupies 95% of the County
and contains most of the natural, historic, scenic, and cultural resources of the County, it is first. The
Development Areas Plan follows which sets the context for housing, transportation, parks and
recreation, and other community facilities and services.
Within each chapter, organization is consistent. The goal for each topic is found on the first page.
An explanation on the relationship of the goal to the County’s overall vision follows on the next
page. The joint City-County goals highlight the commitment of the two communities work together
to achieve those goals. Following the introductory paragraphs in each chapter are objectives and
strategies. The strategies are “action items” which can be divided into existing programs,
enhanced programs, and new initiatives. The enhancements and new initiatives are activities
which make their way to the County’s Work Program. Annual Planning Commission reports to the
Board of Supervisors will report on progress towards completion of activities and achieving goals.
The 20 Year Plan also includes an Implementation Chapter which shows how to bring the Plan to
life. This chapter begins with the voluntary actions of citizens. An explanation of regulatory
1.14
Albemarle Comprehensive Plan Draft for September 11, 2013
measures follows along with funding mechanisms. The County’s priorities for actions are identified
by chapter topic as well as ways to measure success in coming years.
The Appendix is the final part of the 20 Year Plan. It contains detailed recommendations on
specific parts of the Plan. The Cash Proffer Policy, the Affordable Housing Policy, Master Plans,
and the Neighborhood Model Design Guidance are a few examples. Each of the items in the
Appendix is considered to be part of the Comprehensive Plan and contain its weight.
Reference Documents
Reference documents include several items. They are facts that can stand-alone outside of the
plan, such as lists of soil categories or watersheds. Reference documents also include copies of
other plans and reports which have influenced the development of this Plan. For example, the
Capacity Analysis and the Target Industry Study reside in the reference documents. Reference
documents also include sources of information which can be used to further direct future work of
the County, such as the 2004 Survey of Historic Crossroads Communities in Albemarle County.
These documents are not considered to be aspects of the Comprehensive Plan; instead, they
provide information that pertains to the plan and other policies. They are included to enlighten
the recommendations of the Plan.
1.15
Albemarle Comprehensive Plan Draft for September 11, 2013
Acronyms
Acronyms are used throughout this plan. The first time in each chapter that an acronym is used it
is preceded by its full name, such as the Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission (TJPDC).
Because so many different acronyms are used, a full list is provided in Figure 13.
Figure 1: List of Acronyms Used in this Document
Acronym Acronym Description
2035 VSTP 2035 Virginia Surface Transportation Plan
AADT Average Annual Daily Traffic
ACE Acquisition of Conservation Easements
ACSA Albemarle County Service Authority
ADA Americans with Disabilities Act
Ag/For Agricultural and Forestal
AHIP Albemarle Housing Improvement Program
ARB Architectural Review Board
AWWTP Moores Creek Advanced Waste Water Treatment Plant
BMP Best Management Practice
CAN Capital Needs Assessment
CAN Capital Needs Assessment
CAT Charlottesville Area Transit
CATEC Charlottesville-Albemarle Technical Center
CDD Community Development Department
CDR Department of Conservation and Recreation
CIP Capital Improvements Program
CIT Commuter Information Team
COB County Office Building
COSS Corridors of Statewide Significance
CUBE Center for Understanding the Built Environment
DA Development Area
DEQ Department of Environmental Quality
DRPT Department of Rail and Public Transportation
EC Entrance Corridor
ECC Emergency Communications Center
ESCC Energy Star Courthouse Campaign
FAA Federal Aviation Administration
FAR Floor Area Ratio
FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency
FMR Fair Market Rent
FOIA Freedom of Information Act
FY Fiscal Year
GIS Geographic Information System
HUD Department of Housing and Urban Development
Ivy MUC Ivy Materials Utilization Center
1.16
Albemarle Comprehensive Plan Draft for September 11, 2013
JAUNT Jefferson Area UNited Transportation
LEED Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design
LOS Level of Service
MAP-21 Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century [Act]
MF Multifamily
MPA Monticello Protection Area
MPO Metropolitan Planning Organization
MSA Metropolitan Statistical Area
NRHP National Register of Historic Places
OPDMD Other Power-Driven Mobility Device
PACC Planning and Coordination Council
PRFA Public Recreational Facility Authority
PVCC Piedmont Virginia Community College
RA Rural Area
RPD Rural Preservation Development
RRBC Rivanna River Basin Commission
RTA Regional Transit Authority
RWSA Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority
SFA Single Family Attached
SFD Single Family Detached
STP Surface Transportation Program
SYIP Six Year Improvement Program
TDM Transportation Demand Management
TDR Transfer of Development Rights
TH Townhouse
TIP Transportation Improvement Program
TJF Thomas Jefferson Foundation
TJPDC Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission
TMDL Total Maximum Daily Load
UNESCO United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization
UnJAM 2035 Charlottesville-Albemarle Metropolitan Planning Area Long-Range Transportation
Plan
USA Urban Service Area
USGS United States Geological Survey
UTS University Transit Service
UVA University of Virginia
VDEP Virginia Economic Development Partnership
VDHR Virginia Department of Historic Resources
VDOT Virginia Department of Transportation
VEC Virginia Economic Commission
VHD Vehicle Hours of Delay
VHDA Virginia Housing Development Authority
VLR Virginia Landmarks Register
VMT Vehicle Miles Traveled
VOF Virginia Outdoors Foundation
1.17
Albemarle Comprehensive Plan Draft for September 11, 2013
VSMPP Virginia State Stormwater Management Permitting Program
VTRANS 2035 Virginia’s Long-Range Multimodal Transportation Plan
WPO Water Protection Ordinance
WTP Water Treatment Plant
2.1
Albemarle Comprehensive Plan Update Draft for July 23, 2013
VALUES
+VISION
2.2
Albemarle Comprehensive Plan Update Draft for July 23, 2013
Vision + Values
Values
Situated at the foot of the Blue Ridge Mountains, Albemarle County
is rich in natural resources, culture, and history. Its rural countryside
and agricultural heritage are treasures to be passed on to future
generations. Designated Development Areas offer attractive and
desirable neighborhoods, shopping, an excellent school system, and
places for residents to live and work.
Through surveys over the past twenty years, residents consistently
expressed their values for:
Mountains, valleys, rivers, streams, forests, farms, and
meadows;
Excellent educational opportunities from our public
and private schools, college, and university;
Economic drivers which are business, industry, and the
University of Virginia
Neighborhoods, places to shop, and places to
worship;
Parks, greenway trails, and recreational areas;
Historic and cultural resources;
Two values added to this list from the 2013 Update process are:
The City of Charlottesville as a partner in a single
community; and
Individual rights of citizens.
The County’s values are part of the County’s vision for the future
and are reflected throughout this Comprehensive Plan.
Vision
The County’s Values and Vision guide
every part of this plan. Each chapter
and section provides text, goals for
the future, strategies to achieve those
goals. The Plan also includes tools for
measuring progress toward achieving
the goals. The vision is repeated at
the top of every section and chapter,
and the first page of that chapter
contains a blue sidebar of how the
relevant Goal relates to the overall
Vision.
The County’s growth management
strategy, explained in the next part
of this chapter, has been and
continues to be the primary tool by
which the County retains its values
and achieves its vision.
VISION
GOALS
OBJECTIVES
STRATEGIES
Anchored by a strong economy and excellent education system, Albemarle
envisions a thriving County that honors its rural heritage, scenic beauty, and
natural and historic resources while fostering attractive and vibrant communities.
VISION:
3.1
Albemarle Comprehensive Plan Draft for September 11, 2013
Source: Albemarle County Community Development
GROWTH
MANAGEMENT
Albemarle’s land and resources will pass down
to future generations by protecting the Rural
Area and directing growth to the Development
Areas.
GOAL:
3.2
Albemarle Comprehensive Plan Draft for September 11, 2013
Growth Management
Introduction
Application of Albemarle’s Growth Management Policy is
intended as the primary way to achieve the County’s vision.
This policy for growth management directs development into
identified areas while conserving the remainder of the County
for agriculture, forestry, resource protection, and uses that rely
on these features. Resource protection is the basic theme
behind the County's growth management policy, reflecting the
importance of passing on these features to future generations.
Albemarle envisions 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.
Relationship to the Vision
Albemarle County’s existing pre-
served natural, historic, and cultural
resources in the Rural Area and
attractive, vibrant Development
Areas are a direct result of the
County’s growth management policy.
This policy has been in place for over
40 years. The preserved resources of
the Rural Area and the County’s
investment in infrastructure in the
Development Areas contribute to its
robust economy. The excellent
educational system is supported by
the strong economy and residents
who want pass on the resources of
the County to future generations.
Anchored by a strong economy and excellent education system, Albemarle
envisions a thriving County that honors its rural heritage, scenic beauty, and
natural and historic resources while fostering attractive and vibrant communities.
VISION:
ALBEMARLE COUNTY GROWTH
MANAGEMENT POLICY
Promote the efficient use of County resources
through a combination of:
A. Protecting the elements that define the Rural Area:
Agricultural resources
Forestry resources
Land preservation
Land conservation
Water supply resources
Natural resources
Scenic resources
Historical, archaeological, and cultural resources
and
B. Promoting the Development Areas as the place where a
variety of land uses, facilities, and services exist and are
planned to support the County’s future growth, with
emphasis placed on density and high quality design in
new and infill development.
3.3
Albemarle Comprehensive Plan Draft for September 11, 2013
The Growth Management Policy has been in place since 1971 when the County’s first Comprehensive
Plan was adopted. The 1971 Plan established growth areas and the policy that growth should occur in
those areas with the remainder of the County remaining rural. However, the 1977 Comprehensive Plan
solidified the growth management policy by reducing the area designated for development and
establishing Development Area boundaries based on the public water supply watersheds. The 1982,
1989, and 1996 Plans continued to build on the policy. In 2001, as an outgrowth of the 1996 Plan, the
County adopted the Neighborhood Model. The Neighborhood Model is made up of 12 principles that,
when applied, create high quality urban places. The Growth Management Policy has been strengthened
over time by consistent application and has created distinctiveness for Albemarle when compared to
surrounding counties and most other non-urban counties in Virginia.
The principle of watershed planning is a key part of growth management planning. Protection of the
public water supply which relies on impoundments fed by these watersheds is essential to the County’s
growth. Except for the Community of Crozet, the western edge of the Development Area boundaries is
based on the watershed for the public supply. Figure 1 shows the relationship of the Development Areas
to the public water supply watersheds.
The Growth Management Policy is the County’s anchor for most of the recommendations in this Plan and is
a primary means to help achieve the County’s vision for the future. What follows in this chapter are
recommendations for objectives and strategies intended to achieve the Growth Management goal.
Figure 1: Water Supply Watersheds
Map and Development Area
Boundaries
3.5
Albemarle Comprehensive Plan Draft for September 11, 2013
Objective 1: Continue to consistently use the Growth Management Policy to guide
decisions on land use, capital expenditures, and service provision.
As stated earlier, resource protection is a key theme behind the
County’s growth management policy. This ongoing theme is
complemented by an emphasis on intelligent use of Development
Areas, public facilities and resources. Planning efforts channel
growth into designated areas to facilitate economical service
delivery in those areas, to promote a more compact form of
development as the preferred design in those areas, and to
conserve the Rural Areas.
Planning efforts also focus on ways to help property owners in
the Rural Area avoid subdividing their land for residential
development. New residential development is not the desired use
in the Rural Area. Education, incentives, and voluntary and
regulatory measures are intended to help achieve the desired
outcome for the Rural Area.
The County recognizes that provision of fire, rescue, and police
protection, roads, utilities, school bus service, and other
governmental activities and functions are most efficiently and
prudently made to smaller, more concentrated areas than a
large, dispersed rural population. To provide these services at
the same level in the Rural Area is viewed as inefficient and
contrary to the overall public interest in preserving the Rural
Area for agricultural and forestal uses and wise use of limited
budget resources. Limited service delivery, prevention of public
water and sewer connections, and provision of public services at
a rural rather than urban scale helps to reduce the potential for
rural residential development.
Strategy 1a: Continue to approve new development proposals in the Development Areas as the
designated location for new residential, commercial, industrial, and mixed-use development. Only
approve new development proposals in the Rural Area that are supported by Rural Area goals,
objectives, and strategies.
The County has a long history of making land use decisions that support growth in the Development
Areas and not in the Rural Area. Although a property owner may request that land be rezoned in the
Rural Area for development purposes, it is rarely, if ever, approved because to do so would
undermine the Growth Management Policy. This practice of approving development proposals in the
Development Areas and not the Rural Area should be continued to protect the County’s Rural Area.
Livability Project
Objective: Charlottesville and
Albemarle County support
neighborhoods and places that allow
residents to live, work, and play
near their homes, and where
attention to the character of new
development and redevelopment
enhances quality of life:
Strategies:
1. Encourage development and
redevelopment in areas of the
City identified for increased
density and greater intensity of
use, and in County Development
Areas where appropriate in
order to preserve open space,
rural areas, and agricultural
areas.
2. Coordinate City and County
Development Areas land use and
infrastructure policies.
3. Maintain the distinct character of
the Rural Areas.
Strategy 1b: Continue to provide facilities needed to support growth in the Development Areas and
promote the Development Areas as the most desirable place for new residents by funding capital
improvements and infrastructure and providing a higher level of services to the Development Areas.
3.6
Albemarle Comprehensive Plan Draft for September 11, 2013
The County has a very important role in providing necessary support services and infrastructure for
existing development and residents. The County also has a responsibility to provide the necessary
new and amended ordinances, regulations, and infrastructure to promote the Neighborhood Model
form of development to make the Development Areas attractive to new residents. It must be
recognized that the desired increase in livability and density in the Development Areas requires an
increased commitment by the County for public infrastructure improvements. It must also be
recognized that provision of infrastructure that successfully implements the Neighborhood Model and
density in the Development Areas is highly dependent on infrastructure that has been programmed in
the County’s Capital Improvements Program (CIP). Traditionally, capital improvements have been
funded primarily through County property taxes on a pay-as-you-go basis. However, CIP funding
through these mechanisms alone is proving not to be enough for needed infrastructure and facilities. In
addition, the provision of infrastructure that is more concurrent with needs may also require longer
term debt that utilizes the excellent bond rating of the County and can be financed through property
taxes and funding commitments from new development.
Strategy 1c: Continue to recognize the shared responsibility between County and new development
to pay for infrastructure and improvements to the Development Areas to address the impacts of new
development.
Since it first designated the Development Areas as the preferred location for new development, the
County has known that infrastructure and facilities would be needed there to support growth. On May
2, 2007, after study, the Board of Supervisors adopted a Cash Proffer Policy for Public Facilities. This
policy stated that development should pay for the full equivalent of its impact. The policy also
provided a methodology to calculate the impacts of residential development. The County continues to
believe that the cost of providing infrastructure and facilities to support the Development Areas must
be a shared obligation of the County and new development creating the impacts. The Cash Proffer
Policy for Public Facilities, which has been updated for clarity is found in Appendix 1.1 of this Plan.
More information on how the County implements its Growth Management Policy is found throughout this
Plan and also in the Implementation Chapter. By effectively using the Growth Management Policy, the
County’s distinctive Rural Areas and Development Areas and important natural, cultural, and historic
resources can be handed down to future generations.
CPA 2013-01
BOS September 11, 2013
Attachment E page 1
Comparison of Goals, Objectives and Strategies, and other Key Information
Chapter 1 Background
September 11, 2013
Existing Comprehensive Plan
Proposed Comprehensive Plan Update
(Background information on planning and
demographics is in the Introduction to the
Land Use Plan Introduction to the Land Use
Component of The Comprehensive Plan as
Amended July 10, 2002, Pages ix – xii)
(Updated demographic information can be
found on Page 1.11.)
(Information on regional planning as part of
the Metropolitan Planning Organization is
found in the Transportation section on Page
169.)
(Information on the Thomas Jefferson
Planning District Commission and regional
planning efforts is expanded and provided on
Page 1.2)
(Specific references to the Planning and
Coordination Council (PACC) are found in text
for Neighborhoods 4 – 7 and in the
Transportation section of the Plan. Existing
Areas A & B maps are found in Area B studies)
(This update integrates the Area B Studies into
the Comprehensive Plan in various places. The
initial explanation for the Three Party
Agreement, a description of PACC and Areas A
and B are provided on Pages 1.4 and 1.5 along
with a current map.)
GOAL: Achieve a sustainable community that
meets the needs of the present without
compromising the ability of future generations
to meet their own needs. (Natural Resources
and Cultural Assets Introduction, Page 3.)
(See goal for Growth Management in next
section.)
Strategy: Review and support as appropriate
the following Sustainability Council’s
Statements of Accord: (Accords are listed.)
Text: The fifteen Accords shown in Figure 2
continue to be important aspiration principles
for the County. (The 15 Accords listed are on
Page 1.4 in Figure 2.)
(Strategies for Sustainable Design in Buildings
and Planning Amended July 11, 2007 CPA 07-
03, Green Building and Sustainability
Strategies for Internal Operations and
Management
Participate in the EnergyStar Courthouse
Campaign (ESCC) to reduce local
government’s consumption of energy.
In keeping with (ESCC), create a policy for
County buildings and operations to reduce
energy consumption by 30% in keeping
(See Community Facilities Objectives and
Strategies on Page 12.7:)
Strategy 1h: Design and construct public
facilities that are energy efficient by:
Continuing to demonstrate leadership by
reducing energy demand and consumption
in all County-owned buildings and promote
energy conservation throughout the
County;
(From Appendix 1, Page A.5.2)
CPA 2013-01
BOS September 11, 2013
Attachment E page 2
with EnergyStar guidelines
For new County projects, perform energy
modeling during the design-development
phase to assess long-term economic
benefits of green upgrades.
Achieve U.S. Green Building Council
Leadership in Energy and Environmental
Design (LEED) basic level certification on
new public buildings so long as planning
and energy modeling determine that the
upfront expense does not unreasonably
exceed the long-term savings
Develop and adopt criteria (e.g. square
footage / project cost) for pursuing LEED
certification for new construction.
Recognize and respond to the significant role
that site characteristics play in sustainable
design.
Locate and apply for grants related to
improving the energy efficiency and
environmental aspects of existing or proposed
County facilities. Actively pursue EnergyStar
tax credits.
Investigate and pursue the purchase of energy
credits for renewable energy.
Continue to demonstrate leadership by
reducing energy demand and consumption in
all County-owned buildings and promote
energy conservation throughout the County.
o Participate in the Energy Star Courthouse
Campaign (ESCC) to reduce local
government’s consumption of energy; and
o Pursue an Energy Management and
Conservation Program for all County
owned facilities that will reduce energy
consumption by an additional 10% by
December 2017 for a total energy
reduction of 40% since the baseline year
2005. This activity will also support the
voluntary Virginia Energy Plan to reduce
Virginia’s electricity demand by 10% by
2022 through conservation and efficiency.
o Perform energy modeling during the
design-development phase to assess long-
term economic benefits of green upgrades
for new County projects.
o Achieve U.S. Green Building Council
Leadership in Energy and Environmental
Design (LEED) basic level certification on all
new public buildings so long as planning
and energy modeling determine that the
upfront expense does not unreasonably
exceed the long-term savings.
o Encourage the use of green building
standards and practices for retro-fitting
existing buildings and new construction by
working with the building and business
communities in offering choices of design
for better efficiency.
Continue to improve travel efficiencies to
reduce energy consumption and emissions.
Reduce fuel consumption used in County
owned vehicles by 20% by fiscal year 2017;
by fiscal year 2020 have a fleet of vehicles
where 25% operate on alternative fuel and
the balance has an average fuel rating of
CPA 2013-01
BOS September 11, 2013
Attachment E page 3
28 miles per gallon (mpg).
Continue to analyze and adjust the
County’s fleet of vehicles to an appropriate
level necessary to conduct the business of
the County. Purchase vehicles that have
multi-use ability. Reduce to the extent
possible the use of private owned vehicles
in conducting County business. The goal is
to reduce the County fleet 25% from the
2010 baseline by fiscal year 2017.
Promote and pursue the reduction of waste
that goes to a landfill.
Decrease the volume of materials
generated by the County and sent to a
landfill by 2% each year for 10 years by
adopting the “reduce, reuse and recycle”
practice; adopting environmentally
preferable purchasing policies as allowed
by the Virginia Public Procurement Act.
Continuing to improve travel efficiencies to
reduce energy consumption and
emissions;
Promoting and pursue the reduction of
waste that goes to a landfill; and
Continuing to build on existing synergies
with community partners to integrate the
role of energy conservation and carbon
emissions in projects and planning and to
help equip the community at all levels to
make informed decisions about impacts of
energy efficiencies.
Advance Sustainability Within the
Development Community
Offer, facilitate, and/or support green
building training for builders and provide
information on programs and
organizations which will help facilitate this
strategy
Engage Blue Ridge Home Builders
Association and other similar local groups
(From Appendix 1, Page A.5.2)
Continue to build on existing synergies with
community partners to integrate the role of
energy conservation and carbon emissions in
projects and planning and to help equip the
community at all levels to make informed
decisions about impacts of energy
efficiencies.
Disseminate energy efficiency information
CPA 2013-01
BOS September 11, 2013
Attachment E page 4
in conjunction with local government
legislative issues.
Make changes to the Zoning Ordinance to
ensure it does not create obstacles to
green building.
Assist developers in locating and applying
for EnergyStar tax credits for energy
efficient projects.
Encourage builders and developers to seek
LEED, Earthcraft, EnergyStar or other
comparable certifications.
to residents and businesses within the
County.
Continue to work with local organizations
such as the Local Energy Alliance Program
(LEAP) to reach all sectors of the
community.
Encourage all employers within the County
to consider incentives for their employees
to reduce fuel consumption. The County
will continue to research and work with
the City of Charlottesville, the University of
Virginia and local transportation services
to identify and compile options for the
community; encourage High Occupancy
Vehicle (HOV) travel; select local goods
and services whenever economically
feasible to reduce transport-related costs
and enhance the local economy; and the
use of telecommunication technology to
reduce travel.
Increase awareness of and opportunities
for business and residents to recycle their
used goods.
Communicate awareness of cost savings
opportunities associated with renovation
and rehabilitation of existing buildings
versus new construction.
Advance Sustainability Among Residents
Develop and maintain links and/or pages
on the County website that provide
information and strategies to help
residents reduce their consumption of
resources and resulting pollution.
Assist residents in locating and applying for
EnergyStar tax credits for energy efficient
projects.
(See above; also additional information to be
provided through Livability Project)
Continue Research and Updates to the
Comprehensive Plan
Continue investigating aggressive and
viable strategies for green building, energy
efficiency, and the following:
- Recycling
(Additional information to be provided
through Livability Project)
CPA 2013-01
BOS September 11, 2013
Attachment E page 5
- Alternative Energy
- Local Food Production
- Protection of Water Resources
- More efficient Wastewater
Treatment
- Enhanced Transit, Sidewalks, Bicycle
Facilities, Trails and Greenways
(Pages 1.2 – 1.6 provide information on the
regional Livability Project Goals developed by
the joint Planning Commissions. These shared
goals and objectives have been stated in blue
boxes in each chapter. Specific actions have
been incorporated into strategies within both
the City and County plans. The current draft
report is found in the reference document,
R.2.1.)
(Text on Page 1.9 includes information on the
Town of Scottsville, its Land Use Plan, and the
relationship of the Town to the two counties
in which it lies.)
(Text on Pages 1.10 and 1.12 includes analysis
of current demographic information and
trends to help plan for the future.)
(Text on Pages 1.13 and 1.14 includes a
description of the Plan, the Summary, the
Appendices, and Reference documents.)
CPA 2013-01
BOS September 11, 2013
Attachment E page 6
Comparison of Goals, Objectives and Strategies
Chapter 2: Vision and Values
September 11, 2013
Existing Comprehensive Plan Proposed Comprehensive Plan Update
(The existing Comprehensive Plan uses terms such
as vision, goal, objective, and principles
interchangeably throughout. No single Vision
Statement exists in the Comprehensive Plan.)
Anchored by a strong economy and excellent
education system, Albemarle envisions a thriving
County that honors its rural heritage, scenic
beauty, and natural and historic resources while
fostering attractive and vibrant communities.
(This vision was wordsmithed slightly from the Board
of Supervisor’s vision statement which is found below:
Albemarle envisions 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.
The Commission chose to use the Board’s vision rather
than create a different one. Each chapter contains
text showing how the topic ties back to the County’s
vision.)
CPA 2013-01
BOS September 11, 2013
Attachment E page 7
Comparison of Goals, Objectives and Strategies
Chapter 3 Growth Management
September 11, 2013
Existing Comprehensive Plan
Amended July 11, 2007 (CPA 05-02, Growth
Management Policy Update) October 10, 2007,
(CPA 07-04, Impact of Development on Public
Facilities)
Proposed Comprehensive Plan Update
GOAL: Albemarle’s land and resources will pass
down to future generations by protecting the Rural
Area and directing growth to the Development
Areas.
GOAL: Protect and efficiently utilize County
resources by:
A. Protecting the elements that define the Rural
Area:
1) Agricultural resources
2) Forestry resources
3) Land preservation
4) Land conservation
5) Water supply resources
6) Natural resources
7) Scenic resources
8) Historical, archaeological, and cultural
resources
B. Promoting the Development Areas as the
place where a variety of land uses, facilities,
and services exist and are planned to support
the County’s future growth, with emphasis
placed on infill development.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY GROWTH
MANAGEMENT POLICY
Promote the efficient use of County resources
through a combination of:
A. Protecting the elements that define the Rural Area:
Agricultural resources
Forestry resources
Land preservation
Land conservation
Water supply resources
Natural resources
Scenic resources
Historical, archaeological, and cultural
resources
and
B. Promoting the Development Areas as the place
where a variety of land uses, facilities, and
services exist and are planned to support the
County’s future growth, with emphasis placed on
density and high quality design in new and infill
development.
GOAL: Strongly support and effectively
implement the County's growth management
priorities in the planning and provision of
transportation infrastructure, public facilities and
public utilities.
Objective 1: Continue to consistently use the
Growth Management Policy to guide decisions on
land use, capital expenditures, and service provision.
From Land Use Plan, Page 11, Principles for the
Development Areas:
Strategy 1a: Continue to approve new development
proposals in the Development Areas as the
designated location for new residential, commercial,
CPA 2013-01
BOS September 11, 2013
Attachment E page 8
Accommodate new growth in the County
within Development Areas.
industrial, and mixed-use development. Only
approve new development proposals in the Rural
Area that are supported by Rural Area goals,
objectives, and strategies.
From Growth Management Policy in Land Use
Plan, Page 4:
It also must be recognized that provision of
infrastructure that successfully implements the
Development Areas is highly dependent on the
availability of adequate funding from a variety of
sources. Traditionally such infrastructure has been
programmed in the County’s Capital
Improvements Program (CIP) and funded primarily
through County property taxes on a pay as you go
basis. But the scale and scope of the impacts of
new development on this infrastructure
necessitate greater financial participation by new
development in addressing these needs.
Furthermore, the provision of infrastructure that is
more concurrent with needs may be best realized
through longer term debt that utilizes the
excellent bond rating of the County and can be
financed through property taxes and funding
commitments from new development.
The Nature of Public Service Delivery: Those
persons living in the Rural Areas should not
anticipate levels of public service delivery equal to
services provided in the Development Areas.
Strategy 1b: Continue to provide facilities needed
to support growth in the Development Areas and
promote the Development Areas as the most
desirable place for new residents by funding capital
improvements and infrastructure and providing a
higher level of services to the Development Areas.
The County has a very important role in providing
necessary support services and infrastructure for
existing development and residents. The County also
has a responsibility to provide the necessary new
and amended ordinances, regulations, and
infrastructure to promote the Neighborhood Model
form of development to make the Development
Areas attractive to new residents. It must be
recognized that the desired increase in livability and
density in the Development Areas requires an
increased commitment by the County for public
infrastructure improvements. It must also be
recognized that provision of infrastructure that
successfully implements the Neighborhood Model
and density in the Development Areas is highly
dependent on infrastructure that has been
programmed in the County’s Capital Improvements
Program (CIP). Traditionally, capital improvements
have been funded primarily through County
property taxes on a pay-as-you-go basis. However,
CIP funding through these mechanisms alone is
proving not to be enough for needed infrastructure
and facilities. In addition, the provision of
infrastructure that is more concurrent with needs may
also require longer term debt that utilizes the
excellent bond rating of the County and can be
financed through property taxes and funding
commitments from new development.
(Additional text on the nature of public service
delivery is found under Strategy 1b, in the Rural
Area Chapter 7 on Page 7.6 and in the Community
Facilities Chapter 12 on Page 12.5.)
Impact of Development on Public Facilities (As
Amended October 10, 2007) On May 2, 2007, the
Strategy 1c: Continue to recognize the shared
responsibility between the County and new
CPA 2013-01
BOS September 11, 2013
Attachment E page 9
Board accepted the cash proffer methodology
recommended by the FIAC to calculate the
impacts of residential development will pay for
the equivalent of their full impact as determined
by the cash proffer addendum to the
Comprehensive Plan (SEE APPENDIX B:
ALBEMARLE COUNTY, VIRGINIA CASH PROFFER
POLICY FOR PUBLIC FACILITIES).
development to pay for infrastructure and
improvements to the Development Areas to address
the impacts of new development.
(Information on the impact of development on public
facilities is found in the Development Areas Chapter
8 on Page 8.8 with a recommendation to review the
cash proffer policy to assess its effects on density
and also in the Implementation Chapter 13 on Page
13.3.)
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – APRIL 23, 2013
DRAFT PARTIAL MINUTES – CPA-2013-1 COMP PLAN UPDATE SUBMITTED TO BOS
1
Albemarle County Planning Commission
April 23, 2013
The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public hearing on Tuesday, April 23, 2013, at 4:00
p.m., at the County Office Building, Auditorium, Second Floor, 401 McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virgi nia.
Members attending were Ed Smith, Bruce Dotson, Don Franco, Thomas Loach, Richard Randolph,
Russell (Mac) Lafferty, Vice Chairman, and Calvin Morris, Chairman. Julia Monteith, AICP, Senior Land
Use Planner for the University of Virginia was present.
Other officials present were Andrew Sorrell, Senior Planner, Elaine Echols, Principal Planner; Scott Clark,
Senior Planner; David Benish, Chief of Planning; Sharon Taylor, Clerk to Planning Commission; and Greg
Kamptner, Deputy County Attorney.
Call to Order and Establish Quorum:
Mr. Morris, Chair, called the regular meeting to order at 4:00 p.m. and established a quorum.
Work session
CPA-2013-00001 Comprehensive Plan Update (Elaine Echols)
In a work session staff reviewed the first four sections and highlighted comments from the public, to date
and reviewed the following topics:
• Values and Vision
• Growth Management
• Introduction and Background
• People of Albemarle County (Demographics)
• Natural Resources
In general, the Commission talked about formatting needs. In particular the Commission asked for the
following changes:
Provide context on how the plan came to be.
Explain the different documents (Comprehensive Plan, Master Plans, Implementation, Metrics,
Annual Report, etc.) and how they work together. Also, provide a table of acronyms.
Explain the rationale for the order of the plan, a “how to read this document” and the role of the
Appendix and Reference Documents.
Talk about “cross-over” topics up-front, such as the relationship of Econom ic Development to
Natural Resources.
Talk about priorities of goals and the rationale, when one goal may appear to conflict with
another.
Explain the time frame for the plan.
For Values and Vision, no substantive changes were suggested; however, the Commission asked that
the word “rivers” be added next to “streams.”
For Growth Management, the Commission requested the following changes:
Add something about the importance of business development and jobs for existing residents, not
new jobs with more people moving to the County.
Add wording which indicates the small amount of money for improvements that comes from
proffers and existing infrastructure needs.
Add a process diagram to help explain the Capital Improvements Program
Clarify how the Board should assess development proposals in non-priority areas. Will paying
more than the maximum proffer amount justify rezonings and special uses in the non -priority
areas?
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – APRIL 23, 2013
DRAFT PARTIAL MINUTES – CPA-2013-1 COMP PLAN UPDATE SUBMITTED TO BOS
2
For the Introduction and Background, the Commission requested the following changes:
Add back to the document a reference to the fact that the County does not want to be a large
metropolitan area like Richmond and its suburbs or the Washington D.C metro area.
Trim the text relating to sustainability, but don’t drop the Sustainability Accords from this chapter.
Indicate how the Accords are used or applied.
Reduce the bulk of text related to the Livability project.
For The People of Albemarle County, the Commission asked for the following changes:
Change Table 4 from a table to a bar graph to show median household income by groups. The
groupings by income should be reduced so that there aren’t 10 different categories.
For Table 6, Projected Population, see what information can be included in relation to University
of Virginia growth projections.
Make sure that the population projections are consistent with the time period for the Plan.
Add a disclaimer that income and net assets are different and in Albemarle County, “income”
does not necessarily represent “wealth.”
For Natural Resources, the Commission asked for the following changes:
Review and revise the section to explain why natural resource preservation is important to the
County.
Place reference material and some educational material in the Reference section.
For air quality, more information is needed to explain what affects air quality in Albemarle County
and what can be done to improve it.
The Commission agreed to continue the discussion on Natural Resources at their meeting on April 30.
Public comment was deferred to the regular meeting under other matters due to time restraints. No
formal action taken.
Mr. Morris invited public input under matters not on the agenda at their regular meeting starting at 6 p.m.
Ms. Echols asked the Commission to read through natural resources, historic, cultural and scenic, and
economic development for the next discussion on April 30. Staff will start with natural resources. She
asked the Commission to look through the implementation strategies and put some stars on what they
think are the priorities.
Ms. Monteith left the meeting at 5:38 p.m.
The Planning Commission adjourned at 5:38 p.m. for a dinner break and reconvened at 6:01 p.m.
Mr. Morris, Chair, called the Albemarle County Planning Commission regular meeting to order at 6:01
p.m. and established a quorum.
Members attending were Ed Smith, Bruce Dotson, Don Franco, Thomas Loach, Richard Randolph,
Russell (Mac) Lafferty, Vice Chair, and Calvin Morris, Chair. Julia Monteith, AICP, Senior Land Use
Planner for the University of Virginia, was absent.
Other officials present were Andrew Sorrell, Senior Planner; Amelia McCulley, Director of Zoning/Zoning
Administrator; Amanda Burbage, Senior Planner; Stewart Wright, Permits Planner; Trevor Henry, Director
of Office of Facilities; Brent Nelson, Planner; Scott Clark, Senior Planner; David Benish, Chief of
Planning; Sharon Taylor, Clerk to Planning Commission; and Greg Kamptner, Deputy County Attorney.
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.
Charles Battig presented comments regarding concerns with Stonefield traffic, definition and scope of
Monticello’s viewshed; and enforcement and new restrictive zoning codes. He understands the
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – APRIL 23, 2013
DRAFT PARTIAL MINUTES – CPA-2013-1 COMP PLAN UPDATE SUBMITTED TO BOS
3
Commission did look at his 20 page document, which he did not think the work session was open to the
public. He thanked the Commission for considering the document. (Attachment A – The 20 page
document is on file with written minutes in office of the clerk ) In addition, Mr. Battig noted the attention
paid to the Monticello’s Viewshed in the local press prompts him again to ask what the definition was of
its viewshed. How large an object subtending what maximum angle of view was to be deemed
objectionable. It must be no larger than a credit card pencil or a toothpick at arm’s length when viewed
from the grounds. Why are there no similar concerns for Mr. Jefferson’s other beloved creation such as
the UVA Academicals Village. What about the Rotunda viewshed, which includes coffee shops, banks,
and UVA souvenir shops and more. What is the point of viewshed concern at all in expanding it four -fold
if the assurances are correct that it is voluntary and the private property rights will not be violated by the
wishes of this commercial enterprise. Why four-fold and not three- or six-fold. What about other property
owners and their own viewshed desires. Is enforcement and new restrictive zoning codes the implied
threat? He noted there were no answers.
There being no further comments, the meeting moved to the next agenda item.
(Recorded and transcribed by Sharon C. Taylor, Clerk to Planning Commission & Planning Boards)
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – APRIL 2, 2013
FINAL MINUTES
1
Albemarle County Planning Commission
April 2, 2013
The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public hearing on Tuesday, April 2, 2013, at 6:00
p.m., at the County Office Building, Auditorium, Second Floor, 401 McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia.
Members attending were Ed Smith, Bruce Dotson, Thomas Loach, Richard Randolph, Don Franco,
Calvin Morris, Chair; and Russell (Mac) Lafferty, Vice Chair. Julia Monteith, AICP, Senior Land Use
Planner for the University of Virginia was present.
Other officials present were Andy Sorrell, Senior Planner; Elaine Echols, Principal Planner; Summer
Frederick, Intern; Sharon Taylor, Clerk; Wayne Cilimberg, Director of Planning; and Greg Kamptner,
Deputy County Attorney.
Call to Order and Establish Quorum:
Mr. Morris, Chair, called the regular meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. and established a quorum.
Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda from the Public:
Mr. Morris invited comment from the public on other matters not listed on the agenda.
Joe Draego, Carrsbrook resident, spoke about his concerns regarding the red light cameras at the 29/Rio
intersection. He disagreed that the cameras provide additional safety and asked that the cameras be
removed.
There being no further comments, the meeting moved to the next item.
Committee Reports
Mr. Morris invited committee reports.
The following committee reports were given:
Mr. Franco reported on two committee meetings:
- Places 29 and the understanding of the relationship of the Comp Plan to zoning. There appears to be
some disconnect between the existing zoning and the Comp Plan and what it all means. He thinks it
is going to come up in the future. Therefore, they need to understand how they relate to each other.
- The Fiscal Impact Advisory Committee discussed the status of cash proffers and a possible
recommendation to the Board. There is not going to be a recommendation at this point to the Board
on what values should be accepted. The assumption is that the status quo will continue so it will
continue to increase. The Impact Committee’s staff has been tasked with meeting with some of the
development community to talk about the properties that are developing by right and why the
development is being done by right. The question would be are the amount of the proffers
encouraging developers to develop by right as opposed to in accordance with the Comprehensive
Plan. If that is something that is happening, then they would consider that a weakness and something
that needs to be reported to the Board. So they are going to be looking at that. The one case of point
that was brought up was Dunlora IV, which was developed by right and did not go through the
rezoning. As an income source for CIP money the County missed out on a whole lot of money there.
Mr. Loach reported on the Crozet Advisory Committee and the status of the library construction and the
Crozet Avenue improvements project. The library construction is coming along fine. They have started
work on the main street improvement plan to relocate the utilities. They are looking forward to that getting
done.
There being no other committee reports, the meeting moved to the next item.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – APRIL 2, 2013
FINAL MINUTES
2
Consent Agenda:
a. Resolution of Intent: Family Day Homes (Mandy Burbage)
b. 2013 Planning Commission Annual Report: (Wayne Cilimberg)
c. Approval of Minutes: April 24, 2012, February 5, 2013, February 12, 2013
Mr. Morris asked if any Commissioner wanted to pull an item from the consent agenda for discussion.
Motion: Mr. Franco moved and Mr. Randolph seconded for acceptance of the consent agenda.
The motion carried by a vote of 7:0.
Mr. Morris noted the consent agenda items were approved.
Public Hearing Item:
CPA 2013-00001 – Comprehensive Plan – Amend the Albemarle County Comprehensive Plan in its
entirety by restating the County’s values and vision which guide the Plan, and its policies, goals,
objectives and strategies for natural resources, historic, cultural, and scenic resources, economic
development, the Rural Areas, the Development Areas, housing, transportation, parks and recreation and
greenways and green systems, and community facilities and services; adopt a corrected Village of
Rivanna land use map; amend the Development Areas’ and Rural Areas’ boundaries by adding the
Mosby Mountain and Whittington areas to the Development Areas within one of the Plan’s Southern
neighborhoods (Neighborhood 5), to be designated as Neighborhood Density Residential and Parks and
Green Systems, and by adding area to the Development Areas immediately north of the R ivanna Station
area along the east side of Route 29 North within the Places 29 Master Plan and to change the variety of
plan designations in that area; change the comprehensive plan designation of the Forest Spring Park
area west of Hollymead Town Center from Light Industrial to Residential – Urban Density; and amend the
Pantops Master Plan by removing two planned streets shown on the master plan. Copies of the full text
and maps of the Comprehensive Plan are on file in the office of the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors and
in the Department of Community Development, County Office Building, 401 McIntire Road,
Charlottesville, Virginia and may be viewed at the County’s website at www.albemarle.org. (Elaine
Echols/Andy Sorrell)
Review of Draft Comprehensive Plan
Elaine Echols reviewed the proposed Comprehensive Plan in a PowerPoint presentation. After the
presentation staff will ask the Commission for clarification. If there are no other questions for clarification
recommended, then staff will recommend the Commission open up the public hearing and then bring it
back for discussion.
Getting to the Public Hearing
• 21 Work sessions on Comprehensive Plan
• 12 Joint PC Meetings – Livability Project
• Public input at Livability Project workshops
• Public input at Commission meetings
It is finally time for the public hearing. They have taken public input received on the Livability Project plus
the input the Planning Commission has given in addition to public comment received at the Commission
meetings to bring back the first draft of the full document.
Tonight
• Substantive areas of change to the Plan
• Edits in writing, please
• Questions for clarification after presentation
• Public Hearing for Input
* * * * *
• Commission identifies areas where no additional discussion is needed
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – APRIL 2, 2013
FINAL MINUTES
3
• Commission identifies areas for additional discussion
After Tonight
• Potential Work sessions on April 16, 23, 30
• Staff to bring back final draft in early May for Commission review and provide recommend ation to
BOS
Overview of Structure of Draft Document
Executive Summary
Chapters
Sections
o Background info
o Goal, Objectives, Strategies
o List of Actions
o Indicators of Progress (One section, the Scenic Resources section, is missing the indicators
of progress.)
Appendices
References
Information to be Added
• Maps in Natural Resources Section
• Land Use Chart in Development Area Section
• List of Implementation Activities and Costs in Southern and Western Neighborhood
• Proposed Priorities
• Capacity Update
• Other enhancements based on comments from the public that are consistent with PC direction
A lot of comments from the public were received at the Open House. Many of them were ways to
improve or enhance the plan, not necessarily disagreements with it. Staff thinks t hey can make those
changes if they are consistent with direction from the Commission. The Commission should look for that
the next time around.
One of the things really important to the Commission at the beginning of this process was an
understanding of what the Board of Supervisor’s vision was for the County and making sure it translated
into each section of the plan so they could see a clear line. Staff has tried to do that visually. They have
received some comments that would suggest that perhaps it needs to be done more. The Board of
Supervisors vision for the community from the Strategic Plan has been placed on the page of each one of
these sections. The areas are highlighted as to how that particular section ties back into the vision. The
joint recommendations from the City and County are highlighted. In the introduction and background
chapter is the whole list of recommendations made together. Then they broke those out by the topic area
and put them in their respective sections.
Policies that Remain the Same
• Growth Management Policy
• Historic and Scenic Resource Preservation
• Natural Resource Protection
• Density and Infill in Development Area (DA) in accordance with Neighborhood Model
• Distinctions between Rural Area (RA) and Development Area (DA)
Changes to Current Plan - Cash Proffer Policy
• Recommend addition of language to clarify that relief from cash proffers applies only to affordable
units and not cash-in-lieu of units
Natural Resources
• Habitats
• RRBC and StreamWatch
• State requirements (TMDLs); possible storm water utility fee
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – APRIL 2, 2013
FINAL MINUTES
4
• No Mountain Overlay District recommendation
• Expand Natural Resources Extraction Overlay
• Discourage fill in the floodplain to make land available for development
Historic, Cultural, and Scenic Resources
• Re-establish full-time Historic Preservation Planner
• Provide on-line mapping of Monticello Viewshed (still being worked on)
• Placement of Viewshed Guidelines in Reference Documents
• Recommendations to coordinate Entrance Corridor (EC) guidelines with City Entrance Corridor
(EC) Guidelines
• Tie Entrance Corridor (EC) Guidelines to the Neighborhood Model
Economic Development
• Add Target Industry strategies, including Ag-related
• Possible creation of Technology Zones
• Continue to monitor land availability for employment/industrial growth
Land Use in the Rural Area
This is the biggest area of change in the plan.
• Importance of attractive and livable Development Area
• Agriculture related and food processing uses without need for public utilities at interstate
interchanges with emphasis on the Shadwell Interchange as sort of the first priority area
• Consider zoning ordinance amendments for:
small scale beer production
small scale agricultural distribution centers
community centers
restaurants in crossroads communities
use of historic structures for restaurants or lodging
lodging
commercial events on a regular basis,
farms having the same allowances for events as farm wineries,
home occupations
Land Use in the Development Area
• Expansion of information on Neighborhood Model Principles and Guidance
• Importance of concurrency of infrastructure with new development
• Recommendations for urban agriculture
• Master Plans
Housing
• Standalone section
• State Code information
• Credits for very low income housing
• Partial credits for work-force housing in affordable housing policy
• Recommendations to work with the City
Transportation
• Emphasis on multi-modalism
• Connecting transportation improvements to greenway trails
• Greater support for transit and passenger rail
• Western Bypass information
Parks, Recreation, Greenways, Blueways, and Green Systems
• More emphasis on working with the City, Rivanna River Corridor
• More emphasis on connections
• Location-specific improvements in Appendix
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – APRIL 2, 2013
FINAL MINUTES
5
Community Facilities
• Enhanced energy conservation recommendations
• Reinforced importance of Neighborhood Model Principles in new public facilities
• Recommendations for geographic policing
• Recommendation for a public training facility – no location specified
Southern and Western Neighborhoods
• New Master Plan
• Area B information
• Transportation recommendations
• New Land Use Chart
Staff has recommended several changes to the existing Master Plans mostly maps.
Other Master Plan Changes-
Pantops
There are two roads shown in the Pantops Master Plan that the Advisory Committee requested to be
removed from the plan. Staff is going along with their recommendation on that.
Village of Rivanna
When the land use map was adopted it gave information on environmental features. However, when they
tried to put it on the GIS Web floodplains came up as a land use and that is not intended to be a land use.
It is an environmental feature. So in keeping with the other master plans staff took the existing map and
translated all of those environmental features into the Parks and Green Sys tem color. One map will stay
in the plan. The other map gives a higher level picture of what the recommended land use in the Village
of Rivanna would be. It also went to the Community Advisory Council and they endorsed that plan.
Places 29 – Hollymead Town Center Area
In Places 29 there are two areas that they recommended for changes. One has to do with the existing
mobile home park south of Hollymead Town Center. It has been shown as Light Industrial on the
Places29 plan. That is a holdover from man y years ago when there was an expectation that if this mobile
home park went away then the land should be reverted to an industrial status. It does not appear that is
going to be happening. Therefore, staff is recommending that this Light Industrial land be designated for
urban density residential.
In the course of the public input section they got information on the existing zoning that they were not
looking at on these plans. The area both north and south of that mobile home park has R-15 zoning.
Staff believes that needs to be changed on the next version of the plan. W here the R-15 zoning is will
replace the Light Industrial land just to reflect what was approved a number of years ago for a high
density housing area.
Places 29 – NGIC Area
The NGIC Area is something the Commission has received some correspondence on. They talked about
this a while back in terms of trying to increase the amount of area that would be available for Office R&D
Flex Light Industrial, especially in relation to the Ri vanna Station. What they did was to show an
expansion of that area and then take the residential land here and move it outside the Development
Areas by moving the Development Area boundary line and adding the green area shown in the
presentation as protection for the Rivanna Station. Staff has found out there is different information about
the appropriateness of that. What staff wants to do is sit down with the people at Rivanna Station and the
property owner to talk through this and make sure they are all on the same page. They got information
they thought was accurate and it turns out it might not be accurate. Therefore, they need to work that one
out before they make a firm recommendation on this area. So they may hear something about that
tonight, but staff thinks it needs to come off the table for now to look at father.
Comments from the Public
• Open House
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – APRIL 2, 2013
FINAL MINUTES
6
• Emails
• Letters
• Phone calls
Staff thinks the Commission has the information they need along with this public hearing to know how
they need to go to the next step. After the public hearing staff would like to take a short break. Then staff
would ask the Commission is the format good to go; are there areas that can stand as written; and what
needs more discussion. She asked if the Commission had any questions for clarification at this time.
There being no questions for staff, Mr. Morris opened the public hearing and invited public comment.
Morgan Butler, of the Southern Environmental Law Center, thanked the Commission for the opportunity to
provide input and asked the Commission for more time to read and process the draft before providing a
detailed response.
Meredith Richards, from the Fifeville Rail and The Piedmont Rail Coalition (Charlottesville Rail Coalition),
spoke about the Lynchburg-Boston rail line. She requested that the Commission approve language
related to inter-city rail travel found in Draft Comp Plan. They have an intercity passenger train that is
making modern history in Charlottesville and Albemarle. If any mobility has ever demonstrated that
people will change the way they travel and will do so quickly when given a convenient reliable safe and
affordable alternative it is here where our Lynchburg, Washington, Northeast regional train is running. It
began in October, 2009 and has set national records for ridership growth, cost recovery, and profitability.
It grew 29 percent in the second year and 14 percent in the third year. Both of these were the second
highest rate of growth in the entire Amtrak system. It also grew similarly in terms of fair revenues and also
among the highest rates of growth in the second and third year. After its first year Amtrak also
announced that it was the best performing state supported train in its entire national system in terms of
cost recovery. In fact, in its second year it made 5 cents per passenger mile and last year it made 8.4
cents per passenger mile for a total of 3.3 million dollars profit last year for Amtrak. She believes it is
appropriate and necessary that intercity passenger rail be an integral part of planning for the future of
transportation for our region. This mobility should be recognized in the Comp Plan for its importance.
Please approve the intercity passenger rail section of the Comprehensive Plan.
Marcia Joseph, representing Habitat for Humanity, said that Habitat is working with staff on the process
for redeveloping the Southwood Mobile Home Park. She said that Habitat for Humanity supports the
revised language provided to the Commission electronically by staff several days before the meeting.
Nancy Carpenter, a resident of Neighborhood IV in the southwest area, talked about the lack of affordable
and workforce housing in the County. She said the County needs more affordable/work force housing, as
well as the need to improve the current inventory of affordable housing. She supports the language in the
Draft Comprehensive Plan that makes housing a priority and specifies working with other local agencies
and organizations to implement housing initiatives. She m entioned a report entitled, “Out of Reach”
which had been written in the prior year.
Kirk Bowers, PC, resident of Albemarle County representing the Sierra Club, said the Sierra Club
supports the County policy of natural resource protection with growth to occur in the Development Areas.
He said the Club would like the County to require proof of adequate infrastructure before approving future
development. He said that jobs and economic development should not be at the expense of natural
resources. He said he liked the regional transit authority language. A copy of his comments was
provided to staff for inclusion in the minutes. A detailed review of the Comprehensive Plan with comments
is forthcoming. (Attachment A - Letter regarding Comp Plan Review with four pages of Comp Plan
comments dated 4/2/2013 from Sierra Club, Piedmont Group from Kirk A. Bowers, PE – Attachments on
file with the printed minutes in the office of the clerk)
Anne Taylor, representing the Thomas Jefferson Foundation (TJF), spoke ab out the unique assets of
Monticello. She noted the cultural and economic benefits to the community, specifically the impact on
local tourism. Regarding viewshed protection she said Thomas Jefferson Foundation (TJF) wants to
provide information to landowner/developers on how projects would affect viewshed, and letting them
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – APRIL 2, 2013
FINAL MINUTES
7
make their own decisions while being fully informed. She said she looks forward to continuing a dialog
with the County.
Natasha Sienitsky, representing Thomas Jefferson Foundation (TJF), added her thanks and support to
Anne Taylor’s comments.
Tom Olivier, representing Advocates for Sustainable Albemarle Population (ASAP) as its president,
provided a written letter to Commissioners and staff. He said he appreciates the work done by sta ff, but
more work is needed. He said the vision should have specific features, is too short, and needs more
meat. He said ASAP would like a statement in the Comprehensive Plan that says the population of
Albemarle won’t get any larger than it is today. He believes the Indicators of Progress need further
review and all of the recommendations should be prioritized. Tom Olivier, ASAP President (Attachment
B – ASAP comments on the March 2013 draft of the Albemarle County Comprehensive Plan submitted by
Tom Olivier, ASAP President – ten pages – Attachments on file with the printed minutes in the office of
the clerk)
David Flynn, owner of the Aunt Sarah’s Pancake House property on Pantops, said that any change in
designation of land should require legal notification via registered mail. He complained that staff had not
done their job in dealing with the public interested in purchasing his land. He said he had not been able
to sell this property due to the designation of a future road across his property. H e said he was happy to
see the recommendation to take the road off of the Comprehensive Plan maps.
Dr. Charles Battig, a resident, said that the Draft Comp Plan should not be considered at all and should
be rejected out of hand for many reasons. He said it violates Federal Code and violates State Code. He
said it micro manages residents lives (specified in Chapter 5) and replaces “We the People” with “We the
Planners”. He said the Plan mirrors the UN Biodiversity Report. He provided a written copy of his
comments to the Clerk for inclusion in the minutes. (Attachment C – Public comments Comprehensive
Plan Draft March 2013 for Planning Commission Meeting April 2, 2013 by Charles Battig, MD -
Attachments on file with the printed minutes in the office of the clerk)
John Chavan, owner of property on Route 250W near the I-64 Interchange at Shadwell, says that his land
is designated RA but really isn’t rural. He said that a former Planning Commissioner and Board of
Supervisors member agree with him. He wants approval of a special use permit to allow for personal
storage (mini-warehouses). He asked about the difference between food product storage and personal
storage.
Joe Draego, a resident of Carrsbrook, challenged the Planning Commission Chair on his i nstruction that
Mr. Draego not clap after other speakers made comments. Mr. Draego said he had a right to clap. After
Mr. Morris said he would explain the reasons why at the break, Mr. Draego continued. He said that the
proposed Comprehensive Plan is un-American. He asked why the tax rate for Rural Area (RA) residents
is the same as the rate for Development Area (DA) residents since the RA residents don’t receive the
same services. He made comments about the “social justice” portion of the Plan (although he did not
point out where in the Plan there is mention of “social justice”).
Roger Schickedantz, a resident of Neighborhood 5, said that he didn’t want land called the Parham site
designated for light industrial use. He asked where the protections fo r adjacent residential areas are
mentioned. He asked about how the County would protect the residents from light and noise. He asked
about size and density guidelines for light industrial use in such areas. He asked that the Parham
property be kept as Urban Density residential. He said that the qualities of neighborhoods and the
community are compromised when economic development is given too much weight/priority. (Attachment
D – Letter to Members of Planning Commission from Roger O. Schickedantz, AIA dated April 2, 2012
regarding the proposed Parham site - Attachment on file with the printed minutes in the office of the clerk)
Audrey Wellborn, a resident, spoke to the Commission about the process for developing the Update. She
said she had attended all of the One Community workshops and meetings and taken all the work of the
update process very seriously. She said her comments on the need for protection of personal property
rights have not been included in the draft of the Comp Plan. She said furthe r that it isn’t clear what is
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – APRIL 2, 2013
FINAL MINUTES
8
new/same in relation to old/current Plan. This information should be provided. She said she had
concerns about the transfer of development rights language and asked, “What does this mean? How is
the average property owner going to understand/know what this new Draft Comp Plan is all about?”
Neil Williamson, with the Free Enterprise Forum, said he likes the Economic Development chapter and
the shorter length of the document. He said he still has concerns with the general dir ection of the Plan.
He believes that everything in the Plan should be vetted by the PC, not just the areas where change has
been proposed. The Entrance Corridor, and Monticello Viewshed, Environmental section of the Plan are
all sections that need consideration. He said the Plan lacks a unified voice. He said it should start all
over from the bottom up -- “zero based planning.”
Wendell Wood, a property owner and resident of Albemarle, said that the areas recommended for light
Industrial zoning, as written, can’t happen. Land is too expensive. He said that the County needed to
start looking forward and thinking about the future. He said that undeveloped light industrial land should
be designated now in areas away from the population. He said this need ed to take place before areas
become populated with residential development so the Commission won’t have to deal with the backlash.
Jeff Werner, representing the Piedmont Environmental Council, said he agreed with Mrs. Wellborn on the
need for a “compare” version of the plan. He said it is hard to compare the new language with the old
language, even though he felt the Plan needed to be shorter. He said that there are several different
models “out there” for light industrial development that the County should consider. The County should
consider traffic calming in the Plan. The map and list of deficient bridges and culverts should also be
included. He said more adherence to access management is needed so another Western Bypass
situation can be avoided.
Bill Schrader, from the Crozet Community Advisory Council, said he liked the work that staff has done.
He said he likes the fact that the Master Plans have stayed the same in the Plan. He said he is
concerned about interchange language – what does “near the Interstate” mean? Does a property need to
be touching the four quadrants of the interchange in order for the policy to apply?
There being no further public comment, Mr. Morris closed the public hearing to bring the matter before the
Planning Commission for discussion.
Recess: At 7:25 p.m., the Planning Commission recessed and then reconvened at 7:35 p.m.
Mr. Morris called the Planning Commission back to order. He asked Ms. Echols to provide a recap.
Mrs. Echols asked the Commissioners to provide feedback on the format of the plan and the proposed
process for review.
In response, Planning Commissioners provided the following comments and recommendations:
Mr. Dotson said he would like to see an explanation of the “what” and “why” of the Plan early on. He said
he sees the strategies as an inventory of all that the County may do. He said the plan needs clarification
that it all may not get done in 5 years. He said there needs to be a relationship between the plan and the
process for developing the annual work program.
Mr. Franco asked for a preface or preamble to the plan. He suggested the staff take what is now in
Chapter 2 and move it forward.
Mr. Randolph commented he thinks the document is too “encyclopedic” in some ways and used the
section on the Neighborhood Model as an example.
Mr. Morris said he liked how the Joint Goals were presented in the Plan. He said he liked having it all in
front of him, up front where it needs to be. He agreed with Mr. Franco about the need to have an
explanation of the plan up front.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – APRIL 2, 2013
FINAL MINUTES
9
Ms. Monteith said she would like to see more graphics incorporated into those chapters that don’t have
any. She said this will make the plan easier to understand. She said the plan needs to be more balanced
in terms of content of sections and to even out “passive-active” language. She said the order of sections
in Chapter 5 may need to be different. Reorganizing the sections might help reduce redundancy.
Mr. Lafferty said he likes the detail provided in the Neighborhood Model portion of the Plan.
Mr. Loach said he also likes the detail in the Plan.
Mr. Lafferty asked if there is a legal reason why information on the State Code should be included in the
Plan. He said that he believes what is in the Draft Plan is adeq uate, but perhaps a memo from the
County Attorney with more detail on what is needed could be provided. It is possible that the State Code
information could be put in the Reference or Appendices.
Mr. Franco said he believed the information on the State Code is okay as is.
Mr. Randolph suggested that more of the details of the Neighborhood Model in the Plan should be put in
the Appendix.
Mr. Franco said to even out the chapters, size-wise he suggested that staff move more to the
Appendices. He noted that the section on Natural Resources is longer than it needs to be in the Plan.
Ms. Monteith agreed with Mr. Franco.
Mr. Morris asked if the Neighborhood Model information could all be put in the Appendices.
Mrs. Echols said that this was an example of an effort to provide information on “why” the Neighborhood
Model principles exist.
Mr. Dotson said that each chapter needs a capsule at the beginning to relate back to the vision and
values at the beginning of the document.
Mr. Franco said that the Historic Resources section provides an example of too much detail. It needs to
be refined.
Mr. Lafferty said that they need to prioritize the next 5 years desires for each Section.
Mrs. Echols answered that this will be provided with the next version of the plan or during the review of
each section.
Mr. Loach said there should be some information on how the Plan can change over the next five years
and under what circumstances change might occur.
Mr. Morris said he liked the summary handouts.
Mr. Franco said he was more concerned about the objectives and strategies.
Mr. Loach said he would like the performance measurements included in the objective and strategies list.
Mr. Smith said he thinks the language should be changed to what the COUNTY wants, not w hat WE (the
Commission) want.
Mrs. Echols said that she could take any written edits from the Commission and would quickly return the
binders to Commissioners after copying their notes. Several members of the Commission said they were
not ready to submit edits or changes until more or all public input had been received.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – APRIL 2, 2013
FINAL MINUTES
10
After briefly talking to Mr. Butler from SELC who had made the request at the beginning of the meeting
and talking to the Commission, the Chair agreed to give the public an additional t wo weeks to provide
comments. The Commission would be given another week to process the information, then turn in edits
to Mrs. Echols. After that that time, the Commission would begin its deliberation on substance in the
Plan.
Ms. Monteith noted she had several additional questions. She questioned if the City’s comp plan format
is the same as the County’s. In the Community Services and Facilities section most of the discussion
about storm water is up front in the document. With TMDL regulations comin g down the line will there be
something else in that realm in Community Service about water quality and the impacts of storm water. In
the transportation section she questioned if there might be more about Places29 or would it just be
separate.
Mr. Franco asked if the April 16 Commission work session could be used to discussion information, such
as an awaited Monticello Viewshed map and the parcels changing designation. He thought that was
independent of form. He said he hated to not be working on the Draft at all while awaiting additional
comment.
Mr. Randolph said he wanted to provide some feedback on the Plan that night. He said more is needed
in the Plan about bicycle transportation that creates connections between schools, parks, communities.
He said these networks need to be in excess of greenway trails and should link important places together.
He said more information is needed in the Plan on how infrastructure to support development will be built.
He suggested there was some merit, given Mr. Wood’s concern, about looking at our planning process for
light industrial. He did not think they could get that resolved in the Plan, but felt they need to start working
on it now.
Mr. Loach asked that public input reference specific sections and suggestions on ways to have more
metrics in our system so they can measure which direction they are going.
Ms. Echols said they would look into this and agreed to contact the Chair with information on topics which
could be discussed on April 16.
Staff was asked to take the comments into consideration in the Comp Plan Update. No formal action
taken.
There being no further comments, the meeting moved to the next item.
Old Business
Mr. Morris asked if there was any new business. There being none, the meeting proceeded.
New Business
Mr. Morris asked if there was any new business.
THE NEXT PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING WILL BE ON TUESDAY, APRIL 9, 2013 AT
6:00 p.m.
Adjournment
With no further items, the meeting adjourned at 8:23 p.m. to the Tuesday, April 9, 2013 meeting at 6:00
p.m. at the County Office Building, Second Floor, Auditorium, 401 McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia.
V. Wayne Cilimberg, Secretary
(Recorded and transcribed by Sharon C. Taylor, Clerk to Planning Commission & Planning Boards)
NATIONAL PREPAREDNESS MONTH
WHEREAS, “National Preparedness Month” creates an opportunity for residents of
Albemarle County to prepare their homes, businesses, and communities
for any type of emergency from natural to man-made disasters; and
WHEREAS,
investing in the preparedness of ourselves, our families, businesses, and
communities can improve our resilience as we protect against, respond
to, recover from, and mitigate hazards; and
WHEREAS,
Ensuring the health and safety of the community is a strategic goal for
Albemarle County and a community priority to fulfill the vision of a
thriving County; and
WHEREAS,
Promoting individual responsibility and citizen ownership of community
challenges is a strategic goal for Albemarle County; and
WHEREAS,
emergency preparedness is the personal responsibility of every citizen of
Albemarle County; and
WHEREAS,
all citizens are urged to make preparedness a priority and participate in
local activities to educate themselves on how to take action and work
together to ensure that individuals and families in Albemarle County are
prepared for disasters and emergencies of any type; and
WHEREAS,
all citizens of Albemarle County are encouraged to review the Federal
Emergency Management Agency Ready campaign Web sites at ready.gov
or listo.gov (in Spanish) and become more prepared;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors
hereby proclaims
September 2013
as
National Preparedness Month
and encourages all citizens and businesses to develop their own
emergency plan, build an emergency kit, and work together toward
creating a more prepared community.
Return to agenda
2013 World Alzheimer’s Month
Whereas, the nation and the County of Albemarle observe World Alzheimer’s
Awareness Month during the month of September; and
Whereas, Alzheimer’s disease, a progressive neurodegenerative brain disorder, tragically
robs individuals of their memories and leads to progressive mental and physical
impairments; and
Whereas, more than 5 million Americans have Alzheimer’s disease with as many as
200,000 of those are individuals under age 65 who have younger-onset
Alzheimer’s; and
Whereas, Alzheimer’s disease is the sixth leading cause of death in the U.S., more than
prostate cancer and breast cancer combined; and
Whereas, the human cost of Alzheimer’s disease is staggering. In 2012, 15.4 million
caregivers provided an estimated 17.5 billion hours of unpaid care, a contribution
to the nation valued at more than $216 billion; and
Whereas, every 68 seconds, someone in America develops Alzheimer’s disease and by mid -
century someone will develop Alzheimer’s every 33 seconds; and
Whereas, in recognition of the individuals, families, friends and caregivers dealing with
Alzheimer’s disease, the researchers who are seeking a cause or cure; and
Whereas, the County of Albemarle recognizes the efforts of the Alzheimer’s Association to
raise funds to support research and promote awareness of Alzheimer’s disease
and asks its citizens to find ways to Do A Little Big Thing in the fight to end the
disease;
Now, Therefore, Be It Resolved, that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors do hereby
proclaim the month of September 2013, as World Alzheimer’s Awareness
Month.
Return to agenda
WOMEN’S EQUALITY DAY
WHEREAS, Women’s Equality Day is intended to draw attention to the fact that women
were given the right to vote in 1920; and
WHEREAS, it is incumbent upon all of us to work within our communities to be advocates
for the rights of all women, men and children; and
WHEREAS, it is important that we encourage everyone to take advantage of the resources
and services that are available in this community, such as schools, law enforcement, local
government, and human services agencies to help guarantee those rights; and
WHEREAS, knowledge empowers women, men and children, which then strengthens
families, the fundamental unit of society; and
WHEREAS, the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors strongly supports equal pay for
equal work for all citizens, regardless of gender;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle
County, Virginia, does hereby recognize
WOMEN'S EQUALITY DAY
in the County of Albemarle in remembrance of all women and men who have worked to
develop a more equitable community, and one which advocates for all its citizens.
Signed and sealed this 11th day of September 2013.
Return to agenda
The Board of County Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virgin ia, in regular meeting on the
September 11, 2013, adopted the following resolution:
R E S O L U T I O N
WHEREAS, the street(s) in The Farms at Turkey Run Subdivision, as described on the
attached Additions Form AM-4.3 dated September 11, 2013, fully incorporated herein by
reference, is shown on plats recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of Albemarle
County, Virginia; and
WHEREAS, the Resident Engineer for the Virginia Depart ment of Transportation has
advised the Board that the street(s) meet the requirements established by the Subdivision Street
Requirements of the Virginia Department of Transportation.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Albemarle Board of County Supervisors
requests the Virginia Department of Transportation to add the street(s) in The Farms at Turkey
Run Subdivision, as described on the attached Additions Form AM-4.3 dated September 11,
2013, to the secondary system of state highways, pursuant to §33 .1-229, Code of Virginia, and
the Department's Subdivision Street Requirements; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Board guarantees a clear and unrestricted right -of-
way, as described, exclusive of any necessary easements for cuts, fills and drainage as described
on the recorded plats; and
FURTHER RESOLVED that a certified copy of this resolution be forwarded to the Resident
Engineer for the Virginia Department of Transportation.
* * * * *
The road(s) described on Additions Form AM-4.3 is:
1) Courtenay Glen Way (State Route 1348) from (Route 1347) Jordan Run Lane to
0.28 miles north, as shown on plat recorded in the office the Clerk of Circuit Court of
Albemarle County in Deed Book 4368, page 651, with a 50-foot right-of-way width,
for a length of 0.28 miles.
2) Jordan Run Lane (1347) from (Route 795) Blenheim Road to 0.57 miles east to
Route 1348 (Courtenay Glen Way), as shown on plat recorded in the office the
Clerk of Circuit Court of Albemarle County in Deed Book 4368, page 651, with a 50 -
foot right-of-way width, for a length of 0.57 miles.
Total Mileage – 0.85
Return to consent agenda
Return to regular agenda
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
Housing Choice Vouchers
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Approval of Chapter 20 of the Administrative Plan
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Foley, Walker, Davis, and White
PRESENTER (S): N/A
LEGAL REVIEW: Yes
AGENDA DATE:
September 11, 2013
ACTION: INFORMATION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: X INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS: Yes
REVIEWED BY:
BACKGROUND:
The Albemarle County Office of Housing (“Off ice”) is the designated local agency for the administration of the Housing
Choice Voucher Program (“Program”), formerly known as the Section 8 Rental Assistance Program. The Office is
considered a part of the executive branch of local government and not a public housing authority. Although not a housing
authority, the Office must comply with U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (“HUD”) requirements for
Public Housing Agency (“PHA”) activities, including the development and implementation of a 5-Year PHA Plan with
annual updates as necessary and an Administrative Plan (“Plan”) which specifies policies adopted by the County.
The Board approved a revised Plan on June 6, 2012, which was submitted to HUD for review and comment. On August 1,
2012, HUD submitted its comments on the Plan to the Office, which made revisions to the Plan reflecting those comments
and guidance provided in PIH Notice 2011-54 (HA). This revision was approved by the Board on September 5, 2012, and
the Office sent the revision to HUD for its review.
STRATEGIC PLAN:
Goal 5: Ensure the Health and Safety of the Community
DISCUSSION:
A letter from HUD dated July 19, 2013, a copy of which was provided to the Board at its August 14, 2013 meeting,
identified an additional fifty-four items that HUD requested be addressed in the Plan. Because most of the items
addressed non-discretionary regulatory requirements and are not required as a part of the Plan based on guidance for
Plan development, the Office challenged HUD’s comments. In a letter received on August 8, 2013, HUD reiterated
that all of the items must be addressed in a revised Plan. All of the items are part of Chapter 20 of the Plan,
specifically addressing Project-based Vouchers. The Office has revised Chapter 20 (Attachment A) and will insert the
chapter, once approved, into the previously-approved Plan. Board members may wish to focus on those areas where
the Office has discretion. Any section of the Plan in which the Office has discretion will reference the relevant ACOH
Policy.
BUDGET IMPACT:
There is no budget impact anticipated because of this action. HUD provides annual budget authority for the voucher
program from which any project-based vouchers may be funded.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends that the Board adopt the attached Resolution (Attachment B) to approve the revisions to Chapter 20
of the Administrative Plan and to authorize the Chief of Housing to implement the Program in accordance with the
approved Plan.
ATTACHMENTS:
A – Chapter 20
B – Resolution
Return to consent agenda
Return to regular agenda
Attachment A
1
Chapter 20
PROJECT-BASED VOUCHERS
(24 CFR 983)
20.1 INTRODUCTION: The County of Albemarle considers the use of project-based
vouchers as critical in supporting housing opportunities that address one or more of the following
objectives;
i. Deconcentrating poverty
ii. Preserving and Expanding housing availability
iii. Supporting nonprofit housing initiatives (owner and partnership ventures)
iv. Supporting housing with long-term affordability commitments
v. Supporting special populations (elderly, disabled, homeless)
vi. Ensuring financial viability of housing
20.2 PROGRAM AUTHORITY: The Albemarle County Office of Housing (ACOH)
operates its project-based voucher (PBV) program as a component of its rental assistance
activities and will comply with all regulations found in 24 CFR 983 and applicable regulations
found in 24 CFR 982. In the event that certain provisions in 24 CFR 982 differ from those in 24
CFR 983, the provisions in 24 CFR 983 shall govern. ACOH shall use the definitions found at
24CFR983.3 and attached hereto and comply with all cross-cutting Federal requirements found
in 24CFR983.4, also attached) and associated citations as noted in 24CFR983.4.
Funding for the program comes from the annual budget authority for the Housing Choice
Voucher Program. ACOH may select owner proposals to provide PBV assistance for up to 20%
of the amount of budget authority allocated by HUD under the Housing Choice Voucher
Program. ACOH is not required to reduce the number of of PBV units under a Housing
Assistance Payment Contract (HAP) if the amount of budget authority is subsequently reduced.
ACOH may take other actions to stay within the allocated funding such as discontinuing funding
upon vacancy or reducing assistance to voucher holders and project-based units.
ACOH shall monitor the usage of the budget authority available for PBVs on a monthly basis
and no owner proposals shall be solicited for additional PBVs if sufficient budget authority does
not exist. Since HAP contracts do not assign a specific budget authority to each property, the
total of the previous month’s PBV payments shall be used to determine if additional budget
authority exists.
20.3 HOUSING TYPES: ACOH will consider owner proposals for the following types of
housing for the use of PBVs.
1. preservation of existing affordable units likely to be lost due to sale, refinance, and/or
opt-out of federal contracts by the owner(s); and,
Attachment A
2
2. creation (construction) of new affordable rental housing when a nonprofit agency is a
partner and has executed a first right-of-refusal that may be exercised within 15 years or,
if a tax credit deal, owner has agreed to an extended compliance period of 30 years.
3. existing housing which address one or more of the objectives listed in 20.1, meet HQS
standards at the time of selection and received other funding which requires rent and
occupancy restrictions.
ACOH shall not provide assistance for any of the special housing types listed in 24CFR983.9 ,
ineligible units found in 24CFR983.53 or subsidized units found in 24CFR983.54.
ACOH’s policies govern the use of PBVs in privately-owned housing units only. ACOH does
not own nor does it anticipate owning public housing units or any other type of housing units
(24CFR983.59).
20.4 RELOCATION REQUIREMENTS [24 CFR 983.7]
Any persons displaced as a result of implementation of the PBV program must be provided
relocation assistance in accordance with the requirements of the Uniform Relocation Assistance
and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (URA)[42 U.S.C. 4201-4655] and
implementing regulations at 49 CFR part 24.
The cost of required relocation assistance may be paid with funds provided by the owner, local
public funds, or funds available from other sources. ACOH may not use voucher program funds
to cover relocation costs, except that ACOH may use their administrative fee reserve to pay for
relocation expenses after all other program administrative expenses are satisfied, and provided
that payment of the relocation benefits is consistent with state and local law. Use of the
administrative fee for these purposes must also be consistent with other legal and regulatory
requirements, including the requirement in 24 CFR 982.155 and other official HUD issuances.
The acquisition of real property for a PBV project is subject to the URA and 49 CFR part 24,
subpart B. It is the responsibility of ACOH to ensure the owner complies with these
requirements.
20.5 EQUAL OPPORTUNITY REQUIREMENTS [24 CFR 983.8]
ACOH must comply with all equal opportunity requirements under federal law and regulations
in its implementation of the PBV program. This includes the requirements and authorities cited
at 24 CFR 5.105(a). In addition, ACOH must comply with ACOH Plan certification on civil
rights and affirmatively furthering fair housing, submitted in accordance with 24 CFR 903.7(o).
20.6 OWNER PROPOSAL SELECTION PROCEDURES [24 CFR 983.51]
ACOH must select PBV proposals in accordance with the selection procedures in ACOH
administrative plan. ACOH must select PBV proposals by either of the following two methods.
ACOH request for PBV Proposals. ACOH may solicit proposals by using a request for
Attachment A
3
proposals to select proposals on a competitive basis in response to ACOH request. ACOH
may not limit proposals to a single site or impose restrictions that explicitly or practically
preclude owner submission of proposals for PBV housing on different sites.
ACOH may select proposal that were previously selected based on a competition. This may
include selection of a proposal for housing assisted under a federal, state, or local
government housing assistance program that was subject to a competition in accordance with
the requirements of the applicable program, community development program, or supportive
services program that requires competitive selection of proposals (e.g., HOME, and units for
which competitively awarded LIHTCs have been provided), where the proposal has been
selected in accordance with such program's competitive selection requirements within three
years of the PBV proposal selection date, and the earlier competitive selection proposal did
not involve any consideration that the project would receive PBV assistance.
Solicitation and Selection of PBV Proposals [24 CFR 983.51(b) and (c)]
ACOH procedures for selecting PBV proposals must be designed and actually operated to
provide broad public notice of the opportunity to offer PBV proposals for consideration by
ACOH. The public notice procedures may include publication of the public notice in a local
newspaper of general circulation and other means designed and actually operated to provide
broad public notice. The public notice of ACOH request for PBV proposals must specify the
submission deadline. Detailed application and selection information must be provided at the
request of interested parties.
ACOH Policy
ACOH Request for Proposals for Rehabilitated and Newly Constructed Units
ACOH will advertise its request for proposals (RFP) for rehabilitated and newly
constructed housing in the following newspapers and trade journals:
The Daily Progress
In addition, ACOH will post the RFP and proposal submission and rating and ranking
procedures on its electronic web site (www.albemarle.org/housing).
ACOH will publish its advertisement in the newspaper mentioned above one time. The
advertisement will specify the number of units ACOH estimates that it will be able to
assist under the funding ACOH is making available. Proposals will be due in ACOH
office by close of business 14 calendar days from the date of the last publication.
In order for the proposal to be considered, the owner must submit the proposal to ACOH
by the published deadline date, and the proposal must respond to all requirements as
outlined in the RFP. Incomplete proposals will not be reviewed.
ACOH will rate and rank proposals for rehabilitated and newly constructed housing using
the following criteria:
Owner experience and capability to build or rehabilitate housing as identified in
the RFP;
Attachment A
4
Existence of a nonprofit partner or first-right-of-refusal to a nonprofit entity in
the event of a future sale;
Extent to which the project furthers ACOH goal of deconcentrating poverty and
expanding housing and economic opportunities;
If applicable, the extent to which services for special populations are provided on
site or in the immediate area for occupants of the property; and
Projects with less than 25 percent of the units assisted will be rated higher than
projects with 25 percent of the units assisted. In the case of projects for
occupancy by the elderly, persons with disabilities or families needing other
services, ACOH will rate partially assisted projects on the percent of units
assisted. Projects with the lowest percent of assisted units will receive the
highest score.
ACOH Requests for Proposals for Existing Housing Units
ACOH will advertise its request for proposals (RFP) for existing housing in the following
newspapers and trade journals.
The Daily Progress
In addition, ACOH will post the notice inviting such proposal submission and the rating and
ranking procedures on its electronic web site (www.albemarle.org/housing).
ACOH will publish its advertisement in the newspaper mentioned above at least one time. The
advertisement will specify the number of units ACOH estimates that it will be able to assist
under the funding ACOH is making available. Owner proposals will be accepted on a first-come
first-served basis and will be evaluated using the following criteria:
Experience as an owner in the tenant-based voucher program and owner
compliance with the owner’s obligations under the tenant-based program;
Existence of a nonprofit partner or first-right-of-refusal to a nonprofit entity in the
event of a future sale;
Extent to which the project furthers ACOH goal of deconcentrating poverty and
expanding housing and economic opportunities;
If applicable, extent to which services for special populations are provided on site or in
the immediate area for occupants of the property; and
Extent to which units are occupied by families that are eligible to participate in the
PBV program.
ACOH Selection of Proposals Subject to a Previous Competition under a Federal, State,
or Local Housing Assistance Program
ACOH will accept proposals for PBV assistance from owners that were competitively
selected under another federal, state or local housing assistance program, including projects
that were competitively awarded Low-Income Housing Tax Credits on an ongoing basis.
Attachment A
5
ACOH may advertise that it is accepting proposals, in the following newspapers and
trade journals:
The Daily Progress
In addition to, or in place of advertising, ACOH may also directly contact specific owners that
have already been selected for Federal, state, or local housing assistance based on a previously
held competition, to inform them of available PBV assistance.
Proposals will be reviewed on a first-come first-served basis. ACOH will evaluate each
proposal on its merits using the following factors:
Extent to which the project furthers ACOH goal of deconcentrating poverty and
expanding housing and economic opportunities;
Existence of a nonprofit partner or first-right-of-refusal to a nonprofit entity in the
event of a future sale; and
Extent to which the proposal complements other local activities such as the HOME
program, CDBG activities, other development activities.
ACOH-owned Units [24 CFR 983.51(e) and 983.59]
ACOH-owned unit may be assisted under the PBV program only if the HUD field office or
HUD-approved independent entity reviews the selection process and determines that ACOH-
owned units were appropriately selected based on the selection procedures specified in ACOH
administrative plan. If ACOH selects a proposal for housing that is owned or controlled by
ACOH, ACOH must identify the entity that will review ACOH proposal selection process and
perform specific functions with respect to rent determinations and inspections.
In the case of ACOH-owned units, the initial contract rent must be approved by an independent
entity based on an appraisal by a licensed, state-certified appraiser. In addition, housing quality
standards inspections must be conducted by an independent entity.
The independent entity that performs these program services may be the unit of general local
government for ACOH jurisdiction (unless ACOH is itself the unit of general local government
or an agency of such government) or another HUD-approved public or private independent
entity. ACOH may only compensate the local independent entity and appraiser from ACOH's
ongoing administrative fee income (including amounts credited to the administrative fee
reserve). ACOH may not use other program receipts to compensate the independent entity and
appraiser for their services. ACOH, independent entity, and appraiser may not charge the family
any fee for the appraisal or the services provided by the independent entity.
ACOH Policy
ACOH does not own and does not intend to own any housing units. If, however,
ACOH acquires housing units, it will follow the prescribed requirements herein.
ACOH Notice of Owner Selection [24 CFR 983.51(d)]
ACOH must give prompt written notice to the party that submitted a selected proposal and must
Attachment A
6
also give prompt public notice of such selection. Public notice procedures may include
publication of public notice in a local newspaper of general circulation and other means designed
and actually operated to provide broad public notice.
ACOH Policy
Within 10 business days of ACOH making the selection, ACOH will notify the selected
owner in writing of the owner’s selection for the PBV program. ACOH will also notify
in writing all owners that submitted proposals that were not selected and advise such
owners of the name of the selected owner.
In addition, ACOH will publish its notice for selection of PBV proposals once in the
same newspaper ACOH used to solicit the proposals. The announcement will include
the name of the owner that was selected for the PBV program. ACOH will also post
the notice of owner selection on its electronic web site.
ACOH will make available to any interested party its rating and ranking sheets and
documents that identify ACOH basis for selecting the proposal. These documents will be
available for review by the public and other interested parties for one month after
publication of the notice of owner selection. ACOH will not make available sensitive
owner information that is privileged, such as financial statements and similar information
about the owner. ACOH will make these documents available for review at ACOH
during normal business hours.
20.7 HOUSING TYPE [24 CFR 983.52]
ACOH may attach PBV assistance for units in existing housing or for newly constructed or
rehabilitated housing developed under and in accordance with an agreement to enter into a
housing assistance payments contract that was executed prior to the start of construction. A
housing unit is considered an existing unit for purposes of the PBV program, if, at the time of
notice of ACOH selection, the units substantially comply with HQS. Units for which new
construction or rehabilitation was started in accordance with PBV program requirements do not
qualify as existing housing.
ACOH must decide what housing type, new construction, rehabilitation, or existing housing, will
be used to develop project-based housing. ACOH choice of housing type must be reflected in its
solicitation for proposals.
20.8 SUBSIDY LAYERING REQUIREMENTS [24 CFR 983.55, FR Notice 11/24/08]
ACOH may provide PBV assistance only in accordance with HUD subsidy layering regulations
[24 CFR 4.13] and other requirements.
The subsidy layering review is intended to prevent excessive public assistance by combining
(layering) housing assistance payment subsidy under the PBV program with other governmental
housing assistance from federal, state, or local agencies, including assistance such as tax
concessions or tax credits.
Attachment A
7
ACOH must submit the necessary documentation to HUD for a subsidy layering review. Except
in cases of HAP contracts for existing structures, or if such reviews have been conducted by the
applicable state and local agencies, ACOH may not enter into an agreement to enter into a HAP
contract or a HAP contract until HUD (or an independent entity approved by HUD) has
conducted any required subsidy layering review and determined that the PBV assistance is in
accordance with HUD subsidy layering requirements.
The HAP contract must contain the owner's certification that the project has not received and
will not receive (before or during the term of the HAP contract) any public assistance for
acquisition, development, or operation of the housing other than assistance disclosed in the
subsidy layering review in accordance with HUD requirements.
20.9 CAP ON NUMBER OF PBV UNITS IN EACH PROJECT 25
Percent per Project Cap [24 CFR 983.56(a), FR Notice 11/24/08]
In general, ACOH may not select a proposal to provide PBV assistance for units in a project or
enter into an agreement to enter into a HAP or a HAP contract to provide PBV assistance for
units in a project, if the total number of dwelling units in the project that will receive PBV
assistance during the term of the PBV HAP contract is more than 25 percent of the number of
dwelling units (assisted or unassisted) in the project.
Exceptions to 25 Percent per Project Cap [24 CFR 983.56(b), FR Notice 11/24/08]
Exceptions are allowed and PBV units are not counted against the 25 percent per project cap if:
The units are in a single-family building (one to four units);
The units are excepted units in a multifamily building because they are specifically made
available for elderly or disabled families or families receiving supportive services (also
known as qualifying families).
ACOH must include in ACOH administrative plan the type of services offered to families for a
project to qualify for the exception and the extent to which such services will be provided. It is
not necessary that the services be provided at or by the project, if they are approved services.
To qualify, a family must have at least one member receiving at least one qualifying supportive
service. ACOH may not require participation in medical or disability-related services other than
drug and alcohol treatment in the case of current abusers as a condition of living in an excepted
unit, although such services may be offered.
ACOH Policy
Supportive services must be appropriate to the population to be served and help
residents stabilize and improve their health, incomes, and housing.
If a family at the time of initial tenancy is receiving, and while the resident of an excepted unit
has received, FSS supportive services or any other supportive services as defined in ACOH
administrative plan, and successfully completes the FSS contract of participation or the
supportive services requirement, the unit continues to count as an excepted unit for as long as
the family resides in the unit.
Attachment A
8
ACOH must monitor the excepted family's continued receipt of supportive services and take
appropriate action regarding those families that fail without good cause to complete their
supportive services requirement. ACOH administrative plan must state the form and frequency
of such monitoring.
ACOH Policy
ACOH will provide PBV assistance for excepted units and monitor the continued receipt
of services annually at the time of recertification
Promoting Partially-Assisted Buildings [24 CFR 983.56(c)]
ACOH may establish local requirements designed to promote PBV assistance in partially
assisted buildings. A partially assisted building is a building in which there are fewer units
covered by a HAP contract than residential units [24 CFR 983.3].
ACOH may establish a per-building cap on the number of units that will receive PBV
assistance or other project-based assistance in a multifamily building containing excepted units
or in a single-family building. ACOH may also determine not to provide PBV assistance for
excepted units, or ACOH may establish a per-building cap of less than 25 percent.
ACOH Policy:
ACOH will provide PBV assistance for excepted units and partially assisted buildings
consistent with all policies set forth in this Chapter.
20.10 SITE SELECTION STANDARDS
Compliance with PBV Goals, Civil Rights Requirements, and HQS Site
Standards [24 CFR 983.57(b)]
ACOH may not select a proposal for existing, newly constructed, or rehabilitated PBV housing
on a site or enter into an agreement to enter into a HAP contract or HAP contract for units on
the site, unless ACOH has determined that PBV assistance for housing at the selected site is
consistent with the goal of deconcentrating poverty and expanding housing and economic
opportunities. The standard for deconcentrating poverty and expanding housing and economic
opportunities must be consistent with ACOH Annual Plan under 24 CFR 903 and ACOH
administrative plan.
In addition, prior to selecting a proposal, ACOH must determine that the site is suitable from
the standpoint of facilitating and furthering full compliance with the applicable Civil Rights
Laws, regulations, and Executive Orders, and that the site meets the HQS site and neighborhood
standards at 24 CFR 982.401(l).
ACOH Policy
It is ACOH goal to select sites for PBV housing that provide for deconcentrating
poverty and expanding housing and economic opportunities. In complying with this goal
ACOH will limit approval of sites for PBV housing in census tracts that have poverty
concentrations of 20 percent or less.
However, ACOH will grant exceptions to the 20 percent standard where ACOH determines
that the PBV assistance will complement other local redevelopment activities designed to
Attachment A
9
deconcentrate poverty and expand housing and economic opportunities in census tracts with
poverty concentrations greater than 20 percent, such as sites in:
A census tract in which the proposed PBV development will be located in a HUD-
designated Enterprise Zone, Economic Community, or Renewal Community;
A census tract where the concentration of assisted units will be or has decreased as
a result of public housing demolition and HOPE VI redevelopment;
A census tract in which the proposed PBV development will be located is
undergoing significant revitalization as a result of state, local, or federal dollars
invested in the area;
A census tract where new market rate units are being developed where such
market rate units will positively impact the poverty rate in the area;
A census tract where there has been an overall decline in the poverty rate within
the past five years; or
A census tract where there are meaningful opportunities for educational
and economic advancement.
ACOH will use the criteria for existing units and new construction of units in the selection of
PBV sites. For existing housing units and housing units proposed for rehabilitation, the
following apply
Site must be adequate in size with adequate utilities and infrastructure to serve the units;
The proposed site must promote a greater choice of housing opportunities and avoid
undue concentration of assisted families in areas with a high proportion of low-income
families;
Site must be accessible to social, recreational, educational, commercial, and health
facilities/services;
Be located such that travel time and cost via public transportation or private vehicle from
the site to places of employment with a range of jobs for lower-income workers is not
excessive. This requirement may not be rigidly adhered to for elderly housing proposals.
For new construction, ACOH will consider the following criteria:
Site must be adequate in size with adequate utilities and infrastructure to serve the units;
The site must not be located in an area of minority concentration;
The proposed site must promote a greater choice of housing opportunities and avoid
undue concentration of assisted families in areas with a high proportion of low-income
families;
Site must be accessible to social, recreational, educational, commercial, and health
facilities/services;
Be located such that travel time and cost via public transportation or private vehicle from
the site to places of employment with a range of jobs for lower-income workers is not
excessive. This requirement may not be rigidly adhered to for elderly housing proposals.
The neighborhood must not be one that is seriously detrimental to family life or in which
substandard dwellings or other undesireable condition predominate.
Attachment A
10
20.11 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW [24 CFR 983.58]
ACOH activities under the PBV program are subject to HUD environmental regulations in 24
CFR parts 50 and 58. The responsible entity is responsible for performing the federal
environmental review under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et
seq.). ACOH may not enter into an agreement to enter into a HAP contract nor enter into a HAP
contract until ACOH or the responsible entity has complied with the environmental review
requirements.
In the case of existing housing, the responsible entity that is responsible for the environmental
review under 24 CFR part 58 must determine whether or not PBV assistance is categorically
excluded from review under the National Environmental Policy Act and whether or not the
assistance is subject to review under the laws and authorities listed in 24 CFR 58.5.
ACOH may not enter into an agreement to enter into a HAP contract or a HAP contract with an
owner, and ACOH, the owner, and its contractors may not acquire, rehabilitate, convert, lease,
repair, dispose of, demolish, or construct real property or commit or expend program or local
funds for PBV activities under this part, until the environmental review is completed.
ACOH must supply all available, relevant information necessary for the responsible entity to
perform any required environmental review for any site. ACOH must require the owner to carry
out mitigating measures required by the responsible entity (or HUD, if applicable) as a result of
the environmental review.
20.12 HOUSING QUALITY STANDARDS [24 CFR 983.101]
The housing quality standards (HQS) for the tenant-based program, including those for special
housing types, generally apply to the PBV program. These requirements can be found in
Chapter 10 of this Plan. HQS requirements for shared housing, manufactured home space
rental, and the homeownership option do not apply because these housing types are not
assisted under the PBV program.
Lead-based Paint [24 CFR 983.101(c)]
The lead-based paint requirements for the tenant-based voucher program do not apply to the
PBV program. Instead, The Lead-based Paint Poisoning Prevention Act (42 U.S.C. 4821-4846),
the Residential Lead-based Paint Hazard Reduction Act of 1992 (42 U.S.C. 4851-4856), and
implementing regulations at 24 CFR part 35, subparts A, B, H, and R, apply to the PBV
program.
20.13 HOUSING ACCESSIBILITY FOR PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES
The housing must comply with program accessibility requirements of section 504 of the
Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (29 U.S.C. 794) and implementing regulations at 24 CFR part 8.
ACOH must ensure that the percentage of accessible dwelling units complies with the
requirements of section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (29 U.S.C. 794), as implemented
by HUD's regulations at 24 CFR 8, subpart C.
Attachment A
11
Housing first occupied after March 13, 1991, must comply with design and construction
requirements of the Fair Housing Amendments Act of 1988 and implementing regulations at 24
CFR 100.205, as applicable. (24 CFR 983.102)
20.14 INSPECTING UNITS
Pre-selection Inspection [24 CFR 983.103(a)
ACOH must examine the proposed site before the proposal selection date. If the units to be
assisted already exist, ACOH must inspect all the units before the proposal selection date,
and must determine whether the units substantially comply with HQS. To qualify as existing
housing, units must substantially comply with HQS on the proposal selection date. However,
ACOH may not execute the HAP contract until the units fully comply with HQS.
Pre-HAP Contract Inspections [24 CFR 983.103(b)]
ACOH must inspect each contract unit before execution of the HAP contract. ACOH may
not enter into a HAP contract covering a unit until the unit fully complies with HQS.
Turnover Inspections [24 CFR 983.103(c)]
Before providing assistance to a new family in a contract unit, ACOH must inspect the unit.
ACOH may not provide assistance on behalf of the family until the unit fully complies with
HQS.
Annual Inspections [24 CFR 983.103(d)]
At least annually during the term of the HAP contract, ACOH must inspect each unit for which
it is providing assistance.
Other Inspections [24 CFR 983.103(e)]
ACOH must inspect contract units whenever needed to determine that the contract units comply
with HQS and that the owner is providing maintenance, utilities, and other services in
accordance with the HAP contract. ACOH must take into account complaints and any other
information coming to its attention in scheduling inspections.
ACOH must conduct follow-up inspections needed to determine if the owner (or, if applicable,
the family) has corrected an HQS violation, and must conduct inspections to determine the basis
for exercise of contractual and other remedies for owner or family violation of HQS.
In conducting ACOH supervisory quality control HQS inspections, ACOH should include
a representative sample of both tenant-based and project-based units.
20.15. AGREEMENT TO ENTER INTO HAP CONTRACT
Attachment A
12
In order to offer PBV assistance in rehabilitated or newly constructed units, ACOH must enter
into an agreement to enter into HAP contract (Agreement) with the owner of the property. The
Agreement must be in the form required by HUD [24 CFR 983.152(a)].
In the Agreement the owner agrees to develop the PBV contract units to comply with HQS, and
ACOH agrees that upon timely completion of such development in accordance with the terms
of the Agreement, ACOH will enter into a HAP contract with the owner for the contract units
[24 CFR 983.152(b)].
Content of the Agreement [24 CFR 983.152(c)]
At a minimum, the Agreement must describe the following features of the housing to be
developed and assisted under the PBV program:
Site and the location of the contract units;
Number of contract units by area (size) and number of bedrooms and bathrooms;
Services, maintenance, or equipment to be supplied by the owner without charges in addition
to the rent;
Utilities available to the contract units, including a specification of utility services to be paid
by the owner and utility services to be paid by the tenant;
An indication of whether or not the design and construction requirements of the Fair Housing
Act and section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 apply to units under the Agreement. If
applicable, any required work item resulting from these requirements must be included in the
description of work to be performed under the Agreement;
Estimated initial rents to owner for the contract units;
Description of the work to be performed under the Agreement. For rehabilitated units, the
description must include the rehabilitation work write up and, where determined necessary
by ACOH, specifications and plans. For new construction units, the description must include
the working drawings and specifications.
Any additional requirements for quality, architecture, or design over and above HQS.
Execution of the Agreement [24 CFR 983.153, FR Notice 11/24/08]
The Agreement must be executed promptly after ACOH notice of proposal selection to the
selected owner. Generally, ACOH may not enter into the Agreement with the owner until the
subsidy layering review is completed. Likewise, ACOH may not enter into the Agreement until
the environmental review is completed and ACOH has received environmental approval.
However, ACOH does not need to conduct a subsidy layering review in the case of a HAP
contract for an existing structure or if the applicable state or local agency has conducted such a
review. Similarly, environmental reviews are not required for existing structures unless
otherwise required by law or regulation.
ACOH Policy
ACOH will enter into the Agreement with the owner within 10 business days of receiving
both environmental approval and notice that subsidy layering requirements have been
met, and before construction or rehabilitation work is started.
Attachment A
13
20.16 CONDUCT OF DEVELOPMENT WORK
Labor Standards [24 CFR 983.154(b)]
If an Agreement covers the development of nine or more contract units (whether or not
completed in stages), the owner and the owner’s contractors and subcontractors must pay Davis-
Bacon wages to laborers and mechanics employed in the development of housing. The HUD-
prescribed form of the Agreement will include the labor standards clauses required by HUD,
such as those involving Davis-Bacon wage rates.
The owner, contractors, and subcontractors must also comply with the Contract Work Hours and
Safety Standards Act, Department of Labor regulations in 29 CFR part 5, and other applicable
federal labor relations laws and regulations. ACOH must monitor compliance with labor
standards.
Equal Opportunity [24 CFR 983.154(c)]
The owner must comply with Section 3 of the Housing and Urban Development Act of 1968 and
the implementing regulations at 24 CFR part 135. The owner must also comply with federal
equal employment opportunity requirements.
Owner Disclosure [24 CFR 983.154(d) and (e)]
The Agreement and HAP contract must include a certification by the owner that the owner and
other project principals are not on the U.S. General Services Administration list of parties
excluded from federal procurement and non-procurement programs.
The owner must also disclose any possible conflict of interest that would be a violation of the
Agreement, the HAP contract, or HUD regulations.
20.17 COMPLETION OF HOUSING
The Agreement must specify the deadlines for completion of the housing, and the owner must
develop and complete the housing in accordance with these deadlines. The Agreement must also
specify the deadline for submission by the owner of the required evidence of completion.
Evidence of Completion [24 CFR 983.155(b)]
At a minimum, the owner must submit the following evidence of completion to ACOH in the
form and manner required by ACOH:
Owner certification that the work has been completed in accordance with HQS and all
requirements of the Agreement; and
Owner certification that the owner has complied with labor standards and equal opportunity
requirements in development of the housing.
At ACOH’s discretion, the Agreement may specify additional documentation that must be
submitted by the owner as evidence of housing completion.
ACOH Policy
Attachment A
14
ACOH will determine the need for the owner to submit additional documentation as
evidence of housing completion on a case-by-case basis depending on the nature of the
PBV project. ACOH will specify any additional documentation requirements in the
Agreement to enter into HAP contract.
ACOH Acceptance of Completed Units [24 CFR 983.156]
Upon notice from the owner that the housing is completed, ACOH must inspect to determine if
the housing has been completed in accordance with the Agreement, including compliance with
HQS and any additional requirements imposed under the Agreement. ACOH must also
determine if the owner has submitted all required evidence of completion.
If the work has not been completed in accordance with the Agreement, ACOH must not enter
into the HAP contract.
If ACOH determines the work has been completed in accordance with the Agreement and that
the owner has submitted all required evidence of completion, ACOH must submit the HAP
contract for execution by the owner and must then execute the HAP contract.
20.18 HOUSING ASSISTANCE PAYMENTS CONTRACT (HAP)
ACOH must enter into a HAP contract with an owner for units that are receiving PBV assistance.
The purpose of the HAP contract is to provide housing assistance payments for eligible families.
Housing assistance is paid for contract units leased and occupied by eligible families during the
HAP contract term. The HAP contract must be in the form required by HUD [24 CFR 983.202].
Contract Information [24 CFR 983.203, FR Notice 11/24/08]
The HAP contract must specify the following information:
The total number of contract units by number of bedrooms;
The project’s name, street address, city or county, state and zip code, block and lot number (if
known), and any other information necessary to clearly identify the site and the building;
The number of contract units in each building, the location of each contract unit, the area of
each contract unit, and the number of bedrooms and bathrooms in each contract unit;
Services, maintenance, and equipment to be supplied by the owner and included in the rent
to owner;
Utilities available to the contract units, including a specification of utility services to be paid
by the owner (included in rent) and utility services to be paid by the tenant;
Features provided to comply with program accessibility requirements of Section 504 of the
Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and implementing regulations at 24 CFR part 8;
The HAP contract term;
The number of units in any project that will exceed the 25 percent per project cap, which will
be set-aside for occupancy by qualifying families; and
The initial rent to owner for the first 12 months of the HAP contract term.
Attachment A
15
Execution of the HAP Contract [24 CFR 983.204]
ACOH may not enter into a HAP contract until each contract unit has been inspected and ACOH
has determined that the unit complies with the Housing Quality Standards (HQS). For existing
housing, the HAP contract must be executed promptly after ACOH selects the owner proposal
and inspects the housing units. For newly constructed or rehabilitated housing the HAP contract
must be executed after ACOH has inspected the completed units and has determined that the
units have been completed in accordance with the agreement to enter into HAP, and the owner
furnishes all required evidence of completion.
ACOH Policy
For existing housing, the HAP contract will be executed within 10 business days of
ACOH determining that all units pass HQS.
For rehabilitated or newly constructed housing, the HAP contract will be executed within
10 business days of ACOH determining that the units have been completed in accordance
with the agreement to enter into HAP, all units meet HQS, and the owner has submitted
all required evidence of completion.
Term of HAP Contract [FR Notice 11/24/08]
ACOH may enter into a HAP contract with an owner for an initial term of no less than one year
and no more than 15 years.
ACOH Policy
The term of all PBV HAP contracts will be negotiated with the owner on a case-by-case
basis.
At any time before expiration of the HAP contract, ACOH may extend the term of the contract
for an additional term of up to 15 years if ACOH determines an extension is appropriate to
continue providing affordable housing for low-income families or to expand housing
opportunities. Subsequent extensions are subject to the same limitations. All extensions must be
on the form and subject to the conditions prescribed by HUD at the time of the extension.
ACOH Policy
When determining whether or not to extend an expiring PBV contract, ACOH will
consider several factors including, but not limited to:
The cost of extending the contract and the amount of available budget authority;
The condition of the contract units; The owner’s record of compliance with obligations under the HAP contract
and lease(s);
Whether the location of the units continues to support the goals of
deconcentrating poverty and expanding housing opportunities; and
Whether the funding could be used more appropriately for tenant-based
Attachment A
16
assistance.
Termination by ACOH [24 CFR 983.205(c)]
The HAP contract must provide that the term of ACOH’s contractual commitment is subject to
the availability of sufficient appropriated funding as determined by HUD or by ACOH in
accordance with HUD instructions. For these purposes, sufficient funding means the availability
of appropriations, and of funding under the ACC from such appropriations, to make full payment
of housing assistance payments payable to the owner for any contract year in accordance with
the terms of the HAP contract.
If it is determined that there may not be sufficient funding to continue housing assistance
payments for all contract units and for the full term of the HAP contract, ACOH may terminate
the HAP contract by notice to the owner. The termination must be implemented in accordance
with HUD instructions.
Termination by Owner [24 CFR 983.205(d) , FR Notice 11/24/08]
If in accordance with program requirements the amount of rent to an owner for any contract unit
is reduced below the amount of the rent to owner at the beginning of the HAP contract term, the
owner may terminate the HAP contract by giving notice to ACOH. In this case, families living in
the contract units must be offered tenant-based assistance.
At their discretion ACOH may specify in the HAP contract that the maximum rent on a unit will
not be less than the initial rent.
Remedies for HQS Violations [24 CFR 983.207(b)]
ACOH may not make any HAP payment to the owner for a contract unit during any period in
which the unit does not comply with HQS. If ACOH determines that a contract does not comply
with HQS, ACOH may exercise any of its remedies under the HAP contract, for any or all of the
contract units. Available remedies include termination of housing assistance payments,
abatement or reduction of housing assistance payments, reduction of contract units, and
termination of the HAP contract.
ACOH Policy
ACOH will abate and terminate PBV HAP contracts for non-compliance with HQS in
accordance with the policies used in the tenant-based voucher program. These policies
are contained in Chapter 10 of this Plan.
AMENDMENTS TO THE HAP CONTRACT
Substitution of Contract Units [24 CFR 983.206(a)]
At ACOH’s discretion and subject to all PBV requirements, the HAP contract may be amended
to substitute a different unit with the same number of bedrooms in the same building for a
previously covered contract unit. Before any such substitution can take place, ACOH must
inspect the proposed unit and determine the reasonable rent for the unit.
Addition of Contract Units [24 CFR 983.206(b)]
Attachment A
17
At ACOH’s discretion and subject to the restrictions on the number of dwelling units that can
receive PBV assistance per building and on the overall size of ACOH’s PBV program, a HAP
contract may be amended during the three-year period following the execution date of the HAP
contract to add additional PBV units in the same building. This type of amendment is subject to
all PBV program requirements except that a new PBV proposal is not required.
ACOH Policy
ACOH will consider adding contract units to the HAP contract when ACOH determines
that additional housing is needed to serve eligible low-income families. Circumstances
may include, but are not limited to:
The local housing inventory is reduced due to a disaster (either due to loss of
housing units, or an influx of displaced families); and
Voucher holders are having difficulty finding units that meet program
requirements.
Hap Contract Year, Anniversary and Expiration Dates [24 Cfr 983.206(C) and
983.302(E)]
The HAP contract year is the period of 12 calendar months preceding each annual anniversary of
the HAP contract during the HAP contract term. The initial contract year is calculated from the
first day of the first calendar month of the HAP contract term.
The annual anniversary of the HAP contract is the first day of the first calendar month after the
end of the preceding contract year.
There is a single annual anniversary and expiration date for all units under a particular HAP
contract, even in cases where contract units are placed under the HAP contract in stages (on
different dates) or units are added by amendment. The anniversary and expiration dates for all
units coincide with the dates for the contract units that were originally placed under contract.
OWNER RESPONSIBILITIES UNDER THE HAP [24 CFR 983.208 and 983.209]
When the owner executes the HAP contract s/he certifies that at such execution and at all times
during the term of the HAP contract:
All contract units are in good condition and the owner is maintaining the premises and
contract units in accordance with HQS;
The owner is providing all services, maintenance, equipment and utilities as agreed to under
the HAP contract and the leases;
Each contract unit for which the owner is receiving HAP, is leased to an eligible family
referred by ACOH, and the lease is in accordance with the HAP contract and HUD
requirements;
To the best of the owner’s knowledge the family resides in the contract unit for which the
owner is receiving HAP, and the unit is the family’s only residence;
The owner (including a principal or other interested party) is not the spouse, parent, child,
grandparent, grandchild, sister, or brother of any member of a family residing in a contract
unit;
Attachment A
18
The amount of the HAP the owner is receiving is correct under the HAP contract;
The rent for contract units does not exceed rents charged by the owner for comparable
unassisted units;
Except for HAP and tenant rent, the owner has not received and will not receive any other
payment or consideration for rental of the contract unit; and
The family does not own or have any interest in the contract unit.
ADDITIONAL HAP REQUIREMENTS
Housing Quality and Design Requirements [24 CFR 983.101(e) and 983.207(a)]
The owner is required to maintain and operate the contract units and premises in accordance with
HQS, including performance of ordinary and extraordinary maintenance. The owner must
provide all the services, maintenance, equipment, and utilities specified in the HAP contract with
ACOH and in the lease with each assisted family. In addition, maintenance, replacement and
redecoration must be in accordance with the standard practice for the building as established by
the owner.
ACOH may elect to establish additional requirements for quality, architecture, or design of PBV
housing. Any such additional requirements must be specified in the Agreement to enter into a
HAP contract and the HAP contract. These requirements must be in addition to, not in place of,
compliance with HQS.
ACOH Policy
ACOH will identify the need for any special features on a case-by-case basis depending
on the intended occupancy of the PBV project. ACOH will specify any special design
standards or additional requirements in the invitation for PBV proposals, the agreement
to enter into HAP contract, and the HAP contract.
Vacancy Payments [24 CFR 983.352(b)]
At the discretion of ACOH, the HAP contract may provide for vacancy payments to the owner
for ACOH-determined period of vacancy extending from the beginning of the first calendar
month after the move-out month for a period not exceeding two full months following the move-
out month. The amount of the vacancy payment will be determined by ACOH and cannot exceed
the monthly rent to owner under the assisted lease, minus any portion of the rental payment
received by the owner (including amounts available from the tenant’s security deposit).
ACOH Policy
ACOH will not provide vacancy payments to the owner. Language regarding the
allowance for a vacancy payment will not be a part of the HAP contract.
20.19 ELIGIBILITY FOR PBV ASSISTANCE [24 CFR 983.251(a) and (b)]
Attachment A
19
ACOH may select families for the PBV program from those who are participants in ACOH’s
tenant-based voucher program and from those who have applied for admission to the voucher
program. For voucher participants, eligibility was determined at original admission to the
voucher program and does not need to be redetermined at the commencement of PBV assistance.
For all others, eligibility for admission must be determined at the commencement of PBV
assistance.
Applicants for PBV assistance must meet the same eligibility requirements as applicants for the
tenant-based voucher program. Applicants must qualify as a family as defined by HUD and
ACOH, have income at or below HUD-specified income limits, and qualify on the basis of
citizenship or the eligible immigration status of family members [24 CFR 982.201(a) and 24
CFR 983.2(a)]. In addition, an applicant family must provide social security information for
family members [24 CFR 5.216 and 5.218] and consent to ACOH’s collection and use of family
information regarding income, expenses, and family composition [24 CFR 5.230]. An applicant
family must also meet HUD requirements related to current or past criminal activity.
ACOH Policy
ACOH will determine an applicant family’s eligibility for the PBV program in
accordance with the policies in Chapter 2 (Eligibility for Admission), Chapter
3 (Applying for Admission) and Chapter 15 (Denial and Termination of
Assistance).
In-Place Families [24 CFR 983.251(b)]
An eligible family residing in a proposed PBV contract unit on the date the proposal is selected
by ACOH is considered an “in-place family.” These families are afforded protection from
displacement under the PBV rule. If a unit to be placed under contract (either an existing unit or
a unit requiring rehabilitation) is occupied by an eligible family on the date the proposal is
selected, the in-place family must be placed on ACOH’s waiting list. Once the family’s
continued eligibility is determined (ACOH may deny assistance to an in-place family for the
grounds specified in 24 CFR 982.552 and 982.553), the family must be given an absolute
selection preference and ACOH must refer these families to the project owner for an
appropriately sized PBV unit in the project. Admission of eligible in-place families is not subject
to income targeting requirements.
This regulatory protection from displacement does not apply to families that are not eligible to
participate in the program on the proposal selection date.
Organization of the Waiting List [24 CFR 983.251(c)]
ACOH may establish a separate waiting list for PBV units or it may use the same waiting list for
both tenant-based and PBV assistance. ACOH may also merge the PBV waiting list with a
waiting list for other assisted housing programs offered by ACOH. If ACOH chooses to offer a
separate waiting list for PBV assistance, ACOH must offer to place applicants who are listed on
the tenant-based waiting list on the waiting list for PBV assistance.
If ACOH decides to establish a separate PBV waiting list, ACOH may use a single waiting list
for ACOH’s whole PBV program, or it may establish separate waiting lists for PBV units in
particular projects or buildings or for sets of such units.
Attachment A
20
ACOH Policy
ACOH will establish and manage separate waiting lists for each of the projects
that are receiving PBV assistance.
Selection from the Waiting List [24 CFR 983.251(c)]
Applicants who will occupy units with PBV assistance must be selected from ACOH’s waiting
list. ACOH may establish selection criteria or preferences for occupancy of particular PBV units.
ACOH may place families referred by the project owner on its PBV waiting list.
Income Targeting [24 CFR 983.251(c)(6)]
At least 75 percent of the families admitted to ACOH’s tenant-based and project-based voucher
programs during ACOH fiscal year from the waiting list must be extremely-low income families.
The income targeting requirement applies to the total of admissions to both programs.
Units with Accessibility Features [24 CFR 983.251(c)(7)]
When selecting families to occupy PBV units that have special accessibility features for persons
with disabilities, ACOH must first refer families who require such features to the owner.
Preferences [24 CFR 983.251(d) , FR Notice 11/24/08]
ACOH may use the same selection preferences that are used for the tenant-based voucher
program, establish selection criteria or preferences for the PBV program as a whole, or for
occupancy of particular PBV developments or units. ACOH must provide an absolute selection
preference for eligible in-place families as described in Section 20-VI.B. above.
Although ACOH is prohibited from granting preferences to persons with a specific disability,
ACOH may give preference to disabled families who need services offered at a particular project
or site if the preference is limited to families (including individuals):
With disabilities that significantly interfere with their ability to obtain and maintain
themselves in housing;
Who, without appropriate supportive services, will not be able to obtain or maintain
themselves in housing; and
For whom such services cannot be provided in a non-segregated setting.
In advertising such a project, the owner may advertise the project as offering services for a
particular type of disability; however, the project must be open to all otherwise eligible disabled
persons who may benefit from services provided in the project. In these projects, disabled
residents may not be required to accept the particular services offered as a condition of
occupancy.
If ACOH has projects with more than 25 percent of the units receiving project-based assistance
because those projects include “excepted units” (units specifically made available for elderly or
disabled families, or families receiving supportive services), ACOH must give preference to such
families when referring families to these units [24 CFR 983.261(b)].
ACOH Policy
Attachment A
21
ACOH may establish, at its discretion, selection criteria or preferences for
occupancy of particular PBV developments, buildings, or units based on the nature
of the development and services offered and consistent with the goals established for
the PBV program as stated in Section 20.1.
In the event that ACOH establishes a preference for homeless persons/families the following
definitions shall apply:
An individual or family who lacks a fixed, regular, and adequate nighttime residence, meaning:
a. An individual or family with a primary nighttime residence that is a public or private
place not designed for or ordinarily used as a regular sleeping accommodation for human
beings, including a car, park, abandoned building, bus or train station, airport, or camping
ground; or
b. An individual or family living in a supervised publicly or privately operated shelter
designated to provide temporary living arrangements (including congregate shelters,
transitional housing, and hotels and motels paid for by charitable organizations or by
federal, state, or local government programs for low- income individuals); or
c. An individual who is exiting an institution where he or she resided for 90 days or less and
who resided in an emergency shelter or place not meant for human habitation
immediately before entering that institution;
Any individual or family who:
i. Is fleeing, or is attempting to flee, domestic violence, dating violence, sexual
assault, stalking, or other dangerous or life-threatening conditions that relate to
violence against the individual or a family member, including a child, that has either
taken place within the individual’s or family’s primary nighttime residence or has
made the individual or family afraid to return to their primary nighttime residence;
and
ii. Has no other residence; and
iii. Lacks the resources or support networks, e.g., family, friends, and faith- based or
other social networks, to obtain other permanent housing
20.20 OFFER OF PBV ASSISTANCE
Refusal of Offer [24 CFR 983.251(e)(3)]
ACOH is prohibited from taking any of the following actions against a family who has applied
for, received, or refused an offer of PBV assistance:
Refuse to list the applicant on the waiting list for tenant-based voucher assistance;
Attachment A
22
Deny any admission preference for which the applicant qualifies;
Change the applicant’s place on the waiting list based on preference, date, and time of
application, or other factors affecting selection under ACOH’s selection policy;
Remove the applicant from the tenant-based voucher waiting list.
Disapproval by Landlord [24 CFR 983.251(e)(2)]
If a PBV owner rejects a family for admission to the owner’s units, such rejection may not affect
the family’s position on the tenant-based voucher waiting list.
Acceptance of Offer [24 CFR 983.252]
Family Briefing
When a family accepts an offer for PBV assistance, ACOH must give the family an oral briefing.
The briefing must include information on how the program works and the responsibilities of the
family and owner. In addition to the oral briefing, ACOH must provide a briefing packet that
explains how ACOH determines the total tenant payment for a family, the family obligations
under the program, and applicable fair housing information.
Persons with Disabilities
If an applicant family’s head or spouse is disabled, ACOH must assure effective communication,
in accordance with 24 CFR 8.6, in conducting the oral briefing and in providing the written
information packet. This may include making alternative formats available (see Chapter 2). In
addition, ACOH must have a mechanism for referring a family that includes a member with a
mobility impairment to an appropriate accessible PBV unit.
Persons with Limited English Proficiency
ACOH should take reasonable steps to assure meaningful access by persons with limited English
proficiency in accordance with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Executive Order
13166 (see Chapter 2).
20.21 OWNER SELECTION OF TENANTS
The owner is responsible for developing written tenant selection procedures that are consistent
with the purpose of improving housing opportunities for very low-income families and
reasonably related to program eligibility and an applicant’s ability to fulfill their obligations
under the lease. An owner must promptly notify in writing any rejected applicant of the grounds
for any rejection [24 CFR 983.253(b)].
Leasing [24 CFR 983.253(a)]
During the term of the HAP contract, the owner must lease contract units to eligible families that
are selected and referred by ACOH from ACOH’s waiting list. The contract unit leased to the
family must be the appropriate size unit for the size of the family, based on ACOH’s subsidy
standards.
Filling Vacancies [24 CFR 983.254(a)]
The owner must promptly notify ACOH of any vacancy or expected vacancy in a contract unit.
Attachment A
23
After receiving such notice, ACOH must make every reasonable effort to promptly refer a
sufficient number of families for the owner to fill such vacancies. ACOH and the owner must
make reasonable efforts to minimize the likelihood and length of any vacancy.
ACOH Policy
The owner must notify ACOH in writing (mail, fax, or e-mail) within 5 business days of
learning about any vacancy or expected vacancy.
ACOH will make every reasonable effort to refer families to the owner within 10
business days of receiving such notice from the owner.
Reduction in HAP Contract Units Due to Vacancies [24 CFR 983.254(b)]
If any contract units have been vacant for 120 or more days since owner notice of the vacancy,
ACOH may give notice to the owner amending the HAP contract to reduce the number of
contract units by subtracting the number of contract units (according to the bedroom size) that
have been vacant for this period.
ACOH Policy
If any contract units have been vacant for 120 days, ACOH will give notice to the owner
that the HAP contract will be amended to reduce the number of contract units that have
been vacant for this period. ACOH will provide the notice to the owner within 10
business days of the 120th day of the vacancy. The amendment to the HAP contract will
be effective the 1st day of the month following the date of ACOH’s notice.
20.22 TENANT SCREENING [24 CFR 983.255]
ACOH is not responsible or liable to the owner or any other person for the family’s behavior or
suitability for tenancy. However, ACOH may opt to screen applicants for family behavior or
suitability for tenancy and may deny applicants based on such screening.
ACOH Policy
ACOH will not conduct screening to determine a PBV applicant family’s suitability for
tenancy.
ACOH must provide the owner with an applicant family’s current and prior address (as shown in ACOH records) and the name and address (if known by ACOH) of the family’s current
landlord and any prior landlords.
In addition, ACOH may offer the owner other information ACOH may have about a family,
including information about the tenancy history of family members or about drug trafficking and
criminal activity by family members. ACOH must provide applicant families a description of
ACOH policy on providing information to owners, and ACOH must give the same types of
information to all owners.
ACOH Policy
ACOH will inform owners of their responsibility to screen prospective tenants, and will
provide owners with the required known name and address information, at the time of the
turnover HQS inspection or before. ACOH will not provide any additional information to
Attachment A
24
the owner, such as tenancy history, criminal history, etc.
Owner Responsibility
The owner is responsible for screening and selection of the family to occupy the owner’s unit.
When screening families the owner may consider a family’s background with respect to the
following factors:
Payment of rent and utility bills;
Caring for a unit and premises;
Respecting the rights of other residents to the peaceful enjoyment of their housing;
Drug-related criminal activity or other criminal activity that is a threat to the health, safety, or
property of others; and
Compliance with other essential conditions of tenancy.
20.23 LEASE [24 CFR 983.256]
After an applicant has been selected from the waiting list, determined eligible by ACOH,
referred to an owner and determined suitable by the owner, the family will sign the lease and
occupancy of the unit will begin. The tenant must have legal capacity to enter a lease under state
and local law. Legal capacity means that the tenant is bound by the terms of the lease and may
enforce the terms of the lease against the owner.
Form of Lease [24 CFR 983.256(b)]
The tenant and the owner must enter into a written lease agreement that is signed by both parties.
If an owner uses a standard lease form for rental units to unassisted tenants in the locality or
premises, the same lease must be used for assisted tenants, except that the lease must include a
HUD-required tenancy addendum. The tenancy addendum must include, word-for-word, all
provisions required by HUD.
If the owner does not use a standard lease form for rental to unassisted tenants, the owner may
use another form of lease, such as ACOH model lease.
ACOH may review the owner’s lease form to determine if the lease complies with state and
local law. If ACOH determines that the lease does not comply with state or local law, ACOH
may decline to approve the tenancy.
ACOH Policy
ACOH will review the owner’s lease for compliance with state or local law in cases when
a standard lease form is not used.
Lease Requirements [24 CFR 983.256(c)]
The lease for a PBV unit must specify all of the following information:
The names of the owner and the tenant;
The unit rented (address, apartment number, if any, and any other information needed to
identify the leased contract unit);
Attachment A
25
The term of the lease (initial term and any provision for renewal);
The amount of the tenant rent to owner, which is subject to change during the term of the
lease in accordance with HUD requirements;
A specification of the services, maintenance, equipment, and utilities that will be provide
by the owner; and
The amount of any charges for food, furniture, or supportive services.
Tenancy Addendum [24 CFR 983.256(d)]
The tenancy addendum in the lease must state:
The program tenancy requirements;
The composition of the household as approved by ACOH (the names of family members and
any ACOH-approved live-in aide);
All provisions in the HUD-required tenancy addendum must be included in the lease. The
terms of the tenancy addendum prevail over other provisions of the lease.
Initial Term and Lease Renewal [24 CFR 983.256(f) and 983.257(b)]
The initial lease term must be for at least one year. Upon expiration of the lease, an owner may
renew the lease, refuse to renew the lease for “good cause,” or refuse to renew the lease without
good cause. If the owner refuses to renew the lease without good cause, ACOH must provide the
family with a tenant-based voucher and remove the unit from the PBV HAP contract.
Changes in the Lease [24 CFR 983.256(e)]
If the tenant and owner agree to any change in the lease, the change must be in writing, and the
owner must immediately give ACOH a copy of all changes.
The owner must notify ACOH in advance of any proposed change in the lease regarding the
allocation of tenant and owner responsibilities for utilities. Such changes may only be made if
approved by ACOH and in accordance with the terms of the lease relating to its amendment.
ACOH must redetermine reasonable rent, in accordance with program requirements, based on
any change in the allocation of the responsibility for utilities between the owner and the tenant.
The redetermined reasonable rent will be used in calculation of the rent to owner from the
effective date of the change.
Owner Termination of Tenancy [24 CFR 983.257]
With two exceptions, the owner of a PBV unit may terminate tenancy for the same reasons an
owner may in the tenant-based voucher program (see Section 12-III.B. and 24 CFR 982.310). In
the PBV program, terminating tenancy for “good cause” does not include doing so for a
business or economic reason, or a desire to use the unit for personal or family use or other non-
residential purpose.
Non-Compliance with Supportive Services Requirement [24 CFR
983.257(c), FR Notice 11/24/08]
Attachment A
26
If a family is living in a project-based unit that is excepted from the 25 percent per project cap on
project-basing because of participation in a supportive services program (e.g., Family Self-
Sufficiency), and the family fails to complete its supportive services requirement without good
cause, such failure is grounds for lease termination by the owner.
Tenant Absence from the Unit [24 CFR 983.256(g) and 982.312(a)]
The owner may specify in the lease a maximum period of tenant absence from the unit that is
shorter than the maximum period permitted by ACOH policy. According to program
requirements, the family’s assistance must be terminated if they are absent from the unit for more
than 180 consecutive days.
Security Deposits [24 CFR 983.258]
The owner may collect a security deposit from the tenant. ACOH may prohibit security
deposits in excess of private market practice, or in excess of amounts charged by the owner to
unassisted tenants.
ACOH Policy
ACOH will allow the owner to collect a security deposit amount the owner determines
is appropriate and is consistent with the area market. The security deposit amount must
be in compliance with the Virginia Residential Landlord and Tenant Act.
When the tenant moves out of a contract unit, the owner, subject to state and local law, may
use the security deposit, including any interest on the deposit, in accordance with the lease, as
reimbursement for any unpaid tenant rent, damages to the unit, or other amounts owed by the
tenant under the lease.
The owner must give the tenant a written list of all items charged against the security deposit
and the amount of each item. After deducting the amount used to reimburse the owner, the
owner must promptly refund the full amount of the balance to the tenant.
If the security deposit does not cover the amount owed by the tenant under the lease, the
owner may seek to collect the balance form the tenant. ACOH has no liability or responsibility
for payment of any amount owed by the family to the owner.
20.24 MOVES
Overcrowded, Under-Occupied, and Accessible Units [24 CFR 983.259]
If ACOH determines that a family is occupying a wrong size unit, based on ACOH’s subsidy
standards, or a unit with accessibility features that the family does not require, and the unit is
needed by a family that does require the features, ACOH must promptly notify the family and
the owner of this determination, and ACOH must offer the family the opportunity to receive
continued housing assistance in another unit.
ACOH Policy
ACOH will notify the family and the owner of the family’s need to move based on the
occupancy of a wrong-size or accessible unit within 10 business days of ACOH’s
Attachment A
27
determination. ACOH will offer the family the following types of continued assistance
in the following order, based on the availability of assistance:
PBV assistance in the same building or project;
PBV assistance in another project; and
Tenant-based voucher assistance. If ACOH offers the family a tenant-based voucher, ACOH must terminate the housing
assistance payments for a wrong-sized or accessible unit at expiration of the term of the family’s
voucher (including any extension granted by ACOH).
If ACOH offers the family another form of assistance that is not a tenant-based voucher, and
the family does not accept the offer, does not move out of the PBV unit within a reasonable
time as determined by ACOH, or both, ACOH must terminate the housing assistance payments
for the unit at the expiration of a reasonable period as determined by ACOH.
ACOH Policy
When ACOH offers a family another form of assistance that is not a tenant-based
voucher, the family will be given 30 days from the date of the offer to accept the offer
and move out of the PBV unit. If the family does not move out within this 30-day time
frame, ACOH will terminate the housing assistance payments at the expiration of this 30-
day period.
ACOH may make exceptions to this 30-day period if needed for reasons beyond the
family’s control such as death, serious illness, or other medical emergency of a family
member.
Family Right to Move [24 CFR 983.260]
The family may terminate the lease at any time after the first year of occupancy. The family must
give advance written notice to the owner in accordance with the lease and provide a copy of such
notice to ACOH. If the family wishes to move with continued tenant-based assistance, the family
must contact ACOH to request the rental assistance prior to providing notice to terminate the
lease.
If the family terminates the lease in accordance with these requirements, ACOH is required to
offer the family the opportunity for continued tenant-based assistance, in the form of a voucher
or other comparable tenant-based rental assistance. If voucher or other comparable tenant-based
assistance is not immediately available upon termination of the family’s lease in the PBV unit, ACOH must give the family priority to receive the next available opportunity for continued
tenant-based assistance.
If the family terminates the assisted lease before the end of the first year, the family relinquishes
the opportunity for continued tenant-based assistance.
20.25 DETERMINING RENT TO OWNER
The amount of the initial rent to an owner of units receiving PBV assistance is established at the
Attachment A
28
beginning of the HAP contract term. Although for rehabilitated or newly constructed housing,
the agreement to enter into HAP Contract (Agreement) states the estimated amount of the initial
rent to owner, the actual amount of the initial rent to owner is established at the beginning of the
HAP contract term.
During the tem of the HAP contract, the rent to owner is redetermined at the owner’s request in
accordance with program requirements, and at such time that there is a five percent or greater
decrease in the published FMR.
Rent Limits [24 CFR 983.301]
Except for certain tax credit units (discussed below), the rent to owner must not exceed the
lowest of the following amounts:
An amount determined by ACOH, not to exceed 110 percent of the applicable fair market
rent (or any HUD-approved exception payment standard) for the unit bedroom size minus
any utility allowance;
The reasonable rent; or
The rent requested by the owner.
Certain Tax Credit Units [24 CFR 983.301(c), FR Notice 11/24/08]
For certain tax credit units, the rent limits are determined differently than for other PBV units.
These different limits apply to contract units that meet all of the following criteria:
The contract unit receives a low-income housing tax credit under the Internal Revenue Code
of 1986;
The contract unit is not located in a qualified census tract;
There are comparable tax credit units of the same bedroom size as the contract unit in the
same building, and the comparable tax credit units do not have any form of rental assistance
other than the tax credit; and
The tax credit rent exceeds ACOH-determined amount (not to exceed 110 percent of the fair
market rent or any approved exception payment standard);
For contract units that meet all of these criteria, the rent to owner must not exceed the lowest of:
The tax credit rent minus any utility allowance;
The reasonable rent; or
The rent requested by the owner.
However, ACOH is permitted to use the higher Section 8 rent for a tax credit unit if the tax
credit rent is less than the amount that would be permitted under Section 8. In these cases,
Section 8 rent reasonableness requirements must continue to be met.
Definitions
A qualified census tract is any census tract (or equivalent geographic area defined by the Bureau
Attachment A
29
of the Census) in which at least 50 percent of households have an income of less than 60 percent
of Area Median Gross Income (AMGI), or where the poverty rate is at least 25 percent and
where the census tract is designated as a qualified census tract by HUD.
Tax credit rent is the rent charged for comparable units of the same bedroom size in the building
that also receive the low-income housing tax credit but do not have any additional rental
assistance (e.g., tenant-based voucher assistance).
Use of FMRs, Exception Payment Standards, and Utility Allowances [24 CFR 983.301(f)]
When determining the initial rent to owner, ACOH must use the most recently published FMR in
effect and the utility allowance schedule in effect at execution of the HAP contract. When
redetermining the rent to owner, ACOH must use the most recently published FMR and the
utility allowance schedule in effect at the time of redetermination. At its discretion, ACOH may
for initial rent, use the amounts in effect at any time during the 30-day period immediately before
the beginning date of the HAP contract, or for redeterminations of rent, the 30-day period
immediately before the redetermination date.
Any HUD-approved exception payment standard amount under the tenant-based voucher
program also applies to the project-based voucher program. HUD will not approve a different
exception payment stand amount for use in the PBV program.
Likewise, ACOH may not establish or apply different utility allowance amounts for the PBV
program. The same utility allowance schedule applies to both the tenant-based and project-based
voucher programs.
ACOH Policy
ACOH will use the most recently published FMR and utility allowances in effect at
the time of the execution of the HAP contract subject to budget allocations and
availability of funds.
Redetermination of Rent [24 CFR 983.302, FR Notice 11/24/08]
ACOH must redetermine the rent to owner upon the owner’s request or when there is a five
percent or greater decrease in the published FMR.
Rent Increase
If an owner wishes to request an increase in the rent to owner from ACOH, it must be requested
at the annual anniversary of the HAP contract. The request must be in writing and in the form
and manner required by ACOH. ACOH may only make rent increases in accordance with the
rent limits described previously. There are no provisions in the PBV program for special
adjustments (e.g., adjustments that reflect increases in the actual and necessary expenses of
owning and maintaining the units which have resulted from substantial general increases in real
property taxes, utility rates, or similar costs).
ACOH Policy
An owner’s request for a rent increase must be submitted to ACOH at least 60 days prior
to the anniversary date of the HAP contract, and must include the new rent amount the
Attachment A
30
owner is proposing.
ACOH may not approve and the owner may not receive any increase of rent to owner until
and unless the owner has complied with requirements of the HAP contract, including
compliance with HQS. The owner may not receive any retroactive increase of rent for any
period of noncompliance.
Rent Decrease
If there is a decrease in the rent to owner, as established in accordance with program
requirements such as a change in the FMR or exception payment standard, or reasonable rent
amount, the rent to owner must be decreased regardless of whether the owner requested a rent
adjustment. However, ACOH may stipulate in the HAP contract that the maximum rent on a unit
will not be less than the initial rent.
Notice of Rent Change
The rent to owner is redetermined by written notice by ACOH to the owner specifying the
amount of the redetermined rent. ACOH notice of rent adjustment constitutes an amendment of
the rent to owner specified in the HAP contract. The adjusted amount of rent to owner applies for
the period of 12 calendar months from the annual anniversary of the HAP contract.
ACOH Policy
ACOH will provide the owner with at least 30 days written notice of any change in the
amount of rent to owner.
20.26 REASONABLE RENT [24 CFR 983.303]
At the time the initial rent is established and all times during the term of the HAP contract, the
rent to owner for a contract unit may not exceed the reasonable rent for the unit as determined by
ACOH.
When Rent Reasonable Determinations are Required
ACOH must redetermine the reasonable rent for a unit receiving PBV assistance whenever any
of the following occur:
There is a five percent or greater decrease in the published FMR in effect 60 days before the
contract anniversary (for the unit sizes specified in the HAP contract) as compared with the
FMR that was in effect one year before the contract anniversary date;
ACOH approves a change in the allocation of responsibility for utilities between the owner
and the tenant;
The HAP contract is amended to substitute a different contract unit in the same building; or
There is any other change that may substantially affect the reasonable rent.
How to Determine Reasonable Rent
The reasonable rent of a unit receiving PBV assistance must be determined by comparison to
rent for other comparable unassisted units. When making this determination, ACOH must
consider factors that affect market rent. Such factors include the location, quality, size, type and
Attachment A
31
age of the unit, as well as the amenities, housing services maintenance, and utilities to be
provided by the owner.
Comparability Analysis
For each unit, the comparability analysis must use at least three comparable units in the private
unassisted market. This may include units in the premises or project that is receiving project-
based assistance. The analysis must show how the reasonable rent was determined, including
major differences between the contract units and comparable unassisted units, and must be
retained by ACOH. The comparability analysis may be performed by ACOH staff or by another
qualified person or entity. Those who conduct these analyses or are involved in determining the
housing assistance payment based on the analyses may not have any direct or indirect interest in
the property.
Owner Certification of Reasonable Rent
By accepting each monthly housing assistance payment, the owner certifies that the rent to
owner is not more than rent charged by the owner for other comparable unassisted units in the
premises. At any time, ACOH may require the owner to submit information on rents charged by
the owner for other units in the premises or elsewhere.
20.27 EFFECT OF OTHER SUBSIDY AND RENT CONTROL
In addition to the rent limits discussed in Section 20-VIII.B above, other restrictions may limit
the amount of rent to owner in a PBV unit. In addition, certain types of subsidized housing are
not even eligible to receive PBV assistance (see Section 20-II.D).
Other Subsidy [24 CFR 983.304]
At its discretion, ACOH may reduce the initial rent to owner because of other governmental
subsidies, including grants and other subsidized financing.
For units receiving assistance under the HOME program, rents may not exceed rent limits as
required by that program.
For units in any of the following types of federally subsidized projects, the rent to owner may not
exceed the subsidized rent (basic rent) or tax credit rent as determined in accordance with
requirements for the applicable federal program:
An insured or non-insured Section 236 project;
A formerly insured or non-insured Section 236 project that continues to receive Interest
Reduction Payment following a decoupling action;
A Section 221(d)(3) below market interest rate (BMIR) project;
A Section 515 project of the Rural Housing Service;
Any other type of federally subsidized project specified by HUD.
Combining Subsidy
Rent to owner may not exceed any limitation required to comply with HUD subsidy layering
requirements.
Attachment A
32
Rent Control [24 CFR 983.305]
In addition to the rent limits set by PBV program regulations, the amount of rent to owner may
also be subject to rent control or other limits under local, state, or federal law.
20.28 PAYMENTS TO OWNER
Housing Assistance Payments [24 CFR 983.351]
During the term of the HAP contract, ACOH must make housing assistance payments to the
owner in accordance with the terms of the HAP contract. During the term of the HAP contract,
payments must be made for each month that a contract unit complies with HQS and is leased to
and occupied by an eligible family. The housing assistance payment must be paid to the owner
on or about the first day of the month for which payment is due, unless the owner and ACOH
agree on a later date.
Except for discretionary vacancy payments, ACOH may not make any housing assistance
payment to the owner for any month after the month when the family moves out of the unit (even
if household goods or property are left in the unit).
The amount of the housing assistance payment by ACOH is the rent to owner minus the tenant
rent (total tenant payment minus the utility allowance).
In order to receive housing assistance payments, the owner must comply with all provisions of
the HAP contract. Unless the owner complies with all provisions of the HAP contract, the owner
does not have a right to receive housing assistance payments.
20.29 VACANCY PAYMENTS [24 CFR 983.352]
If an assisted family moves out of the unit, the owner may keep the housing assistance payment
for the calendar month when the family moves out. However, the owner may not keep the
payment if ACOH determines that the vacancy is the owner’s fault.
ACOH Policy
If ACOH determines that the owner is responsible for a vacancy and, as a result, is not
entitled to the keep the housing assistance payment, ACOH will notify the landlord of the
amount of housing assistance payment that the owner must repay. ACOH will require the
owner to repay the amount owed.
At the discretion of ACOH, the HAP contract may provide for vacancy payments to the owner.
ACOH may only make vacancy payments if:
The owner gives ACOH prompt, written notice certifying that the family has vacated the unit
and identifies the date when the family moved out (to the best of the owner’s knowledge);
and
The owner certifies that the vacancy is not the fault of the owner and that the unit was vacant
during the period for which payment is claimed; and
The owner certifies that it has taken every reasonable action to minimize the likelihood and
Attachment A
33
length of vacancy; and
The owner provides any additional information required and requested by ACOH to verify
that the owner is entitled to the vacancy payment.
ACOH Policy
ACOH does not provide for vacancy allowances except as noted above for the calendar
month in which a move-out occurs. Language in the HAP related to vacancy allowances
shall not be a part of the contract between ACOH and the owner.
20.30 TENANT RENT TO OWNER [24 CFR 983.353]
The tenant rent is the portion of the rent to owner paid by the family. The amount of tenant rent
is determined by ACOH in accordance with HUD requirements. Any changes in the amount of
tenant rent will be effective on the date stated in ACOH notice to the family and owner.
The family is responsible for paying the tenant rent (total tenant payment minus the utility
allowance). The amount of the tenant rent determined by ACOH is the maximum amount the
owner may charge the family for rental of a contract unit. The tenant rent covers all housing
services, maintenance, equipment, and utilities to be provided by the owner. The owner may not
demand or accept any rent payment from the tenant in excess of the tenant rent as determined by
ACOH. The owner must immediately return any excess payment to the tenant.
Tenant and ACOH Responsibilities
The family is not responsible for the portion of rent to owner that is covered by the housing
assistance payment and the owner may not terminate the tenancy of an assisted family for
nonpayment by ACOH.
Likewise, ACOH is responsible only for making the housing assistance payment to the owner in
accordance with the HAP contract. ACOH is not responsible for paying tenant rent, or any other
claim by the owner, including damage to the unit. ACOH may not use housing assistance
payments or other program funds (including administrative fee reserves) to pay any part of the
tenant rent or other claim by the owner.
Utility Reimbursements
If the amount of the utility allowance exceeds the total tenant payment, ACOH must pay the
amount of such excess to the tenant as a reimbursement for tenant-paid utilities, and the tenant
rent to the owner must be zero.
ACOH may pay the utility reimbursement directly to the family or to the utility supplier on
behalf of the family. If ACOH chooses to pay the utility supplier directly, ACOH must notify the
family of the amount paid to the utility supplier.
ACOH Policy
ACOH will make utility reimbursements to the family.
Attachment A
34
20.31 OTHER FEES AND CHARGES [24 CFR 983.354]
Meals and Supportive Services
With the exception of PBV assistance in assisted living developments, the owner may not require
the tenant to pay charges for meals or supportive services. Non-payment of such charges is not
grounds for termination of tenancy.
In assisted living developments receiving PBV assistance, the owner may charge for meals or
supportive services. These charges may not be included in the rent to owner, nor may the value
of meals and supportive services be included in the calculation of the reasonable rent. However,
non-payment of such charges is grounds for termination of the lease by the owner in an assisted
living development.
Other Charges by Owner
The owner may not charge extra amounts for items customarily included in rent in the locality or
provided at no additional cost to unsubsidized tenants in the premises.
Attachment B
RESOLUTION
WHEREAS, the County of Albemarle is a Public Housing Agency (“PHA”) as defined by the
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (“HUD”) for the administration of the Housing
Choice Voucher Program (HCV); and
WHEREAS, federal requirements for the HCV Program include that each PHA maintain an
Administrative Plan which sets forth policies for the administration of the program; and
WHEREAS, the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors (“Board”) approved an updated
Administrative Plan on June 6, 2012, which was submitted to HUD for review and comment; and
WHEREAS, HUD’s comments required revision of the Administrative Plan; and
WHEREAS, the Administrative Plan was revised based on HUD comments and guidance
provided in HUD’s Notice PIH 2011-54(HA), was approved by the Board on September 5, 2012, and
was resubmitted to HUD; and
WHEREAS, HUD requested additional revisions on July 19, 2013, specifically to Chapter 20,
pertaining to Project-based Vouchers; and
WHEREAS, the Office of Housing is required to have the requested revisions to Chapter 20
approved by the Board and inserted into the Plan that was previously approved on September 5, 2012.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle
County hereby approves the revisions to Chapter 20 of the Administrative Plan and authorizes the
Chief of Housing to implement the policies set forth in the plan.
**********
I, Ella W. Jordon, do hereby certify that the foregoing is a true correct copy of a resolution
adopted by the County Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia at a regular meeting held
______________________________.
Return to exec summary
Kenneth C. Boyd COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Dennis S. Rooker
Rivanna Office of Board of Supervisors Jack Jouett
401 McIntire Road
William B. Craddock Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 Duane E. Snow
Scottsville (434) 296-5843 FAX (434) 296-5800 Samuel Miller
Ann H. Mallek Rodney S. Thomas
White Hall Rio
MEMORANDUM
TO: Board of Supervisors
FROM: Ella W. Jordan, Clerk
DATE: September 3, 2013
SUBJECT: ZMA-2013-00006. Estes Park – Proffer Amendment
At the applicant’s request, this item was deferred to October 2, 2013. The Board took
action on August 14, 2013 to defer the request to September 11, 2013. This request for deferral
was accepted prior to advertising ZMA-2013-00008 for public hearing.
Board‐to‐Board
September, 2013
A monthly report from the Albemarle County School Board to the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors
New School Year Begins--The 2013-2014 school year began August 21, 2013. Enrollment was within one
percent of our projections for this year. We are expecting enrollment to increase by approximately 200 students
from a year ago to 13,100 students. Official numbers are reported to the state next month. In addition to new
students, 120 new teachers were welcomed to the division, consistent with recent hiring trends. These teachers
were hired from a pool of more than 1,000 applicants from throughout the U.S and overseas.
ACPS Superintendent Appointed to State Council on Higher Education- Dr. Pam Moran was appointed by
Governor McDonnell to serve on the State Council on Higher Education for Virginia (SCHEV). The Council
makes policy recommendations on issues related to higher education to the Governor and the General Assembly.
“It is an honor to be joining such an influential organization at a time when the partnership between K-12 and
higher education is so critical to our prosperity in Virginia and in our nation,” said Dr. Moran in response to her
appointment.
Strategic Plan Update– Strategies and key performance indicators (KPIs) for the Horizon 2020 Strategic Plan
were discussed at the August work session. Breakout groups focused on developing the specific measures and
activities that will be used to track the division’s success in achieving Horizon 2020’s student-centered goal of
creating lifelong learners. These strategies and KPIs will be finalized in September.
College and Work Readiness Assessment Results- Results from the division’s first administration of the College
and Work Readiness Assessment (CWRA) were reviewed at the August 8 meeting. The CWRA measures how
well a school division is doing in developing high-order thinking and analytical skills among students. The
School Board has suggested that performance assessments such as CWRA serve an important role in adding to
SOL tests in measuring how well students are being prepared for post-graduate success in higher education and
the workforce.
SOL Scores Released- Albemarle County public school students again outperformed their peers across the state in
SOL tests. In results released by the state Department of Education in August, ACPS students exceeded state
averages on 26 of the 34 SOL tests given to students in grades 3-12. Students met the state average on two other
tests. Scores in reading and science were lower across the state, reflecting the increased rigor of those tests this
year. Among areas needing focus is math scores at the elementary school level. Next month, the state will
release its report on how well school divisions did in meeting federally-approved benchmarks and it will
announce its decisions on individual school accreditation.
Visit by State Official - The school division will host the Commonwealth’s STEM (Science, Technology,
Engineering and Math) Director this Friday. Megan Healy will visit with students from Albemarle High School’s
Math, Engineering and Science Academy and with students from Monticello’s Health and Medical Sciences
Academy.
High School of the Future- Representatives from ACPS will participate in the Governor’s High School of the
Future StartUp Weekend in Richmond September 27th and 28th. This work session will bring together educators,
policymakers, business leaders, architects and entrepreneurs to discuss the creation of a set of blueprints for
designing the next generation of schools. Among the topics will be changes to physical or classroom spaces,
curriculum, instructional methods, and the integration of technology.
Norman Augustine to Visit ACPS- Retired Chairman and CEO Norm Augustine of Lockheed Martin, the world’s
largest defense and technology company, will visit the division on September 9 to view the work we are doing in
our STEM-focused academies and to participate in a roundtable discussion on the development of strategies for
expanding technology study and student projects throughout the division. Among other objectives is developing a
partnership model that can be used to leverage the strengths of higher educational institutions and businesses in
preparing students for lifelong success.
Donations to Albemarle County Public Schools – Albemarle County Public Schools received the following
donations:
Murray Elementary School received a donation of $285.30 for classroom supplies and printing costs.
Stony Point Elementary School received a donation of $758.74 for SOL snacks for the 3rd-5th grade
students.
Club Yancey has received donations totaling $9,750.00 from a number of donors to cover operating
expenses for the program.
School Board website: www.k12albemarle.org
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road, North Wing
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
Phone (434) 296-5832 Fax (434) 972-4126
August 9, 2013
Justin Shimp
201 E Main St, Suite M
Charlottesville, VA. 22902
RE: SP201300006 Commonwealth Office
TAX MAP PARCEL: 061W0030001400
Dear Mr. Shimp:
The Albemarle County Planning Commission, at its meeting on July 30, 2013, by a vote of 6:1,
recommended approval of the above -noted petition to the Board of Supervisors.
Please note that this recommendation is subject to the following conditions:
1. Development of the use shall be in general accord with sheet C4 of 4 (Concept Plan)
of the plan entitled “Application Plan for Commonwealth Office,” prepared by Shimp
Engineering, P.C., revision 1, dated 5/6/13, as determined by the Director of Planning
and the Zoning Administrator. To be in general accord with the Conceptual Plan, the
development and use shall reflect the following major elements as shown on the
Conceptual Plan:
Total building square footage of 13,500 square feet.
Entrance location.
Minor modifications to the plan which are in general accord with the elements above
may be made to ensure compliance with the Zoning Ordinance.
2. The storm water detention facility shall be located entirely on the subject property
(Tax Map/Parcel 061W0-03-00-01400) and shall be designed and built as approved
by the County Engineer.
3. The use shall commence on or before [date two years from Board of Supervisor
approval] or the permit shall expire and be of no effect.
Please be advised that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors will review this petition and
receive public comment at their meeting on September 11, 2013.
View staff report and attachments
View PC minutes
Return to agenda
If you should have any questions or comments regarding t he above noted action, please do not
hesitate to contact me at (434) 296-5832.
Sincerely,
David Benish
Chief of Planning
Planning Division
cc: Moores Creek Land LLC
PO Box 5384
Charlottesville, VA. 22905
SP201300006 – Commonwealth Offices)
Planning Commission: July 30, 2013
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING
STAFF REPORT SUMMARY
Proposal: SP201300006 Commonwealth Office Staff: David Benish
Planning Commission Public Hearing:
July 30, 2013
Board of Supervisors Hearing:
TBD
Owner: Moore’s Creek Land, LLC Applicant: Regents School of Charlottesville
(RSC)
Acreage: 1.149 acre parcel TMP: 061W0-03-00-01400
Location: Commonwealth Drive, approximately
¼ mile south of the Commonwealth
Drive/Greenbrier Drive intersection
Zoning: R-15 Residential - 15 units/acre
Magisterial District: Jack Jouett Conditions: Yes EC: No
Proposal: Proposal to construct a 13,500
square foot, three-story office building.
Professional offices are permitted in the R-15
District by approval of a Special Use Permit
(Chapter 18 Section 18.2.2(11))
Requested # of Dwelling Units: 0
DA: X RA: Comp. Plan Designation: Urban Density
Residential – residential (6.01 – 34 units/ acre);
supporting uses such as religious institutions,
schools, commercial, office and service uses.
Character of Property: The property is
undeveloped. The immediate frontage of the
property is open, but most of the property is
wooded and slopes to a stream on the
southwest corner of the site. Most of the
existing steep slopes on site are man-made.
(Attachments A and B)
Use of Surrounding Properties: Surrounding
properties contain apartments, a nursing home
and single family attached residential units
(across Commonwealth Drive from the site).
Factors Favorable:
1. Provides a mix of uses within a high
density residential area
2. There are no anticipated detrimental
impacts on adjacent property resulting
from the intensification of the existing
use.
3. Impact of proposed development to site
and area consistent with previously
developments on this site
Factors Unfavorable:
1. Underground drainage pipes downstream
of site may be inadequate to convey
discharge from site/area.
2. Site layout does not orient building to the
street and parking not fully relegated
consistent with the Comprehensive plan
and Neighborhood Model principles.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends denial of SP201300006 Commonwealth Office, due to
the application plan’s inconsistency Comprehensive Plan and Neighborhood Model principles
regarding relegation of parking and building orientation (buildings and spaces of human scale).
Alternative conditions of approval have been provided should the Commission choose to
recommend approval.
SP201300006 – Commonwealth Offices
Planning Commission: July 30, 2013
1
STAFF PERSON: David Benish
PLANNING COMMISSION: July 30, 2013
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS: TBD
PETITION:
PROJECT: SP201300006, Commonwealth Offices
PROPOSED: Proposal to construct a 13,500 square foot, three-story professional office building.
ZONING CATEGORY/GENERAL USAGE: R-15 Residential 15 units/acre. Professional offices are
permitted in the R-15 District by approval of a Special Use Permit
SECTION: Professional Offices (Chapter 18 Section 18.2.2(11))
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE/DENSITY: Urban Density Residential – residential (6.01 – 34
units/ acre); supporting uses such as religious institutions, schools, commercial, office and service
uses.
ENTRANCE CORRIDOR: No
LOCATION: Commonwealth Drive, approximately ¼ mile south of the Commonwealth Drive/Greenbrier
Drive intersection
TAX MAP/PARCEL: 061W0-03-00-01400
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Jack Jouett
CHARACTER OF SURROUNDING AREA:
Apartments are located on the north and south side of this site. A nursing home also located just south
of this parcel. Apartments and single family attached residential units are located to the east of the
property (and across Commonwealth Drive). Wooded open space exists to the west of the site. The
nearest commercial uses are ¼ mile to the north (Greenbrier Drive) and 1/3 of a mile to the south
(commercial site on the corner of Commonwealth Drive and Rio Road). The Stonefield development is
just less than ½ mile walking distance from this site.
PLANNING AND ZONING HISTORY:
SP200300067 – Request for a special use permit to allow a day care center (request withdrawn).
SDP200700061 Commonwealth Townhouses Final Site Plan – Approval of a final site plan for 14
townhouses.
SDP201000004 Commonwealth Townhouses Final Site Plan Major Amendment – Approval of a
major amendment to SDP200700061 to allow a 3-story apartment building housing 14 units (replacing
the previously approved 14 townhouses).
DETAILS OF THE PROPOSAL:
The applicant is proposing to construct a three-story, 13,500 square foot professional office building
with 54 parking spaces on a 1.15 acre site. No specific tenant is identified at this time. Access to the
site is from one entrance onto Commonwealth Drive. The Application Plan is attached (Attachment C).
ANALYSIS OF THE SPECIAL USE PERMIT REQUEST:
Section 33.8 of the Zoning Ordinance states that the Planning Commission and Board of
Supervisors shall reasonably consider the following factors when reviewing and acting upon an
application for a special use permit:
No substantial detriment. The proposed use will not be a substantial detriment to adjacent lots.
The adjacent property to the south is developed with apartments, with the closest apartment building
approximately 135 feet from the edge of the property line and approximately 250 feet from the
SP201300006 – Commonwealth Offices
Planning Commission: July 30, 2013
2
proposed building site. The property to the north is also a large scale apartment complex. The parking
lot for the apartment complex abuts this site and the apartment buildings are a minimum of 60 feet from
the common property line. The applicant is proposing to provide additional landscape buffer along the
north of the site. Given the scale of the development (13,500 square feet) and the proposed
professional office use, staff opinion is that the use will not be a substantial detriment to the adjacent
lots.
Character of the district unchanged. The character of the district will not be changed by the
proposed special use.
The proposed use will not change character of the area/district. This area consists primarily of high
density apartment development and an institutional use (nursing home). The scale of development and
type of use proposed (professional office) are consist and compatible with the surrounding uses.
Harmony. The proposed special use will be in harmony with the purpose and intent of this
chapter…
The R-15 zoning district is intended for high density residential development; however, professional
offices are allowed by special use permit, if sited appropriately. The scale of the proposed offices can
be adequately accommodated on this site. The potential impacts from non-residential uses (noise,
lighting, traffic) should be negligible. Conversely, the offices would provide nearby services to a high
density residential area.
…with the uses permitted by right in the district…
The scale of the development and type of use proposed is consist, compatible and in harmony with the
by-right uses of the R-15 district, which include high density residential uses. High density residential
use (apartments) is the dominant existing use in the immediate area of this site.
… with the regulations provided in section 5 as applicable…
There are no supplementary regulations in section 5 applicable to this proposal.
…and with the public health safety and general welfare…
There are no significant negative traffic impacts anticipated from this proposal. The extent of the
proposed grading and development for this professional office is consistent with a prior proposal to
development a 14 unit apartment building on this site, which was approved in 2011 (SDP 201000004).
However, an area of concern with this proposal is the design of the stormwater management facilities
and, in particular, the adequacy of the drainage channel downstream of this site to convey run off from
the site.
Stormwater Facilities: The site is designed to drain to an existing basin area that is located on
multiple properties at the southwestern edge of the property, with the assumption that this basin
area will be upgraded in the future to public regional stormwater management facility (SWM). At
one time, the County had planned to acquire and upgrade this facility as a regional SWM facility;
however, the General Services Department is currently evaluating the needs and priorities for
various regional SWM facilities throughout the County. There is no plan to upgrade this facility at
this time (and no funding allocated for improvements to the facility). Given this current status, the
County Engineer has recommended that the SWM facility serving this site be constructed entirely
on this site. The applicant is amenable to this recommendation. This issue can and should be
addressed in more detail at the Site Development Plan review stage.
Adequacy of Downstream Channel: The SWM facility for this site will drain into an existing 48”
reinforced concrete pipe (RCP) owned and maintained by VDOT. This pipe and downstream pipe/
channel conveys water under Commonwealth Drive, the residential area located on the west side of
Commonwealth Drive, through the Stonefield center site, then under Rt. 29 and developments in
the City, ultimately conveying the water to Meadow Creek. The existing 48” RCP is in poor
condition. Another pipe has previously been inserted into the failing pipe to address the failing
SP201300006 – Commonwealth Offices
Planning Commission: July 30, 2013
3
condition, but the “new” pipe diameter is not known. The County Engineer has recommended
replacing this 48 inch pipe to maintain adequate flow and mitigate issues with this downstream
channel.
Typically, the County Engineer will request a downstream channel adequacy analysis during the
site development plan review/water protection ordinance (wpo) review process. The condition of the
pipe needs to be verified since its condition and capacity could result in impacts to properties both
upstream and downstream of this site. If the pipe is undersized, the extent of the ponding needs to
be verified to provide some guidance on the SWM facility size to mitigate potential upstream
impacts. If the pipe needs to be replaced, then the impacts of the additional rate and volume of
runoff downstream needs to be verified.
These issues can be addressed at the site development plan review stage. Any approval of this special
use permit request should be based on the understanding that the required SWM facilities will be
provided on-site, that a channel adequacy analysis will be submitted as part of the site development
plan review/wpo review process, and that the final site plan will not be approved until all SWM and
downstream channel issues are addressed to the satisfaction of the County Engineer.
Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan.
The Places29 Master Plan recommends this site for Urban Density Residential use. This use
encourages high density residential development (6-34 du/ac.) as the primary use and allows retail,
commercial, office and institutional uses as a secondary use. Regarding secondary uses, the Places29
master Plan states:
Retail, commercial, office, and institutional uses are encouraged to locate in Centers so they are
accessible to residents throughout the surrounding area, and so they benefit from co-location with
other neighborhood-serving businesses. However, they may be located by exception in areas
around Centers designated Urban Density Residential provided they are compatible with
surrounding uses. (p. 4-5)
Staff opinion is that this area and site is an acceptable location for the proposed office use. The scale
of the professional office proposal is compatible with the surrounding uses and the scale of the
development ensures it remains secondary to the primary residential uses in the area. The offices
would provide nearby services to a high density residential area.
Neighborhood Model: Staff’s analysis below indicates how the proposal meets the 12 principals of the
neighborhood model:
Pedestrian
Orientation
There is an existing sidewalk along the frontage of the site that will remain or
be replaced and an internal sidewalk will be constructed to connect the
building to the Commonwealth Drive sidewalk. This principle is met.
Neighborhood
Friendly Streets and
Paths
Trees are proposed to be planted between the existing sidewalk/road and
proposed parking area. This principle is met.
Interconnected
Streets and
Transportation
Networks
No interconnection to adjacent sites is provided. This site is adjacent to the
Trophy Chase apartments and parking lot. Although an interconnection could
be made to connect these sites, due to the small scale of the proposal, and
the close proximity of the entrances serving these two sites/developments on
to Commonwealth Drive, there would be limited benefit or purpose for an
interconnection. A waiver request was already granted with the prior SDP
approvals. This principal is met.
Parks and Open No park or public space is provided for the office building. The
SP201300006 – Commonwealth Offices
Planning Commission: July 30, 2013
4
Space
Comprehensive Plan does not identify this site for a public space/park use.
A portion of the site contains a drainage area/stream, with critical slopes. A
portion of that area will be used for stormwater detention for this proposal.
Given the scale of this development, this principle is not applicable.
Neighborhood
Centers
Neither this site nor the immediate area is designated as a center in the
Places29 MP. Other center areas are located within walking distance to this
section of Commonwealth Drive. However, this proposal would provide
service opportunities to nearby residential areas. This principle is met.
Buildings and
Spaces of Human
Scale
The building is proposed to be 3 stories with a 4500 sq. ft. footprint. The
height and scale of building is consistent with the general guidelines in the
Places29 MP for commercial and retail secondary uses in the Urban Density
Residential L.U. designation. However, parking is not fully relegated and the
building is not oriented to the public street on this small parcel. This principle
is not met.
Relegated Parking Parking is not entirely relegated on this site. One of two sections of the “L”
shaped parking area is located between Commonwealth Drive and the
building. The second pad is located on the side of the building, which is
considered relegated. This principle is not fully met.
Mixture of Uses
This is a small site that would contain one professional office building.
However, this building will create a greater mix of uses this immediate area
along Commonwealth Drive. This principle is met.
Mixture of Housing
Types and
Affordability
This proposal is for professional offices only. This section of Commonwealth
Drive consists of apartments, single-family attached dwellings and a nursing
home. A range of housing types and affordability is already provided in this
area by the existing development. This principle is met in the larger context
of the area.
Redevelopment This site is undeveloped. This principle does not apply.
Site Planning that
Respects Terrain
Critical slopes are impacted with this proposal. Most are man made from
prior grading and construction activity. A critical waiver was previously
granted for grading on these slopes. This proposal does affect any additional
areas not cover in the prior waiver. The County Engineer has no concerns
with proposed grading on these slopes at this time. Proposed grading further
reviewed at the site plan review stage. This principle has been addressed
Clear Boundaries
with the Rural
Areas
This property is located entirely within the Development Area Boundaries.
This principle does not apply.
This proposal meets most of the of the Neighborhood Model principles; however, it does not meet two
principles related to the form of development. The proposed building location is not oriented to the
street and the parking is not fully relegated from Commonwealth Drive. The applicant has not provided
any compelling reason why the building cannot be oriented closer to the street, with more parking
located behind the building. The applicant has stated that more parking is relegated beside the building
with this Special Use Permit proposal (23 relegated spaces beside the building) than with the previously
approved site development plan (SDP 201000004) for a 14 unit apartment building on this site (0
spaces relegated; all spaces located in front of building)(Attachment D). Staff notes that building
orientation and the relegation of parking cannot be required as part the review and approval of a by-
right proposal, such as the site plan approval for the apartment building. A special use permit request is
reviewed for its consistency with County’s Comprehensive Plan. Staff believes the building orientation
and additional relegation of parking is relatively important in this location. This would be only the
second parking lot constructed in front of a building on the west side of Commonwealth Drive
(Attachment E).
SP201300006 – Commonwealth Offices
Planning Commission: July 30, 2013
5
In summary, while staff considers the concept of providing professional offices on this site a good
proposal that is consistent with most of the recommendations of the Comprehensive Plan and Places29
Master Plan, staff believes further effort should be made by the applicant to meet the parking relegation
and building orientation expectations of the Master Plan and Neighborhood Model. Alternatively, the
applicant should provide sufficient justification as to why such changes cannot, or should not, be made
to the site.
SUMMARY:
Staff finds the following factors favorable to this request:
1. The proposal provides a mix of uses within a high density residential area
2. There are no anticipated detrimental impacts on adjacent property resulting from the intensification
of the existing use.
3. The impact of proposed development to the site and immediate area consistent with previously
approved developments on this site
Staff finds the following factor(s) unfavorable to this request:
1. Underground drainage pipes downstream of site may be inadequate to convey discharge from
site/area.
2. Site layout does not orient building to the street and parking not fully relegated consistent with
the Comprehensive Plan and the Neighborhood Model principles.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Staff recommends denial of SP201300006, Commonwealth Office, due to the application plan’s
inconsistency Comprehensive Plan and Neighborhood Model principles regarding relegation of parking
and building orientation (buildings and spaces of human scale). However, if the Planning Commission
chooses to recommend approval of this proposal, staff has provided the following recommended
conditions of approval:
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL:
1. Development of the use shall be in general accord with sheet C4 of 4 (Concept Plan) of the plan
entitled “Application Plan for Commonwealth Office,” prepared by Shimp Engineering, P.C., revision
1, dated 5/6/13, as determined by the Director of Planning and the Zoning Administrator. To be in
general accord with the Conceptual Plan, the development and use shall reflect the following major
elements as shown on the Conceptual Plan:
Total building square footage of 13,500 square feet.
Entrance location.
Minor modifications to the plan which are in general accord with the elements above may be made
to ensure compliance with the Zoning Ordinance.
2. The stormwater detention facility shall be located entirely on the subject property (Tax Map/Parcel
061W0-03-00-01400) and shall be designed and built as approved by the County Engineer.
3. The use shall commence on or before [date two years from Board of Supervisor approval] or the
permit shall expire and be of no effect.
MOTION:
A. Should the Planning Commission choose to recommend approval of this special use permit:
SP201300006 – Commonwealth Offices
Planning Commission: July 30, 2013
6
Move to recommend approval of SP201300006, Commonwealth Office, with conditions as stated
in the staff report.
B. Should the Planning Commission choose to recommend denial of this special use permit:
Move to recommend denial of SP201300006, Commonwealth Office. Should a
commissioner motion to recommend denial, he or she should state the reason(s) for
recommending denial.
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment A – Location Map
Attachment B – Aerial Map
Attachment C – Application Plan
Attachment D – Exhibit Showing Approved Site Plan and Proposed Commercial (Office) Site
Attachment E – Regional Context Map
Return to PC actions letter
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION 1
JULY 30, 2013 – DRAFT PARTIAL MINUTES – SP-2013-00006 Commonwealth Office - Submit to BOS
Albemarle County Planning Commission
July 30, 2013
The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a regular meeting on Tuesday, July 30, 2013,
at 6:00 p.m., at the County Office Building, Lane Auditorium, Second Floor, 401 McIntire Road,
Charlottesville, Virginia.
Members attending were Richard Randolph, Bruce Dotson, Ed Smith, Thomas Loach, Don
Franco, Calvin Morris, Chair; and Russell (Mac) Lafferty, Vice Chair. Julia Monteith, AICP,
Senior Land Use Planner for the University of Virginia was present.
Other officials present were Elaine Echols, Principal Planner; Andy Sorrell, Senior Planner;
Glenn Brooks, County Engineer; Claudette Grant, Senior Planner; Megan Yaniglos, Senior
Planner; Sharon Taylor, Clerk to Planning Commission; David Benish, Chief of Planning, and
Andy Herrick, Assistant County Attorney.
Call to Order
Mr. Morris called the regular meeting of the Albemarle County Planning Commission back to
order at 6:00 p.m. and established a quorum.
SP-2013-00006 Commonwealth Office
PROPOSAL: Construct a professional office building on 1.15 acres under Section 18.2.2.11 of
zoning ordinance. No dwelling units proposed.
ZONING: R-15 Residential – 15 units/acre, Professional Office by special use permit; AIA
Airport Impact Area – Overlay to minimize adverse impacts to both the airport and the
surrounding land
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Urban Density Residential – residential (6.01 – 34 units/ acre);
supporting uses such as religious institutions, schools, commercial, office and service uses in
Neighborhood 1.
LOCATION: The property is located on Commonwealth Drive (State Route 1315),
approximately .35 mile north of the Hydraulic Road-Commonwealth Drive intersection.
TAX MAP/PARCEL: 061w0030001400
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Jack Jouett
(David Benish)
Mr. Benish apologized for any errors since his presentation crashed at the last minute and he
had to reproduce it at the last minute. Also, in the application he had the wrong applicant listed.
It should be corrected to Moore’s Creek Land Trust, LLC. He presented a PowerPoint
presentation and summarized the proposal.
This is a proposal to construct a 13,500 square foot, three-story office building. It is on 1.1 acres
located on Commonwealth Drive. The property is zoned R-15. Professional offices are
permitted in the R-15 District by approval of a Special Use Permit (Chapter 18 Section
18.2.2(11)). There have been two prior approvals on this site. One approval was in 2007 for 14
townhouses. Later in 2010 that site plan was amended to allow for a three-story apartment
consisting of 14 units.
In terms of the consistency of this request with the Comprehensive Plan from an overall land
use standpoint they do find that this use is consistent as outlined in the Places29 Master Plan
for Urban Density Residential. That section does talk about providing for office uses as a
secondary use. Therefore, from a use standpoint staff is supportive of this proposal. Staff has
identified two primary issues.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION 2
JULY 30, 2013 – DRAFT PARTIAL MINUTES – SP-2013-00006 Commonwealth Office - Submit to BOS
While this is a recommendation for denial, there are primarily two issues staff wanted to call to
the Commission’s attention. There are two Neighborhood Model principles staff feel are
important in this area: relegation of parking and the orientation of the building to the street.
While otherwise this development meets the Neighborhood Model staff felt like those two
Neighborhood Model principles were important in this location and worthy of discussion with the
Planning Commission.
Staff pointed out in an aerial view showing Commonwealth Drive and the west side of
Commonwealth Drive that it is fairly limited in terms of the amount of parking that is located
across the frontage of that site. The site does show the parking along the frontage of the site.
The other issue of concern is stormwater management issues, which staff believes ultimately
they can deal with at the site plan stage. Mr. Brooks can explain it in more detail if necessary.
There are two aspects to it.
The proposal in this application plan calls for the detention facility to be for the ru n off to run to
an existing sort of defacto detention basis that is located on multiple properties. At one point in
time the County had an intention of acquiring that land and making it a regional storm water
detention facility. As of right now there is no schedule or funding for that upgrade. So the
County Engineer is recommending that the storm water detention facilities be provided entirely
on site, which is somewhat different than what is depicted on the application plan.
Related to the storm water detention is the downstream channel, which essentially is in a state
of disrepair and in poor condition. There has been a remediation effort or an effort to address
the deteriorating concern at some point in the past by installing a new pipe within the old
deteriorating pipe. The size of that pipe is unknown. So the downstream channel and the ability
for it to convey the downstream flow are in question. The County Engineer had requested the
analysis of this for the special use permit. But, the applicant would prefer to do that as part of
the site plan process. Ultimately, they can probably address the issues with that analysis with
the approval of the Water Protection Ordinance permit as part of the site plan review process.
However, staff wanted to make clear that any approval of this special use permit request is with
the understanding that storm water management facilities are going to be provided on the site .
Ultimately a channel adequacy in that analysis is going to be submitted and improvements
necessary for the storm water detention to adequately convey the detention from this site
downstream will need to be addressed.
Staff finds the following factors favorable to this request:
1. The proposal provides a mix of uses within a high density residential area.
2. There are no anticipated detrimental impacts on adjacent property resulting from the
intensification of the existing use.
3. The impact of proposed development to the site and immediate area is consistent with
previously approved developments on this site.
Staff finds the following factor(s) unfavorable to this request:
1. Underground drainage pipes downstream of site may be inadequate to convey
discharge from site/area.
2. Site layout does not orient building to the street and parking not fully releg ated
consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and the Neighborhood Model principles.
Staff recommends denial of SP-2013-00006, Commonwealth Office, due to the application
plan’s inconsistency with the Comprehensive Plan and Neighborhood Model principles
regarding relegation of parking and building orientation (buildings and spaces of human scale).
Again, this is a fairly focused review. Otherwise, staff feels that it is a relatively good proposal in
concept to have the office use in this area. However, if the Planning Commission chooses to
recommend approval of this proposal, staff has provided recommended conditions of approval
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION 3
JULY 30, 2013 – DRAFT PARTIAL MINUTES – SP-2013-00006 Commonwealth Office - Submit to BOS
listed in the staff report.
Mr. Morris invited questions for staff.
Mr. Franco asked regarding stormwater management if there are easements for off-site
stormwater facilities. If they provide easements, is it that important that it is built completely on
the property.
Mr. Benish replied the applicant can answer whether they have looked into that. Staff is aware
that in the past there has been difficulty obtaining permission from the adjacent property owners
to improve that facility.
Mr. Randolph asked if the crumbling pipe needs the replacement pipe withdrawn and then a
new insert pipe put in who pays for that.
Mr. Benish noted that was a good question. He replied that part of it is a VDOT facility, which
conveys the water under Commonwealth Drive, through the residential development on the
west side, and then through the Stonefield Development. The responsibility is not clear at this
point in time.
Mr. Randolph said there is a critical piece of repair work here that they don’t know who is going
to pay for.
Mr. Benish clarified that the net result might be the County Engineer cannot approve the
downstream flow as part of their stormwater management plan. Therefore, upstream
development may not be able to take place.
Mr. Lafferty asked if staff’s recommendation is to handle all of the stormwater on site, and Mr.
Benish replied that is correct.
Mr. Smith noted even if it is handled on site it has to go off site.
Mr. Benish said staff is recommending the facility to serve this site to be located entirely on its
own site. However, he agreed that ultimately the outfall has to go downstream off site.
Mr. Smith asked if it goes downstream and they decide that the pipe under the street is not large
enough if the developer would go to the state to ask for help to pay for it since they have to
replace the pipe.
Mr. Brooks replied that he did not know if that was a realistic prediction. Actually the state
denied knowing this pipe was there. He thinks more likely since the actual inlet to the pipe is on
their property that it could be opened up and cleaned up. That would improve the hydraulics
quite a bit. If the pipe was too small they would have to improve that to hold back water like it is
doing now. That would probably be a more realistic outcome than replacing the whole pipe
under Commonwealth Drive and then under the duplexes across the road all the way to
Stonefield.
Mr. Smith noted it is increasing a good bit of impervious area.
Mr. Brooks replied that it is less than an acre.
Mr. Benish noted it was 1.1 acre.
Mr. Smith said it depends on how fast it goes in.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION 4
JULY 30, 2013 – DRAFT PARTIAL MINUTES – SP-2013-00006 Commonwealth Office - Submit to BOS
Mr. Brooks said the issue is more that they have an existing problem in that area. It is sort of an
ecological disaster down in that hole. The pipe has been blocked up for a long time. There is a
big mud backflow that probably goes back a couple hundred feet. It is just a mess. They could
clean that out now with no application since it is on their property and they could fix it. They
could uncover it and investigate to find what is down there.
Mr. Morris invited further questions for Mr. Brooks.
Mr. Benish asked to explain that a little further. If this were a larger site this may be a more
significant issue with the special use permit process. This special use permit is really about
allowing a nonresidential use in a residential area. The by-right approvals previously are similar
in terms of their impact. He cannot say they are exactly the same in terms of their square
footage of impervious area, but it is in a similar scope.
Mr. Brooks agreed with Mr. Franco that #2 is an unusual condition. They could probably do
without it just fine. He thinks the plan they were given showed taking advantage of a future
County facility off site. Therefore, staff just wanted to clarify that was not the case.
Mr. Franco noted if it did take advantage of that, then it would all have to be in an easement.
Mr. Brooks said they would have to work it out with the owners. He pointed out the County was
not successful. However, they could be.
Mr. Benish pointed out in some ways this condition is not consistent with our policy about
conditions. This really implies a condition. They can require most of these improvements since
it refers to the Water Protection Ordinance (WPO) approval at the site plan stage. But, the
application plan does show this facility off site if there were no amendments made. So this
condition is making clear there is an expectation for that stormwater detention to be on site.
Mr. Morris opened the public hearing for the applicant and public comment. He invited the
applicant to address the Planning Commission.
Justin Shimp, representative for the property owner, presented a PowerPoint presentation and
explained the proposal.
It really is as simple as the staff explained it. They are really simply trying to get this use
changed from an R-15, Residential by right for 14 apartments/14 townhomes. There are
two prior approved site plans for that type of use into an office use. The property is
surrounded by residential uses. They could do about 14 more units with no proffers.
They think the land makes a little more sense as a commercial type use. A doctor’s
office kind of use is very logical amongst all these people. He strongly thinks this is a
case about the use and not about stormwater, which absolutely has to be dealt with at
the site plan assuming this moves forward.
The reason these notes exist and there was some confusion about this is two or three
years ago when the prior site plan was approved the County did intend upon creating
this regional stormwater basin. Therefore, that plan was approved with that. Since that
time things have changed the stormwater on that prior site plan has expired. Therefore,
that is no longer approved and a new plan has to be done whether it is for apartments,
townhomes or the special use permit for office. It will have to be an on -site system or
they have to go and create that regional system and get the easements, which is not
going to happen. They will certainly have to go in and clean up the mess since it is a
huge hole and full of swamp. They will clean that up and find the pipe. They will do the
on-site stormwater like they would normally and address all of those concerns on-site. It
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION 5
JULY 30, 2013 – DRAFT PARTIAL MINUTES – SP-2013-00006 Commonwealth Office - Submit to BOS
is probably unlikely that will ever become a regional basin at least not in the near future.
Certainly a one acre site does not have the need or the financial resources to convert a
giant stormwater facility. They feel that it really is a use question.
If you look at the site layout the approved plan had about 32 parking spaces in front of
the building. The amended application plan shows 30 parking spaces in front, which is
slightly reduced. They have not put the building in front, which they know is consistent
with the Neighborhood Model. There is a very good reason for that. The site drops way
off and the entrance needs to remain where it is approved because of the spacing to the
next entrance down. So they have to enter on that side of the site and the building can’t
really go there.
Due to the topography if they go into the maximum slope behind the building at 5% slope
in the parking lot they need about a 17’ retaining wall. If the site was flat pulling the
building to the front would be no problem. However, it is just not that sort of site. To get
a reasonable office building on the site they need to keep the layout just the way they
have where the parking rides on the high side and the building acts as a retaining wall
because of the basement walk out on the low side. They have to work with the land.
That really is the simple answer of why the building is not up in the front. It is just not
really a practical application for this particular site. In general it is a good idea, but not
for this site. They do not want 17’ retaining walls. That would potentially compromise
somebody in the future from doing a stormwater facility there since encroaching on that
area might compromise the ability to do that. So they have tried to remain consistent
with the approved plans and simply stay out of that area and work with the high land
leaving that alone. They just want to go in and clean the area up so it is not a swamp.
Staff has agreed that the use is reasonable and it is simply a matter of it can’t be built
reasonably with the building in the front and the parking behind. That is where they are.
Mr. Morris invited questions for the applicant.
Mr. Lafferty said the only comments he had gotten is the appropriateness of putting an office
space in a residential neighborhood and he thinks that has been addressed. He asked Mr.
Shimp if he had talked to any of the neighbors.
Mr. Shimp replied that he believed the owner has spoken to some. The property owners are
large corporations. They have not spoken to individual people in the rental apartments. There is
an issue in that their road actually encroaches over slightly on the property, which he thinks they
are going to leave as is. They have had no other discussions other than that.
Mr. Lafferty noted looking at the site his concern would be somebody falling off a sidewalk and
then falling down that hill into the swamp.
Mr. Shimp noted it was a little less of a concern if everyone is orientated away and the building
sort of orientates away from that. So it is a little less of a concern. They don’t want 17’ retaining
walls for a number of reasons with that being one of them.
Mr. Lafferty said that is a real hole in the ground there. He asked if they are going to bring in
any fill or counting on the cut matching the fill.
Mr. Shimp replied that it is close to actually being balanced because the building sets down
about 10’ to 12’ from the road. It is close. They will have to bring in a little dirt. In the grand
scheme of construction projects this is a very small one.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION 6
JULY 30, 2013 – DRAFT PARTIAL MINUTES – SP-2013-00006 Commonwealth Office - Submit to BOS
Mr. Randolph asked if he ever considered the possibility just in the range of options to actually
take the building, rotate it 45 degrees, and move it forward having the entrance right through the
first floor of the building.
Mr. Shimp replied that he did not consider that for this building.
There being no further questions for the applicant, Mr. Morris invited public comment. There
being none, the public hearing was closed and the matter before the Planning Commission for
discussion and action.
Mr. Franco asked Mr. Benish if he agreed with the reasoning for the relegated parking.
Mr. Benish replied he understands the grade issues and that a slightly smaller building would
require less parking and space. When staff looked at it keeping the building at that same angle
completely in the corner that it seemed like the parking area did not need to be quite as big as
was rendered. Staff thought it might be more feasible. However, staff clearly understands that
this is a problematic site. He understands what they are speaking of and the concern since it is
an awkward site to deal with.
Mr. Randolph asked if these guidelines on relegated parking and the Neighborhood Model are
petty and they are interrupting development. He asked if it is a reasonable thing to ask given
that this is located in an area where there is only one other building constructed like this on
Commonwealth Drive.
Mr. Benish said they feel fortunate that this road is one that has fairly limited impacts from
relegated parking. So this is an intrusion into that. Again, it is probably a perspective of the
build out of this road since this is sort of one of the last infill sites. Therefore, is one intrusion or
one non-relegated site that significant? But, it seemed relatively significant and like there may
have been ways to at least to have minimized some of that relegation if not completely
relegated. Relegation is important in terms of encouraging accessibility and walkability. This
road is on transit, which was important for us to maintain that principle.
Mr. Dotson said because of the difficulties of the terrain he would support the request. W hile he
came into the meeting imaging that he would insist on the moving of the building and the
relegation he thinks he has learned something.
Motion: Mr. Dotson moved and Mr. Loach seconded to recommend approval of SP-2013-
00006 Commonwealth Office with conditions as outlined by staff and stated in the staff report.
1. Development of the use shall be in general accord with sheet C4 of 4 (Concept Plan)
of the plan entitled “Application Plan for Commonwealth Office,” prepared by Shimp
Engineering, P.C., revision 1, dated 5/6/13, as determined by the Director of
Planning and the Zoning Administrator. To be in general accord with the Conceptual
Plan, the development and use shall reflect the following major elements as shown
on the Conceptual Plan:
Total building square footage of 13,500 square feet.
Entrance location.
Minor modifications to the plan which are in general accord with the elements above
may be made to ensure compliance with the Zoning Ordinance.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION 7
JULY 30, 2013 – DRAFT PARTIAL MINUTES – SP-2013-00006 Commonwealth Office - Submit to BOS
2. The stormwater detention facility shall be located entirely on the subject property
(Tax Map/Parcel 061W0-03-00-01400) and shall be designed and built as approved
by the County Engineer.
3. The use shall commence on or before [date two years from Board of Supervisor
approval] or the permit shall expire and be of no effect.
The motion passed by a vote of 6:1 (Randolph voted nay)
Mr. Morris said that a recommendation for approval of SP-2013-00006 Commonwealth Office
will be forwarded to the Board of Supervisors to a date to be determined.
Return to PC actions letter
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
Phone (434) 296-5832 Fax (434) 972-4126
MEMORANDUM
TO: File
FROM: Rebecca Ragsdale, Senior Planner
DATE: August 27, 2013
RE: ZTA201300004 Family Day Homes
The Albemarle County Planning Commission, at its meeting on August 6, 2013, by a vote of 5:0,
recommended approval of the above noted petition.
This petition will be forwarded to the Board of Supervisors to be heard on a date to be determined with a
recommendation of approval.
Attachment 111
ORDINANCE NO. 13-18( )
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND CHAPTER 18, ZONING, ARTICLE I, GENERAL PROVISIONS, ARTICLE
II, BASIC REGULATIONS, AND ARTICLE III, DISTRICT REGULATIONS, 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 18,
Zoning, Article I, General Provisions, Article II, Basic Regulations, and Article III, District Regulations, are
hereby amended and reordained as follows:
By Amending:
Sec. 3.1 Definitions
Sec. 10.2.1 By right
Sec. 12.2.1 By right
Sec. 13.2.1 By right
Sec. 14.2.1 By right
Sec. 15.2.1 By right
Sec. 16.2.1 By right
Sec. 17.2.1 By right
Sec. 18.2.1 By right
Sec. 19.3.1 By right
Sec. 20.3.1 By right
Sec. 20A.6 By right
Sec. 20B.2 By right
By Amending and Renaming:
Sec. 5.1.06 Day care centers, family day home
By Adding:
Sec. 5.1.56 Family day homes
Chapter 18. Zoning
Article I. General Provisions
Sec. 3.1 Definitions
. . .
Family day home: A dwelling unit where care, protection and guidance is provided to a group of more
than five (5) children under the age of thirteen (13), exclusive of the provider’s family, during the absence
of a parent or guardian during a part of a day. A single-family dwelling having five (5) or fewer children is
a single-family residential use child day program offered in the dwelling unit of the provider or the dwelling
unit that is the home of any of the children in care for one (1) through twelve (12) children under the age
of thirteen (13), exclusive of the provider’s own children and any children who reside in the home, when at
least one child receives care for compensation. For the purposes of this definition, a child day program is
a regularly operating service arrangement for children where, during the absence of a parent or guardian,
a person has agreed to assume responsibility for the supervision, protection, and well-being of a child
under the age of thirteen (13) for less than a twenty-four (24) hour period. (Added 10-3-01)
. . .
(§ 20-3.1, 12-10-80, 7-1-81, 12-16-81, 2-10-82, 6-2-82, 1-1-83, 7-6-83, 11-7-84, 7-17-85, 3-5-86, 1-1-87,
6-10-87, 12-2-87, 7-20-88, 12-7-88, 11-1-89, 6-10-92, 7-8-92, 9-15-93, 8-10-94, 10-11-95, 11-15-95, 10-
9-96, 12-10-97; § 18-3.1, Ord. 98-A(1), 8-5-98; Ord. 01-18(6), 10-3-01; Ord. 01-18(9), 10-17-01; Ord. 02-
18(2), 2-6-02; Ord. 02-18(5), 7-3-02; Ord. 02-18(7), 10-9-02; Ord. 03-18(1), 2-5-03; Ord. 03-18(2), 3-19-
03; Ord. 04-18(2), 10-13-04; 05-18(2), 2-2-05; Ord. 05-18(7), 6-8-05; Ord. 05-18(8), 7-13-05; Ord. 06-
18(2), 12-13-06; Ord. 07-18(1), 7-11-07; Ord. 07-18(2), 10-3-07; Ord. 08-18(3), 6-11-08; Ord. 08-18(4), 6-
11-08; Ord. 08-18(6), 11-12-08; Ord. 08-18(7), 11-12-08; Ord. 09-18(3), 7-1-09; Ord. 09-18(5), 7-1-09;
09-18(8), 8-5-09; Ord. 09-18(9), 10-14-09; Ord. 09-18(10), 12-2-09; Ord. 09-18(11), 12-10-09; Ord. 10-
18(3), 5-5-10; Ord. 10-18(4), 5-5-10; Ord. 10-18(5), 5-12-10; Ord. 11-18(1), 1-12-11; Ord. 11-18(5), 6-1-
11; Ord. 11-18(6), 6-1-11; Ord. 12-18(3), 6-6-12; Ord. 12-18(4), 7-11-12; Ord. 12-18(6), 10-3-12, effective
1-1-13; Ord. 12-18(7), 12-5-12, effective 4-1-13; Ord. 13-18(1), 4-3-13; Ord. 13-18(2), 4-3-13; Ord. 13-
18(3), 5-8-13)
State law reference – Va. Code § 15.2-2286(A)(4).
Article II. Basic Regulations
Sec. 5.1.06 Day care centers, family day home
Each day care center family day home shall be subject to the following:
a. No such use shall operate without the required licensure by the Virginia Department of Social
Services. It shall be the responsibility of the owner/operator to transmit to the zoning
administrator a copy of the original license. Failure to do so shall be deemed willful
noncompliance with the provisions of this chapter; State licensure. Each day care center shall
acquire and maintain the required licensure from the Virginia Department of Social Services. The
owner or operator of the day care center shall provide a copy of the license to the zoning
administrator. The owner or operator’s failure to provide a copy of the license to the zoning
administrator shall be deemed to be willful noncompliance with the provisions of this chapter.
(Amended 10-3-01)
b. Periodic inspection of the premises shall be made by the Albemarle County fire official at his
discretion. Failure to promptly admit the fire official for such inspection shall be deemed willful
noncompliance with the provisions of this chapter; Inspections by fire official. The Albemarle
County fire official is authorized to conduct periodic inspections of the day care center. The owner
or operator’s failure to promptly admit the fire official onto the premises to conduct an inspection
in a manner authorized by law shall be deemed to be willful noncompliance with the provisions of
this chapter. (Amended 10-3-01)
c. These provisions are supplementary and nothing stated herein shall be deemed to preclude
application of the requirements of the Virginia Department of Social Services, Virginia Department
of Health, Virginia State Fire Marshal, or any other local, state or federal agency. Relationship to
other laws. The provisions of this section are supplementary to all other laws and nothing herein
shall be deemed to preclude application of the requirements of the Virginia Department of Social
Services, Virginia Department of Health, Virginia State Fire Marshal, or any other local, state or
federal agency. (Amended 10-3-01)
(§ 5.1.0.6, 12-10-80; Ord. 01-18(6), 10-3-01)
Sec. 5.1.56 Family day homes
Each family day home shall be subject to the following:
a. Care for five or fewer children. Each family day home providing care for five (5) or fewer children
under the age of thirteen (13), exclusive of the provider’s own children an d any children who
reside in the home, shall be regulated as a single-family residential use.
b. Care for more than five but not more than twelve children. Each family day home providing care
for more than five (5) but not more than twelve (12) children under the age of thirteen (13),
exclusive of the provider’s own children and any children who reside in the home, shall be subject
to the following:
1. Traffic. The additional traffic generated by a family day home, excluding trips
associated with the dwelling unit, shall not exceed twenty-four (24) vehicle round
trips per day. For the purposes of this section, a “vehicle round trip” means one
vehicle entering and exiting the site. The limitation on the number of vehicle round
trips per day may be waived or modified by special exception. In acting on a
special exception, the board shall consider whether the waiver or modification of
the number of vehicle round trips per day will change the character of the
neighboring agricultural area or the residential neighborhood, as applicable, and
whether the additional vehicle trips per day will be a substantial detriment to
abutting lots. Notice of the application for a special exception shall be posted as
provided in section 33.4(m)(2).
2. Parking. Each family day home shall provide one (1) parking space plus one (1) parking
space for each additional employee. The parking spaces may be located on-site, on the
street where authorized by law, or in a parking lot safe and convenient to the family day
home.
3. Entrance and access. In conjunction with each application for a zoning clearance,
the zoning administrator shall identify, if necessary, the applicable design and
improvements required that are at least the minimum necessary to protect public
health and safety by providing safe ingress and egress to and from the family day
home site, safe vehicular and pedestrian circulation on the site, and the control of
dust as deemed appropriate in the context of the use. The zoning administrator
may consult with the county engineer or the Virginia Department of Transportation
regarding the minimum design and improvements for the entrance and access.
4. State licensure. Each family day home shall acquire and maintain the required licensure
from the Virginia Department of Social Services. The owner or operator of the family day
home shall provide a copy of the license to the zoning administrator. The owner or
operator’s failure to provide a copy of the license to the zoning administrator shall be
deemed to be willful noncompliance with the provisions of this chapter.
5. Inspections by fire official. The Albemarle County fire official is authorized to conduct
periodic inspections of the family day home. The owner or operator’s failure to promptly
admit the fire official onto the premises and into the dwelling unit to conduct an inspection
in a manner authorized by law shall be deemed to be willful noncompliance with the
provisions of this chapter.
6. Waivers or modifications by special exception. Except as provided in subsection
(b)(1), no requirement of this section may be waived or modified.
7. Zoning clearance and notice of request. No family day home shall commence
without a zoning clearance issued under section 31.5, subject to the following:
(a). Notice to abutting lot owners. At least thirty (30) days prior to acting on the
zoning clearance, the zoning administrator shall provide written notice of
the application for a zoning clearance to the owner of each abutting lot
under different ownership than the lot on which the proposed family day
home would be located. The notice shall identify the proposed family day
home, its size and capacity, its location, and whether a special exception
under subsection (b)(1) is requested. The notice shall invite the recipient to
submit any comments before the zoning clearance is acted upon. The
notice shall be mailed or hand delivered at least thirty (30) days prior to the
action on the zoning clearance. Mailed notice shall be sent by first class
mail. Notice mailed to the owner of each lot abutting the site 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 records of
the county shall be deemed to be compliance with this requirement.
(b). Special exception. If the zoning administrator receives a written objection
to the family day home from the owner of an abutting lot within thirty (30)
days after the notice was mailed or delivered, the zoning clearance shall
not be approved until after the applicant obtains a special exception for the
family day home as provided in sections 33.5 and 33.9. In acting on a
special exception, the board shall consider whether the proposed use will
be a substantial detriment to abutting lots.
8. Relationship to other laws. The provisions of this section are supplementary to all other
laws and nothing herein shall be deemed to preclude application of the requirements of
the Virginia Department of Social Services, Virginia Department of Health, Virginia State
Fire Marshal, or any other local, state or federal agency.
(§ 5.1.0.6, 12-10-80; Ord. 01-18(6), 10-3-01)
Article III. District Regulations
Sec. 10.2.1 By right
The following uses shall be permitted by right in the RA district, subject to the applicable requirement s of
this chapter:
. . .
28. Family day homes (reference 5.1.56).
. . .
(§ 20-10.2.1, 12-10-80; 12-16-81; 7-6-83; 11-1-89; 11-8-89; 11-11-92; 5-12-93; Ord. 95-20(5), 11-15-95;
Ord. 98-A(1), § 18-10.2.1, 8-5-98; Ord. 02-18(6), 10-9-02; Ord 04-18(2), 10-13-04; Ord. 06-18(2), 12-13-
06; Ord. 08-18(7), 11-12-08; Ord. 09-18(11), 12-10-09; Ord. 10-18(3), 5-5-10; Ord. 10-18(4), 5-5-10; Ord.
11-18(1), 1-12-11; Ord. 12-18(3), 6-6-12)
Sec. 12.2.1 By right
The following uses shall be permitted by right in the VR district, subject to the applicable requirements of
this chapter:
. . .
19. Family day homes (reference 5.1.56).
(§ 20-12.2.1, 12-10-80; 9-2-81; 11-1-89; 11-11-92; Ord. 02-18(6), 10-9-02; Ord. 04-18(2), 10-13-04; Ord.
10-18(4), 5-5-10)
Sec. 13.2.1 By right
The following uses shall be permitted subject to requirements and limitations of this ordinance by right in
the R-1 district, subject to the applicable requirements of this chapter :
. . .
14. Family day homes (reference 5.1.56).
(§ 20-13.2.1, 12-10-80; 9-2-81; 11-1-89; 5-12-93; Ord. 02-18(6), 10-9-02; Ord. 04-18(2), 10-13-04)
Sec. 14.2.1 By right
The following uses shall be permitted subject to requirements and limitations of this ordinance by right in
the R-2 district, subject to the applicable requirements of this chapter:
. . .
14. Family day homes (reference 5.1.56).
(§ 20-14.2.1, 12-10-80; 9-2-81; 11-1-89; 5-12-93; Ord. 02-18(6), 10-9-02; Ord. 04-18(2), 10-13-04)
Sec. 15.2.1 By right
The following uses shall be permitted subject to requirements and limitations of this ordinance by right in
the R-4 district, subject to the applicable requirements of this chapter :
. . .
16. Family day homes (reference 5.1.56).
(§ 20-15.2.1, 12-10-80; 9-2-81; 11-1-89; 5-12-93; Ord. 02-18(6), 10-9-02; Ord. 04-18(2), 10-13-04)
Sec. 16.2.1 By right
The following uses shall be permitted subject to requirements and limitations of this ordinance by right in
the R-6 district, subject to the applicable requirements of this chapter :
. . .
17. Family day homes (reference 5.1.56).
(§ 20-16.2.1, 12-10-80; 9-2-81; 11-1-89; 5-12-93; Ord. 02-18(6), 10-9-02; Ord. 04-18(2), 10-13-04)
Sec. 17.2.1 By right
The following uses shall be permitted subject to requirements and limitations of this ordinance by right in
the R-10 district, subject to the applicable requirements of this chapter :
. . .
17. Family day homes (reference 5.1.56).
(§ 20-17.2.1, 12-10-80; 9-2-81; 3-5-86; Ord. 03-18(1), 2-5-03; Ord. 04-18(2), 10-13-04)
Sec. 18.2.1 By right
The following uses shall be permitted subject to requirements and limitations of this ordinance by right in
the R-15 district, subject to the applicable requirements of this chapter :
. . .
17. Family day homes (reference 5.1.56).
(§ 18.2.1, 12-10-80; 9-2-81; 11-1-89; Ord. 02-18(6), 10-9-02; Ord. 04-18(2), 10-13-04)
Sec. 19.3.1 By right
The following uses shall be permitted subject to requirements and limitations of this ordinance by right in
the PRD district, subject to the applicable requirements of this chapter:
. . .
13. Family day homes (reference 5.1.56).
(§ 20-19.3.1, 12-10-80; 9-2-81; 11-1-89; 5-12-93; Ord. 02-18(6), 10-9-02; Ord. 04-18(2), 10-13-04)
Sec. 20.3.1 By right
The following uses shall be permitted subject to requirements and limitations of this ordinance by right in
the
PUD district, subject to the applicable requirements of this chapter :
. . .
13. Family day homes (reference 5.1.56).
(§ 20-20.3.1, 12-10-80; 9-2-81; 11-1-89; 5-12-93; Ord 02-18(6), 10-9-02; Ord. 04-18(2), 10-13-04; Ord.
13-18(2), 4-3-13)
Sec. 20A.6 Permitted uses
The following uses shall be permitted in an NMD, subject to the regulations in this section and section 8,
the approved application plan and code of development, and the accepted proffers:
a. By right uses. The following uses are permitted by right if the use is expressly identified as a by
right use in the code of development or if the use is permitted in a determination by the zoning
administrator pursuant to subsection 8.5.5.2(c)(1):
. . .
11. Family day homes (reference 5.1.56).
. . .
(Ord. 03-18(2), 3-19-03; Ord 04-18(2), 10-13-04; Ord. 09-18(9), 10-14-09; Ord. 10-18(4), 5-5-10; Ord. 13-
18(2), 4-3-13)
Sec. 20B.2 Permitted uses
The following uses shall be permitted in the DCD, subject to the regulations in this section:
. . .
D. By right uses; residential. The following residential uses are permitted by right, provided that the
first floor of the building in which the residential use exists is designed for and occupied only by a
use permitted by subsections 20B.2(A), (B), (C) or (E):
. . .
8. Family day homes (reference 5.1.56).
. . .
(Ord. 08-18(3), 6-11-08; Ord. 10-18(4), 5-5-10; Ord. 13-18(2), 4-3-13)
I, Ella W. Jordan, do hereby certify that the foregoing writing is a true, correct copy of an O rdinance duly
adopted by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, by a vote of _____ to _____, as
recorded below, at a regular meeting held on _________________________.
__________________________________
Clerk, Board of County Supervisors
Aye Nay
Mr. Boyd ____ ____
Mr. Craddock ____ ____
Ms. Mallek ____ ____
Mr. Rooker ____ ____
Mr. Snow ____ ____
Mr. Thomas ____ ____
View executive summary and attachments
Return to agenda
Page 1
ZTA 13-04-Family Day Home Public Hearing
August 6, 2013-Planning Commission
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
ZTA-2013-04 Family Day Homes
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Public hearing on proposed draft ordinance to
amend family day home regulations.
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Mr. Cilimberg, Ms. McCulley, and Ms. Ragsdale
PRESENTER (S): Ms. Ragsdale
PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA DATE:
August 6, 2013
ACTION: X INFORMATION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS: Yes
BACKGROUND: The Virginia Department of Social Services (DSS) established a change, effective July 1, 2012,
which requires child care providers renewing a State license or seeking their first license for a “Family Day Home” to
contact their local zoning administrator. Family Day Homes may be licensed by DSS to care for up to 12 children in a
home.
The Virginia Code and current Zoning Ordinance regulations allow caring for 5 or fewer children, exclusive of the
provider’s family, in a residence without the need for a zoning permit. If 6 or more children are cared for, then a special
use permit is required by the County’s Zoning Ordinance. The ordinance uses the term Family Day Home for in-home
child care providers and there are supplemental regulations that apply in Section 5.1.06 of the ordinance. The fee for a
day care special use permit is $1000 plus the cost of advertising.
After this DSS change, many providers licensed to care for up to 12 children began contacting zoning staff and
realized they were not in compliance with the zoning ordinance because they were not aware of the special use permit
requirement. There are currently nine licensed Family Day Homes in Albemarle County, seven of which are licensed
for up to 12 and two licensed for up to 8 children. None of these providers have a special use permit and there have
been no zoning complaints received. Staff requested historical information from DSS and since 2005 there were ten
other family day homes licensed in Albemarle for between 8-12 children without obtaining special use permits.
Zoning staff has also been contacted and met with the County’s local Social Services Department on the issue. Both
Social Services and Community Development believe it is appropriate to consider changes to the Zoning Ordinance
regulations that would fully reflect the Code of Virginia by-right allowances for family day homes and further distinguish
them from daycare centers. Based on this recommendation from staff, the Planning Commission adopted a resolution
of intent on April 2, 2013 to consider amending the zoning ordinance regulations for Family Day Homes. (Attachment I)
The Planning Commission discussed an outline of proposed ordinance changes in a work session at their June 11,
2013 meeting and received public comment. (Attachment V) The Commission was supportive of the proposal to allow
caring for 6 to 12 children in a family day home with a zoning clearance process and no longer requiring a special use
permit. There was discussion about the state code requirement that abutting owners be notified of a family day home
application. The Commission directed staff to draft the proposed ordinance amendment for public hearing and to
address impacts to adjoining properties and to define the approval process for applications that receive neighbor
objection. (Attachment II)
Origin of this Amendment: This amendment was initiated by the Planning Commission on April 2, 2013 after a
recommendation from Community Development and Albemarle County Department of Social Services (Attachment I).
Page 2
ZTA 13-04-Family Day Home Public Hearing
August 6, 2013-Planning Commission
Public Purposes to be served: ACDSS has stressed the importance of high quality childcare availability and the
growing need for it in the community. Some of the benefits of increased family day home opportunities in the County
include:
Providing additional high-quality childcare options to families, which may be more affordable. Funding sources
to assist families with childcare costs is steadily decreasing.
Offering greater flexibility as to part-time care or the hours they are available to provide care. This allows them
to serve parents who work evening, 24-hour, or weekend shifts. We understand this is currently a gap for
some families needing day care.
Providing increased opportunities for pre-kindergarten learning.
Potential to locate these services closer to where people live.
Ordinance Amendment Criteria: Based on prior Board direction, staff reviews ordinance amendment impacts under
the following additional criteria:
Administration / Review Process: A more streamlined and predictable review process is proposed with a
zoning clearance application, and special exception if needed, rather than a more lengthy special use permit
process.
Housing Affordability: There is no discernible impact on housing costs.
Implications to Staffing / Staffing Costs: This amendment may potentially save staff some time by going
from a special use permit process to zoning clearance process to approve family day homes. Staff believes
that there will be savings of staff time because the zoning clearance process is more streamlined and
predictable. Zoning clearances that may be approved administratively could take as little as 4-6 weeks to
approve while a special use permit process can take as long as 4-6 months. There will be an initial workload
implication to process zoning clearances for existing licensed providers, and special exceptions, if necessary,
but in the following years staff believes there will actually be a cost savings using the zoning clearance
process as compared to the special use permit process.
PROPOSED CHANGES: Staff is recommending to increase the by-right allowances in the ordinance for Family Day
Homes, address associated impacts, and provide for a notification process to abutting owners and approval process if
there is neighbor objection. (Attachment III) Staff believes that the limited scale of family day homes would not be
detrimental to adjoining properties or change the character of residential or rural areas. This use has already been
occurring in the County and Zoning has not received complaints on any licensed providers. Family Day Homes are
subject to extensive regulations with the state licensing division of DSS. Because of these DSS regulations, there are
minimal regulations proposed in the draft ordinance and summarized below.
Revise Family Day Home definition in Section 3.1-The definition of family day home is amended the proposed
draft ordinance to closely match the definition in State law (Virginia Code 63-100) in order to eliminate any confusion.
The sentence in the definition stating that a family day home for 5 or fewer children is a single family use will be moved
to supplemental regulations for Family Day Homes. The definition in state law also includes language that a family day
home may be operated in the home of the provider or in the home of children in care. Staff believes the same review
process and regulations would be appropriate whether a family day home is located in the provider’s home or the
home of a child in the care of the provider.
Add Family Day Home as a by-right use-The proposed ordinance amendment adds family day home as a permitted
by-right use the RA Rural Areas and Residential (PRD, PUD, NMD, DCD, VR, R-1, R-2, R-4, R-6, R-10, R-15)
districts.
Updated Section 5.1.06 for Day Care Centers-Family Day Homes will now be distinguished in the draft proposed
ordinance from day care centers. Formatting and minor language revisions have been proposed to this section.
Added Section 5.1.56 to provide for Family Day Home (FDH) regulations: This section provides for regulations
that pertain to FDH’s for 5 or fewer children and regulations that pertain to FDH’s for 6 to 12 children. Family Day
Homes for 6-12 children will now be subject to the follow:
Page 3
ZTA 13-04-Family Day Home Public Hearing
August 6, 2013-Planning Commission
Traffic limits- The draft ordinance contains a limit of 24 vehicle round trips a day that may be associated with
a Family Day Home, in addition to trips generated by the dwelling containing the family day home. DSS allows
12 children at one time so providers could potentially care for more than 12 children throughout the course of
a day, increasing vehicle trips within neighborhoods. If a family day home has employees, this could potentially
also add to the number of vehicle trips. The proposed ordinance provides for a modification to this
requirement through the special exception process, which would be reviewed by the Commission. If the
Commission recommends approval and there is no neighbor objection, the special exception could be placed
on the Board of Supervisor’s consent agenda for final action to approve the modification, similar to the process
in place for home occupations.
Parking requirements-The draft ordinance requires one additional parking space for a family day home use.
The parking space may be located on-site or on-street. One additional parking space per employee is also
required.
Adequate entrance and access-The draft ordinance allows for the zoning administrator to require entrance
or access upgrades as a condition of zoning clearance approval, if they are deemed necessary for public
health and safety. This is similar language used in the zoning ordinance for farm stands and allows the zoning
administrator to request review/approval of an entrance/access by the County Engineer or VDOT, if they deem
it necessary.
.
State licensure and compliance with other laws-Although not a new requirement for family day homes, the
ordinance language has been reformatted and reworded for the sections that require family day homes to be
licensed by DSS, have periodic inspections by the fire marshal, and comply with all other applicable laws such
as the Building Code and Health Department.
Zoning Clearance required- A zoning clearance application with a $50 fee is proposed for family day homes.
Once the ordinance amendment is adopted, staff will create a checklist of information to be submitted with the
zoning clearance to assure all supplemental regulations are addressed. Staff does not recommend additional
fees to cover required notice or for waivers/special exceptions. The current ordinance fee for relief from
conditions of approval or a modification/waiver is $425.
Abutting Owner Notification- Once a completed zoning clearance application has been received, staff will
send notification to abutting property owners. Abutting property owners will have 30 days to contact staff with
any questions, concerns, or to submit any written objection to a family day home application.
Special exception-If a written objection is received from an abutting property owner, then a zoning clearance
can only be approved following the special exception process in the ordinance Section 33 (Attachment IV).
This requires the Board of Supervisors to consider whether a proposed family day home use will be a
substantial detriment to abutting lots.
Public notice sign for modifications or Special Exception hearing- Staff recommends that public notice
signs for family day homes only be posted if there will be review of a traffic modification or if they must be
approved following the special exception process. This is consistent with the notification process for major
home occupations.
STRATEGIC PLAN:
Goal 5. Ensure the health and safety of the community.
Goal 5.a: Work in conjunction with key community partners to establish multidisciplinary teams to address specific
public health and safety issues, emerging trends, and/or vulnerable groups.
BUDGET IMPACT:
There is no increased budget impact expected as a result. As noted under “Implications to Staffing,” we expect a
limited staff time saving that will result from this amendment.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends adoption of the draft ordinance found in Attachment III.
Page 4
ZTA 13-04-Family Day Home Public Hearing
August 6, 2013-Planning Commission
PLANNING COMMISSION MOTION
A. Should a Planning Commissioner choose to recommend approval of this Zoning Text Amendment:
Move to recommend approval of the draft ordinance in Attachment III.
B. Should a Planning Commissioner choose to recommend denial of this Zoning Text Amendment:
Move to recommend denial of the draft ordinance in Attachment III. Should a commissioner motion to
recommend denial, he or she should state the reason(s) for recommending denial.
ATTACHMENTS:
I. Resolution of Intent dated April 2, 2013
II. Action Memo Planning Commission June 11, 2013 work session
III. Draft Zoning Ordinance Amendment for Family Day Homes dated July 17, 2013
IV. Zoning Ordinance Section 33-Special Exceptions
V. Planning Commission Work Session staff report dated June 11, 2013
Planning Commission minutes of April 2, June 11 and August 6, 2013
Return to PC actions memo
Attachment I
RESOLUTION OF INTENT
WHEREAS, family day homes providing child care services in a dwelling for 5 or fewer children
are considered and regulated as a single family use under Virginia Code § 15.2-2292 and the Albemarle
County Zoning Ordinance; and
WHEREAS, family day homes providing child care services in a dwelling unit for between 6 and
12 children are licensed and regulated by the Virginia Department of Social Services and currently are
allowed in Albemarle County only by special use permit and are subject to supplemental regulations in
County Code § 18-5.1.06; and
WHEREAS, family day homes provide critical child care services for families that may not
otherwise be able to reasonably obtain child care services from other child care providers because family
day homes may provide more flexible hours and weekend services, and be more affordable; and
WHEREAS, upon a review of those family day homes licensed for between 6 and 12 children and
the impacts resulting therefrom, as well as the absence of complaints from neighbors about the use, family
day homes for between 6 and 12 children do not present unique impacts requiring the case-by-case review
under the special use permit process; and
WHEREAS, it is now desired to consider amending the regulations in the Zoning Ordinance to
allow family day homes for between 6 and 12 children by right, subject to reasonable and appropriate
performance standards in County Code § 18-5.1.06.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT for purposes of public necessity, convenience,
general welfare and good zoning practices, the Albemarle County Planning Commission hereby adopts a
resolution of intent to consider amending County Code §§ 18-3.1, 18-5.1.06 and any other sections deemed
appropriate, as described herein; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT the Planning Commission shall hold a public hearing on
this resolution of intent, and return its recommendations to the Board of Supervisors at the earliest possible
date.
* * * * *
Planning Commission – June 11, 2013
Final Action Memo
3
ATTACHMENT 1 –
ZTA-SP-2012-00013 ZTA-2013-00004 Family Day Homes –
Planning Commission Comments
The Commission held a work session to receive staff’s presentation, take public comment, and
comment on the following ordinance changes:
1. By right provisions, including a zoning clearance process for Family Day Homes caring
for between 6 and 12 children;
2. Supplemental regulations; and
3. Abutting owner notification only for special exceptions.
The Planning Commission supported staff’s recommendation, as noted below, for the allowance
for 6 to 12 children and was particularly appreciative of the fee being dropped from $2,000 to
$50. They asked staff to be careful in the wording as a concern for the neighbors.
The Planning Commission supported staff’s recommendation with suggested changes, to move
forward with the public hearing process, and come back with revisions to the draft ordinance to
address and respond to the comments raised by the public and Commissioners, as follows:
•Supported the allowance for 6 to 12 children without a special use permit requirement,
•Appreciative of the fee being dropped from $2,000 to $50,
•The impacts need to be addressed for noise, parking, and particularly for traffic,
•Staff clarified for the Commission that the State Code requires notice to abutting owners
for a Family Day Home permit of 6-12 children. If there is neighbor objection, the permit
cannot be approved administratively.
•The Commission would like to see this back to the Commission as soon as it is possible.
•The Commission recommended further work on the neighbor notification process and
approval process to avoid confusion if there are scenarios where there are neighbor
objection because of this State Code provision:
•They want to avoid confusion about how public input will be considered.
•Allow for notification to the community, not just abutting landowners, of the
business intending to operate so that everyone has a chance to comment upon it.
•One Commissioner suggested a public notice sign be posted and that it not be the
same color as our public hearing signs but distinctly different to notify all public
and not just adjacent owners.
Public comment was taken from the following individuals: (See Minutes for details)
Ryan Davidson
Bob Garland
Susan Crews
Terri Lamb
Neil Williamson, with Free Enterprise Forum
Nancy Carpenter
Noel Stringham
Draft: 07/17/13
1
ORDINANCE NO. 13-18( )
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND CHAPTER 18, ZONING, ARTICLE I, GENERAL PROVISIONS, ARTICLE
II, BASIC REGULATIONS, AND ARTICLE III, DISTRICT REGULATIONS, 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 18, Zoning,
Article I, General Provisions, Article II, Basic Regulations, and Article III, District Regulations, are hereby
amended and reordained as follows:
By Amending:
Sec. 3.1 Definitions
Sec. 10.2.1 By right
Sec. 12.2.1 By right
Sec. 13.2.1 By right
Sec. 14.2.1 By right
Sec. 15.2.1 By right
Sec. 16.2.1 By right
Sec. 17.2.1 By right
Sec. 18.2.1 By right
Sec. 19.3.1 By right
Sec. 20.3.1 By right
Sec. 20A.6 By right
Sec. 20B.2 By right
By Amending and Renaming:
Sec. 5.1.06 Day care centers, family day home
By Adding:
Sec. 5.1.56 Family day homes
Chapter 18. Zoning
Article I. General Provisions
Sec. 3.1 Definitions
. . .
Family day home: A dwelling unit where care, protection and guidance is provided to a group of more than five
(5) children under the age of thirteen (13), exclusive of the provider’s family, during the absence of a parent or
guardian during a part of a day. A single-family dwelling having five (5) or fewer children is a single-family
residential use child day program offered in the dwelling unit of the provider or the dwelling unit that is the home
of any of the children in care for one (1) through twelve (12) children under the age of thirteen (13), exclusive of
the provider’s own children and any children who reside in the home, when at least one child receives care for
compensation. For the purposes of this definition, a child day program is a regularly operating service
arrangement for children where, during the absence of a parent or guardian, a person has agreed to assume
Draft: 07/17/13
2
responsibility for the supervision, protection, and well-being of a child under the age of thirteen (13) for less than
a twenty-four (24) hour period. (Added 10-3-01)
. . .
(§ 20-3.1, 12-10-80, 7-1-81, 12-16-81, 2-10-82, 6-2-82, 1-1-83, 7-6-83, 11-7-84, 7-17-85, 3-5-86, 1-1-87, 6-10-87, 12-2-87,
7-20-88, 12-7-88, 11-1-89, 6-10-92, 7-8-92, 9-15-93, 8-10-94, 10-11-95, 11-15-95, 10-9-96, 12-10-97; § 18-3.1, Ord. 98-
A(1), 8-5-98; Ord. 01-18(6), 10-3-01; Ord. 01-18(9), 10-17-01; Ord. 02-18(2), 2-6-02; Ord. 02-18(5), 7-3-02; Ord. 02-18(7),
10-9-02; Ord. 03-18(1), 2-5-03; Ord. 03-18(2), 3-19-03; Ord. 04-18(2), 10-13-04; 05-18(2), 2-2-05; Ord. 05-18(7), 6-8-05;
Ord. 05-18(8), 7-13-05; Ord. 06-18(2), 12-13-06; Ord. 07-18(1), 7-11-07; Ord. 07-18(2), 10-3-07; Ord. 08-18(3), 6-11-08;
Ord. 08-18(4), 6-11-08; Ord. 08-18(6), 11-12-08; Ord. 08-18(7), 11-12-08; Ord. 09-18(3), 7-1-09; Ord. 09-18(5), 7-1-09; 09-
18(8), 8-5-09; Ord. 09-18(9), 10-14-09; Ord. 09-18(10), 12-2-09; Ord. 09-18(11), 12-10-09; Ord. 10-18(3), 5-5-10; Ord. 10-
18(4), 5-5-10; Ord. 10-18(5), 5-12-10; Ord. 11-18(1), 1-12-11; Ord. 11-18(5), 6-1-11; Ord. 11-18(6), 6-1-11; Ord. 12-18(3),
6-6-12; Ord. 12-18(4), 7-11-12; Ord. 12-18(6), 10-3-12, effective 1-1-13; Ord. 12-18(7), 12-5-12, effective 4-1-13; Ord. 13-
18(1), 4-3-13; Ord. 13-18(2), 4-3-13; Ord. 13-18(3), 5-8-13)
State law reference – Va. Code § 15.2-2286(A)(4).
Article II. Basic Regulations
Sec. 5.1.06 Day care centers, family day home
Each day care center family day home shall be subject to the following:
a. No such use shall operate without the required licensure by the Virginia Department of Social Services. It
shall be the responsibility of the owner/operator to transmit to the zoning administrator a copy of the
original license. Failure to do so shall be deemed willful noncompliance with the provisions of this
chapter; State licensure. Each day care center shall acquire and maintain the required licensure from the
Virginia Department of Social Services. The owner or operator of the day care center shall provide a copy
of the license to the zoning administrator. The owner or operator’s failure to provide a copy of the license
to the zoning administrator shall be deemed to be willful noncompliance with the provisions of this
chapter. (Amended 10-3-01)
b. Periodic inspection of the premises shall be made by the Albemarle County fire official at his discretion.
Failure to promptly admit the fire official for such inspection shall be deemed willful noncompliance with
the provisions of this chapter; Inspections by fire official. The Albemarle County fire official is authorized
to conduct periodic inspections of the day care center. The owner or operator’s failure to promptly admit
the fire official onto the premises to conduct an inspection in a manner authorized by law shall be deemed
to be willful noncompliance with the provisions of this chapter. (Amended 10-3-01)
c. These provisions are supplementary and nothing stated herein shall be deemed to preclude application of
the requirements of the Virginia Department of Social Services, Virginia Department of Health, Virginia
State Fire Marshal, or any other local, state or federal agency. Relationship to other laws. The provisions
of this section are supplementary to all other laws and nothing herein shall be deemed to preclude
application of the requirements of the Virginia Department of Social Services, Virginia Department of
Health, Virginia State Fire Marshal, or any other local, state or federal agency. (Amended 10-3-01)
(§ 5.1.0.6, 12-10-80; Ord. 01-18(6), 10-3-01)
Sec. 5.1.56 Family day homes
Each family day home shall be subject to the following:
Draft: 07/17/13
3
a. Care for five or fewer children. Each family day home providing care for five (5) or fewer children under
the age of thirteen (13), exclusive of the provider’s own children and any children who reside in the
home, shall be regulated as a single-family residential use.
b. Care for more than five but not more than twelve children. Each family day home providing care for more
than five (5) but not more than twelve (12) children under the age of thirteen (13), exclusive of the
provider’s own children and any children who reside in the home, shall be subject to the following:
1. Traffic. The additional traffic generated by a family day home, excluding trips associated
with the dwelling unit, shall not exceed twenty-four (24) vehicle round trips per day. For
the purposes of this section, a “vehicle round trip” means one vehicle entering and exiting
the site. The limitation on the number of vehicle round trips per day may be waived or
modified by special exception. In acting on a special exception, the board shall consider
whether the waiver or modification of the number of vehicle round trips per day will
change the character of the neighboring agricultural area or the residential neighborhood, as
applicable, and whether the additional vehicle trips per day will be a substantial detriment
to abutting lots. Notice of the application for a special exception shall be posted as provided
in section 33.4(m)(2).
2. Parking. Each family day home shall provide one (1) parking space plus one (1) parking space
for each additional employee. The parking spaces may be located on-site, on the street where
authorized by law, or in a parking lot safe and convenient to the family day home.
3. Entrance and access. In conjunction with each application for a zoning clearance, the
zoning administrator shall identify, if necessary, the applicable design and improvements
required that are at least the minimum necessary to protect public health and safety by
providing safe ingress and egress to and from the family day home site, safe vehicular and
pedestrian circulation on the site, and the control of dust as deemed appropriate in the
context of the use. The zoning administrator may consult with the county engineer or the
Virginia Department of Transportation regarding the minimum design and improvements
for the entrance and access.
4. State licensure. Each family day home shall acquire and maintain the required licensure from the
Virginia Department of Social Services. The owner or operator of the family day home shall
provide a copy of the license to the zoning administrator. The owner or operator’s failure to
provide a copy of the license to the zoning administrator shall be deemed to be willful
noncompliance with the provisions of this chapter.
5. Inspections by fire official. The Albemarle County fire official is authorized to conduct periodic
inspections of the family day home. The owner or operator’s failure to promptly admit the fire
official onto the premises and into the dwelling unit to conduct an inspection in a manner
authorized by law shall be deemed to be willful noncompliance with the provisions of this
chapter.
6. Waivers or modifications by special exception. Except as provided in subsection (b)(1), no
requirement of this section may be waived or modified.
7. Zoning clearance and notice of request. No family day home shall commence without a
zoning clearance issued under section 31.5, subject to the following:
Draft: 07/17/13
4
(a). Notice to abutting lot owners. At least thirty (30) days prior to acting on the zoning
clearance, the zoning administrator shall provide written notice of the application
for a zoning clearance to the owner of each abutting lot under different ownership
than the lot on which the proposed family day home would be located. The notice
shall identify the proposed family day home, its size and capacity, its location, and
whether a special exception under subsection (b)(1) is requested. The notice shall
invite the recipient to submit any comments before the zoning clearance is acted
upon. The notice shall be mailed or hand delivered at least thirty (30) days prior to
the action on the zoning clearance. Mailed notice shall be sent by first class mail.
Notice mailed to the owner of each lot abutting the site 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 records of the county shall be deemed to be
compliance with this requirement.
(b). Special exception. If the zoning administrator receives a written objection to the
family day home from the owner of an abutting lot within thirty (30) days after the
notice was mailed or delivered, the zoning clearance shall not be approved until
after the applicant obtains a special exception for the family day home as provided
in sections 33.5 and 33.9. In acting on a special exception, the board shall consider
whether the proposed use will be a substantial detriment to abutting lots.
8. Relationship to other laws. The provisions of this section are supplementary to all other laws and
nothing herein shall be deemed to preclude application of the requirements of the Virginia
Department of Social Services, Virginia Department of Health, Virginia State Fire Marshal, or
any other local, state or federal agency.
(§ 5.1.0.6, 12-10-80; Ord. 01-18(6), 10-3-01)
Article III. District Regulations
Sec. 10.2.1 By right
The following uses shall be permitted by right in the RA district, subject to the applicable requirements of this
chapter:
. . .
28. Family day homes (reference 5.1.56).
. . .
(§ 20-10.2.1, 12-10-80; 12-16-81; 7-6-83; 11-1-89; 11-8-89; 11-11-92; 5-12-93; Ord. 95-20(5), 11-15-95; Ord.
98-A(1), § 18-10.2.1, 8-5-98; Ord. 02-18(6), 10-9-02; Ord 04-18(2), 10-13-04; Ord. 06-18(2), 12-13-06; Ord. 08-
18(7), 11-12-08; Ord. 09-18(11), 12-10-09; Ord. 10-18(3), 5-5-10; Ord. 10-18(4), 5-5-10; Ord. 11-18(1), 1-12-11;
Ord. 12-18(3), 6-6-12)
Sec. 12.2.1 By right
The following uses shall be permitted by right in the VR district, subject to the applicable requirements of this
chapter:
Draft: 07/17/13
5
. . .
19. Family day homes (reference 5.1.56).
(§ 20-12.2.1, 12-10-80; 9-2-81; 11-1-89; 11-11-92; Ord. 02-18(6), 10-9-02; Ord. 04-18(2), 10-13-04; Ord. 10-
18(4), 5-5-10)
Sec. 13.2.1 By right
The following uses shall be permitted subject to requirements and limitations of this ordinance by right in the R-1
district, subject to the applicable requirements of this chapter:
. . .
14. Family day homes (reference 5.1.56).
(§ 20-13.2.1, 12-10-80; 9-2-81; 11-1-89; 5-12-93; Ord. 02-18(6), 10-9-02; Ord. 04-18(2), 10-13-04)
Sec. 14.2.1 By right
The following uses shall be permitted subject to requirements and limitations of this ordinance by right in the R-2
district, subject to the applicable requirements of this chapter:
. . .
14. Family day homes (reference 5.1.56).
(§ 20-14.2.1, 12-10-80; 9-2-81; 11-1-89; 5-12-93; Ord. 02-18(6), 10-9-02; Ord. 04-18(2), 10-13-04)
Sec. 15.2.1 By right
The following uses shall be permitted subject to requirements and limitations of this ordinance by right in the R-4
district, subject to the applicable requirements of this chapter:
. . .
16. Family day homes (reference 5.1.56).
(§ 20-15.2.1, 12-10-80; 9-2-81; 11-1-89; 5-12-93; Ord. 02-18(6), 10-9-02; Ord. 04-18(2), 10-13-04)
Sec. 16.2.1 By right
The following uses shall be permitted subject to requirements and limitations of this ordinance by right in the R-6
district, subject to the applicable requirements of this chapter:
. . .
17. Family day homes (reference 5.1.56).
(§ 20-16.2.1, 12-10-80; 9-2-81; 11-1-89; 5-12-93; Ord. 02-18(6), 10-9-02; Ord. 04-18(2), 10-13-04)
Draft: 07/17/13
6
Sec. 17.2.1 By right
The following uses shall be permitted subject to requirements and limitations of this ordinance by right in the R-
10 district, subject to the applicable requirements of this chapter:
. . .
17. Family day homes (reference 5.1.56).
(§ 20-17.2.1, 12-10-80; 9-2-81; 3-5-86; Ord. 03-18(1), 2-5-03; Ord. 04-18(2), 10-13-04)
Sec. 18.2.1 By right
The following uses shall be permitted subject to requirements and limitations of this ordinance by right in the R-
15 district, subject to the applicable requirements of this chapter:
. . .
17. Family day homes (reference 5.1.56).
(§ 18.2.1, 12-10-80; 9-2-81; 11-1-89; Ord. 02-18(6), 10-9-02; Ord. 04-18(2), 10-13-04)
Sec. 19.3.1 By right
The following uses shall be permitted subject to requirements and limitations of this ordinance by right in the
PRD district, subject to the applicable requirements of this chapter:
. . .
13. Family day homes (reference 5.1.56).
(§ 20-19.3.1, 12-10-80; 9-2-81; 11-1-89; 5-12-93; Ord. 02-18(6), 10-9-02; Ord. 04-18(2), 10-13-04)
Sec. 20.3.1 By right
The following uses shall be permitted subject to requirements and limitations of this ordinance by right in the
PUD district, subject to the applicable requirements of this chapter:
. . .
13. Family day homes (reference 5.1.56).
(§ 20-20.3.1, 12-10-80; 9-2-81; 11-1-89; 5-12-93; Ord 02-18(6), 10-9-02; Ord. 04-18(2), 10-13-04; Ord. 13-18(2),
4-3-13)
Sec. 20A.6 Permitted uses
The following uses shall be permitted in an NMD, subject to the regulations in this section and section 8, the
approved application plan and code of development, and the accepted proffers:
Draft: 07/17/13
7
a. By right uses. The following uses are permitted by right if the use is expressly identified as a by right use
in the code of development or if the use is permitted in a determination by the zoning administrator
pursuant to subsection 8.5.5.2(c)(1):
. . .
11. Family day homes (reference 5.1.56).
. . .
(Ord. 03-18(2), 3-19-03; Ord 04-18(2), 10-13-04; Ord. 09-18(9), 10-14-09; Ord. 10-18(4), 5-5-10; Ord. 13-18(2),
4-3-13)
Sec. 20B.2 Permitted uses
The following uses shall be permitted in the DCD, subject to the regulations in this section:
. . .
D. By right uses; residential. The following residential uses are permitted by right, provided that the first
floor of the building in which the residential use exists is designed for and occupied only by a use
permitted by subsections 20B.2(A), (B), (C) or (E):
. . .
8. Family day homes (reference 5.1.56).
. . .
(Ord. 08-18(3), 6-11-08; Ord. 10-18(4), 5-5-10; Ord. 13-18(2), 4-3-13)
I, Ella W. Jordan, do hereby certify that the foregoing writing is a true, correct copy of an Ordinance duly adopted
by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, by a vote of _____ to _____, as recorded below, at a
regular meeting held on _________________________.
__________________________________
Clerk, Board of County Supervisors
Aye Nay
Mr. Boyd ____ ____
Mr. Craddock ____ ____
Ms. Mallek ____ ____
Mr. Rooker ____ ____
Mr. Snow ____ ____
Mr. Thomas ____ ____
ALBEMARLE COUNTY CODE
18-33-11
Zoning Supplement #77, 4-1-13
(§ 33.4, Ord. 12-18(7), 12-5-12, effective 4-1-13 (§ 33.2, 12-10-80) (§ 33.4,12-10-80; Ord. 03-18(2), 3-19-
03) (§ 33.5, 12-10-80; Ord. 03-18(2), 3-19-03) (§ 33.6, 12-10-80) (§ 33.7, 12-10-80, 6-19-96; Ord. 01-
18(6), 10-3-01) (§ 33.8, 12-10-80, 6-19-96) (§ 33.8.1, 12-10-80, 6-19-96; Ord. 01-18(6), 10-3-01) (§
33.8.2, 12-10-80, 6-19-96) (§ 33.8.3, 12-10-80, 6-19-96))
State law reference – Va. Code §§ 15.2-2204, 15.2-2285, 15.2-2286(A)(3), (4), (7), (B).
33.5 UNIFORM PROCEDURES FOR SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS
Each application for a special exception shall be subject to the following:
a. Matters requiring a special exception. Notwithstanding any other section of this chapter:
1. Any request for a waiver, modification, variation or substitution permitted by this chapter
shall be considered and acted upon by the board of supervisors, provided that no special
exception shall be required for the development and construction of residential dwellings
at the use, height and density permitted by right in the applicable district as provided by
Virginia Code § 15.2-2288.1.
2. Any requirement for a decision by the commission required by this chapter shall be
considered and acted upon by the board of supervisors. For the purposes of this section, a
decision by the commission does not include the consideration and action by the
commission on a preliminary or final site plan under section 32 of this chapter or any
variation or exception provided in section 32.
b. Application. Each application for a special exception shall be made as provided by, and include
the information required by, the applicable section of this chapter authorizing the waiver,
modification, variation or substitution. An application shall be deemed to be officially submitted
when the applicant has submitted all of the required information as determined by the director of
planning.
c. Public hearings. Before the board of supervisors acts on a special exception that would increase
by greater than fifty (50) percent the bulk or height of an existing or proposed building within one-
half mile of an adjoining locality, the commission shall hold at least one public hearing before
making its recommendation to the board on each application. The board shall hold at least one
public hearing before approving an application.
d. Notice of public hearings. Notice of public hearing before the commission and the board of
supervisors on an application for which a public hearing is required under subsection (c) shall be
provided as required by Virginia Code § 15.2-2204(C).
e. Time for decision. Each application for a special exception shall be acted on by the board of
supervisors within ninety (90) days following the first meeting of the commission after it was
referred to the commission, according to the schedule established and administered by the director
of planning, or concurrently with a zoning map amendment, special use permit, or site plan appeal,
whichever is longer.
f. Recommendation by planning commission. For those applications considered by the commission,
the commission shall either recommend approval of the application as proposed, approval of the
application with changes to be made prior to action on the application by the board of supervisors,
or disapproval. The commission’s recommendation should include its recommendations on the
proposed conditions.
g. Action by the board of supervisors. The board of supervisors may either approve the application,
deny the application, or defer action to allow changes to be made prior to final action by the board.
In approving the application, the board may impose conditions as provided in section 33.9.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY CODE
18-33-12
Zoning Supplement #77, 4-1-13
h. Judicial review. Any action contesting a decision of the board of supervisors under this section
shall be as provided in Virginia Code § 15.2-2285(F).
(§ 33.5, Ord. 12-18(7), 12-5-12, effective 4-1-13; § 31.8, Ord. 12-18(1), 2-8-12)
State law reference – Va. Code § 15.2-2286(A)(3), 15.2-2288.1.
33.6 ZONING TEXT AMENDMENTS AND ZONING MAP AMENDMENTS; RELEVANT
FACTORS TO BE CONSIDERED; EFFECT OF APPROVAL
A zoning text amendment or a zoning map amendment shall be subject to the following:
a. Basis to act. The board of supervisors may amend, supplement, or change the zoning regulations,
district boundaries, or classifications of property whenever the public necessity, convenience,
general welfare, or good zoning practice requires. The commission shall consider these bases
when making a recommendation on an application.
b. Factors to be considered when acting. The commission and the board of supervisors shall
reasonably consider the following factors when they are reviewing and acting upon zoning text
amendments and zoning map amendments: (i) the existing use and character of property; (ii) the
comprehensive plan; (iii) the suitability of property for various uses; (iv) the trends of growth or
change; (v) the current and future requirements of the community as to land for various purposes
as determined by population and economic studies and other studies; (vi) the transportation
requirements of the community; (vii) the requirements for airports, housing, schools, parks,
playgrounds, recreation areas and other public services; (viii) the conservation of natural
resources; (ix) the preservation of flood plains; (x) the protection of life and property from
impounding structure failures; (xi) the preservation of agricultural and forestal land; (xii) the
conservation of properties and their values; and (xiii) the encouragement of the most appropriate
use of land throughout the county.
1. Additional factors to be considered when acting; application to establish planned
development district. In addition to the other factors relevant to the consideration of a
zoning map amendment, the commission and the board of supervisors shall consider the
following when reviewing an application to establish a planned development district: (i)
whether the proposed planned development satisfies the purpose and intent of the planned
development district; (ii) whether the area proposed to be rezoned is appropriate for a
planned development under the comprehensive plan; and (iii) the relation of the proposed
planned development to major roads, utilities, public facilities and services.
2. Additional factors to be considered when acting; application to amend existing planned
development district. In addition to the other factors relevant to the consideration of a
zoning map amendment, including those in subsections (b) and (b)(1), the commission
and the board of supervisors shall consider the following when reviewing an application
to amend an existing planned development district: (i) whether the proposed amendment
reduces, maintains or enhances the elements of a planned development set forth in section
8.3; and (ii) the extent to which the proposed amendment impacts the other parcels within
the planned development district.
c. Effect of approval. The board of supervisors’ approval of a zoning map amendment shall
constitute acceptance of the proffers and also, for any application to establish or amend a planned
development district, approval of the application plan, all standards of development, the code of
development, and any waivers or modifications it has approved by special exception as provided
under section 8.2. The district designation, the accepted proffers, and, if applicable, the approved
application plan, standards of development, and code of development, and, if applicable, the
special exception shall be included as part of the zoning regulations applicable to parcel(s) that
were the subject of the zoning map amendment.
(§ 33.6, Ord. 12-18(7), 12-5-12, effective 4-1-13; § 33.9, 12-10-80)
State law reference – Va. Code §§ 15.2-2284, 15.2-2285, 15.2-2286(A)(7).
Page 1
ZTA 13-04-Family Day Home Work Session
June 11, 2013-Planning Commission
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
ZTA-2013-04 Family Day Home amendment
Work Session
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Mr. Cilimberg, Ms. McCulley, and Ms. Ragsdale
PRESENTER (S): Ms. Ragsdale
PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA DATE:
June 11, 2013
ACTION: X INFORMATION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS: Yes
BACKGROUND: The Virginia Department of Social Services (DSS) established a change, effective July 1, 2012,
which requires child care providers renewing State license or seeking their first license for a “Family Day Home” to
have the local Zoning Administrator sign a form acknowledging the provider’s plan to seek a license. Family Day
Homes may be licensed by DSS to care for up to 12 children in a home.
The Virginia Code and current Zoning Ordinance regulations allow caring for 5 or fewer children, exclusive of the
provider’s family, in a residence without the need for a zoning permit. If 6 or more children are cared for, then a special
use permit is required by the County’s Zoning Ordinance. The ordinance uses the term Family Day Home for in-home
child care providers and there are supplemental regulations that apply in Section 5.1.06 of the ordinance. (Attachment
A)The fee for a day care special use permit is $1000 plus the cost of advertising.
On April 2, 2013, the Planning Commission adopted a resolution of intent to consider amending the zoning ordinance
regulations for Family Day Homes. (Attachment B) Both Social Services and Community Development believe it is
appropriate to consider changes to the Zoning Ordinance regulations that would fully reflect the Code of Virginia by-
right allowances for family day homes and further distinguish them from daycare centers.
Staff has received input from the Albemarle County Department of Social Services. (Attachment C) Staff has notified
existing Family Day Home providers in the County of this zoning text amendment along with the Community Advisory
Councils. One existing provider has provided a packet of input from her clients (Attachment D). Based on this input,
some of the benefits of increased family day home opportunities in the County include:
Providing additional high-quality childcare options to families, which may be more affordable. Funding sources
to assist families with childcare costs is steadily decreasing.
Offering greater flexibility as to part-time care or the hours they are available to provide care. This allows them
to serve parents who work evening, 24-hour, or weekend shifts. We understand this is currently a gap for
some families needing day care.
Providing increased opportunities for pre-kindergarten learning.
Potential to locate these services closer to where people live.
PROPOSED CHANGES AND FOCUSED DISCUSSION: Staff is recommending the following to increase the by-right
allowances in the ordinance for Family Day Homes and address associated impacts: 1) By-right provisions,
including a zoning clearance process for family day homes caring for between 6 and 12 children; 2)
Supplemental regulations; and 3) Abutting owner notification only for special exceptions.
Page 2
ZTA 13-04-Family Day Home Work Session
June 11, 2013-Planning Commission
Family Day Home as a by-right use with Zoning Clearance approval-Staff recommends adding Family Day Home
as a by-right use listed in the RA Rural Areas and Residential (PRD, PUD, NMD VR, R-1, R-2, R-4, R-6, R-10, R-15)
districts. The proposed amendment would also revise the definition of Family Day Home to allow care for 6 to 12
children. Staff also recommends additional supplemental regulations discussed below.
Staff believes that the limited scale of family day homes would not be detrimental to adjoining properties or change the
character of residential or rural areas. This use has already been occurring in the County and Zoning has not received
complaints on any licensed providers. There are currently nine licensed Family Day Homes in Albemarle County (see
Attachment E), seven of which are licensed for up to 12 and two licensed for up to 8 children. Staff requested historical
information from DSS and since 2005 there were 12 other family day homes licensed in Albemarle. Of those family
day homes licensed in the past, eight have been licensed to care for up to 12 children and two licensed for up to eight.
There are several other Virginia localities that allow care in the home of up to 12 children by-right, including Stafford
County and Henrico County. Staff has also found in researching other localities, that the more common approval
process for between 6-12 children is the special exception process. (Attachment F)
Staff recommends a zoning clearance ($50 fee) be required for family day homes of more than 6 children. A clearance
cannot be required for 5 or fewer children in care because according to State Code Section15.2-2292 it must be
treated as occupancy by a single family. (Attachment A) The zoning clearance review would confirm the proposed
supplemental regulations discussed below are addressed.
Supplemental Regulations-Staff believes the DSS licensing requirements adequately addresses the safety and
wellness concerns with this use. Their standards address the following:
Children’s records, proof of age, immunizations, etc. and Caregiver records
Household member information, physical health of caregivers and household members
Caregiver training
Physical environment and equipment, safety, hazards, home maintenance, poisonous materials, sharp
objects, fire safety, machinery, garbage, rodents and insects, animals, heating and cooling, water supply, etc.
Play equipment and materials, Indoor slides and climbing equipment, Outdoor play area and equipment
Rest areas, Cribs, Linens*, Infant and toddler equipment, Play pens
Care of children, need for additional caregiver, daily activities, behavioral guidance, parent notifications, swimming
and wading activities
Preventing spread of disease
Medication Administration, Emergencies, Nutrition, Nighttime Care
Transportation
The County’s existing supplemental regulations in Section 5.1.06 (Attachment A) require DSS licensing, Fire Marshal
periodic inspection, and other local and state regulation compliance such as Health Department and Building Official
approval. Staff believes there are some additional considerations that could be addressed in the supplemental
regulations. These recommendations are based, in part, on review of common special use permit conditions for
daycare/family day homes that have been approved in the past.
Traffic- The table below provides estimated trip generation for residential uses and by-right uses permitted
accessory to residential uses, in comparison to a Family Day Home with up to 12 children.
Dwelling Unit Type or Land Use
Average Vehicle Round Trips per Day
Family Day Home <5 children at one time 10
Single Family Detached* 10
Family Day Home up to 12 children per
day
24
Daycare center* 28 (per employee)
Class A Home Occupation 14/week (waiver provision)
Major Home Occupation 10/day or 30/week (waiver provision)
Source: *ITE Trip Generation 7th edition (rounded up) and Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance
Page 3
ZTA 13-04-Family Day Home Work Session
June 11, 2013-Planning Commission
DSS allows 12 children at one time so providers could potentially care for more than 12 children throughout
the course of a day, increasing vehicle trips within neighborhoods. The number of employees required by DSS
depends on the number of children in a provider’s care and their ages. If the Planning Commission is
concerned about the resulting additional vehicle trips, staff recommends a limit of 24 to the number of vehicle
trips a day that may be associated with a Family Day Home and a special exception process to exceed the
daily limit, similar to the Major Home Occupation provisions of the ordinance.
Parking- Staff recommends one parking space for the family day home use. The parking space may be
located on-site or on-street. Commercial day care centers are required one parking space per 10 children.
Staff also recommends one additional space per employee. The zoning clearance application for this use
should require information regarding parking and staff would conduct an inspection to confirm adequacy of
parking.
Entrance/Access- Staff believes that the proposed ordinance change should allow for review and approval of
the entrance/access to a Family Day Home. Staff is primarily concerned about Rural Areas properties, which
may be located on a private road or rural roads in the County. Staff recommends a supplemental regulation,
similar to language used for Farm Stands, allowing the Zoning Administrator to request review/approval of an
entrance/access by the County Engineer or VDOT, if they deem it necessary. T his would ensure that the
minimum standards necessary to protect the public health, safety and welfare by providing safe ingress and
egress will be met. Compliance with the identified entrance and access improvements would be a condition of
approval of a zoning clearance for a Family Day Home in these circumstances.
Abutting owner notification- Staff recommends notification only when a waiver/special exception is requested. The
zoning ordinance requires abutting owner notifications for by-right uses such as farm stands, farm sales, and major
home occupations. Family Day Homes would be treated as an accessory use with activities primarily within the interior
of the residence.
If the Commission recommends abutting owner notification for any family day home clearance application, regardless
of a waiver, then staff recommends the same process already established for other by-right ordinance uses be
followed. This would include a notice sent a minimum of 5 days prior to action, including a description of the proposed
use and inviting comment.
FOCUSED DISCUSSION: Staff is requesting Planning Commission input on these proposed changes with focused
discussion on:
1) By-right provisions, including a zoning clearance process for family day homes caring for between 6 and 12
children
2) Supplemental regulations
3) Abutting owner notification only for special exceptions.
RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends that the Commission direct staff to draft ordinance language and set a
date for public hearing.
ATTACHMENTS:
A. Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance and Code of Virginia Sections pertaining to Family Day Homes
B. Family Day Homes Resolution of Intent dated April 2, 2013
C. Albemarle County Department of Social Services input
D. Public Input received from Gentle Care Daycare
E. Albemarle County Existing Family Day Home Providers
F. Peer Locality Family Day Home Regulations
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – AUGUST 6, 2013
DRAFT PARTIAL MINUTES – ZTA-2013-00004 Family Day Homes - Submit to BOS
1
Albemarle County Planning Commission
August 6, 2013
The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public hearing on Tuesday, August
6, 2013, at 6:00 p.m., at the County Office Building, Auditorium, Second Floor, 401
McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia.
Members attending were Richard Randolph, Thomas Loach, Don Franco, Calvin Morris,
Chair; and Russell (Mac) Lafferty, Vice Chair. Absent were Bruce Dotson and Ed
Smith. Julia Monteith, AICP, Senior Land Use Planner for the University of Virginia wa s
absent.
Other officials present were Megan Yaniglos, Senior Planner; Amelia McCulley, Director
of Zoning/Zoning Administrator; Rebecca Ragsdale, Senior Planner; Amanda Burbage,
Senior Planner; Sharon Taylor, Clerk to Planning Commission; David Benish , Chief of
Planning; and Greg Kamptner, Deputy County Attorney.
Call to Order and Establish Quorum:
Mr. Morris, Chair, called the regular meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. and established a
quorum.
Public Hearing Item
ZTA-2013-00004 Family Day Homes
Amend Secs. 3.1, Definitions, 5.1.06, Day care centers, family day homes, 10.2.1, By
right (RA), 12.2.1 By right (VR), 13.2.1, By right (R-1), 14.2.1, By right (R-2), 15.2.1, By
right (R-4), 16.2.1, By right (R-6), 17.2.1, By right (R-10), 18.2.1, By right (R-15), 19.3.1,
By right (PRD), 20.3.1, By right (PUD), 20A.6, Permitted uses (NMD), and 20B.2,
Permitted uses (DCD) of, and add Sec. 5.1.06A, Family day homes to, Chapter 18,
Zoning, of the Albemarle County Code. This ordinance would amend Sec. 3.1 to revi se
the definition of “family day home,” amend Sec. 5.1.06, to reorganize the section and
revise it to apply only to day care centers but not family day homes, add Sec. 5.1.06A to
establish regulations and performance standards for family day homes providin g care
for 6 to 12 children related to traffic generation, parking, entrance and access, State
licensure, and fire official inspections, and establish procedures for the review and
approval of family day homes, and amend the district regulations delineated above
(10.2.1 through 20B.2) to allow family day homes as a by right use subject to the
substantive and procedural requirements of Sec. 5.1.06A. A copy of the full text of the
ordinance is on file in the office of the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors and in the
Department of Community Development, County Office Building, 401 McIntire Road,
Charlottesville, Virginia. (Rebecca Ragsdale)
Ms. Ragsdale presented a PowerPoint presentation to review the proposed zoning text
draft ordinance amendment for family day homes regulations. First, she covered the
background and the origins of the text amendment and then would go over the
highlights of the draft ordinance. The Commission last heard this ZTA in June at a work
session. She reviewed the following.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – AUGUST 6, 2013
DRAFT PARTIAL MINUTES – ZTA-2013-00004 Family Day Homes - Submit to BOS
2
BACKGROUND
July 2012 Department of Social Services initiated Zoning Administrator form in
and providers/parents began contacting Zoning staff
Community Development meetings held with Albemarle County Social Services
& research
April 2, 2013-Planning Commission Resolution of Intent
June 11, 2013-Planning Commission Work Session
August 6, 2013-Planning Commission Public Hearing
To Be Determined -Board of Supervisors Hearing
Staff has heard from a number of existing providers. They worked with the local
Albemarle County Social Services Offices. There is representation present tonight from
them. They have looked at what some other localities have done. Some of them were
ahead of the curve. Some of them already allow the family day homes by right. Staff
has looked into all of that, which has led to the draft ordinance that they have this
evening.
Staff reviewed data on some of the current family day home providers in Albemarle that
are licensed for care of up to 6 to 12 children in a dwelling unit . It is distinct from a day
care center. Family day care homes have been in residential areas in dwelling units.
They have a variety of them in terms of what zoning districts they have seen them
located in and also what dwelling unit types.
They are extensively and comprehensively regulated through the Department of Social
Services licensing process, as follows.
DSS FAMILY DAY HOME STANDARDS
• Twice a year inspection minimum
• Caregiver qualifications and training
• Household members
• Physical Health of Caregivers and Household members
• Children’s records, proof of age, immunizations, etc. and Caregiver records
• Physical environment and equipment, space, safety, hazards, home
maintenance, poisonous materials, sharp objects, fire safety, machinery,
garbage, rodents and insects, animals, heating and cooling, water supply, etc.
• Safety of indoor and outdoor play equipment
• Rest areas, Cribs, Linens
• Care of children, daily activities, behavioral guidance, parent notifications,
swimming and wading activities
• Preventing spread of disease, Medication Administration, Emergencies, Nutrition,
Nighttime Care Transportation
What they have now in the ordinance are family day homes sort of lumped in with
daycare centers in terms of being required to get special use permits in residentia l and
rural areas zoning districts. So they are creating a new tier similar with what they have
done with the major home occupation regulation changes for family day homes, which
care for between 6 and 12 children. Just a reminder that family day homes o r what is
commonly referred to as babysitting of 5 children or less is allowed and treated the
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – AUGUST 6, 2013
DRAFT PARTIAL MINUTES – ZTA-2013-00004 Family Day Homes - Submit to BOS
3
same as a single-family use. They are not allowed to regulate that in any way in terms
of the zoning ordinance and provide any restrictions for that use.
Staff provided a table of what is in the existing ordinance and what is changing. In
terms of what they feel is major changes to the application process itself going from the
special use permit process, which takes several months, to a zoning clearance process,
possibly a special exception for certain applications that would take around 30 to 90
days with the change in fee being from $2,000 for a special use permit to $50 for the
zoning clearance process.
Staff wanted to preserve some of the technical re view that one would get with the
special use permit process. So staff looked at some of the standard conditions and
review that was happening with special use permits over the years and created
supplemental regulations to address traffic, parking and entr ance/access requirements.
Because of the State Code provisions they are required to provide abutting owner
notice. So that will be preserved as part of this process.
Draft Ordinance Provisions
• Add Family Day Home as a by-right
• Added Section 5.1.56 to provide for Family Day Home (FDH) regulations and
update language of 5.1.06
• Traffic limits- 24 vehicle round trips a day limit and provides for a modification to
this requirement through the special exception process
• Parking requirements- One additional parking space for a family day home use +
One additional parking space per employee is also required
• Adequate entrance and access
• State licensure and compliance with other laws
Staff noted they are amending the family day home definition and adding it a s a by-right
use in the zoning ordinance in the list of permitted uses in the zoning districts in the
residential and rural area zoning districts. There is the traffic limitation, which they
talked about last time of 24 round trips a day with the provisio n for a modification to that
requirement, which would go through the special exception process. That is similar to
some of the home occupation traffic modifications that they have seen before. There
are parking requirements with 1 parking space for a fam ily day home and then
provisions for additional parking if there are employees. Those parking spaces would
be on the lot or in a lawful on -street parking space. There was a question from one of
the Commissioners about that. It is not saying that someone can have on-street parking
where it would not otherwise be permitted on the road. Then provisions are in the
ordinance to confirm that there is an adequate entrance and access requirement. Then
all family day homes or daycare centers in the ordinance are required to be licensed by
Social Services and comply with Fire Marshall, The Building Code, and the Health
Department requirements if applicable.
Staff reviewed the approval process, which is something they did not have as much
detail for the Commission at the work session. Staff took the Commission’s comments
and looked at what the State Code says we must do and suggested the special
exception process for those zoning clearance applications where there is objectionable
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – AUGUST 6, 2013
DRAFT PARTIAL MINUTES – ZTA-2013-00004 Family Day Homes - Submit to BOS
4
neighbor feedback. The State Code does not allow an administrative process if there is
neighbor objections. The process would be that staff would have a pre -application
meeting with the family day home providers. This would apply to the existing family day
home providers that need to come into compliance and any new family day home
providers.
This zoning text amendment will set up the process by which they would then have to
follow with the individual zoning clearance application, as follows.
Draft Ordinance Provisions for Approval Process
• Zoning Clearance required- $50 fee is proposed for family day homes. Staff does
not recommend additional fees to cover required notice or for waivers/special
exceptions. The current ordinance fee for relief from conditions of approval or a
modification/waiver is $425.
• Abutting Owner Notification- 30 days to contact staff with any questions,
concerns, or to submit any written objection to a family day home application.
• Special exception-If a written objection is received from an abutting property
owner, then a zoning clearance can only be approved following the special
exception process in the ordinance Section 33. Board of Supervisors to consider
whether a proposed family day home use will be a substantial detriment to
abutting lots.
• Public notice sign recommended only for modifications or Special Exception
hearing only. What would trigger that process is if they were requesting a traffic
modification or there is the written objection from the neighbors.
That covers the highlights of it. Staff is recommending the Planning Commission to
recommend approval of the zoning text amendment to the Board of Supervisors, which
may be able to be heard in September.
There being no questions for staff, Mr. Morris opened the public hearing and invited
public comment.
The following individuals spoke:
Ryan Davidson spoke in favor of the proposed zoning amendment that would allow
home day care providers by right to care for up to 12 children. He thanked the Planning
Commission, staff, and everyone involved with all the time, hard work, and
consideration that they have put into this effort and for finding a solution that he feels
will best benefit the community as a whole. As a County resident and a City of
Charlottesville employee he has seen how important quality child care is for the families
in our area and particularly those facilities that offer part -time care. Gentle Care, which
is where they sent their 2 ½ year old son and 4 month old daughter, is one such facility
that provides the flexibility that many of the larger day care facilities cannot
accommodate. Larger facilities have these rigid 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. timeframes whereas
the smaller care facilities will allow for half days and part time during the week and any
kind of flexibility that working families will need in our community. Due to this flexibility
of the part time he did not see where in this particular case, the Gentle Care example,
where as a neighborhood with the drop off and pick up times being so staggered he did
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – AUGUST 6, 2013
DRAFT PARTIAL MINUTES – ZTA-2013-00004 Family Day Homes - Submit to BOS
5
not see where traffic would be a large issue. Given the amount of on-street parking in
front of the house he thinks that is again not an issue he can see for Gentle Care. For
this neighborhood in particular he sees the cut through traffic avoiding the lights and the
traffic on 29 as being a larger problem than the actual at home facility. He feels that 12
children is an appropriate size. It allows for a lot more of one on one interaction given
the number of staff per children. Being the children are grouped into sever al smaller
groups this allows them to interact both with different age groups and within age groups
within themselves.
Mr. Davidson said he also wanted to point out that even though this new zoning will
allow for 12 children the facilities still have to go through the rigorous DSS and the State
licensing approval that they would need to. So they will not have the case where
someone is keeping 5 children right now says they can add 7 children and make a lot
more money because they still have to have the State sign off on it and make sure that
the increase is appropriate and in the best interest of the children and for those
providing the care. He feels that the considerations and the conditions in place for the
public for the neighbor response period are appropriate and necessary. He feels the
smaller day cares really do help drive our local economy as well through the buying of
art supplies, food, etc. locally and not going out to these larger chains or having them
ordered and brought in. This is also a good economic driver. Lastly, he feels that
Gentle Care is a part of his extended family and it would be a huge impact on his family
if this was not approved and they were forced to find somewhere else.
Ms. Anne Linden, resident of Albemarle County, said as a single mom she split her net
paycheck with the home childcare provider who cared for her one -year old twins.
Financially that left her with no choice. She had to leave her 3 ½ year old to get himself
off to school in the morning because she left f or work an hour before he left for school.
She supports the proposed changes in the family day home zoning regulations. They
need more affordable licensed childcare facilities in the area not fewer. Forcing the
current zoning application fee of $2,000 for family day homes would not be in the best
interest of our community.
Anne Linden said she was also here to represent the League of Women Voters of the
Charlottesville area. The League supports community-based efforts to improve the
quality and affordability of and accessibility of child care in the Thomas Jefferson
Planning District. Home child care providers offer the least expensive form of licensed
child care available in this area and we need to help them remain licensed and in
business.
Shannon Hoofer recommended that the Commission vote in favor of this amendment.
Like our prior speakers he would agree with everything that they said. He had a couple
additions to that. Mr. Davidson mentioned about the economic impact. It would really
snowball if this amendment was not passed. His daughter goes to Gentle Care as well
and if the amendment is not passed she would have to cut down to 5 children. He was
sure other daycares would be affected as well. It would hurt the parents in having their
ability to work and provide for their family. It also helps with the economy of the area.
He thinks that is one thing to consider as well. His wife suggested a couple other items
such as just finding quality daycare in Charlottesville is hard and specifically the part
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – AUGUST 6, 2013
DRAFT PARTIAL MINUTES – ZTA-2013-00004 Family Day Homes - Submit to BOS
6
time area is difficult to find. His wife put their baby on the waiting list before she notified
him that she was pregnant. The reason he tells that story is that it is so hard because
there is such a long waiting list for quality daycare. Where they go is top notch.
Therefore, one reason to accept the amendment is to decrease that. Secondly, his wife
brought up the idea if this amendment is not passed that they grandfather in current
daycares and then apply this to the new ones coming in.
Angela Ciolfi spoke in support of staff’s recommendation. She felt a picture is worth a
thousand words. It is a testament to how special and irreplaceable that places like
Gentle Care Daycare are in that all of these people are here to support it and it is
pushing on bed times. She also wants to second the economic impacts. She thinks the
ancillary benefits of having Gentle Care Daycare cannot be overstated. She used to do
all her business in the City since she is a City resident. However, now she travels to
and from Gentle Care Daycare on a frequent basis and she stops at many of the County
businesses to spend money. She asked the Commission to approve the
recommendation.
Brox Roosevelt agreed basically with everything that our fellow parents have said.
When she was pregnant she went to 15 different facilities. The one thing she loved
about Gentle Care is that it felt residential. They wanted their children to feel like they
are at home, especially when they are infants. She is very pleased t o see that she feels
like it is going to be easy and affordable for ours and other family day homes to stay in
business. One other point if it they have to reduce the number of children it makes it
very economically difficult for them to stay in business. So making it easy and
affordable is important because the DSS already regulates so much. She cannot
believe the amount of paperwork that they have to do.
Tara Koenig spoke for her husband Billy Koenig. She introduced her daughter BB who
is at this point is one of Gentle Care’s longest running attendees. She has been there
since she was 12 weeks old and she is 3 ½ years old now. She agreed with everything
that was said before. She spoke on behalf of all the parents who have older toddlers.
Most of them live in the City of Charlottesville. At this age they would normally be
considering transferring your child to preschool. They considered a lot of City
preschools, but because the curriculum at Gentle Care is so strong and our children are
being offered as much if not more than they would be receiving in an older school
setting, they have decided to leave our child there as have a lot of other parents. She
echoed the point that Angela made earlier. Rather than move her into a City school
where they would be paying a different fee there, they opt to keep her at the preschool.
She added that Angela lives on the same street. They both drive about 20 minutes each
way to get their child to daycare. It is just a testament to how wonderful the care is and
they would be really disappointed if that was not standing there for us.
Mike Cruise said his son, Evan, was at Gentle Care Daycare for 2 ½ years. His son is
now 4 years old and in preschool. His son Sebastian who is 5 months old has just
started. It is hard to convey how valuable Gentle Care Daycare is to us and the 12
families that go there. He wanted to repeat that it is hard to get into a daycare where
the services provided are of such high quality. It would be a real disservice to the town.
They all like the way the recommendations are going. They hope the amendment gets
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – AUGUST 6, 2013
DRAFT PARTIAL MINUTES – ZTA-2013-00004 Family Day Homes - Submit to BOS
7
through. He would hope that one grumpy neighbor could not veto all this.
Adrena Anderson, resident of the County, said she works in the County as well. She
has two kids in Gentle Care. It is an amazing place. She reiterated what everyone else
said. She was at the point right now where she has one child who is about to leave
and she would absolutely like to have her second child continue going there. It is really
important and she would ask to allow them to continue to have 12 children.
Kay Heinz agreed with all the speakers who are in favor of the proposed amendment.
She noted the children might be displaced if the proposal was not passed and would not
have a place in these larger daycare centers. The space just does not exist. She
moved to Charlottesville last year when she was pregnant and found that the wait lists
for appropriate daycare are long. Basically she did not think the care in other facilities is
on par with the care that her daughter is getting at Gentle Care. She was in favor of the
proposal.
Delores Grady said she has been doing childcare for 33 years. She has worked from
Louisa, Fluvanna all the way to Greene County. She wanted to speak on behalf of all
the child care providers. They are not getting rich doing this. They are providing a
service that most people can’t provide. The centers cannot give up their hours and they
also can’t afford to do it at the price that her daycare does it at. She appre ciates a lot of
the things that the people at Gentle Care was saying that a lot of parents don’t want to
take their kids out of these daycare homes and put them into another setting. She just
had her eighth graduation on Friday. When the kids turn four the parents refuse to take
them out of her daycare. So she keeps most of her kids. When the kids leave there
they are ready for kindergarten, the first grade and the world. She wanted to speak on
behalf of Social Service. She keeps her prices affordable because they are not trying to
make a lot of money here. They are trying to take care of ourselves and have some
money.
Glenda Best, the Senior Childcare Worker with Albemarle County Social Services, said
it was so wonderful that most of the parents came out and supported her. She must say
that all of our licensed providers are good providers. It is just that a lot of her clients will
not come out because they are scared to verbalize themselves. They are just afraid.
But, all of our providers for license are good quality providers. That is why she really
hopes that this amendment passes. She and another child care worker do site visits.
She wished they could go out with us. If they really compare the State licensed
providers compared to the unlicensed it is a big different. The State licensed and home
providers their kids are school ready. A lot of the unlicensed providers are not school
ready. Some of the providers are unlicensed because they cannot pass all of the
different requirements that the State licensed providers have to do. State licensed
providers also allow service providers that do speech therapy and things like that into
the home because they do want the kids to be school ready. State licensed providers a
lot of times tell the parents they think their child has an IAP, speech problems, and
hearing problems. A lot of the parents are not in tune to what is going on because they
are just trying to survive day to day. She has parents who ask her to come out to watch
a particular child. Then when she sits there and watches she can see that there are
issues.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – AUGUST 6, 2013
DRAFT PARTIAL MINUTES – ZTA-2013-00004 Family Day Homes - Submit to BOS
8
Ms. Best noted these providers are very important. Like Ms. Grady said, they are not
getting rich at this. The average in home provider only makes $1,700 to $2,500 a
month. The ones who make over $2,000 usually have helpers. The in home
unlicensed provider only has that one person. As far as parking, she was sure a lot of
Commissioners have come up and down Ridge Street during the day time. There is
Very Early Learning Center. They have an average of 42 to 60 kids and they only have
four really good parking spots in front of the Center. There are some spaces across the
street. Some people park by the cemetery. She has gone up and down Ridge Street
and she has not seen any problems with the parents being able to drop kids off and pick
them up. She asked the Commission to recommend approval of the amendment.
There being no further public comment, Mr. Morris closed the public hearing to bring the
matter before the Planning Commission for action.
Motion: Mr. Loach moved and Mr. Lafferty seconded to recommend approval of the
draft ordinance in Attachment III for ZTA-2013-00004 Family Day Homes.
The motion passed by a vote of 5:0. (Smith and Dotson absent)
The Planning Commission took a break at 7:23 p.m. The meeting reconvened at 7:30
p.m.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – JUNE 11, 2013
PARTIAL DRAFT MINUTES – ZTA-2013-0004 FAMILY DAY HOMES – SUBMIT TO BOS
1
Albemarle County Planning Commission
June 11, 2013
The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public hearing on Tuesday, June
11, 2013, at 6:00 p.m., at the County Office Building, Auditorium, Second Floor, 401
McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia.
Members attending were Ed Smith, Richard Randolph, Don Franco, Calvin Morris,
Chair; and Russell (Mac) Lafferty, Vice Chair. Absent were Bruce Dotson and Thomas
Loach. Julia Monteith, AICP, Senior Land Use Planner for the University of Virginia was
absent.
Other officials present were Amelia McCulley, Director of Zoning/Zoning Administrator;
Rebecca Ragsdale, Senior Planner; Amanda Burbage, Senior Planner; Sharon Taylor,
Clerk to Planning Commission; Wayne Cilimberg, Director of Planning; and Gre g
Kamptner, Deputy County Attorney.
Call to Order and Establish Quorum:
Mr. Morris, Chair, called the regular meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. and established a
quorum.
Review of Board of Supervisors Meeting - June 5, 2013
Mr. Cilimberg reviewed the Board’s June 5, 2013 meeting actions.
Work Sessions:
a. ZTA-2013-00004 Family Day Homes - Review and discussion of proposed
zoning ordinance changes to family day home regulations. Proposed changes
include an increase in the number of children family day homes may care for
by-right instead of by special use permit, revision of the family day home
definition in Section 3.1, and revision of the supplemental regulations in Section
5.1.06. (Rebecca Ragsdale)
Ms. Ragsdale presented a PowerPoint presentation to review the proposed zoning text
amendment for family day homes to cover the following:
• Background
• Existing Regulations
• Staff Recommendations and Commission guidance needed on the following:
a) Traffic
b) Parking
c) Entrance and Access
Staff requests input from the Planning Commission and guidance on a few particular
items related to Family Day Homes. Family Day Homes are a type of childcare
provided in the provider’s dwelling.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – JUNE 11, 2013
PARTIAL DRAFT MINUTES – ZTA-2013-0004 FAMILY DAY HOMES – SUBMIT TO BOS
2
Background
• The State Department of Social Services, which licenses and regulate s child
care, initiated a new requirement that providers seeking a new license or
renewing their existing license make contact with the local Zoning Administrator.
There is a DSS form that was provided in July, 2012. Staff did not get any heads
up about that. Since that time staff has been in contact by a number of providers
and parents of providers. They are realizing there is a mismatch with the zoning
ordinance and the providers may be licensed for more capacity than they have a
zoning ordinance approval for at this time. Staff has been working through that
issue with the providers and the local licensing agency in Verona.
• Community Development meetings held with Albemarle County Social Services
and research on other localities was done. There are o ther localities ahead of us
in terms of revisiting the zoning ordinance.
• Planning Commission Resolution of Intent adopted April 2, 2013
• Planning Commission Work Session June 11, 2013 – Staff requests input on
some specific recommendations this evening.
• Next steps will include drafting ordinance language and public hearings with
Planning Commission & Board of Supervisors. No dates have been set at this
time.
Existing Regulations
There are two scenarios. Family Day Home is a term in the zoning ordinance. It is a
type of facility that is licensed by the State Department of Social Services regulations. It
is also a term, which is in the land use regulations in the State Code. Because of the
State Code land use regulations if a provider in their home is caring for five (5) or fewer
children, additional children could be in addition to their own children, then the State
Code does not allow us to regulate that in any way. They treat that as a single -family
use. So it is a permitted use in dwellings without an y additional permits requirements
from us or regulation. That use is allowed.
What they do regulate is a Family Day Home and a Day Care Center, which the
ordinance does not quite distinguish between right now. That is what they want to talk
about proposing to the Commission this evening. A Family Day Home provider caring
for 6 to 12 children are treated the same way and go through the special use permit
process as a Day Care Center would. It is a type of daycare center. The Day Care
Centers are allowed in Commercial Districts by-right and special use permit in Rural
Area/Residential Districts. So in the Rural Area and Residential Districts currently for 6
to 12 children someone would have to go through the special use permit process.
What is unique about where they are with this is they have a number of existing
scenarios of this proposed new land use category in the ordinance already happening.
They heard from a number of parents of one particular provider, which provides a good
case study and examples of how they are operating in existing neighborhoods in
different dwelling types, lots, and neighborhoods from the Rural Areas to townhouse
units without any complaints from neighbors so far. Staff researched zoning historical
data. The Department of Social Services provided some historical data going back to
2005. There were at least a dozen other providers that were licensed for capacity up to
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – JUNE 11, 2013
PARTIAL DRAFT MINUTES – ZTA-2013-0004 FAMILY DAY HOMES – SUBMIT TO BOS
3
12. That had been working okay without zoning really being aware of the regulations
not being consistent with one another for a number of years.
Staff is proposing a new category in the ordinance for Family Day Homes of 6 to 12
children. As noted in the staff report, staff is suggesting that be a by-right process with
a zoning clearance application, which is a $50 fee and reviewed administrative. They
looked at a similar approach that has been taken for home occupations, for example,
where they now allow additional activity without the need for a special use permit. The
Family Day Homes staff reviewed them as something that is customarily happening in
neighborhoods. They are separate and distinct from day care centers in terms of their
use and characteristics and impacts from traffic. That was the approach staff took in
suggesting that they allow these additional provisions in the ordinance.
Staff Recommendations & Commission guidance requested on the following:
1. By-right provisions, including a zoning clearance process for family day homes
caring for between 6 and 12 children
Must comply with § 15.2-2292, which requires Abutting owner must be provided
2. Supplemental regulations, addition to current ordinance requirements:
a) Traffic-Waiver provision
b) Parking- 1 space (on or off-site) Family Day Home use+ 1/employee from
outside home
c) Entrance and Access-VDOT/County engineer review, if needed for
safe/convenient access
If they went with a by-right process specifically for this type of use, Family Day Homes,
then the neighbors must be notified. It goes on to say that they allow for a 30 -day
period to hear from the notified neighbors as to whether they have an objection to the
facility or not. They would preserve the neighbor notification and their opportunity for
comment based on the State Code provision. It is a little different from the staff report.
They don’t actually have the option of not notifying the neighbors. Staff just wanted to
clarify that.
Staff suggests some additional zoning ordinance requirements that would help cover
what is not already in the existing ordinance. The State Social Servic e’s licensing
process is very comprehensive in their review of these Family Day Homes. Staff is only
suggesting additional regulations that are not explicitly covered in their standards. She
also noted that the five or fewer children, the babysitting sce nario, is not required by the
State to be licensed as a Family Day Home, but they may voluntarily go through the
state licensing process.
Staff requested input on whether or not the additional traffic in the neighborhood in the
residential or rural areas would be of concern to the Commission. In addition, staff
wants to define a parking standard for these Family Day Homes, and then allow for the
opportunity, and again similar to language that they have used in recent zoning text
amendment for VDOT/County Engineer review if necessary for safe and convenient
access to these residences.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – JUNE 11, 2013
PARTIAL DRAFT MINUTES – ZTA-2013-0004 FAMILY DAY HOMES – SUBMIT TO BOS
4
Staff provided some numbers on traffic in the neighborhood for existing Family Day
Homes. They could not go to the IT Trip Generation and find this specific use. So staff
did some estimates based on the number of children and expected number of trips that
would be additional to the existing residential units in the neighborhood. Again, the day
care centers have different traffic patterns and peak hours, and not the same staggered
hours as the Family Day Homes. However, staff did want to discuss with the
Commission that there would be the additional trips in the neighborhood, but it was not
of a great concern because it was not adding any additional traffic or concentrating it in
any one area like a day care center might than would ordinarily be found in the
neighborhood. Staff suggested there was a concern about factors that may add
additional trips beyond what they have outlined in the staff report. For instance, if the
provider had outside employees coming to their house or if they had additional children
with part-time care there would be additional trips that would be added in the
neighborhood beyond what they would expect. Then there would be a waiver provision.
If the Commission is concerned about the additional traffic, then staff has suggested
that option be added to the supplemental regulations.
That is a quick overview of what staff wanted to talk about this evening and get the
Commission’s input on. Staff is going down the path of drafting the ordinance and going
to public hearing.
The Commission invited Glenda Best, Senior Child Care Worker for Albemarle County
to address the issue.
Glenda Best, Senior Child Care W orker for Albemarle County, said she works with the
providers on a daily basis. The State does periodic inspections and follows up on any
concerns. Information is available on the web site. W hen the new requirements came
up they got a flood of calls from providers. With the new zoning proposed currently the
providers are asking for help because the costs are too high for the providers. A lot of
providers are not in business to get rich and want to provide a safe environment for
children. If they don’t change the regulations to make the process more affordable she
was afraid a lot of providers will go underground . In that case there will be more
neighborhood nuisance as opposed to someone trying to do it in a structured way.
Mr. Morris opened the hearing and invited public comment.
The following individuals spoke:
Ryan Davidson, a County resident and City of Charlottesville employee, spoke in favor
of the proposed zoning ordinance amendment due to the importance of child care in the
community. There is a real need in the community for smaller f acilities particularly due
to the shortage of part time child care. The smaller day care center helps drive the
community and had flexibility on the traffic and parking.
Mr. Morris asked those present in agreement to the proposal to raise their hands.
There were 10 to 15 persons who raised their hands.
Bob Garland, Albemarle County resident, spoke against the proposed ordinance
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – JUNE 11, 2013
PARTIAL DRAFT MINUTES – ZTA-2013-0004 FAMILY DAY HOMES – SUBMIT TO BOS
5
amendment in residential neighborhoods on small lots because it would be introducing
larger businesses in a residential area, which would be an inconvenience to the
surrounding neighbors. It would have a negative effect on neighborhood residents due
to the increased traffic and parking for drop off and pick up of children, particularly those
who live on a cul-de-sac and have limited parking.
Susan Crews spoke in support of the proposal, particularly for Gentle Care Daycare.
There is very few affordable and flexible day care available in the area. It is a real need
for her family since without child care she would have to quit work. Please accept this
proposal and keep Gentle Care Daycare available for her family as well as others.
Terri Lamb spoke in support of the proposal. Being a nurse she could address the
concern with infection. The state licensed daycare has strict rules on when to pick up or
send a child. She noted that at Gentle Care Daycare the noise from the children cannot
be heard from the driveway.
Neil Williamson, with Free Enterprise Forum, said he was interested in how they could
work out the process for a by right use with abutting owner notification. He suggested
the process needs to be well thought out don’t make it a by right use.
Nancy Carpenter, resident of Scottsville District, supported changing the zoning
ordinance to allow for more flexibility. She said that good childcare is health care for
both the parents and child. She hoped there can be some kind of collective messing of
the state regulations so not to catch people by surprise. There is a real need for child
care for flexible work schedules.
Nate Straum said he won’t pretend to understand the details of the zoning laws.
However, he will mention that the major traffic issues, and there are some on that street,
don’t have anything to do with Gentle Care Daycare. They have to do with the
numerous bus stops. When one drives up and down the street there are numerous
buses up and down the street at various times of the day in the morning and afternoon.
The child care facility is not on a cul-de-sac. Pragmatically, he did not see where there
would be a problem. If it is he would hope the neighbors would come and talk to them
so they could figure out something at least for their particular situation. They would like
to have that chance.
Mr. Morris closed the public comment to bring the matter before the Planning
Commission for discussion. He invited comments from the Commission.
The Commission discussed the proposal and commented on the following ordinance
changes:
- By right provisions, including a zoning clearance process for Family Day Homes
caring for between 6 and 12 children;
Supplemental regulations; and
Abutting owner notification only for special exceptions.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – JUNE 11, 2013
PARTIAL DRAFT MINUTES – ZTA-2013-0004 FAMILY DAY HOMES – SUBMIT TO BOS
6
The Planning Commission supported staff’s recommendation, as noted below, for the
allowance for 6 to 12 children and was particularly appreciative of the fee being dropped
from $2,000 to $50. They asked staff to be careful in the wording as a concern for the
neighbors.
The Planning Commission supported staff’s recommendation with suggested changes,
to move forward with the public hearing process, and come back with revisions to the
draft ordinance to address and respond to the comments raised by the public and
Commissioners, as follows:
Supported the allowance for 6 to 12 children without a special use permit
requirement,
Appreciative of the fee being dropped from $2,000 to $50,
The impacts need to be addressed for noise, parking, and particularly for traffic,
Staff clarified for the Commission that the State Code requires notice to abutting
owners for a Family Day Home permit of 6-12 children. If there is neighbor
objection, the permit cannot be approved administratively.
The Commission would like to see this back to the Commission as soon as it is
possible.
The Commission recommended further work on the neighbor notification process
and approval process to avoid confusion if there are scenarios where there are
neighbor objection because of this State Code provision:
They want to avoid confusion about how public input will be considered.
Allow for notification to the community, not just abutting landowners, of the
business intending to operate so that everyone has a chance to comment
upon it.
One Commissioner suggested a public notice sign be posted and that it
not be the same color as our public hearing signs but distinctly different to
notify all public and not just adjacent owners.
(Recorded and transcribed by Sharon C. Taylor, Clerk to Planning Commission &
Planning Boards)
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – APRIL 2, 2013
PARTIAL FINAL MINUTES - ZMA-2013-4 FAMILY DAY HOMES
1
Albemarle County Planning Commission
April 2, 2013
The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public hearing on Tuesday, April 2, 2013, at 6:00
p.m., at the County Office Building, Auditorium, Second Floor, 401 McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia.
Members attending were Ed Smith, Bruce Dotson, Thomas Loach, Richard Randolph, Don Franco,
Calvin Morris, Chair; and Russell (Mac) Lafferty, Vice Chair. Julia Monteith, AICP, Senior Land Use
Planner for the University of Virginia was present.
Other officials present were Andy Sorrell, Senior Planner; Elaine Echols, Principal Planner; Summer
Frederick, Intern; Sharon Taylor, Clerk; Wayne Cilimberg, Director of Planning; and Greg Kamptner,
Deputy County Attorney.
Call to Order and Establish Quorum:
Mr. Morris, Chair, called the regular meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. and established a quorum.
Consent Agenda:
a. Resolution of Intent: Family Day Homes (Mandy Burbage)
b. 2013 Planning Commission Annual Report: (Wayne Cilimberg)
c. Approval of Minutes: April 24, 2012, February 5, 2013, February 12, 2013
Mr. Morris asked if any Commissioner wanted to pull an item from the consent agenda for discussion.
Motion: Mr. Franco moved and Mr. Randolph seconded for acceptance of the consent agenda.
The motion carried by a vote of 7:0.
Mr. Morris noted the consent agenda items were approved.
(Recorded and transcribed by Sharon C. Taylor, Clerk to Planning Commission & Planning Boards)
ZMA 201200004
BOS September 11, 2013
Executive Summary Page 1
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
ZMA201200004, Avon Park II
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Request to rezone 5.262 acres from R-6
residential zoning district to PRD, planned
residential district zoning district to allow 32
maximum residential units.
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Cilimberg, Benish, Grant
LEGAL REVIEW: NO
AGENDA DATE:
September 11, 2013
ACTION: X INFORMATION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS: YES
BACKGROUND:
On March 19, 2013, the Planning Commission held a public hearing for the Avon Park II rezoning request. The
Commission, by a vote of 6:1, recommended approval of ZMA201200004 with proffers, to be amended, as follows
prior to the Board of Supervisors hearing.
1. The 5th proffer regarding Certificate of Occupancy or replacement proffer regarding plats is not necessary
because the platting is already a requirement of the Subdivision Ordinance. Eliminate the 5 th proffer.
2. The applicant needs to provide a proffer restricting uses to those that are residential plus what staff feels is
necessary to continue to have for the PRD district.
3. In addition to the technical fixes to the proffers identified by staff, the applicant should work with the adjacent
neighbors regarding the fence type (to be installed along the site boundary)
DISCUSSION:
The attached proffers have been revised to reflect the changes recommended by the Planning Commission
and staff. (See Attachment II)
The following reflects revisions to the proffers:
The 5th proffer regarding Certificate of Occupancy or replacement proffer regarding plats has
been eliminated. (as noted in number 1 above)
A new proffer 5 has been added to restrict uses to those that are residential plus what staff feels
is necessary for the PRD district (as noted in number 2 above). Those uses (special uses)
restricted include day care, fire and rescue squad stations, rest home, electrical power
substations, home occupation, Class B , churches, swim, golf, tennis or similar athletic facilities,
professional offices, Tier III personal wireless service facilities, historical centers, and farmer’s
markets.
Additional technical fixes/corrections have been made to the proffers (as noted in number 3
above). These include:
• The affordable housing proffers (1 and 2) have been simplified as recommended by
the Director of Housing and Planning Commission. The affordable units will be 6
apartments located within 6 townhouse units (one floor of a three story townhouse)
and function like an accessory unit. B ecause of this unit type, previous language in
the proffer referring to either “for sale” or “for rent” units is not necessary and has
been eliminated. The applicant has also eliminated the option of providing cash in
lieu of constructing affordable units. The six affordable units will therefore be
constructed within the townhouse units.
ZMA 201200004
BOS September 11, 2013
Executive Summary Page 2
• Proffer 3 remains the same and there is no comment.
• Proffer 4 has been revised to provide additional information regarding erosion and
sediment control per the suggestion and to the satisfaction of the County Engineer.
As recommended by the Commission, the applicant has met with the adjacent neighbors regarding the
fence type to be used along the border of the development. The details of the fence have been reviewed
with the neighbors again to make sure they address any concerns and the plans reflect what was agreed
with the neighbors. The neighbors are satisfied with the current fence details/design.
The application plan has also been revised per the request of adjacent property owners in Avon Park I for the
changes to the setbacks as follows: (lots 1-4 rear setbacks increased to 30 -ft from 20-ft and lot 9/10 increased
side setback to 20-ft from 15-ft). (See Attachment III)
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff and the Planning Commission recommend approval of ZMA201 200004 with the attached, revised proffers,
and plan based on the information provided, as described above. (See Attachments II and III)
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment I: Planning Commission staff report, dated March 19, 2013
Attachment II: Proffers, dated August 30, 2013
Attachment III: Plan, dated August 20, 2012, and revised August 30, 2013 (on file)
PC minutes
Return to agenda
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road, North Wing
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
Phone (434) 296-5832 Fax (434) 972-4126
April 23, 2013
Vito Cetta
1730 Owensville Dr.
Charlottesville, Va. 22901
RE: ZMA201200004/Avon Park II
TAX MAP/PARCEL: 09000000003100
Dear Mr. Cetta:
The Albemarle County Planning Commission, at its meeting on March 19, 2013, by a vote of 6:1,
recommended approval as recommended by staff with proffers, as amended, as follows to be worked out
between the applicant and staff before the Board of Supervisors hearing.
Please note that this approval is subject to the following conditions:
1. The 5th proffer regarding Certificate of Occupancy or replacement proffer regarding plats is not
necessary because the platting is already a requirement of the Subdivision Ordinance. Eliminate the
5th proffer.
2. In addition, beyond the technical fixes to the proffer the applicant should work with the adjacent
neighbors regarding the fence type; and
3. The applicant provide a proffer restricting uses to those that are residential plus what staff feels is
necessary to continue to have for the PRD district as part of the work to be done between now and
the Board of Supervisors hearing.
Please be advised that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors will review this petition and receive
public comment at their meeting on June 12, 2013.
View staff report and attachments
Return to exec summary
If you should have any questions or comments regarding the above noted action, please do not hesitate to
contact me at (434) 296-5832.
Sincerely,
Claudette Grant
Senior Planner
Planning Division
Cc Bellevue Real Estate LLC
16 Piney Glen Ct.
Potomac, MD. 20854
1 Avon Park II
PC Public Hearing 3/19/2013
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
PLANNING STAFF REPORT SUMMARY
Project Name: ZMA 201200004 Avon Park II Staff: Claudette Grant
Planning Commission Public Hearing:
March19, 2013
Board of Supervisors Public Hearing: To Be
Determined
Owners: Bellevue Real Estate, LLC Applicant: Bellevue Real Estate, LLC. Contact
Vito Cetta
Acreage: Approximately 5.262 acres
Rezone from: R-6 residential to PRD planned
residential district with proffers.
TMP: Tax Map Parcel(s) 09000-00-00-03100
(See Attachments A and B)
Location: 1960 Avon Street Extended.
Approximately 1000 feet north of the intersection
of Avon Street Extended and Route 20, south of
existing Avon Court.
By-right use: The R-6 district allows residential
uses at a density of (6 units/acre).
Magisterial District: Scottsville Proffers: Yes
Proposal: Rezone 5.262 acres from R-6,
residential zoning district to PRD, planned
residential district zoning district. 32 maximum
units proposed for a density of 6 units/acre. (See
Attachment C)
Requested # of Dwelling Units: – 32
DA (Development Area): Neighborhood 4 Comp. Plan Designation: Neighborhood
Density Residential – residential (3 – 6
units/acre) supporting uses such as religious
institutions, schools and other small-scale non-
residential uses.
Character of Property: The property consists
of two existing houses and surrounded by
several outbuildings; approximately half of the
site is wooded.
Use of Surrounding Properties: Adjoining
properties to the north, south, and east are
single family residences and zoned R-6 and R-
1. Parcels to the west are currently wooded.
Immediately adjacent and to the north of the
subject property is Avon Park I, a recently built
residential development which was approved on
May 25, 2004 for 16 single family houses and 43
townhouse units (ZMA 04-03).
Factors Favorable:
1. The rezoning request would be
consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
2. The use is consistent with the uses
permitted under the existing PRD zoning
district and the prior zoning approved on
the site.
3. This rezoning request would provide
additional residential opportunities for
Factors Unfavorable:
1. Arden Drive, the only road access for
this proposed development, is not
completed, has not been constructed
adequately and cannot be accepted into
the state secondary system at this time.
2. The proffers need to be technically
revised.
2 Avon Park II
PC Public Hearing 3/19/2013
residents in this portion of the County.
RECOMMENDATION: If the proffers can be adequately and technically revised as recommended
by staff, staff can recommend approval of rezoning ZMA201200004, Avon Park II with revised
proffers.
3 Avon Park II
PC Public Hearing 3/19/2013
STAFF PERSON: Claudette Grant
PLANNING COMMISSION: March 19, 2013
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS: To Be Determined
ZMA 201200004 Avon Park II
PETITION
PROJECT: ZMA201200004/Avon Park II
PROPOSAL: Rezone 5.262 acres from R-6 zoning district which allows residential uses at a density of
6 units per acre to PRD zoning district which allows residential uses with limited commercial uses at a
density of 3 - 34 units/acre. 32 maximum units proposed for a density of 6 units/acre.
ENTRANCE CORRIDOR: Yes
PROFFERS: Yes
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Neighborhood Density Residential - residential (3-6 units/acre); supporting
uses such as religious institutions, schools, and other small-scale non-residential uses.
LOCATION: 1960 Avon Street Extended. Approximately 1000 feet north of the intersection of Avon
Street Extended and Route 20, south of existing Avon Court.
TAX MAP/PARCEL: 09000000003100
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Scottsville
CHARACTER OF THE AREA
This area is primarily developed of single family residential units. The surrounding area is also quite
wooded with some mature trees. Nearby and to the north are the MillCreek South Subdivision and
Snows Garden Center, along with an Industrial Area.
SPECIFICS OF THE PROPOSAL
The Board of Supervisors approved a rezoning application (ZMA2007-00005, Avon Park II) on
November 14, 2007 inclusive of 7 single family detached units and 24 condominiums/ townhouse units.
The applicant is proposing to revise and rezone the plan approved with ZMA2007-00005 by increasing
the total number of residential units by one unit, to 32, changing the number of unit types to 20 single
family detached units and 6 condominium/townhouses inclusive of 6 apartments, and an existing house
on the property that was approved to remain will now be demolished. The applicant is also requesting
to rezone the subject parcel from R-6 to PRD zoning because the PRD zoning district will allow greater
flexibility for lot sizes and setbacks, which will achieve the density recommended in the Comprehensive
Plan.
Several years have gone by and the applicant has had difficulty marketing and selling the approved
development. The applicant believes this proposed revision and rezoning will provide a better
development and be more economically feasible. There are no major changes to the form and layout of
the plan from the previous approved plan, and staff can support the proposed changes provided the
issues related to road access, which are addressed later in this report, are addressed.
APPLICANT’S JUSTIFICATION FOR THE REQUEST
As mentioned above, the original rezoning was approved for a mix of 31 residential units, which
focused more on the development of condominium/townhouse units. The applicant believes the real
estate market has changed to a point in which single family detached units will do better economically
than townhouses. As a result, the applicant is requesting this rezoning in hopes that the revised
residential unit types will be more marketable and that there will be some flexibility regarding lot sizes
and setbacks allowing him to achieve the density recommended in the Comprehensive Plan.
4 Avon Park II
PC Public Hearing 3/19/2013
PLANNING AND ZONING HISTORY
A special use permit (SP 03-48) for a Home Occupation Class B (Randy E. Fox) was approved
in 2003 for a small engine repair shop.
A Home Occupation Class A (HO200600229) was approved in 2006 for an office use for a
custom woodwork and painting business.
ZMA2007-00005 was approved in 2007.
SDP2007-00147, the final site plan was approved in 2008.
SUB2008-00027 was approved in 2008.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
Land Use Plan: The purpose/intent of the Neighborhood Density designation is to provide for a gross
residential density of three (3) to six (6) dwelling units per acre, a range of dwelling unit types, and
neighborhood-scale non-residential uses.
The County’s Open Space Plan shows no significant environmental resources on this property.
The proposed rezoning is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan designation. The proposed 32 units
on 5.262 acres maintain a density of approximately 6 dwelling units per acre. Non residential uses are
not proposed or expected at this location. As previously approved, this rezoning request is proposed to
develop at a density and in a form that is in keeping with the Neighborhood Model and adjacent
development of Avon Park I.
The Neighborhood Model: The applicant is proposing to revise the number of single family detached
units and townhouses from the approved plan, continuing to provide the same housing types as
approved. The proposed plan shows no significant changes from the approved plan design and layout.
As a result, an analysis for consistency with the Neighborhood Model was not done for this proposal
since an analysis for consistency with the Neighborhood Model was done with the approved plan.
Economic Vitality Action Plan
The primary goal of the County’s Economic Vitality Action Plan is to:
Increase the County’s economic vitality and future revenues through economic development by
expanding the commercial tax base and supporting the creation of quality jobs for local residents.
This Plan is developed for the benefit and economic well being, first, of current local residents and
existing local businesses.
The proposed Avon Park II rezoning (residential use) would support the Plan by providing additional
employment and residences for the local community.
Relationship between the application and the purpose and intent of the requested zoning
district
The PRD district is intended to encourage sensitivity toward the natural characteristics of the site and
toward impact on the surrounding area in land development. More specifically, the PRD is intended to
promote economical and efficient land use, an improved level of amenities, appropriate and
harmonious physical development, and creative design consistent with the best interest of the county
and the area in which it is located. The PRD provides for flexibility and variety of development for
residential purposes and uses ancillary thereto.
5 Avon Park II
PC Public Hearing 3/19/2013
Staff believes the proposal is consistent with the intent of the district and does serve as an appropriate
residential use within the County and is consistent with the Land Use Plan recommendation of
Neighborhood Density.
Anticipated impact on public facilities and services
Streets:
Arden Drive, which serves as access for the developed Avon Park I and proposed Avon Park II has not
met all the necessary design requirements for the State and County, and the developer has gone out of
business. In addition, the road was built incorrectly at its entrance onto Avon Street Extended (Rt. 742),
such that it drains across the public road. The inlets and stormwater management are therefore not
functioning, and the neighbor on the opposite side of Avon Street has stated his concern with the
damage that has occurred to his property. It is recommended that no further development be approved
on or served by Arden Drive until this matter is satisfactorily resolved. (See Attachment H for
engineering comments)The applicant has provided a proffer which attempts to address this issue;
however, staff believes this proffer does not adequately address the issue. The County has been forced
to call the bonds, and the County has had difficulty obtaining bond payment from the insurance
company. This process is ongoing. See additional discussion regarding the proffers in the proffer
section of this report. (See Attachment G for proffers)
Schools:
Students living in this area would attend Cale Elementary School, Walton Middle School, and
Monticello High School.
Fire and Rescue:
The Monticello Fire Station located near Monticello High School provides fire and rescue services to the
area. Fire/Rescue has no objection with this development as proposed.
Utilities:
The site is serviced by public water and sewer. No immediate or significant service capacity issues
have been identified by Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority (RWSA). (See Attachment E)
Albemarle County Service Authority (ACSA) comments are attached (See Attachment F)
Anticipated impact on environmental, cultural and historic resources
As stated in the ZMA200700005 staff report approximately 50% of the site, on the western half is
wooded and there are significant grade changes across the site, from elevations of 690 at the highest
point near proposed Hathaway Street and 590 near Avon Street Ext. The woods would be removed and
the slopes graded in order to accomplish the plan proposed. The existing vegetation located around the
homes on the site is proposed to remain. There are no environmental features shown on the County’s
Open Space Plan.
As described in the ZMA200700005 staff report the Historic Preservation planner provided information
regarding historic resources. Albemarle County Real Estate records indicate that the existing dwelling
on Tax Map 90, Parcel 31 was constructed c. 1945 and is therefore considered historic. This resource
has not been evaluated for listing on the National or State historic registers. The applicant has indicated
on the Site Plan Study that the existing c. 2000 or later dwelling will be retained but the historic
structure will be removed because of its condition. Staff is requesting that the applicant provide
documentation of the resource, in accordance with the Department of Historic Resources (DHR)
standards prior to its removal, which they have agreed to provide. The Virginia Department of Historic
Resources’ (DHR) Data Sharing System (DSS) also identified the Midvale School (DHR #002-1141),
which is on the adjoining property. Staff expects the applicant to still provide this previously agreed
6 Avon Park II
PC Public Hearing 3/19/2013
upon information.
Anticipated impact on nearby and surrounding properties
This project is expected to be in keeping with the residential character of this area. With appropriate
revisions to the proposed proffers, staff believes possible impacts on nearby and surrounding
properties related to street and stormwater issues can be mitigated.
Public need and justification for the change
The proposed rezoning will provide additional employment and residential opportunities for the local
community.
PROFFERS
The applicant has provided proffers which are summarized below.
The applicant has made a commitment to provide 6 affordable housing units for lease or sale. The
applicant has also provided the County an option for cash in lieu of the affordable units. Cash proffers
are provided for each dwelling unit constructed within this development. The applicant has also agreed
to provide additional erosion and sediment control measures. Lastly, because of the substandard
condition of the access road, the applicant has offered a proffer that states no certificates of occupancy
will be issued until the drainage issues related to the Arden Drive (the entry road) intersection with Avon
Street Extended has been resolved. (See Attachment G)
Staff has the following concerns and suggestions related to the proffers:
1. If the 6 proposed accessory units are intended to be the affordable units, then the
language “for-sale” and “for-rent” units is not necessary. Staff suggests the proffer
language be kept simple.
2. Proffer 4 regarding erosion control should refer to the County Engineer or the
Engineering Division rather than department.
3. Proffer 5 conditions resolution of the Arden Drive issue on the first certificate of
occupancy. This is not a preferred position for the County. When a property is sold and
ready to be occupied, the County is dealing with a homeowner, and denying access to
the homeowner’s home. It would be preferable to condition building permit issuance, and
to specify that resolution is to the satisfaction of the County and VDOT.
In conclusion, while staff believes there should be no additional development approvals for properties
accessing Arden Drive until the road is completed, deficiencies corrected, and the road can be
accepted into the state secondary system, if the proffers are adequately revised as previously
recommended above, then staff could support the rezoning request.
SUMMARY
Staff has identified the following factors, which are favorable to this request:
1. The rezoning request would be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
2. The use is consistent with the uses permitted under the existing PRD zoning
district and the prior zoning approval on this site.
3. This rezoning request would provide additional residential opportunities for
residents in this portion of the County.
Staff has identified the following factors which are unfavorable to this request:
1. Arden Drive, the only road access for this proposed development, needs to be
completed adequately.
2. The proffers need to be technically revised.
7 Avon Park II
PC Public Hearing 3/19/2013
RECOMMENDATION
If the proffers can be adequately and technically revised as recommended by staff, staff can
recommend approval of rezoning ZMA201200004, Avon Park II with revised proffers.
ATTACHMENTS
ATTACHMENT A – Tax Map
ATTACHMENT B – Vicinity Map
ATTACHMENT C – Application Plan, dated 08/20/12, and revised 01/07/13
ATTACHMENT D – Electronic Mail from Megan Oleynik, dated February 1, 2013
ATTACHMENT E – Electronic Mail from Victoria Fort, dated September 19, 2012
ATTACHMENT F – Electronic Mail from Alex Morrison, dated October 3, 2012
ATTACHMENT G – Proffers, dated March 2013
ATTACHMENT H – Memorandum from Glenn Brooks, dated September 18, 2012, and revised March
March 5, 2013
PLANNING COMMISSION MOTION:
A. If the ZMA is recommended for approval: Move to recommend approval of ZMA201200004 with
proffers as recommended by staff.
B. If the ZMA is recommended for denial: Move to recommend denial of ZMA20120004 with the
reasons for denial.
Return to PC actions letter
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – MARCH 19, 2013
DRAFT MINUTES – SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL
1
Albemarle County Planning Commission
March 19, 2013
The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a regular meeting on Tuesday, March
19, 2013, at 6:00 p.m., at the County Office Building, Auditorium, Second Floor, 401
McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia.
Members attending were Ed Smith, Bruce Dotson, Don Franco, Richard Randolph,
Thomas Loach, Russell (Mac) Lafferty, Vice Chairman, and Calvin Morris, Chairman.
Julia Monteith, AICP, Senior Land Use Planner for the University of Virginia was absent.
Other officials present were Claudette Grant, Senior Planner; Megan Yaniglos, Senior
Planner; Wayne Cilimberg, Director of Planning; Sharon Taylor, Clerk to Planning
Commission; and Greg Kamptner, Deputy County Attorney.
Public Hearing Items:
ZMA-2012-00004 Avon Park II
PROPOSAL: Rezone 5.262 acres from R-6 zoning district for which allows residential
uses at a density of 6 units per acre to PRD zoning district which allows residential uses
with limited commercial uses at a density of 3 - 34 units/acre. 32 maximum units
proposed for a density of 6 units/acre.
ENTRANCE CORRIDOR: Yes
PROFFERS: Yes
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Neighborhood Density Residential– residential (3-6
units/acre); supporting uses such as religious institutions, schools, and other small-
scale non-residential uses.
LOCATION: 1960 Avon Street Extended. Approximately 1000 feet north of the
intersection of Avon Street Extended and Route 20, south of existing Avon Court.
TAX MAP/PARCEL: 09000000003100
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Scottsville
(Claudette Grant)
Ms. Grant presented a PowerPoint presentation to summarize the staff report.
Proposal: The applicant is requesting to rezone 5.262 acres from R -6, residential
zoning district to PRD, Planned Residential Development District. In order to explain
the proposal staff provided the following background.
Background:
Avon Park II was originally rezoned and approved in 2007 for 31 residential units
inclusive of 7 single family detached units and 24 condominiums/ townhouse units. The
applicant is now proposing 32 residential units, which are inclusive of 20 single-family
detached units and 6 condominium/ townhouses that will also have 6 apartments within
them. Without going into too much detail, which is provided in the staff report, the
applicant has had some difficulty completing the currently approved project. They
anticipate a better outcome with the proposed changes.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – MARCH 19, 2013
DRAFT MINUTES – SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL
2
The proposed application plan, as shown in the presentation, proposes single -family
residential units in a section. The 6 townhouses with the apartments would be in the
middle along with additional single-family detached units. There are a couple more
single-family detached units at the rear. The area close to Avon Street Extended is
described as an open space somewhat like a park area.
Staff reviewed the approved application plan noting some of the differences and
similarities of the two plans. In one plan the townhouse units were more at the rear of
the property with a few in the middle. The single-family detached units were in the area
closer to Avon Street Extended. The park area and open space are still the same. The
plans have not changed significantly.
As described in the staff report, the changes proposed are not very different than what
was approved in 2007. However, one of the major issues for staff with this proposal has
to do with the incomplete Arden Drive, which is proposed to be the only access for this
development. The applicant has provided a proffer that conditions the resolution of
Arden Drive on the f irst Certificate of Occupancy. Staff recommends proffer 5 to be
revised to prohibit the applicant from applying to subdivide the property. In its current
state Arden Drive does not comply with the County Code. Staff notes there are some
additional revisions that are needed to the proffers that were not mentioned in the staff
report, but recently have been found as issues that need to get corrected as well.
Staff has identified the following favorable factors:
1. The rezoning request would be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
2. The use is consistent with the uses permitted under the existing PRD zoning
district and the prior zoning approved on this site.
3. This rezoning request would provide additional residential opportunities for
residents in this portion of the County.
Staff has identified the following unfavorable factors:
1. Arden Drive, the only road access for this proposed development, is not
completed, has not been constructed adequately, and cannot be accepted into
the state secondary system at this time.
2. The proffers need to be technically revised.
RECOMMENDATION
If the proffers can be adequately and technically revised as recommended by staff, staff
can recommend approval of ZMA-2012-00004 for Avon Park II with the revised proffers.
Mr. Morris invited questions for staff.
Mr. Loach noted some confusion on his part. O n page 5 staff’s recommendation is that
no further development be approved on or served by Arden Drive until the matter is
satisfactorily resolved. He assumed that refers to the proffers. However, staff has
stated the proffers need to be technically revised. He asked a re the proffers in the
report and the ones referred to in the motion acceptable or do they still need to be
worked on.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – MARCH 19, 2013
DRAFT MINUTES – SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL
3
Ms. Grant replied the proffers still need to be worked on.
Mr. Dotson asked in what way is Arden Drive substandard; and, therefore not
acceptable to go into the state system. It seemed like any other street when he drove
on it. He asked in what ways it was substandard.
Ms. Grant pointed out she was not an engineer. Therefore, the engineers could speak
more eloquently to the issues. She noted there are some st orm water issues. Several
of residents who live out there have said when it rains there is a huge puddle of water
the end of the road. Also, staff has had several complaints in conversations with the
property owner across the street because of the deterioration and damage caused by
the water running onto his property. It is her understanding there are several
engineering type items that have not been completed to the road that need to happen.
The county has an outstanding bond on the road.
Mr. Dotson said as a follow up question, which he expects the applicant will answer, is if
this development were to go forward would that worsen the dra inage issue on Arden
Drive itself.
Ms. Grant replied without the road being improved she would assume they would be
bringing more traffic onto the road.
Mr. Dotson said he could see that it would have more traffic. However, he was trying to
figure out if it would make the drainage problem any worse.
Mr. Randolph noted it would be the run off in the road from the i mpervious surface.
Ms. Grant pointed out it would be hard to say whether that would make a difference or
not.
Mr. Dotson said it does not seem that it would. However, he would wait to hear from the
applicant.
Mr. Kamptner asked to add a couple more pieces of information. T here is a road bond
that has been called. If the numbers are correct, he believed it was around $422,000.
Ms. Grant agreed that was the correct amount.
Mr. Kamptner commented the last he knew the inspection and the punch list had not
been developed in order for staff to determine whether or not the bond proceeds will be
sufficient to complete all of the improvements so that the existing part of Arden Drive
can be reconstructed or improved to meet VDOT standards. That is still unknown. The
County has not received the bond proceeds yet. The insurance company is pretty slow
in releasing funds. The bonds were called in May of 2012.
Ms. Grant noted that it was last year.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – MARCH 19, 2013
DRAFT MINUTES – SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL
4
Mr. Kamptner said the length of time that has passed is not out of the ordinary for the
insurance company. However, that is still an unknown. The condition of Arden Drive in
and of itself is not necessarily a reason for the Commission not to recommend the
rezoning for approval. But, the way the Subdivision Ordinance is written the condition of
Arden Drive may prevent the applicant from getting an approved subdivision plat. One
of the provisions of the Subdivision Ordinance requires the principle means of access
be either a public street or a private street. A public street, as defined in the Subdivision
Ordinance, has to be designed and constructed to VDOT standards. If the bond
proceeds are sufficient to address what needs to be done that should not be a
hindrance. But, if the bond proceeds are deficient, then there will be a problem with
satisfying that requirement.
Mr. Cilimberg said if he understands correctly that would be the case even under the
current zoning, which would allow for 31 units. That circumstance is not changed by
the new zoning.
Mr. Kamptner agreed.
Mr. Loach asked how the motion would need to be adjusted since the proffers are not
acceptable.
Mr. Kamptner replied the Commission can make a recommendation that identifies what
the Commission believes need to be revised in the proffers and make the
recommendation conditional upon the proffers being revised to address a, b, and c.
Mr. Cilimberg agreed that has been fairly typical in the past for rezonings where the
Commission has made recommendations to the Board with the expectation that certain
things have to be addressed before the Board took its action. However, it is up to the
Commission if they feel comfortable in moving the rezoning request forward.
Mr. Randolph said he liked the paragraph that staff put in under the proffer section in
conclusion because it is very clear. He appreciates staff spelling that out so specifically.
Regarding Mr. Loach’s point in terms of the proffers, it is very clear as to what is
expected out of the developer. Specifically, the applicant has offered a proffer that
states no certificate of occupancy will be issued until the drainage issues related to
Arden Drive have been resolved. So they can build it, but they can’t sell it and people
can’t live in it until they address the drainage issue.
Mr. Loach said if there are additional conditions to be worked out by staff he wanted to
make sure it was part of the final motion.
Mr. Morris said it specifically states that prior to any certificate of occupancy these
changes have to be made and staff recommends prior to the issuance of any building
permit.
Mr. Cilimberg noted actually what Ms. Grant had mentioned in lieu of the certificate of
occupancy was there would be no subdivision plat.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – MARCH 19, 2013
DRAFT MINUTES – SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL
5
Mr. Franco asked if what he was saying is a requirement now.
Mr. Kamptner replied it is in one of the sections in the Subdivision Ordinance.
Mr. Franco asked if they are proffering to follow the ordinance with this condition.
Mr. Kamptner replied yes and that it also solidifies everybody’s expectations. Certainly
the building permit or even the certificate of occupancy creates an expectation that they
can do everything up to there, but if they cannot satisfy this particular section of the
Subdivision Ordinance they cannot even subdivide the property in order to get the units
built.
There being no further questions, Mr. Morris opened the public hearing for the applicant
and public. He invited the applicant to come forward and address the Commission.
Vito Cetta, developer and architect for the project, agreed with the staff report. They
seemed to have gotten stuck in the middle of the issue about the entry road that they
don’t contribute at all to the water problem. There is a ton of money, $430,000, to fix the
problem. They will do whatever is necessary to get the rezoning approved. However, it
seems like a lot of money and he did not know why the road problems are not getting
resolved. He would like the entry road not to be there; however, if it has to be there
then it has to be there. They did meet with the neighbor who lived across the street,
who is the one suffering from the water overflow. However, it seemed that with
$430,000 that problem should be able to be solved. He wrote a letter to the property
manager of Avon Park explaining the project. He can only assume the property
manager forwarded his letter it to all the residents, which said it is not open to a hearing,
but he would answer their questions if they have any. He had not heard from them. So
he certainly does not know their attitude about this. However, the new proposal is very
similar to what has already been approved many years ago.
Mr. Cetta pointed out he had developed about 8 or 10 projects in the County with most
of them being Neighborhood Model. He thinks the County should be very pleased with
what has happened over the last 15 years with the Neighborhood Model. The main
goal was to try to avoid building subdivisions like they had in the past. However, the
Neighborhood Model has certainly worked. If they look at Garth Road starting at
Georgetown Road or look at Route 250 starting at Boar’s Head and drive west on both
of those roads, those streets look the same as they d id 20 years ago. There is no
development along those streets. It is primarily because of the Neighborhood Model.
They are country roads and look wonderful. They are going to be wonderful for a long
time. He pointed out that Route 250 west goes to Crozet, which is a different story
because it is part of the growth area. They should be proud of the communities in
Crozet, such as Old Trail and Wickert Pond, which were built using Neighborhood
Model principles. The affordable housing was provided. They n ow have 104 families
living on land that 30 years ago would have had 5 families, which would have been
eating into our country side. The property across the street from Wickert Pond is not in
the growth area and has big farms. The contrast makes it looks super. He was proud
of it and the Commission should be very proud of what they have done.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – MARCH 19, 2013
DRAFT MINUTES – SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL
6
Mr. Morris invited questions for the applicant.
Mr. Kamptner pointed out he had advised Mr. Pohl, who is an employee of the County,
that he has a conflict of interest. Therefore, he is disqualified.
Frank Pohl explained that he prepared the plans for Mr. Cetta before he joined the
County; and, therefore was going to comment on the plans. However, he would not
speak due to the conflict of interest.
Mr. Morris invited public comment.
Ric Barrick, resident of 1932 Tudor Court in Avon Park, said he appreciates having the
opportunity to speak on the proposed Avon Park II project that directly affects the
community. As they know, the existing entrance to Avon Park I it will serve as the only
entrance to the new development. He is on the Board of Directors of the Homeowner’s
Association and was here on their behalf. The plan for this dense development calls for
an entrance within the original Avon Park community, but by an entirely different
developer, which they certainly understand that.
Their community was built and opened in the 2006 to 2008 time period. As they
can imagine it has been through a great deal of price adjustment. With the
bankruptcy of the developer, Barry Meade, many issues have come up.
However, they are happy to stand here today in 2013 and say they are a
complete community. The last house was built last year. Unfortunately, the
roads are not accepted yet. Therefore, that is a challenge they are dealing with.
They are still battling with the insurance company to receive crucial bond monies
to complete several needed infrastructure projects , which have safety and
environmental implications for our community. He thanked Mark Graham and his
department, as well as Ms. Grant, who have been really forefront and have kept
them in touch with the developer. He met with them earlier this month and they
explained a lot of the process.
They have some serious concerns about the development of a separate
community that is accessed through Avon Park I without the ability for them to
have serious input into the infrastructure implications, the scope , and the makeup
of the new community. The challenges they currently have, and most importantly
if not planned appropriately, will threaten the safety of their community. There
are a significant number of children and pets who have become accustomed to
using our streets and green spaces to play safety.
Mr. Barrick noted the main concerns of the neighborhood as discussed in a community
meeting are, as follows.
The connectivity is a major concern for the County. They do have a concern that
the entrance off of Hathaway will be the only one into Avon Park II. As he
indicated it would affect not only the noise level but also the safety of the
neighborhood with so many families. They would like to ask that the intersection
of Arden and Hathaway be a three-way stop.
They currently have many challenges with erosion caused by the way the
community was built using faulty design and insufficient landscaping. The main
retaining wall coming into the community was not built to County standards and
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – MARCH 19, 2013
DRAFT MINUTES – SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL
7
they believe was not inspected properly during construction. They feel this new
community would contribute to the erosion problems.
Given the evasiveness of this development and the proposed zoning changes
they are considering tonight to increase the density they are respectfully asking
the Commission to carefully consider the application as originally approved in the
community. Lastly, since there are a lot of folks here tonight he would ask
everyone in Avon Park to raise their hands to show their concern. (There were
approximately 20+ persons.) They look forward to working with the county to
make it a site for a nice community.
Linda O’Connor, a homeowner at Avon Park I, said she had a couple of issues about
the proposal, as follows.
The old plan approved in 2007 had fewer single-family homes to be built or
occupied at that time. There certainly were fewer voices to be able to talk about
that particular plan at the time. As Mr. Barrick said, they currently have some
safety issues with the children playing on Arden Drive, which will even get worse
with the traffic to Avon Park II. As a result she would prefer that Stafford W ay
connect directly with Avon Street Extension so there would be two entrances to
avoid the congestion and increase in traffic.
With the new zoning they are allowing churches, schools, and small non-
residential facilities. Although not currently planned it would be a minor planning
change to add a church. She certainly has no problem with a church. She was
concerned that such a facility won’t have direct access to Stratford W ay from
Avon; and, therefore would create extra traffic along with safety and noise issues.
The safety issues would involve all of the children. Also, the new zoning allows
less setbacks for denser single-family homes that are planned. So the homes at
the top of Arden Drive, in particular, will have much less privacy. The new
setbacks on the plan don’t appear to allow for trees. One large Fir tree will not
provide any kind of privacy.
A particular concern is the placement of the single multi -family homes or the
townhouses with the apartments underneath , which is actually on a rise. Behind
1165 would actually be on a hill. This particular structure would tower over most
of Avon I and block the view to Carter Mountain for all the homes on the other
side as proposed today. Therefore, it would be somewhat of an eyesore plus the
fact that it is less of a setback. The other issue is that used to be for apartments.
Now it is 3 townhouses and 3 apartments, which she thinks is fine. However, it is
many more people since 10 houses will allow more families. It is a higher noise
level and will affect all the single-family homes at the top of Arden Drive as well
as some of the townhouses. She would prefer to move it down further on
Stratford Way.
Terra de Cardenas, resident of 1159 Arden Drive, said her house backs up to the
proposed developed. Like many others in her community, she is concerned about Arden
Drive having to sustain more traffic. She is already concerned about the children who
play on Arden Drive and in the alley between the town homes and the single -family
detached homes on the north side of Arden Drive. There is a lot of traffic that comes in
through that one block. The children play in that area and she constantly has to go
outside and ask them to be careful because the cars cannot see them coming up that
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – MARCH 19, 2013
DRAFT MINUTES – SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL
8
curve. To have a lot more residences built off of that road is just going to take away
from her whole day. Adding any more residences off of this road does not make it
comparable to any of the situations she sees in the neighboring subdivisions off of Avon
Extended and south of I-64. Nowhere is there one single block that has an entrance to
so many homes in such close proximity to one another. They feel this added traffic
jeopardizes the safety of the community. W hile an additional road off of Avon Extended
would be expensive our community’s safety is priceless.
Ms. de Cardenas voiced opposition to the rezoning of this area because it would allow
for non residential buildings. While that is not on the table at the moment it certainly
could be considered in the future and would create major traffic issues on Arden Drive.
They already have parking issues and continually have people parking right in front of
their house. In the information received from Ms. Grant there are several references to
the concept that this new plan is in keeping with what is already there. She did not
believe that the development being proposed behind their neighborhood is at all
comparable. The original plan is more comparable to the Avon Park I development and
with some changes would be much more palatable than the development being
proposed at this time. Understanding the developer wants to build more single -family
homes she suggested an optimal plan would be to have single-family detached homes
that are similar in size and lot size to what they are backing up to.
Ms. de Cardenas said the space in which there are now 15 homes in Avon Park is
almost exactly the same as the area in which the new homes will be built. If there were
16 homes built on this proposed area instead of 32 it would be more comparable to the
single-family homes that back up to this development. They purchased their home
under the assumption there would be one house behind them and there would be more
distance between the two houses. In the new plan there will be two houses located
behind them bordering their property line. There will also be the three townhomes and
three separate apartments. That means they will have eight families kind of feeding into
their back yard, which was not the way they envisioned it when they bought the house.
The houses will also be built closer and there will be a lot more congestion. She has
some health issues in her family, which she has explained in a submitted handout.
(Attachment C – on file with the printed minutes in the office of the clerk) When they
moved into this house there were a lot of issues to deal with because the house was
standing for two years. Due to health issues they will have to move out of this home
when the construction starts. Therefore, she was askin g not to have the additional
density so they are able to sell their home and it is comparable to what their home value
would be.
Corinne Lauer agreed with everything Linda O’Connor and Ms. Terra de Cardenas said.
She was really concerned about the children because Arden Drive comes right around
on Hathaway. There is a severe curve where they cannot see the children playing.
They are enjoying the community they are living in. It would be terrible to see extra
traffic going down Arden Drive since it would ruin the community.
Dennis O’Connor, resident of 1165 Arden Drive, asked to reiterate three of the points
his neighbors brought up. First, he thought it was more appropriate to have the multi-
family units at the end of Stratford Way for the new road rat her than in back of single-
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – MARCH 19, 2013
DRAFT MINUTES – SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL
9
family homes. Given that the new development is intended to be very similar to the
existing development he suggests having the single-family units adjacent and the multi-
family, which the community does not have now, all the way at the end of the road.
Secondly, he would ask the setbacks be no smaller than the original plan. As he sees
the new plan it appears the setbacks are less. Given that he would back up against one
of these homes he would like it to be at least what it was originally planned to be. Third,
for the issue of traffic and safety he would like to at least consider the possibility of
extending the new road down to Avon so there are two entrances and exits into the
community.
Gary Brooks said he was one of the three property owners that own the entire south
side of Avon Park II. They don’t have real discrepancies about the revised plan other
than the old plan had a privacy barn type fence all the way down to provide privacy.
They don’t have traffic using their driveway, which runs right beside this property. They
would like to see the fence go into the revised plan. They had a waterline in case it was
disturbed because they have a very small amount of water in the wells out there. So
anytime they see drainage on a property they have concerns with their well. Therefore,
they wanted to see a waterline extended over to their property. At one time there was
going to be a waterline on Hathaway and one down below there. However, there was a
question about Hathaway. They would like to see that continued. They did not have a
clear view of where the drainage would be. However, they could not stand any more
drainage coming by their driveway. They are already taking water off of that property
and the road, which was contributing just as much. The drainage was washing out
their driveway and sometimes it cuts a path along the state road. He understands from
the sheet he got from the County that the contractor would be willing to put this over on
it. However, it has never been confirmed to move what he just brought up over on the
revised plan. They would surely like to see that stay on this plan.
John Brooks said his house is the old school property that faces Avon. He would like to
go a little farther with the storm water problem because anybody can come out and look
to really see what it has done. It has already ruined the drain going under the driveway.
He has picked up so much debris that it has filled that up , which he cannot clean. He
heard talk about a road going into Avon there, which he would be against. If they are
going to have a park there they cannot have a road going up there. It is going to end up
being a place to drink beer, take your drugs and all of this stuff at night time. There will
be nothing down there to stop it. If they are going to have a park at Avon Street the
road needs to stop there. Nobody needs to come off Avon Street into the park because
it would be a disaster. They are having trouble with people coming on site now with the
lot being empty. The applicant said they would put shrubbery along the fence beside
our property that would reach a height of 10’. It would give them some privacy and a
blocked view. He wanted some privacy from the park just like he had now. He did not
have any problem with what they are doing there, but just wanted to keep some of his
own privacy so they still feel they are living in a little country area.
Candace Besherse, resident of Avon Park I, agreed with the se ntiments previously
expressed by fellow residents this evening to the Commission. Her primary concern
was Arden Drive. The safety concerns have already been expressed. There is a bus
stop at the corner of Avon and Arden. She envisioned construction vehicles coming
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – MARCH 19, 2013
DRAFT MINUTES – SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL
10
through with the children there. Arden Drive is a steep and curvy road. She has never
been near construction where the road has not been closed down at any portion of the
day to allow for the large construction vehicles to navigate into a construction site. It is
the only road into their community. Earlier this evening it was mentioned that any future
development road conformity would be conditioned upon certificates of occupancy. She
respectfully submits to the Commission that is ineffective in order to enforce conformity
because it transfers the burden from the developer or the builder to that potential buyer.
When buying a house getting of the keys and the signing the documents is the last and
final step. There has already been for most purchasers an extensive process invo lved
before that. The person that is in the best position to ensure conformity is the builder
and the developer. She would respectfully request that if any building should go
forward that the building permit is conditioned upon the conformity of Arden Road.
Robert Spauls, resident of 1940 Avon Street, said that Avon Park 1 is essentially an L
shaped piece of property. Avon Park II forms a U with the L shaped piece of property.
He owns the piece of property in the middle of the U with the bottom of the U being
Avon Street. He made the following points:
According to the current site plan there is a storm retention pond to be built on
the east side of Avon Park II. He would like to think that would be built much
better than the one that exists on the north side of his property on Avon Park I,
which is essentially a hole in the ground that is not maintained in any fashion.
There is a last line of evergreen trees on the south side of his property, which is
on the property line with Avon Park II. He would like to assure that those are not
disturbed.
There is another line of hard wood trees that are to the west of that up on the hill.
The whole piece of property is just a big hill. That is why there are storm
retention problems, drainage problems and mud in addition to just water flowing
down that property. His property has been flooded out three times by mud from
Avon Park I. Barry Meade did an incredible job of trying to solve that problem.
But, he was afraid they might be developing more because h e would like to see
more detailed plans on how this storm retention pond is going to be built on the
east side of the property next to Avon Street.
He would not like to see another entry into Avon Park II as that would create two
entries to the north and south of his property. He would not like to see that
hardwood stand that is on the south side of his property on the north side of Avon
Park II disturbed. It was not going to be disturbed in the f irst site plan. But, the
current site plan has a note that says trees can be taken down at discretion of the
property owner, which in his mind is they can take them all out if they want to .
Those are his concerns. According to the first site plan there was to be a pipe
line of County water built to his property line in case he had a problem with his
well. As Mr. Brooks pointed out the wells they rely on for water are not in the
best of shape and certainly Avon Park I and Avon Park II have not done anything
to improve that and certainly has been very detrimental to it. He would like to
ensure that remains there.
Mr. Smith asked Mr. Spauls if the trees are on his property.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – MARCH 19, 2013
DRAFT MINUTES – SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL
11
Mr. Spauls replied the trees were right on the property line. He had lived on the
property for 28 years. When Mr. Thomas bought the property he wanted a line of trees.
He planted the trees there and thought they were on his property line. However, he
found out they were right on the property line. It is a matter of dispute. They are not
going to pay the money to have a survey done to de cide if one-half of the trees are on
his property. They just want the trees to stay there.
Avery Cedar, resident of Arden Drive with Mary Lewis, said the speakers tonight have
done a great job of describing what is wrong, particularly the traffic problems on the
road when doubling the number of people living right behind them. There is an element
of this story that has been left out, which is the aesthetics of living there. If they want to
see the mountains in Albemarle County where do you go to see them? It is Free Union.
What does it cost to live out there? Millions. If they want to see pretty landscape one
would go to Keswick. What does it cost? Millions. If you want to see the mountains as
an ordinary person where do you go? It is Tiptop at Pantops. The developers open the
view. Inside all of these areas there is one more area that the developers opened and it
is this little neighborhood. This little neighborhood looks over at Carter’s Mountain,
which is a completely undeveloped little valley. It is the last corner in the whole County
where you can look at a mountain. In Charlottesville one cannot see the mountains
unless you go look for them. In our neighborhood you can see the mountains.
Mr. Cedar noted they can also see the drainage pond incomplete. It is not a pretty little
water place. It is just a hole in the ground filled with mud , which is the first thing you
look at. The next thing is a tip top plateau of land up in the townhouses, which is just a
rough patch of grass. The next development is coming in while the first one is not
finished. The first one has these little eye sores that include rain water rushing down
the road and the drainage ditch behind it. It will soon include heavy trucks riding up the
hillside, clamoring, pounding, bulldozing, knocking everything down, and cutting down
trees. What will they achieve but to thicken up the view and crowd everyone. It will
create noise and traffic. There has to be a way to alleviate that. If one-half a million
dollars is a great deal of money to fix Arden Drive, then why not just build another road.
Biscuit Run is coming in behind them. Perhaps there is a way to bridge these
properties and take advantage of the state building an entrance to Biscuit Run. Certainly
the value of life is the intangible that you can’t put a price on. But, it is what brought
everybody there. He hoped the Commission would help protect the integrity of the last
great view in Charlottesville.
James Stain hill, of 1130 Arden Drive, pointed out the beautiful Mountain View was what
drove him to live here. He loved that view. His two primary issues of concern were
linked to the safety issue. There was some talk earlier with regards to the drainage
issue. It is going to be the same whether Avon Park II continues on as proposed or
whether it does not. That may be true, but if the drainage issue is not taken care of
there is extra vehicle traffic that is still driving through that standing water. Therefore,
they still need to address the additional t raffic from a safety context. There are many
families in the development with young children. He has spent some time telling
children to slow down when there is a car coming around that corner. Children don’t
see what adults do. They need to be concerne d as they look at this planning process to
be diligent and vigilant stewards of the children. He hoped they keep in mind this safety
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – MARCH 19, 2013
DRAFT MINUTES – SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL
12
issue that the residents of Avon Park I are extremely concerned about. He asked the
Commission to take it under advisement as they consider the request.
There being no further public comment, Mr. Morris invited the applicant for rebuttal.
Vito Cetta said this land is in the growth area and has been designated for this. The
growth area stops a couple hundred feet south of this property. It is obvious when you
live in Avon Park the last thing they want is more homes being built. It is the same as
when Avon Park was built initially. The people around it did not want to see new
homes. There is very little to be gained by a resident to have more homes built. But
that is the nature of growth. There is really only one way to get to the site, which is
coming through Avon Park because it is quite steep. Avon Park was built with two
interconnected roads and one goes to us. In fact, our property also has a road
continuing to the south in case that gets developed. They can absolutely be assured
the engineering department is not going to solve all the drainage problems. However,
they know what they are and they have to be engineered properly. The pond that was
built as part of Avon Park initially was never completed. The builder went bankrupt, as
they know, and the work needs to be completed, which might be part of the bond.
Mr. Cetta said there is a fence that goes along the south property line that the neighbor
has suggested. They are offering two parks. They offer about a third of the property as
a big park. There is an existing park in Avon Park as well. These are high density
projects. They are going to have children. This is an urban area and not 5 acre or 3
acre sites. They are very small lots. People just have to be careful with their children.
He can appreciate that, of course. The detention will certainly be resolved. They know
that. They have some hardwoods and their note on the plan says they will do the best
they can to preserve them. He thinks they will meet with that neighbor to make sure
those are preserved because they are not grading in that area that he had mentioned.
They are going to extend the water line to the property to the south. The views really
are to the east on that site and they are not blocking the views. They get the same
views that they get. There may be some interference with that, but he thinks very little.
The views are not looking across our property, but are looking out towards Avon. He
thinks the proffer that Ms. Grant was talking about changing is this issue of when they
can pull a building permit or when they can have occupancy. He asked if that was the
only issue she was talking about.
Ms. Grant replied there were some technical issues on some of the other proffers, which
were other type of things.
Mr. Cetta said they were generally willing to do whatever is needed on the access.
Mr. Morris invited questions.
Mr. Dotson said as he was listening he jotted down a few notes. S everal people had
concern over the construction vehicles. He asked if Mr. Cetta had any response to that.
Mr. Cetta replied there is just one road and he was sorry to say they can’t do much
about that. He appreciates their concerns, but there was nothing they could do. There
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – MARCH 19, 2013
DRAFT MINUTES – SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL
13
are regulations about keeping the road clean and washing the tires, etc. But, there is
going to be traffic unfortunately.
Mr. Dotson asked if it was not feasible during construction to come off Avon.
Mr. Cetta replied no, it was too steep.
Mr. Dotson said somebody else commented about original setbacks. He asked if he
could explain the change in setbacks.
Mr. Cetta replied frankly he did not know. He did not know if th e setbacks were any
different. Mr. Poole may know, but he did not have the answer to that.
Mr. Randolph said he heard him say that he viewed the property as being in an urban
area; and, therefore has urban features.
Mr. Cetta replied yes, that he said that.
Mr. Randolph noted in an urban area usually there is interconnectivity of streets. He did
not see any interconnectivity of streets. He sees a dead end that branches off in two
different directions. If he was preaching that this project is in an urban area and it is an
urban related project shouldn’t it have better interconnectivity than just coming in
through Arden Drive.
Mr. Cetta replied if they see the plan in Avon Park you climb up the hill on Arden Drive.
Then there is a spine that parallels Avon, which is probably 35’ or 40’ above it. It climbs
a hill and runs south to our property, which is the interconnected road. On Avon Park it
also connects to the north if that property ever gets developed. So it is interconnected.
There really are no other possibilities for interconnectivity.
Mr. Randolph said unless the road goes out to Avon Road Extended there would not be
interconnectivity.
Mr. Cetta said that was possible. However, it is just too steep. The grading is much too
steep to get another road in.
Mr. Randolph said currently there is a driveway that goes back and climbs about 80’ to
90’ as shown on attachment 8, page 8. The road would only need to go 30’ more to
cover all the way to the top. So it seems that there is a road there and the only thing
missing is the connection of that road to Avon Street Extended.
Mr. Cetta asked if he was suggesting this road extend down to Avon.
Mr. Randolph replied yes, he was looking at about 20’ of a drop off to connect it to Avon
Extended.
Mr. Cetta said he was not sure what he was looking at, but he would be happy to look at
it with him. They would be happy to extend the road down to Avon. However, the
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – MARCH 19, 2013
DRAFT MINUTES – SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL
14
engineering department won’t allow that for sure. If it can be done they would be ha ppy
to do it. However, he did not think it works because the grade is simply too steep. He
would have to look at it more carefully.
Mr. Franco noted that he would be careful about confusing driveway grades with road
grades. There is a driveway there and driveways are allowed to be up to 20 or 16
percent in the County. Since this was done prior to that Code it might be steeper. A
state road is 10 percent. He said it is not as simple as saying connect the dots.
Mr. Smith said he would be willing to bet that these driveways were built before there
were any restrictions whatsoever.
Mr. Randolph agreed.
Mr. Cilimberg said they don’t have the width of the property to do what was done in
Avon Park, which is to actually bring the road in and curve it up the hill to use the grade.
They just don’t have that width in this property. So he did not think they were going to
get a road that meets any standard acceptable to VDOT between their developed area
and Avon Street. It is just not going to be feasibly available.
Mr. Randolph asked even if the road was to snake.
Mr. Cilimberg replied that it does not have enough room to snake because they are
going to run into horizontal curvature issues. If they had more land north and south they
could potentially put something in. However, that is not under their control and restricts
their ability.
Mr. Smith asked if he had already addressed the hardwood tree issue.
Mr. Cetta replied yes. They are going to meet with the neighbor. Our note already says
they are going to be careful on what they selectively prune from that area. The problem
with trees is if they grade around them they will kill the tree. That happens to be an
area they are not grading.
Mr. Smith said that it does not look to be an area where they have to do any grading,
and Mr. Cetta agreed.
Mr. Smith noted on the uphill side it says double sided vertical board fencing. It comes
down from the back of the property to the street, and then it switches to a three board
farm fence according to plan. That does not give the neighbors the protection that they
may want.
Mr. Cetta replied he believed where there was no three board fence there were no
homes. There is a park there. Where there are homes they have a solid fence.
Mr. Smith pointed out when there was noise in the park it comes next door.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – MARCH 19, 2013
DRAFT MINUTES – SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL
15
Mr. Cetta said he did not think that would be necessary, but they can certainly do that if
it is required.
Mr. Morris closed the public hearing to bring the matter before the Planning Commission
for discussion and action. He invited questions.
Mr. Loach said some of the neighbors talked about swapping the multi-family to the
upper part versus the lower part.
Mr. Franco asked staff to put up the original application plan
Mr. Cetta noted the left half of the plan is all attached housing and the right half a few
single-family houses. The view is toward Avon and he did not understand what
someone’s concern is frankly since their view is to the right and not necessarily towards
this development. He thinks the buildings are in the right place.
Mr. Morris commended Mr. Cetta to continue to work with the neighbors and discuss
things if this moves along. However, he has done a lot of that already.
Mr. Cetta noted they would have the community meeting, and Mr. Morris replied that
would be wonderful so the residents can see how it is going to actually be if it goes
ahead.
Mr. Morris invited further questions for the applicant.
Mr. Dotson asked, in summary, what are the reasons he wants to change from the
current zoning to the proposed zoning. It is gaining one unit, which he understands.
However, what are the other motivations?
Mr. Cetta replied it was because there was not a market for townhouses here. Avinity is
a large community up the street that is all townhouses. They certainly hear from
builders there is clearly a need for single-family detached and there are not any in this
area. One other minor thing is if you look at new communities with single -family
detached units with back yards it is surprising how little backyards get used. When they
were kids backyards were a big deal. However, backyards don’t get used now. As a
result the lots are smaller and smaller and perhaps the communities rely more on the
open space for their recreation. So these lots are quite small, but the houses are kind
of cute with big front porches.
Mr. Morris said the rebuttal period has ended as is the public hearing public comment.
The matter was before the Commission for discussion and action.
Mr. Franco said he was still puzzled on some things. He asked on this application plan
how many units are shown.
Ms. Grant replied 31 units.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – MARCH 19, 2013
DRAFT MINUTES – SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL
16
Mr. Franco said on the original application plan he was trying to understand the original
density and the proposed density. The original approval was for 31 units and they were
going to 32 units. He noted he could not count 31 units on the original plan.
Mr. Cilimberg noted there were 16 units on the left side of the road coming through.
There were more townhouses on the right and from there possibly some duplexes and
then single-families. It totals 31 units.
Mr. Lafferty asked if the technical issues are just typographically errors and things like
that, and Ms. Grant replied yes.
Mr. Cilimberg said with the exception of the one suggestion regarding the proffer that it
would be referencing no subdivision plats versus a certificate of occupancy.
Mr. Franco noted that is the one that gives him the most concern. There is a process
that includes the bonding, which he understands they are in that process. But, he was
not sure why they have not resolved this yet. He understands there are some
difficulties. However, if he was a resident in phase one he would be as concerned
about that as the new development coming in. They were promised public roads and
they don’t have them yet and that was what the bond was supposed to do. He was not
sure when the original developer went out of business, but it has been a number of
years and they are still dealing with this. He noted that it has been four or six years.
Mr. Cilimberg pointed out the bond was called in May of last year. He suggested that
Mr. Kamptner might want to speak to that process.
Mr. Kamptner said that was about all he knows with respect to that. He did not know
what the punch list says and that county engineer has done an estimate of the cost of
the improvements yet. He must have some idea, but he did not know. He asked if staff
checked with Glenn Brooks today.
Ms. Grant replied yes, that she spoke with Mr. Brooks. He has a list that he just
recently submitted that says all the various things that are still waiting to be done. There
is not an estimate in terms of the cost.
Mr. Franco said he was concerned about adding that as a condition in here regardless
of whether it is too expensive or more than the bond amount or anything like that. It has
to get done and the public guarantee of that being done is the bonding process. He
hates to see the adjacent property owner dragged into that situation and held hostage
or to have to contribute to the original issue financially when that is the process that we
guarantee. He did have concerns about that aspect of it.
Mr. Loach asked would that depend on whether the bond was predicated on both or just
the first one parcel.
Mr. Franco said his understanding is that bond would be for the improvement to the one
road, Arden Road, and it does not really matter because it was supposed to be public
road. This development is attaching to a public road. So i t should have covered all the
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – MARCH 19, 2013
DRAFT MINUTES – SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL
17
improvements associated with that as well as the storm water basin and some of the
others things that were brought up. The development can move forward the way the
developer wants to. But, he would be concerned that it is an opportunity to push it off
and sort of get somebody else involved. He really wants to see this resolved quickly
because that is what they promised to the residents.
Mr. Loach said his point was this section was not part of the total development plan in
the beginning. Now it has been separated out because of the bankruptcy.
Mr. Cilimberg commented there was a different developer for Avon Park II than the
original Avon Park.
Mr. Kamptner noted they are not suggesting that this applicant is going to be
responsible for completing Arden Drive. They are just saying that the subdivision
ordinance, if there are insufficient funds and the road cannot be designed and
constructed to VDOT standards, the subdivision plat for this particular project can’t be
approved under the language of the subdivision ordinance. A proffer is not really
required in that case because the ordinance does speak for itself.
Mr. Dotson said a note to the effect that the subdivision ordinance will apply would be
sufficient and it does not have to be a proffer.
Mr. Kamptner said this is not the first project where this issue has come up. So they are
dealing with it. They found a solution with the other one with a different point of access.
The proffer in this case is not essential.
Mr. Smith said what he was saying is if the current developer does everything right he is
not being held hostage by phase I.
Mr. Franco said that is not what he is saying.
Mr. Kamptner commented the subdivision plat for phase II will not likely be approved if
Arden Drive is not meeting the requirements of a public street.
Mr. Cilimberg said that would be with or without this rezoning. They already have zoning
for 31 units and if a plat were to be submitted for that without this rezoning and submit a
plat for the current zoned area, it could not be approved.
Mr. Smith said that he is being held hostage until phase1 is satisfied. He thought that
was a county responsibility in his way of thinking.
Mr. Kamptner pointed out the subdivision ordinance and State law both say the
completion of these improvements is not the obligation of the County. It really is the
obligation of the developer. In this case because the developer is no longer here it is
going to be the bond. If the bond funds are insufficient to cover the cost of whatever
work needs to be done to complete it, then they will have to figure out another solution.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – MARCH 19, 2013
DRAFT MINUTES – SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL
18
Mr. Smith said they don’t know about the bond funds because they have not gotten the
estimate yet to do the repairs.
Mr. Lafferty noted they just have a punch list. However, the applicant is not being held
hostage because it is a risk that he seems to be willing to take.
Mr. Dotson noted this was a slightly different point. Again, listening to the testimony
from the residents, a couple of people said that they were concerned this would open
the door to non-residential uses. He asked if he was correct that the only uses that
would be allowed are those shown on the plan.
Mr. Cilimberg replied the uses have not been either proffered out or proffered in as to
what they could do under the planned residential development. T he buildings that could
be built are those shown in this plan. The uses that could occur in those bu ildings if
these buildings are not stipulated for a particular use maybe some of the other uses
available. In reality the use of these buildings are going to be somewhat determined by
the type of building built. Whether there needs to be a proffering of uses in this case
depends on whether they feel the units that could be built have the potential of being
used for something other than single-family and townhouse with the extra affordable
units. The affordable units are actually specified and proffered. There is not a building
here that could accommodate what they would normally consider to be a chu rch, as an
example.
Mr. Morris said what he gathered as the concern was the open area and the use of that
recreational area at night and not the residential units itself.
Mr. Franco replied that he heard separate issues. One is that the uses that could go
into the lots that are shown could be non-residential in nature. Secondly, there was a
concern about the control of the park and activities within that park.
Mr. Smith asked if that was any different from what they have in section one right now.
He asked if they could turn one of those into a church.
Mr. Cilimberg replied that they could.
Mr. Franco said realistically any non-residential use would need to have parking and
other things that are shown on this.
Mr. Cilimberg commented that is why he said realistically the possibility for other uses is
pretty much limited by the lot size. The open area shown for recreational purposes
could not turn into another use. That is being specified in the application plan.
Mr. Franco said it would be simpler if there was some kind of proffer to eliminate any
concern for the others, but it is really not necessary because in all practicality it cannot
occur. He asked about the setbacks and if the separation between the units in phase 1
and phase 2 changes between application plans. Was there fencing that was changed
in any way?
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – MARCH 19, 2013
DRAFT MINUTES – SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL
19
Mr. Cilimberg said he was asking about the relationship of the units under the current
approval to the adjacent units in Avon Park II.
Mr. Franco said he knew the units got arguably smaller and that some of the density got
rearranged. But, did the units get closer.
Mr. Cilimberg replied there was a building setback line now of 20’ for the rear side of the
single-family lots and 15’ for the side of the townhouse lots closest to Avon Park. That is
on the current plan that has been submitted. It is showing a 20’ building setback line for
lots 1 through 4 and 21 through 24 next to Avon Park and a 15’ building setback line
adjacent to lot 9 and 10 where the townhouse is.
Mr. Franco said potentially the townhouses have moved 5’ closer to the existing
residences because it is a side yard.
Ms. Grant replied the setbacks in the approved plan was not really that much different
than what they have currently. She believed the setbacks were 20’.
Mr. Franco said that they were probably the same setbacks, but simply because they
have a side yard now it is potentially moved a little closer. He asked was there any
fencing or anything like that as part of the original plan. He did not see a proffer to that.
Ms. Grant replied there are some notes on the approved plan that refer to fencing on
the south side of the property, but not the north.
Mr. Smith said the fence issue comes back again to bother him because if he was Mr.
Brooks and lived next door to the park and they build a three board fence that does not
stop any children from investigating next door. So it is not a privacy fence. It does not
protect the neighbors.
Mr. Loach pointed out the applicant said he would provide fencing as required.
Mr. Smith noted they have good fencing to the west. The applicant did not totally
commit to the providing the fence towards the park.
Mr. Cilimberg suggested if the Commission was recommending approval, they c ould
recommend that the double-sided vertical board fencing be extended all the way to
Avon Park as part of their recommendation.
Mr. Smith said that he would so recommend.
Mr. Franco said in general he did not think it is appropriate to buffer similar uses. They
are both residential. However, he understands about the privacy. He felt personally if
they are going to try to screen and hide it he would prefer that landscaping be put in
because they don’t really have to maintain trees as much as fencing. However, again
with residential to residential they are buffering the same use.
Mr. Smith pointed out it was small lot residential to large lot residential.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – MARCH 19, 2013
DRAFT MINUTES – SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL
20
Mr. Cilimberg noted actually in that area it is the recreation area next to residential. He
thinks the lots are bordered by the double-sided vertical board fencing.
Mr. Smith said it was up at the top, but not down at the bottom where the park is
located.
Mr. Cilimberg agreed it was not on the park side.
Mr. Loach asked if it could be proffered to be worked out between the neighb ors and the
applicant before getting to the Board. The applicant said he was going to meet with the
neighbors. He also heard residents say they would rather prefer trees.
Mr. Cilimberg said there are trees shown on the plan, too, as they will see. Th ere is
some planting.
Mr. Smith noted the trees don’t keep the children out.
Ms. Grant pointed out the fence was noted in the approved plan as well.
Mr. Franco asked if the fence was in the same location, and Ms. Grant replied yes.
Mr. Morris invited further discussion.
Mr. Franco said he wanted to make sure he understands the issues they have talked
about that are on the table right now. He asked if the three issues they have really
talked about are as follows.
1) Potentially it is the use and trying to eliminate some of the uses that legally could
be placed in there.
2) There is still the question about the bond and the existing improvements.
3) The fencing and the landscaping is the third question before the Commission.
Mr. Loach said the bond was a no n issue because it would not matter under what
condition at this point.
Mr. Franco said those are the three issues they really talked about.
Mr. Loach agreed with Mr. Franco on the bonding. As Mr. Cilimberg pointed out it
would not matter if they were using the old or new plan since the bond condition would
be the same. However, he agreed with Mr. Smith on the fencing. He asked if they want
something specific on the uses.
Mr. Franco pointed out Mr. Cetta indicated he would be willing to continue the fence as
a boarded fence. He would like to ask him to come back up and make sure he
understands what he would proffer at this point.
Mr. Morris invited Mr. Cetta to address that question.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – MARCH 19, 2013
DRAFT MINUTES – SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL
21
Mr. Cetta said they were prepared to do whatever the neighbors fe el comfortable with.
He agreed with Mr. Franco that a three-board fence along that park is really a nice look.
If the neighbors feel that needs to be adjusted , they are wide open to it.
Mr. Franco said he was just trying to figure out how to commit th at. He asked does that
have to be decided today or is everybody comfortable with that being something that is
left hanging.
Mr. Morris pointed out the request would be taken before the Board of Supervisors.
Mr. Franco suggested that it be resolved before the Board of Supervisors meeting. If
the Commission feels strongly about the fencing needing to be a privacy fence, then
now would be the time to express it.
Mr. Loach suggested they could put it in as a recommendation . However, since it is
only a recommendation when he meets with the neighbors he can change it.
Mr. Franco asked if he needs to meet with the neighbors between now and the Board
meeting.
Mr. Morris replied absolutely because the Planning Commission’s action is only a
recommendation to the Board.
Mr. Franco said he understands since it is a proffer to eliminate uses they can make the
recommendation that only residential uses be allowed here.
Mr. Morris said he would be comfortable with that simply because of the size of the lots
and so forth.
Mr. Franco asked if the applicant wants to verify that is his intent.
Mr. Randolph asked if he is talking about only residential uses in the open space.
Mr. Franco replied no, it was in the development.
Mr. Morris said he was assuming the applicant agreed because he was nodding.
Mr. Franco said he thought they could consider that a s a proffer.
Mr. Cilimberg said he would also ask that it would be subject to staff’s work with the
applicant between now and the Board hearing to make sure that unin tentionally there is
no use being proffered out that ends up needing to be there for public purposes.
Mr. Morris said that would be great.
Mr. Franco said at this point he would like to make a recommendation. He asked if
there were conditions.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – MARCH 19, 2013
DRAFT MINUTES – SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL
22
Mr. Cilimberg replied that there are only proffers. He did not know if this is what he
wanted his motion to reflect. However, what he has heard mentioned is that the 5th
proffer regarding Certificate of Occupancy or replacement proffer regarding plats that
they don’t feel is necessary because the platting is already a requirement of our
subdivision ordinance. He was thinking they don’t feel the need for that fifth proffer. That
is what he is hearing. In addition to that they are asking that beyond the technical fixes
to the proffer that the applicant work with the adjacent neighbors regarding the fence
type and that the applicant also provide a proffer restricting uses to those that are
residential plus what staff feels is necessary to continue to have for the PRD district as
part of the work to be done between now and the Board of Supervisors hearing.
Mr. Franco agreed that is the motion. He would also like to stress that the County
needs to accelerate their efforts in getting that road accepted into the state system.
Motion: Mr. Franco moved and Mr. Smith seconded to recommend approval of ZMA-
2012-00004 Avon Park II as recommended by staff with proffers, as revised and
amended.
1. The 5th proffer regarding Certificate of Occupancy or replacement proffer
regarding plats is not necessary because the platting is already a requirement of
the Subdivision Ordinance. Eliminate the 5th proffer.
2. In addition, beyond the technical fixes to the proffer the applicant should work
with the adjacent neighbors regarding the fence type; and
3. The applicant provide a proffer restricting uses to those that are residential plus
what staff feels is necessary to continue to have for the PRD district as part of
the work to be done between now and the Board of Supervisors hearing.
The motion passed by a vote of 6:1. (Mr. Randolph voted nay)
Mr. Morris noted ZMA-2012-00004 Avon Park II would go to the Board of Supervisors
on a date to be determined with a recommendation for approval with staff’s
recommended proffers, as amended, to be worked out between the applicant and staff
before the Board of Supervisors hearing.
1
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
SDP2013-41 Stonefield-Special Exception to authorize
Variations from the Application Plan and Code of
Development (ZMA2011-7)
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Special exception to authorize variations to boundary
phasing, road alignment, connection points,
pedestrian area, building orientation and location.
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Mr. Benish, Ms. Baldwin
LEGAL REVIEW: Yes
AGENDA DATE:
September 11, 2013
ACTION: INFORMATION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: X INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS: No
REVIEWED BY:
BACKGROUND:
The Stonefield development (A.K.A. Albemarle Place) fronts on Route 29 and Hydraulic Rd. Stonefield was rezoned to
Neighborhood Model District, with an associated Application Plan (“Plan”) and Code of Development (“COD”), in October
2003 (ZMA2001-00007). There have been various amendments to the rezoning and the most recent applicable re zoning
was approved in March 2011 (ZMA2011-7). Site Plans for Phase 1 and a portion of Phase 2 have been previously
approved and are under construction or completed. To date, there have been 15 approved variations to the Plan and
COD for this applicant. This request is for the remaining portion of Phase 2, which includes Blocks F and G, and is
located north of the Sperry Marine site. This site plan proposal includes construction of approximately 190,000 square
feet of commercial development within Block s F and G. The applicant is requesting a special exception to authorize
variations from the approved Application Plan and Code of Development.
STRATEGIC PLAN:
2. Provide community facilities that meet existing and future needs
5. Ensure the health and safety of the community
DISCUSSION:
The applicant has submitted two (2) variation requests containing multiple elements to vary the Application Plan and Code
of Development in Blocks F and G of Phase 2. These elements involve adjustments to Block F and G boundaries, road
alignment, connection points, pedestrian area, building orientation and location (Attachment A). For clarity, it should be
noted that square footage allocations are also being altered from the Application Plan; however, the Code of Deve lopment
provides flexibility for the minimum and maximum square footages in each block and does not require a variation. For
convenience, a copy of the approved Application Plan is attached (Attachment B). Variations are considered by the Board
of Supervisors as a special exception under Chapter 18, Sections 33.5 and 33.9 (Attachment C). Staff is recommending
approval of the special exception.
VARIATION #16:
1. The Applicant submitted the following: “Variation [16] consists of the below listed elements, A. through E., that
vary from the ZMA application plan. While the noted elements may vary from different facets of the ZMA
application plan, they are interconnected in such a way that approval of each element of this Variation [16] is
needed in order to achieve the desired objective. Given the configuration of TMP # 61W -3-19B and the size of
the building proposed for Block F, approval of these variations is required to allow the development to proceed.
While Costco has waived some of their standard criteria to address some design modifications dictated by site,
Applicant, County Staff and ZMA application plan requirements, modification of the building square footage and
layout and other criteria that necessitate the subject variations, is not an option given safety issues, site plan
requirements and operating standards. Thus, without approval of this requested variation, Applicant will be
unable to proceed with development of the Costco and this next phase of the Stonefield project” (Attachment A).
Elements:
2
A. The Stonefield Code of Development (“Stonefield COD”) contemplated adjustments in Block boundaries
and such adjustments may be considered within the Variation process set forth in Section 8.5.5.3 of the
County Zoning Ordinance. Applicant is requesting approval of a variation that the modification of the
Block F and Block G boundaries as set forth on the attached Exhibit 1.1 is acceptable.
B. Applicant is requesting approval of a variation that the location of the north-south alignment and the
geometry of District Avenue through Block F and Block G of the project as set forth on the attached
Exhibit 1.2 is acceptable.
C. Applicant is requesting approval of a variation that the relocation of the two (2) “Future Extension”
connections points to the north and the one (1) “Future Extension” connection point to the south as set
forth on the attached Exhibit 1.3 is acceptable.
D. Applicant is requesting approval of a variation with respect to the building location, orientation, and
allocation of square footage for the facility to be located in Block F as set forth on the attached Exhibit 1.3.
E. Applicant is further requesting a variation of the quantity and orientation of the buildings on Block G as
represented Exhibit 1.3.
Staff analysis of the variation request is provided below:
1) The variation is consistent with the goals and objectives of the comprehensive plan.
The variations for design elements A - C and E are consistent with the goals and objectives of the comprehensive
plan. Regarding design element B, the county engineer can recommend approval of the proposed road
realignment with the understanding that further design work will be undertaken during site plan review to address
entrance locations and turning. Regarding design element D, the Places29 Master Plan recommends the
Commercial Mixed Use land use designation for the area subject to this variation request. The Commercial Mixed
Use designation states that “retail is the primary land use in this designation” and “the maximum single -building
footprint [is] 80,000 square feet.” However, Places 29 specifically states “the northern portion of the development
(north of Sperry Marine) has been designed as a more conventional retail development. The land use pattern
approved during the rezoning has been incorporated in the Future Land Use Map.” Places 29 does not further
address building location, orientation and allocation of square footage in this area. The land use pattern reflected
in the existing application plan and COD shows two (2) retail uses in one building footprint in the general location
of the proposed Costco building in Block F, with no stipulation as to maximum building footprint allowances. The
Costco building is proposed to be 155,000 square feet. While the proposed 155,000 square foot building footprint
is not consistent with the generally recommended maximum building footprint of 80,000 square feet in Places 29,
it is allowable under the approved zoning which Places 29 defers to.
2) The variation does not increase the approved development density or intensity of development.
Density is not increased; it is merely shifted within the development as is allowed by the Code of Development.
3) The variation does not adversely affect the timing and phasing of development of any other development
in the zoning district.
The timing and phasing of the development is unaffected.
4) The variation does not require a special use permit.
A special use permit is not required.
5) The variation is in general accord with the purpose and intent of the approved rezoning application.
This variation is in general accord with the approved rezoning application. As referenced in 1) above, the
approved rezoning contemplated two (2) retail uses in one building footprint of approximately 100,000 square feet
in the general location of the proposed Costco building in Block F. There is no restriction on the maximum
building footprint allowances for Block F. In addition, the approved Code of Development states that the “uses
and amenities as described for each block group may be transferred between blocks within each block group
without the need for an Application Plan change, revision, modification, or amendment in accord with Section
8.5.5.3 of the County Zoning Ordinance. Such transfers are acceptable provided that the total…gross leasable
area for all land uses at full development with each of the block groups do not fall short of the Minimum Block
Intensity nor exceed the Maximum Block Intensity” noted in the COD (See Page 8). The proposed 155,000
square foot Costco building in combination with other retail buildings now proposed (up to a total of 190,000
square feet) is within the range of square footage permitted in the COD for Blocks F and G of between 125,000
square feet and 210,000 square feet. Because this proposal is within the range of the total square footage of
retail use approved for Blocks F and G, no significant traffic impacts are anticipated with this proposal.
3
VARIATION #16 RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends approval of the variation request #16 as described above and consistent with the Application for
Variations from Approved Plans, Codes and Standards of Development from Albemarle Place, EAAP, LLC, dated June
14, 2013, containing Exhibits 1.1-1.4 and 2.
VARIATION #17:
1. The Applicant submitted the following: “Applicant is requesting approval of a variation that the permits the
modification of the location of the plaza area and elimination of the “Café” (as such are depicted within Block F on
the ZMA application plan). In lieu of such improvements, Applicant proposes to construct an enhanced pedestrian
corridor as highlighted in Exhibit 2” (Attachment A).
Staff analysis of the variation request is provided below:
1) The variation is consistent with the goals and objectives of the comprehensive plan.
The design is consistent with the goals and objectives of the comprehensive plan, which provides for parks,
greens and plaza to serve residents and visitors. The plaza and café area as depicted on the plan is not practical
in its current location. Providing an enhanced pedestrian corridor will better serve the immediate community
creating a more usable space.
2) The variation does not increase the approved development density or intensity of development.
Density is not increased.
3) The variation does not adversely affect the timing and phasing of development of any other development
in the zoning district.
The timing and phasing of the development is unaffected.
4) The variation does not require a special use permit.
A special use permit is not required.
5) The variation is in general accord with the purpose and intent of the approved rezoning application.
This variation is in general accord with the approved rezoning application. As stated above, the plaza and café
area does not serve a practical purpose in this area. Providing an enhanced pedestrian corridor is within the
purpose and intent of the approved rezoning and serves as a public feature for Blocks F and G.
VARIATION #17 RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of variation request #17 as described above and consistent with the Application for Variations
from Approved Plans, Codes and Standards of Development from Albemarle Place, EAAP, LLC, dated June 14, 2013,
containing Exhibits 1.1-1.4 and 2.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the Special Exception for Variations #16 and #17 as recommended in this report.
Attachment A: Application for Variations from Approved Plan, Codes and Standards of Development and Exhibits from
Albemarle Place, EAAP, LLC, dated June 14, 2013.
Attachment B: Approved Application Plan “Albemarle Place Town Center, SP1, dated March, 2003 from The Cox
Company.
Attachment C: Special Exceptions under Chapter 18, Sections 33.5 and 33.9
Return to agenda
1
APPLICATION FOR VARIATIONS FROM APPROVED PLANS,
CODES AND STANDARDS OF DEVELOPMENT
TO: Mr. V. Wayne Cilimberg, Director of Planning, County of Albemarle,
Department of Community Development
CC: Mr. Mark B. Graham, Director of Community Development, County of
Albemarle, Department of Community Development
FROM: Applicant, Albemarle Place EAAP, LLC
SUBJECT: Application for Variations from Approved Plans, Codes and Standards of
Development.
DATE: June 14, 2013
Name of Planned District: Albemarle Place/Stonefield
TAX MAP/PARCEL NUMBERS: 061W0-03-00-019A; 061W0-03-00-19B0,
061W0-03-00-019E2; 061W0-03-00-02300;
061W0-03-00-02400; 061W0-03-00-02500.
ZMA Number(s): ZMA # 2011-00007
ZMA # 2011-00004
ZMA # 2008-00003
ZMA # 2001-007
Contact Person: Steven F. Teets
Address: c/o EDENS, 7200 Wisconsin Avenue, Suite 400, Bethesda, MD 20814
Daytime Phone: 803-760-9687
Fax: 301-652-3588
Email: steets@edens.com
Variations requested herein are changes from the approved plans, codes or standards of
development as applicable and approved pursuant to ZMA # 2011-00007, ZMA # 2011-00004,
ZMA # 2008-003, ZMA # 2001-007 (referenced herein collectively as the “ZMA”). For
reference, SP1 from the ZMA application plan is attached hereto as Exhibit A.
While the Applicant believes that in some instances referenced herein no variation may in fact be
necessary in order to ensure that that the proposed initial site plan substantially conforms to the
approved ZMA application plan and code of development, Applicant is pursuing all of the below
to confirm compliance with applicable documents. The variations requested are set forth on the
pages subsequent hereto and are as follows:
2
Variation 1:
What type of change is requested?
Variation to the Plan
Variation to the Code or Standard
Provide a copy of the existing plan (may be a reduced copy) illustrating the area for which the
change is requested. Provide a graphic representation of the requested change.
Describe the variation being sought (may attach separate sheets):
1. Variation 1 consists of the below listed elements, A through E, that vary from the ZMA
application plan. While the noted elements may vary from different facets of the ZMA
application plan, they are interconnected in such a way that approval of each element of
this Variation 1 is needed in order to achieve the desired objective.
Element:
A. The Stonefield Code of Development (“Stonefield COD”) contemplated
adjustments in Block boundaries and that such adjustments may be considered
within the Variation process set forth in Section 8.5.5.3 of the County Zoning
Ordinance. Applicant is requesting approval of a variation that the modification
of the Block F and Block G boundaries as set forth on the attached Exhibit 1.1 is
acceptable.
B. Applicant is requesting approval of a variation that the location of the north-south
alignment and the geometry of District Avenue through Block F and Block G of
the project as set forth on the attached Exhibit 1.2 is acceptable.
C. Applicant is requesting approval of a variation that the relocation of the two (2)
“Future Extension” connections points to the north and the one (1) “Future
Extension” connection point to the south as set forth on the attached Exhibit 1.3
is acceptable.
D. Applicant is requesting approval of a variation with respect to the building
location, orientation, and allocation of square footage for the facility to be located
on Block F as set forth on the attached Exhibit 1.3.
E. Applicant is further requesting a variation of the quantity and orientation of the
buildings on Block G as represented Exhibit 1.3.
What is the reason for each of the requested variations?:
Element A:
1. Applicant has entered into a contract with Costco for development of a Costco
operation on the north side of the Stonefield project on TMP # 61W-3-19B.
2. To ensure construction of a safe and efficient site plan that accommodates
Costco’s development requirements, including building, parking and drive-lane
3
configurations, modification of the Block F and Block G boundaries as reflected
on Exhibit 1.1 is necessary.
3. Consistent with number 2 above, the requested modification of the Block F and
Block G boundary line permits the relocation of the north-south alignment of
District Avenue (fka Albemarle Place Boulevard) to a position just east of the
alignment reflected on ZMA application plan Exhibit A (SP1). Relocating
District Avenue away from the building’s entrance and to the far side of the
primary parking field minimizes the likelihood of conflicts between vehicles
using District Avenue and pedestrians, including those making use of shopping
carts and dollies to transport their purchases. The potential for vehicle and
pedestrian conflicts, absent the requested change, is a serious concern for
Applicant, Costco and Albemarle County staff.
4. The modification of the Block F and Block G boundaries allows the Applicant to
complete the interconnected street network and fulfill project concept
requirements while accommodating the use proposed for Block F.
5. Approval of this block boundary variation will be consistent with the process and
variation approval granted pursuant to Albemarle County Department of
Community Development Memorandum dated May, 16, 2011 [wherein
modification of the location of the Block D and Block E boundary line was
granted].
6. The requested variation amounts to an approximate eleven percent (11%)
adjustment to the Block F area beyond the fifteen percent (15%)
adjustment that is permitted without variation.
Element B:
1. The modification to the location of the north-south alignment of District Avenue
is needed to accommodate the larger building footprint and primary parking field
and to ensure a safe and efficient operation of the facility to be located within
Block F on TMP# 61W-3-19B.
2. As noted within Element A above, relocating the north-south alignment of
District Avenue away from the building’s entrance and to the far side of the
primary parking field minimizes conflicts between vehicles using District
Avenue and pedestrians, including those making use of shopping carts and
dollies to transport their purchases. The potential for vehicle and pedestrian
conflicts, absent the requested change, is a serious concern for Applicant, Costco
and Albemarle County staff.
3. The modification to the location of the north-south alignment of District Avenue
will also allow for an optimal connection in the future to Swanson Drive coming
from the Stonefield Town Center through the Northrop Grumman property,
should the Northrop Grumman property redevelop. This future alignment is
reflected on the attached Exhibit 1.4.
4. The modification to the number of lanes comprising District Avenue is required
to accommodate the attributes of the contemplated buildings and parking fields,
4
to ensure a compact development and to achieve a reasonable level of density on
the site.
5. The lane modification request consists of two elements. The first element is a
modification to a three & two-lane configuration to the east-west alignment
within the zone marked as Area A on the attached Exhibit 1.2. The second
element is a modification to a three-lane configuration to the north-south
alignment as reflected within the zone marked as Area B on the attached Exhibit
1.2.
6. Traffic capacity and safety issues will not be negatively impacted by the approval
of the requested variation.
7. To address County staff concerns regarding the ability to expand the number of
lanes of District Avenue within Area C in the future should the Northrop
Grumman property redevelop, Applicant is amenable to executing and recording
in the Albemarle County land records an easement, in a form acceptable to the
County, that will encompass the zone marked as Area C on the attached
Exhibit_1.2 and entitle the owner/developer of the Northrop Grumman property
the right to construct any future lanes as such may be approved by the County.
8. Additionally, the recorded document will require the owner of the land occupied
by District Avenue to maintain any new improvements until such time that the
County may request dedication of District Avenue to the County.
9. Modifying District Avenue from four (4) lanes to two (2) lanes, or three (3)
lanes, as applicable, helps to create more of a pedestrian scaled environment by
slowing vehicles down while still providing adequate capacity for traffic.
10. Approval of this variation will be consistent with the variation approved pursuant
to Albemarle County Department of Community Development Memorandum
dated May, 16, 2011 [wherein a modification from a four (4) lane section to a
two (2) lane section was approved for a segment of District Avenue (then
referred to as Stonefield Blvd)].
Element C:
1. Relocation of the “Future Extension” connection points to the north and south
allows for development of the site while accommodating the necessary
structures, parking, pedestrian walkways and access drives.
2. The location of the revised “Future Extension” connection points to the north and
south are consistent with the intent of the ZMA application plan and will allow
for multiple connections to the Seminole Place property and connectivity to the
Northrop Grumman property to the south, should these properties redevelop in
the future.
3. As noted within Elements A & B above, relocating the north-south alignment of
District Avenue away from the building and primary parking field for the
structure proposed for Block F minimizes the potential for conflicts between
vehicles using District Avenue and pedestrians.
5
4. Relocating the easternmost “Future Extension” connection point to the north, and
the “Future Extension” connection point to the south, consistent with the
modification of the north-south alignment of District Avenue, will allow for a
straighter connection and facilitate a smoother flow of traffic.
5. The mid-point “Future Extension” connection point will serve more as an inter-
parcel connection versus the easternmost “Future Extension” connection for
District Avenue which is envisioned more as a north-south connector road
parallel to Route 29.
6. Consistent with Element B above, the modification to the location of the north-
south alignment of District Avenue will allow for an optimal connection in the
future to Swanson Drive coming from the Stonefield Town Center through the
Northrop Grumman property and ultimately onto the Seminole Place property,
should these properties redevelop in the future. This future alignment is as
reflected on Exhibit 1.4.
Element D:
1. In order to accommodate the approximately 150,000 square feet of building on
TMP # 61W-3-19B it is necessary to locate and position the proposed structure
as reflected on Exhibit 1.3.
2. Block F and Block G are located within Block Group 3 of the Code of
Development and allocation of the square footage as requested with this variation
is permissible.
3. The combined square footage of the buildings proposed for Block F and Block G
is within the maximum applicable square footage permitted within Block Group
3.
4. The layout of the proposed building with respect to store entrance and loading
dock components, as submitted for this variation, is consistent with the ZMA
application plan. More specifically, the loading docks are at the western edge
and rear of the property and the main entrance for the proposed building is at the
eastern portion of the building and oriented towards Route 29.
Element E:
1. Block G and the remaining square footage that has not been reallocated to Block
F would function better as smaller dispersed retail structures with intermingled
parking throughout. This distribution of buildings serves two functions, 1. Split
up the view into a large parking area as originally approved and 2. Create a
superior visual barrier to the buildings/structures on Parcel F from the Route 29
Entrance Corridor.
2. Block F and Block G are located within Block Group 3 of the Code of
Development and allocation of the square footage as requested with this variation
is permissible.
6
3. The combined square footage of the buildings proposed for Block F and Block G
is within the maximum applicable square footage permitted within Block Group
3.
Elements A through E:
7. Given the configuration of TMP # 61W-3-19B and the size of the building
proposed for Block F, approval of these variations is required to allow the
development to proceed. While Costco has waived some of their standard
criteria to address some design modifications dictated by site, Applicant, County
Staff and ZMA application plan requirements, modification of the building
square footage and layout and other criteria that necessitate the subject variations,
is not an option given safety issues, site plan requirements and operating
standards. Thus, without approval of this requested variation, Applicant will be
unable to proceed with development of the Costco and this next phase of the
Stonefield project.
In accordance with § 8.5.5.3 (c) of the Zoning Ordinance, in order to grant the variation, the
Planning Director must make positive findings under 5 criteria. Please provide information about
these criteria for the Director’s consideration.
Elements A through E:
1. Is the variation consistent with the goals and objectives of the comprehensive plan? Is the
variation consistent with the goals and objectives of the comprehensive plan? Yes. The
variations are in accord with the stated Comprehensive Plan goals of mixed use and the
County’s Neighborhood Model District (“NMD”) objective of a compact and
interconnected design that is comprised of both residential and non-residential uses.
As Albemarle County’s first Neighborhood Model District (“NMD”), the Stonefield
project is located along two major roadways (Route 29 & Hydraulic Road) and is
designated to be a mixed-use center that allows a range of retail, housing and other
commercial uses. Applicant believes Variation Elements A – D and the plan resulting
therefrom, is consistent with the County’s Comprehensive Pan and meets the intent of the
NMD.
The initial phase of the “Town Center” portion of the Stonefield development, including
(i) the Shops at Stonefield, with Regal Cinema, Trader Joes and other retail and
restaurants, and (ii) the other components of the “Town Center” portion of the project, to
include the Hyatt Place Hotel and the 250-unit Stonefield Commons multi-family project,
are constructed and open, or currently under construction with openings scheduled in the
very near term.
Approval of the aforementioned variations will facilitate development of the next phase
of the Stonefield community and support the County’s desire to achieve a project that
provides an interconnected street and transportation network, enhances pedestrian and
mass transit access and contains and a mix of uses appropriate for the project.
7
Neighborhood Model Districts are intended to provide for compact, mixed-use
development with an urban scale, massing, density, and an infrastructure configuration
that integrates diversified uses within close proximity to each other.
The Applicant finds the proposed use to be an enhancement to the Stonefield project and
consistent with the intent of the NMD district as the mix of uses within Stonefield will
provide appropriate services and activities on a neighborhood, community and regional
scale. Accordingly, Applicant believes the proposed use meets the intent of the NMD.
The layout and square footage proposed for Block F are consistent with the Stonefield
COD and meet the intent of the NMD. Unlike Blocks A through E which have always
been intended as the “Town Center” components of the Stonefield project, Block F on the
north side has always been considered the “Power Center” portion of the development.
Thus, Applicant believes the proposed layout is consistent with the Stonefield COD and
meets the intent of the NMD.
The approval of the variations and the resulting development will be wholly consistent
with the Economic Development Policy component of the Comprehensive Plan in that
such action encourages infill development in a Development Area and supports a project
that meets the intent of the Neighborhood Model form of development.
Finally, approval of the requested variation fulfills a primary goal of the Economic
Vitality Action Plan, as adopted by the Board of Supervisors on August 4, 2010, by
expanding the commercial tax base and supporting the creation of quality jobs for local
residents.
2. Does the variation increase the approved development density or intensity of
development? No. The variation requested does not increase the approved development
density or intensity of development. The total proposed density of the Stonefield project ̶
when combining (i) the square footage of the ultimate build-out plan as approved with the
Albemarle Place/(Stonefield) – Preliminary Site Plan Amendment for Blocks A, B, C, D
& E [SDP # 2005-0122] with (ii) the square footage of the Costco building and other
square footage contemplated for TMP 61W-03-19B at Stonefield ̶ as such is reflected
on the table attached hereto as Exhibit B, is within the approved density as set forth in the
ZMA application plan.
3. Does the variation adversely affect the timing and phasing of development of any other
development in the zoning district? No.
4. Does the variation require a special use permit? No.
5. Is it in general accord with the purpose and intent of the approved rezoning application?
Yes.
Variation 2:
What type of change is requested?
Variation to the Plan
Variation to the Code or Standard
8
Provide a copy of the existing plan (may be a reduced copy) illustrating the area for which the
change is requested. Provide a graphic representation of the requested change.
Describe the variation being sought (may attach separate sheets):
1. Applicant is requesting approval of a variation that the permits the modification of the
location of the plaza area and elimination of the “Café” (as such are depicted within
Block F on the ZMA application plan). In lieu of such improvements, Applicant
proposes to construct enhanced pedestrian corridor as highlighted on the attached Exhibit
2.
What is the reason for each of the requested variations?:
1. The “Café” as depicted in the ZMA application plan was ill-conceived from the outset
and had no, or a very limited, prospect of ever being a feasible concept, current variation
requests and proposed plans notwithstanding.
2. The requested variation will provide for the development of an efficient site plan that
properly addresses building, parking, and vehicle circulation issues and allows for safe
pedestrian ingress and egress routes throughout the site, including an effective route that
optimizes access to the new CAT Route 7 bus stop.
3. Consistent with number 2 immediately above, approval of the requested variation and
construction of the pedestrian walkways as depicted on Exhibit 2, will optimize access to
the CAT bus stop (located on Route 29 at Block G) and provide pedestrian connectivity
to (i) the uses in Blocks F and G, (ii) the multi-family units located at Stonefield
Commons and (iii) the balance of the Stonefield project.
4. The proposed enhanced pedestrian corridor includes two expanded areas as highlighted
on Exhibit 2 where benches can be installed to provide seating and a respite area for
pedestrians.
5. The pedestrian walkways and the proposed park area as reflected on Exhibit 2 are
consistent with the original intent of the ZMA application plan.
In accordance with § 8.5.5.3 (c) of the Zoning Ordinance, in order to grant the variation, the
Planning Director must make positive findings under 5 criteria. Please provide information about
these criteria for the Director’s consideration (may attach separate sheets).
1. Is the variation consistent with the goals and objectives of the comprehensive plan? Is the
variation consistent with the goals and objectives of the comprehensive plan? Yes. The
variation is in accord with the stated Comprehensive Plan goals of mixed use and the
County’s Neighborhood Model District objective of a project with a compact and
interconnected design, including safe and efficient pedestrian connections, that is
comprised of both residential and non-residential uses.
Approval of this variation will facilitate development of the next phase of the Stonefield
community, allow for the installation of the enhanced pedestrian corridor to include the
connection to the new CAT Route 7 bus stop and support the County’s desire to achieve a
project that enhances pedestrian and mass transit access.
9
The approval of the variation and the resulting development will be wholly consistent
with the Economic Development Policy component of the Comprehensive Plan in that
such action encourages infill development in a Development Area and supports a project
that meets the intent of the Neighborhood model form of development.
Finally, approval of the requested variation fulfills a primary goal of the Economic
Vitality Action Plan, as adopted by the Board of Supervisors on August 4, 2010, by
expanding the commercial tax base and supporting the creation of quality jobs for local
residents.
2. Does the variation increase the approved development density or intensity of
development? No. The variation requested does not increase the approved development
density or intensity of development. The total proposed density of the Stonefield project ̶
when combining (i) the square footage of the ultimate build-out plan as approved with the
Albemarle Place/(Stonefield) – Preliminary Site Plan Amendment for Blocks A, B, C, D
& E [SDP # 2005-0122] with (ii) the square footage of the Costco building and other
square footage contemplated for TMP 61W-03-19B at Stonefield ̶ as such is reflected
on the table attached hereto as Exhibit B, is within the approved density as set forth in the
ZMA application plan.
3. Does the variation adversely affect the timing and phasing of development of any other
development in the zoning district? No.
4. Does the variation require a special use permit? No.
5. Is it in general accord with the purpose and intent of the approved rezoning application?
Yes.
§ 8.5.5.3 VARIATIONS FROM APPROVED PLANS, CODES, AND STANDARDS OF
DEVELOPMENT
The director of planning and community development may allow a site plan or subdivision plat
for a planned development to vary from an approved application plan, standard of development
and, also, in the case of a neighborhood model district, a general development plan or code of
development, as provided herein:
a) The director is authorized to grant a variation from the following provisions of an approved
plan, code or standard:
1) Minor variations to yard requirements, maximum structure heights and minimum lot
sizes;
2) Changes to the arrangement of buildings and uses shown on the plan, provided that the
major elements shown on the plan and their relationships remain the same;
3) Changes to phasing plans;
4) Minor changes to landscape or architectural standards; and
5) Minor variations to street design.
. . . . .
10
b) Any variation not expressly provided for herein may be accomplished by rezoning.
ATTACHMENT C
33.5 UNIFORM PROCEDURES FOR SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS
Each application for a special exception shall be subject to the following:
a. Matters requiring a special exception. Notwithstanding any other section of this chapter:
1. Any request for a waiver, modification, variation or substitution permitted by this chapter
shall be considered and acted upon by the board of supervisors, provided that no special
exception shall be required for the development and construction of residential dwellings
at the use, height and density permitted by right in the applicable district as provided by
Virginia Code § 15.2-2288.1.
2. Any requirement for a decision by the commission required by this chapter shall be
considered and acted upon by the board of supervisors. For the purposes of this section, a
decision by the commission does not include the consideration and action by the
commission on a preliminary or final site plan under section 32 of this chapter or any
variation or exception provided in section 32.
b. Application. Each application for a special exception shall be made as provided by, and include
the information required by, the applicable section of this chapter authorizing the waiver,
modification, variation or substitution. An application shall be deemed to be officially submitted
when the applicant has submitted all of the required information as determined by the director of
planning.
c. Public hearings. Before the board of supervisors acts on a special exception that would increase
by greater than fifty (50) percent the bulk or height of an existing or proposed building within
one-half mile of an adjoining locality, the commission shall hold at least one public hearing
before making its recommendation to the board on each application. The board shall hold at least
one public hearing before approving an application.
d. Notice of public hearings. Notice of public hearing before the commission and the board of
supervisors on an application for which a public hearing is required under subs ection (c) shall be
provided as required by Virginia Code § 15.2-2204(C).
e. Time for decision. Each application for a special exception shall be acted on by the board of
supervisors within ninety (90) days following the first meeting of the commission after it was
referred to the commission, according to the schedule established and administered by the
director of planning, or concurrently with a zoning map amendment, special use permit, or site
plan appeal, whichever is longer.
f. Recommendation by planning commission. For those applications considered by the commission,
the commission shall either recommend approval of the application as proposed, approval of the
application with changes to be made prior to action on the application by the board of
supervisors, or disapproval. The commission’s recommendation should include its
recommendations on the proposed conditions.
g. Action by the board of supervisors. The board of supervisors may either approve the application,
deny the application, or defer action to allow changes to be made prior to final action by the
board. In approving the application, the board may impose conditions as provided in section 33.9.
h. Judicial review. Any action contesting a decision of the board of supervisors under this section
shall be as provided in Virginia Code § 15.2-2285(F).
(§ 33.5, Ord. 12-18(7), 12-5-12, effective 4-1-13; § 31.8, Ord. 12-18(1), 2-8-12)
State law reference – Va. Code § 15.2-2286(A)(3), 15.2-2288.1.
33.9 SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS; RELEVANT FACTORS TO BE CONSIDERED; CONDITIONS
Special exceptions shall be subject to the following:
a. Factors to be considered when acting. In acting upon a special exception, the board of
supervisors shall consider the factors, standards, criteria, and findings, however denominated, in
the applicable sections of this chapter, provided that the board shall not be required to make
specific findings in support of its decision.
b. Conditions. In approving a special exception, the board of supervisors may impose reasonable
conditions to address any possible impacts of the special exception.
(§ 33.9, Ord. 12-18(7), 12-5-12, effective 4-1-13; § 31.8, Ord. 12-18(1), 2-8-12)
State law reference – Va. Code § 15.2-2286(A)(3).