HomeMy WebLinkAbout2011-4-06Tentative
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
T E N T A T I V E
APRIL 6, 2011
9:00 A.M., AUDITORIUM
COUNTY OFFICE BUILDING
1. Call to Order.
2. Pledge of Allegiance.
3. Moment of Silence.
4. Recognitions:
a. Fair Housing Month Proclamation.
5. From the Board: Matters Not Listed on the Agenda.
6. From the Public: Matters Not Listed for Public Hearing on the Agenda.
7. Consent Agenda (on next sheet).
8. 9:30 a.m. - Quarterly Updates:
a. Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority, Tom Frederick.
b. Resource Management Review Quarterly Report.
c. VDoT, Karen Kilby.
10:30 a.m. - Work Sessions:
9. Review of Road Improvement Priorities for Primary and Secondary Roads and VDOT Six Year Construction
Program.
10. 2011 Proposed Redistricting Plan Options.
11. Action Item: Community Development Work Program.
12. Closed Meeting.
13. Certify Closed Meeting.
14. Boards and Commissions:
a. Vacancies/Appointments.
1:30 p.m. – Action Items:
15. Set Calendar Year 2011 Tax Levy.
16. Adoption of FY 2011/2012 Operating and Capital Budgets.
Public Hearings:
17. Request to amend the jurisdictional areas of the Albemarle County Service Authority for water service to Tax Map
62, Parcel 28A, for John Vermillion, located on the corner Stony Point Road (Route 20) and Cason Farm Road,
approximately 1 mile north of the intersection of Stony Point Road (Route 20) and US 250. Rivanna Magisterial District.
18. PROJECT: SP-2010-000023. Westminster Canterbury Apartments - Parking
Structure (Signs #56:). PROPOSED: Parking Structure. ZONING CATEGORY/GENERAL USAGE:
PRD - Planned Residential Development - PRD Planned Residential District, which allows residential (3-34 units/acre)
file:////coba-webapp01/BOSForms/Agenda/2011Files/Migration/20110406/00_Agenda.htm (1 of 3) [10/7/2020 3:20:22 PM]
Tentative
with limited commercial uses. SECTION: 19.3.2(7) Parking Structure. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE/DENSITY:
Urban Density Residential - residential (6.01-34 units/acre) and supporting uses such as religious institutions, schools,
commercial, office and service uses, Greenspace and Rural Areas - preserve and protect agricultural, forestal, open
space, and natural, historic and scenic resources/ density (.5 unit/acre in development density) in Neighborhood 3.
ENTRANCE CORRIDOR: Yes. LOCATION: This facility is proposed in the Westminster Canterbury Development which is
located on the north side of Richmond Road (US Route 250) approximately 1,000 feet east of State Farm Blvd. (Rt 1117).
TAX MAP/PARCEL: 78-55A6. MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Rivanna.
19. PROJECT: SP-2010-00028. Charlottesville KOA (Sign #72). PROPOSED: Special
Use Permit to bring an existing campground into compliance with the Zoning Ordinance and to add six cabins. ZONING
CATEGORY/GENERAL USAGE: RA Rural Areas - agricultural, forestal, and fishery uses; residential density (0.5 unit/acre
in development lots). SECTION: 10.2.2 (20) Day camp, boarding camp. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE/DENSITY:
Rural Areas - preserve and protect agricultural, forestal, open space, and natural, historic and scenic resources/ density
(.5 unit/acre in development lots). ENTRANCE CORRIDOR: No. LOCATION: 3825 Red Hill Road (Rt. 708) approx. one
mile northwest of Scottsville Road (Rt 20S) junction. TAX MAP/PARCEL: 101000000052A1. MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT:
Samuel Miller.
20. Request from Charlottesville KOA Campground for central water and sewer systems.
21. PROJECT: SP-2010-0058. Charlottesville Power Equipment (Signs
#109n). PROPOSED: To establish outdoor storage, display and/or sales of power equipment in the
Entrance Corridor (EC) Overlay District. ZONING CATEGORY/GENERAL USAGE: Highway Commercial (HC) -
commercial and service uses; and residential use by special use permit (15 units/acre) in Urban Area Neighborhood 2;
Entrance Corridor (EC) - overlay to protect properties of historic, architectural or cultural significance from visual impacts
of development along routes of tourist access. SECTION: 30.6.3 (a)(2) which allows outdoor storage, display and/or sales
in the Entrance Corridor (EC) Overlay District by special use permit. No residential units are proposed.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE/DENSITY: Community Service - community-scale retail, wholesale, business and
medical offices, mixed use core communities and/or employment services, and residential (6.01-34 units/acre).
ENTRANCE CORRIDOR: Yes. LOCATION: At the northwest corner of the intersection of Rio Road East (Rt. 631) with
Putt Putt Place. TAX MAP/PARCEL: 06100-00-00-124F0. MAGISERIAL DISTRICT: Rio.
22. PROJECT: ZTA -2009-00016. Monticello Historic District (MHD). Amend Secs.
11.1, Intent and purpose, where permitted, and 11.3.1, By right uses, of Chapter 18, Zoning, of the Albemarle County
Code. This ordinance would amend Sec. 11.1 to include a statement pertaining to usual and customary uses within the
MHD considering the unique nature of the district; and amend Sec. 11.3.1 by amending subsection (24) to delete the
restrictions on the number of persons and required purposes for occupying the Monticello scholar residences, and by
adding subsection (25) to allow special events by which attendance is permitted by invitation or reservation for up to 3
consecutive days.
23. PROJECTS: SP-2010-00035. Blue Ridge Swim Club - Day Camp, Boarding
Camp and SP-2010-00041. Blue Ridge Swim Club (Sign #78). PROPOSED: Special Use
Permit for a summer camp that would allow overnight stays; continue existing swimming pool use for members; and allow
special events and concession sales on 13.206 acres. ZONING CATEGORY/GENERAL USAGE: RA Rural Areas -
agricultural, forestal, and fishery uses; residential density (0.5 unit/acre in development lots). SECTION: 10.2.2 (20) Day
camp, boarding camp (reference 5.1.05); Section 10.2.2(4) Swim, golf, tennis or similar athletic facilities (reference
5.1.16); Section 10.2.2(5) Special Events (reference 5.1.43). COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE/DENSITY: Rural
Areas - preserve and protect agricultural, forestal, open space, and natural, historic and scenic resources/ density (.5 unit/
acre in development lots). ENTRANCE CORRIDOR: No. LOCATION: 1275 Owensville Rd. (Rt. 678), north of Holkham Dr.
TAX MAP/PARCEL: 058000000075A0. MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Samuel Miller.
file:////coba-webapp01/BOSForms/Agenda/2011Files/Migration/20110406/00_Agenda.htm (2 of 3) [10/7/2020 3:20:22 PM]
Tentative
24. From the Board: Matters Not Listed on the Agenda.
25. Adjourn.
C O N S E N T A G E N D A
FOR APPROVAL:
7.1 Approval of Minutes: November 5(A), December 15(A) and December 21(A), 2010.
7.2 Citizen Proposed Resolution of Intent to Amend the Zoning Ordinance to Allow Domesticated Pigs in
Residential Districts.
7.3 FY2011 Budget Amendment and Appropriations.
7.4 FY11 Second Quarter Financial Report.
7.5 Update on Regional Cooperation Committees: Departments of Social Services and Fire/Rescue, and to
Review the Revenue Sharing/Annexation Agreement and Local Composite Index.
7.6 Resolution Urging Revenue Stream and Dedicated Revenue Source for the Intercity Passenger Rail
Operating and Capital Fund.
7.7 Resolution to Accept Road(s) in West End at Western Ridge Subdivision into the State Secondary System of
Highways.
7.8 Set public hearing for May 4, 2011 to consider an Amendment to County Code, Appendix A.1, Acquisition of
Conservation Easements Program (ACE).
FOR INFORMATION:
7.9 EMS Cost Recovery Program Update.
7.10 Albemarle County Service Authority Quarterly Report.
Return to Top of Agenda
Return to Board of Supervisors Home Page
Return to County Home Page
file:////coba-webapp01/BOSForms/Agenda/2011Files/Migration/20110406/00_Agenda.htm (3 of 3) [10/7/2020 3:20:22 PM]
FAIR HOUSING MONTH
WHEREAS, April 2011, marks the forty-third anniversary of the passage of the Fair Housing Act of
1968, which sought to eliminate discrimination in housing opportunities and to
affirmatively further housing choices for all Americans; and
WHEREAS, the ongoing struggle for dignity and housing opportunity for all is not the exclusive
province of the Federal government; and
WHEREAS, vigorous local efforts to combat discrimination can be as effective, if not more so, than
Federal efforts; and
WHEREAS, illegal barriers to equal opportunity in housing, no matter how subtle, diminish the
rights of all;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED,
that in the pursuit of the shared goal and responsibility of providing equal housing
opportunities for all men and women, the Board of County Supervisors of Albemarle
County, Virginia, does hereby join in the national celebration by proclaiming
APRIL, 2011
as
FAIR HOUSING MONTH
and encourages all agencies, institutions and individuals, public and private, in
Albemarle County to abide by the letter and the spirit of the Fair Housing law.
Signed and sealed this 6th day of April, 2011.
Return to agenda
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
Citizen Proposed Resolution of Intent to Amend the Zoning
Ordinance to Allow Domesticated Pigs in Residential
Districts
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Citizen proposal to amend Chapter 18, Zoning, Section
3.1, Definitions, of the Albemarle County Code to define
“Companion Animals” to include domesticated pigs for the
purpose of permitting them in Residential Zoning Districts
subject to certain limitations
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Messrs. Foley, Elliott, Davis, Kamptner, and Graham, and
Ms. McCulley, Ms. Baldwin, and Ms. L. Jenkins
LEGAL REVIEW: Yes
AGENDA DATE:
April 6, 2011
ACTION: INFORMATION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: X INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS: Yes
REVIEWED BY:
BACKGROUND:
This issue arose after Zoning staff received a complaint about two “pet pigs” on the applicant’s private residential
property (zoned R1) in the County. The applicant obtained the American Guinea Hogs from out of state, after
significant research about an appropriate companion animal for the family. The Zoning Ordinance does not distinguish
domesticated pigs from agricultural swine. Because swine are only allowed in the Rural Areas and Village Residential
districts where agriculture is permitted by-right, Zoning issued an official determination of zoning violation. The
applicant, Mr. Robert Kusyk, appealed that determination and submitted a request for an ordinance amendment to
allow domesticated pigs as pets in the residential districts (Attachment A).
Zoning and Animal Control staff met with the applicant to discuss concerns about his proposed ordinance amendment.
The applicant wishes to pursue a Zoning Ordinance amendment to allow pet pigs in residential districts,
notwithstanding staff’s recommendation for denial.
DISCUSSION:
Community Development staff recognize that the issue of urban agriculture is timely and worthy of further exploration
during the County Comprehensive Plan review and update. Staff suggests that the proposed zoning text amendment
is premature until further study can occur regarding urban farming and other types of agricultural animals, such as
goats, chickens and ducks.
In its research of this proposal, the Animal Control Unit found several potential negative effects on the community (See
Attachment B):
1. Diseases – Pigs harbor parasites and diseases that can be transferred to humans. Vaccines are not available
for all of these dangers and domestic pigs are not regulated.
2. Destruction – Pigs have razor-like teeth and the males have tusks. Unrestrained pigs can damage vegetation,
habitat and personal property. Pigs can be territorial and aggressive when they feel threatened by people or
pets. They are difficult to contain and often escape their enclosures. Pigs are herd animals and will roam,
especially when a female is in heat. Free-roaming pigs can quickly become feral because they easily adapt to
their surroundings.
3. Environmental – Pigs create an unpleasant smell and excrete high levels of nitrogen into the soil and water.
4. Difficulty for Animal Control – Pigs are difficult to capture, often requiring the aid of a trapper or experienced
pig handler. Their size and weight make them difficult to contain and transport in animal control trucks.
Storage and housing are not available. Pigs’ owners rarely reclaim them and often abandon them when they
become too large.
5. Proliferation – Most pigs are not neutered or spayed and start breeding at 3 months of age. Females can have
large (9-14 piglets) and frequent (3 times a year) litters.
AGENDA TITLE: Citizen Proposed Resolution of Intent to Amend the Zoning Ordinance to Allow Domesticated Pigs
in Residential Districts
April 6, 2011
Page 2
In summary, there are numerous unresolved concerns about allowing domestic pigs in residential districts. Staff
believes that regulations to address the above concerns would have to be researched and considered as part of an
ordinance amendment. The Animal Control Unit is already at its capacity dealing with the current animal-related
issues in the County. Staff cannot identify an overwhelming public purpose for this ordinance amendment that would
outweigh both these concerns and the impact on the workload of the Animal Control Unit.
BUDGET IMPACT:
If an ordinance is adopted to allow keeping of pigs in residential districts, staff anticipates the necessity of some
type of zoning permitting process. Administration and enforcement of the permit would have an impact on Zoning
staff; although the extent of that impact is difficult to estimate. Zoning enforcement staffing is currently at a 57%
reduction, and zoning complaints so far this year, with three Code Enforcement Officers (CEOs) on staff, is at the
same level as Zoning experienced when there were five CEOs.
The Animal Control Unit is currently at its capacity to cover the entire County with four (4) officers. (A fourth officer
was recently added to cover the existing workload). While staff cannot estimate the specific workload impact, it is
staff’s opinion that adoption of this ordinance would increase the workload of the Animal Control Unit. Dealing with
a call about a domestic pig, especially if it must be captured, requires more than one officer to respond, as well as
the need for trapping equipment and holding facilities, which the Animal Control Unit does not currently have.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends that the Board deny the request for a resolution of intent and defer any further consideration of this
issue and any related issues to the Comprehensive Plan review. However, if the Board wishes to pursue the request
sooner, staff recommends that the Board prioritize this request in the Community Development Work Plan and provide
staff adequate time to further research the relevant issues prior to scheduling a Board work session.
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A: Applicant’s Submittal
Attachment B: Information from Albemarle County Animal Control Unit
Attachment C: Relevant Zoning Ordinance Regulations
Return to consent agenda
Return to regular agenda
Attachment C: Resolution of Intent to Allow Domestic Pigs in Residential Districts
RELEVANT ZONING ORDINANCE REGULATIONS RELATING TO KEEPING OF
DOMESTIC PIGS
Agriculture: Horticulture, viticulture, silviculture or other gardening which may involve the
tilling of soil for the raising of crops; the keeping of livestock and/or poultry; and/or
agricultural industries or businesses, such as, but not limited to, orchards, fruit packing
plants, dairies, nurseries, farm sales, farm stands and farmers’ markets . (Amended 12-
2-87, 5-5-10) {Bold and underlined emphasis added}
Livestock: Domestic animals normally raised on a farm such as draft horses, cows,
swine, goats, sheep. {Bold and underlined emphasis added}
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
FY 2011 Budget Amendment and Appropriations
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Approval of Budget Amendment and Appropriation
#2011070, #2011071, #2011072, #2011073, and
#2011074 for various school and general government
programs
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Messrs. Foley, Letteri, and Davis; and Ms. L.
Allshouse
LEGAL REVIEW: Yes
AGENDA DATE:
April 6, 2011
ACTION: INFORMATION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: X INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS: Yes
REVIEWED BY:
BACKGROUND:
Virginia Code § 15.2-2507 provides that any locality may amend its budget to adjust the aggregate amount to be
appropriated during the fiscal year as shown in the currently adopted budget; provided, however, any such
amendment which exceeds one percent of the total expenditures shown in the currently adopted budget must be
accomplished by first publishing a notice of a meeting and holding a public hearing before amending the budget. The
Code section applies to all County funds, i.e., General Fund, Capital Funds, E911, School Self-Sustaining, etc.
With the exception of appropriation #2011073, which moves funding within the FY 2011 budget, the total of the
requested FY 2011 appropriations itemized below is $419,875.66. A budget amendment public hearing is not required
because the amount of the cumulative appropriations does not exceed one percent of the currently adopted budget.
DISCUSSION:
This request involves the approval of five (5) FY 2011 appropriations as follows:
Two (2) appropriations (#2011070 and #2011072) totaling $42,148.46 for various School Division programs;
One (1) appropriation (#2011071) totaling $187,727.20 to reappropriate funding for the purchase of
replacement vehicles for the Police Department;
One (1) appropriation (#2011073) totaling $3,000.00 from the Board’s contingency reserve to fund expenses
associated with the 2011 Prisoner Reentry Summit to be held in April 2011. This appropriation will not
increase the total County budget; and
One (1) appropriation (#2011074) totaling $190,000.00 in Safe Routes to Schools Grant funding from the
Virginia Department of Transportation for an extension of the Crozet North Sidewalk improvements.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends approval of the budget amendment in the amount of $419,875.66 and the approval of Appropriations
#2011070, #2011071, #2011072, #2011073, and #2011074.
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A – Appropriations Descriptions
Return to consent agenda
Return to regular agenda
Attachment A
Appropriation #2011070 $40,294.95
Revenue Source: Local Revenue $ 7,000.00
State Revenue $ 20,830.00
Federal Revenue $ 12,464.95
This request is for the following three School Division grants appropriations:
Albemarle County Schools has been awarded an additional $12,464.95 for Migrant Education Programs (MEP)
under a United States Department of Education (USED) Literacy Education and Reading Network -2-Succeed
(LEARN-2-Succeed) Consortium Incentive Grant (CIG). The mission of the Migrant CIG is to provide teachers with
tools for quickly assessing and providing supplemental research-based lessons to Migrant students in order to
improve their foundational literacy skills. Educators use the website to quickly identify individual student literary
needs and access instructional lessons designed to improve specific literacy skills in support of the Division’s
strategic plan. The Migrant CIG supports the assessment of literacy skills needs and the provision of supplemental
tutoring.
Albemarle County Schools has been awarded a grant from the Commonwealth of Virginia Department of Housing
Community Development in the amount of $20,830.00. The GED and Beyond Grant will provide individuals who are
close to completing their GED, and those who have recently received a GED, the opportunity to participate in
Employability Skills and Access to Career Pathways Workshops. These workshops will be held at the Virginia
Workforce Center in the afternoon and Albemarle High School in the evening. The workshops will focus on
supporting clients’ successful transition into employment and/or into higher education or licensure programs. The
workshops will include speakers from local employers, the Virginia Workforce Center, CATEC, PVCC , and UVA.
Students will develop resumes, cover letters, and thank you letters as a part of the workshop series and will
participate in mock interviews with Human Resources representatives from local companies. All participants will
have the opportunity to utilize technology to search for job openings, apply for positions , and participate in on-line
registration for courses in higher education.
Albemarle County Public Schools has been awarded a grant in the amount of $7,000 from Charlottesville Area
Community Foundation for the Families in Crisis Program. The mission of the Families in Crisis Program is to
provide an effective structure to meet the needs of homeless students, whose families are in crisis, ensuring they
receive equitable access to Division services in support of the Division’s strategic plan. The Families in Crisis
Program supports the following major programs and/or services: tutoring, transportation to the school of origin,
counseling, collaboration with schools, assistance with school registration and collaboration with service agencies.
Appropriation #2011071 $187,727.20
Revenue Source: Fund Balance (Vehicle Replacement Fund) $ 187,727.20
This request reappropriates $187,727.20 in fund balance from the Vehicle Replacement Fund to provide funding for
Police replacement vehicles which were approved in FY 09/10. Although this process was initiated towards the end
of FY 09/10, due to the timing of the purchase and receipt of these vehicles, this expense was charged in FY 10/11.
Appropriation #2011072 $1,853.51
Revenue Source: Local Revenue $ 1,853.51
This request is for two School Division appropriations:
First, this request is to appropriate a donation received by Stone Robinson Elementary School in the amount of
$100.00. This donation was made in memory of Jeanette and T. R. Fuller, parents of Mike and Kathy Fuller. Kathy
Fuller is a teacher at Stone Robinson Elementary. The donor requested that the memory of Jeanette and T.R. be
honored by this donation to Kathy’s school. Their contribution will be used to purchase any instructional supplies
needed at Stone Robinson Elementary.
Second, this request is to appropriate a donation that Henley Middle School received in the amount of $1,753.51
from Henley’s Parent and Teacher Support Organizat ion. The donor has requested that their contribution be used to
help fund the “Enrichment Time before 9” program for the months of December 2010 and January 2011 at Henley
Middle School.
Appropriation #2011073 $0.00
Revenue Source: Board Contingency Reserve $3,000.00
This appropriation provides $3,000 from the Board of Supervisors’ Contingency Reserve to fund costs associated with
the 2011 Prisoner Reentry Summit to be held in April 2011. The purpose of the Summit is to promote awareness,
provide education and training, and facilitate improved coordination of reentry services to prisoners and ex-offenders
in the community. This request was brought before the Board at its March 9, 2011 meeting, at which time the Board
directed staff to prepare an appropriation for this amount and purpose. This appropriation will not increase the total
County budget.
Appropriation #2011074 $190,000.00
Revenue Source: State Revenue $190,000.00
This request appropriates a total of $190,000.00 in grant revenue received by the Virginia Department of
Transportation. VDOT awarded the County a Safe Routes to Schools Grant for an extension of the Crozet North
Sidewalk improvements. This improves walking and bicycling routes to Crozet Elementary School for students from
residential neighborhoods by funding the design and construction of curb and sidewalk on the west side of Crozet
Avenue from Ballard Drive to the school. The improvements also include installation of a manually activated
crosswalk warning system at the pedestrian crossing to the school. The grant will be administered by the Office of
Facilities Development. There is no match required.
Return to exec summary
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
FY11 Second Quarter Financial Report
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Second Quarter Financial Report for the six months
ending December 31, 2010
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Messrs. Foley, Letteri, Davis, Koonce, and Walters
LEGAL REVIEW: Yes
AGENDA DATE:
April 06, 2011
ACTION: INFORMATION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: INFORMATION: X
ATTACHMENTS: Yes
REVIEWED BY:
BACKGROUND:
The attached Financial Report provides information on the County’s General Fund operations and Fund Balance as of
December 31, 2010. The financial report includes a bar chart that compares current fiscal year revenue and expenditure
data with data from the previous fiscal year.
DISCUSSION:
($ in Millions)
A. Attachment A: General Fund Financial Report:
a. Revenues:
Revenues, excluding Transfers and Fund Balance Appropriations, are estimated to total $211.951 million,
$1.414 million (0.7%) more than appropriations of $210.537 million. Combined with the use of $2.392
million in transfers from other funds and $0.806 million in fund balance, Revenues, Transfers, and Use of
Fund Balance will total $215.149 million, $1.080 million (0.5%) more than Budget.
Recent economic data continues to point toward moderate growth. Both consumer and business
confidence has improved. GDP grew 2.8% in the fourth quarter of 2010. This marked the sixth consecutive
quarter of growth since the recession officially ended in June 2009. Employment has improved. Initial
claims for unemployment have decreased. The Conference Board’s index of leading indicators rose for the
sixth consecutive monthly increase. The Virginia Leading Index rose for its second consecutive monthly
increase. Virginia sales tax continues to grow as consumers cautiously increase discretionary spending.
Following is a brief revenue analysis for the FY11 fiscal year:
Real Estate Tax revenues are projected to be $0.801 million (0.7%) less than Budget, a decrease
of $0.367 million from the previous Financial Report. The FY11 Budget was based on negative
0.50% 2011 tax year reassessment rate. The final 2011 tax year reassessment rate was a
negative 1.24%. A Tax Year is equivalent to a calendar year. Its effects are realized over 2
consecutive fiscal years with the 1st half in one fiscal year and the 2nd half in the next fiscal year.
A 1.0% change in the reassessment rate is equivalent to $1.316 million in real estate tax
revenues for the 2011 tax year.
Personal Property Tax revenues are estimated to exceed Budget by $0.049 million (0.3%), a
decrease of $0.120 million from the previous Financial Report. The immediate impact of the
Cash for Clunkers program has faded out over time.
Delinquent Property Taxes & Fees are estimated to exceed Budget by $0.422 million (18.1%), an
increase of $0.126 million over the previous Financial Report. Additional compliance
enforcement through the DMV Stop and Department of TAX Set-off Debt programs has
generated additional revenues. Delinquent fees previously implemented have also encouraged
payment of delinquent taxes to avoid additional fees.
AGENDA TITLE: FY11 Second Quarter Financial Report
April 6, 2011
Page 2
Sales Tax revenues are estimated to exceed Budget by $0.930 million (8.4%), an increase of
$0.100 million over the previous Financial Report. The overall impact is due to both increased
consumer purchases as well as our auditor findings. Taxpayers continue to be cautious but have
begun to slightly increase discretionary spending as the economy improves. The auditor has
identified $0.724 million in misallocated sales tax revenues which have been approved by the
state to be transferred to Albemarle from other localities over a six month period with an
additional estimated $0.293 million in process. On-going annual receipts should increase
approximately $0.287 million based on the approved adjustments. Significant revenues continue
to be lost to internet purchases and consumer purchases in adjacent localities.
Business License, BPOL, revenues are estimated to exceed Budget by $0.114 million (1.2%), a
$0.153 million decrease from the previous Financial Report. BPOL revenues are based on gross
receipts for the previous year which usually lag current sales tax revenues by a year.
Utility Tax revenues are estimated to exceed Budget by $0.247 million (2.7%), an increase of
$0.178 million over the previous Financial Report. The increase is due to anticipated additional
revenues resulting from recent cold winter conditions.
Food and Beverage Tax revenues are estimated to be $0.350 million (6.2%) less than Budget, a
$0.143 million decrease from the previous Financial Report. Consumers are continuing to eat
more at home and visiting restaurants less frequently.
Other Local Revenues are estimated to exceed Budget by $0.131 million (2.5%), an increase of
$0.115 million over the previous Financial Report. We are beginning to see additional
development revenues as recent fee increases have been implemented.
State Revenues are estimated to exceed Budget by $0.446 million (2.0%), a $0.052 million
decrease from the previous Financial Report. The excess over Budget is due to additional
funding for constitutional offices approved by the General Assembly subsequent to approval of
this Budget as well as increased reimbursements for DSS services.
Federal Revenues are estimated to exceed Budget by $0.242 million (5.5%), an increase of
$0.166 million over the previous Financial Report. The increase is primarily due to increased
reimbursements for DSS services.
Uses of Other Funds transfers are estimated to be $0.334 million (12.2%) less than Budget, an
increase of $0.025 million over the previous Financial Report. The number of School Resource
Officers has been reduced to 3.
Revenue categories with variances of less than $0.100 million from Budget have not been
analyzed for this report.
b. Expenditures:
General Fund expenditures, including transfers, are expected to total $211.722 million, a 1.1% savings of
$2.347 million from Budget. The savings include frozen positions, reduced health care expense, VRS
savings, additional Police salary lapse, and release of the revenue shortfall contingency.
i. Departmental expenditures are expected to total $78.869 million, a 1.6% savings of $1.262
million from Budget: The savings are allocated by functional area as follows:
Administration expenditures are expected to total $10.394 million, a savings of $0.098
million.
Judicial expenditures are expected to total $3.790 million, a savings of $0.124 million.
Public Safety expenditures are expected to total $28.869 million, a savings of $0.522
million.
Public Works expenditures are expected to total $4.390 million, a savings of $0.140 million.
Human Services expenditures are expected to total $18.992 million, a savings of $0.246
million.
AGENDA TITLE: FY11 Second Quarter Financial Report
April 6, 2011
Page 3
Parks and Culture expenditures are expected to total $6.214 million, a savings of $0.036
million.
Community Development expenditures are expected to total $6.221 million, a savings of
$0.096 million.
ii. Non-Department expenditures consisting of the revenue sharing payment, reserves, and
refunds are expected to total $19.816 million, a savings of $1.085 million including release of
the revenue contingency reserve.
iii. Transfers are expected to equal Budget at $113.037 million:
Transfer to the School Division is expected to be $96.058 million.
Transfers to the Capital and Debt funds are $16.979 million.
c. Revenues less Expenditures:
This report projects that the fiscal year will end with $3.427 million of revenues in excess of expenditures.
Revenues and related transfers are projected to exceed Budget by $1.080 million. Expenditures and
related transfers are expected to produce $2.347 million in savings.
.
B. Attachment B: General Fund Budget Comparison Report:
The chart report tracks changes in revenues and expenditures over time.
Revenues:
Personal Property Tax, Sales Tax, Utility Tax, Other Local Revenue, and Federal Revenue show
positive growth over FY10.
Real Estate Tax, Business License, Food and Beverage Tax, Other Local Taxes, State Revenue,
Transfers from Other Funds, and Use of Fund Balance show decreases from FY10.
Expenditures:
Administration, Judicial, Public Safety, Public Works, Human Services, Parks & Culture,
Community Development, and Non-Departmental expenditures show anticipated increases over
FY10.
Non-School and School Transfers show anticipated decreases from FY10.
C. Attachment C: Fund Balance Report:
The report indicates that the County:
Had an Audited FY10 Undesignated Fund Balance of $24.56 million,
Appropriated $0.807 million for Budgeted FY11 Initiatives and Reappropriations,
Has a remaining June 30, 2010 Fund Balance of $23.759 million,
Has no proposed FY11 commitments,
Has Policy required reserves of $20.905 million, and
Has available funds of $2.854 million as of June 30, 2010.
The $20.905 million Policy reserve consists of the 8% net General Government and School Operating Budget requirement.
It does not include the estimated $2.613 Revenue Stabilization reserve which has not been formally adopted by the Board
of Supervisors. It is anticipated that the policy with specifics will be presented to the Board for discussion and approval in
late summer or early fall. Had the Policy been adopted, the June 30, 2010 available Fund Balance would be $0.241 million.
D. Budget Impact:
This Financial Report is based on audited FY10 financial data and six months of financial data for FY11. Staff has
utilized these figures as the basis for the FY12 Budget.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
This report has been prepared for your information. No action is required.
ATTACHMENTS;
A – Preliminary General Fund End-of -Year Financial Report
B – Preliminary General Fund Budget Comparison Report
C – Preliminary General Fund Balance Report
Return to consent agenda
Return to regular agenda
Attachment A
FY 09/10 Current FY 10/11
Full Year
Actual (1)
12/31/09
YTD Actual
YTD Actual
as % of
Full Year
07/01/10
Adopted (2)
12/31/10
Appropriations
12/31/10
YTD Actual
YTD Actual
as % of
Appropriations
Revenue
Estimate (3)
$
Variances
Est-Approp
Variances
as % of
Appropriations
Revenues:
Real Estate Taxes, Current $112.462 $56.483 50.2%$111.973 $111.973 $53.399 47.7%$111.172 ($0.801)-0.7%
Personal Property Taxes, Current 19.020 9.414 49.5%19.184 19.184 9.365 48.8%19.232 0.049 0.3%
Delinquent Property Taxes & Fees 3.105 1.545 49.8%2.331 2.331 1.577 67.7%2.754 0.422 18.1%
Sales Taxes 11.623 3.941 33.9%11.070 11.070 4.324 39.1%12.000 0.930 8.4%
Business Licenses 9.508 0.552 5.8%9.325 9.325 0.324 3.5%9.439 0.114 1.2%
Utility Taxes 8.965 3.200 35.7%9.008 9.008 3.117 34.6%9.255 0.247 2.7%
Food and Beverage Taxes 5.390 2.256 41.9%5.650 5.650 2.075 36.7%5.300 (0.350)-6.2%
Other Local Taxes 9.817 2.896 29.5%9.761 9.761 3.998 41.0%9.745 (0.016)-0.2%
Other Local Revenue 4.792 2.011 42.0%5.157 5.184 2.349 45.3%5.314 0.131 2.5%
State Revenue 23.134 11.935 51.6%22.687 22.687 12.053 53.1%23.133 0.446 2.0%
Federal Revenue 4.407 1.955 44.4%4.337 4.366 2.156 49.4%4.608 0.242 5.5%
Total Revenues 212.221 96.190 45.3%210.482 210.537 94.738 45.0%211.951 1.414 0.7%
Use of Other Funds 2.477 0.129 5.2%2.692 2.726 0.068 2.5%2.392 (0.334)-12.2%
Use of Fund Balance 1.552 0.557 35.9%0.092 0.806 0.403 50.0%0.806 0.000 0.0%
Total $216.249 $96.876 44.8%$213.266 $214.069 $95.210 44.5%$215.149 $1.080 0.5%
FY 09/10 Current FY 10/11
Full Year
Actual (1)
12/31/09
YTD Actual
YTD Actual
as % of
Full Year
07/01/10
Adopted (2)
12/31/10
Appropriations
12/31/10
YTD Actual
YTD Actual
as % of
Appropriations
Expenditure
Estimate (3)
$
Variances
Est-Approp
Variances
as % of
Appropriations
Expenditures:
Administration $10.291 $5.011 48.7%$10.356 $10.492 $5.098 48.6%$10.394 -$0.098 -0.9%
Judicial 3.647 1.834 50.3%3.894 3.914 1.864 47.6%3.790 -$0.124 -3.2%
Public Safety 28.546 14.695 51.5%29.228 29.391 14.339 48.8%28.869 -$0.522 -1.8%
Public Works 4.242 2.410 56.8%4.506 4.530 2.375 52.4%4.390 -$0.140 -3.1%
Human Services 17.561 7.852 44.7%19.209 19.238 7.381 38.4%18.992 -$0.246 -1.3%
Parks, Rec. & Culture 6.188 4.179 67.5%6.239 6.250 3.144 50.3%6.214 -$0.036 -0.6%
Community Development 6.926 4.055 58.6%6.222 6.317 2.984 47.2%6.221 -$0.096 -1.5%
Subtotal Operations 77.401 40.036 51.7%79.655 80.131 37.186 46.4%78.869 -$1.262 -1.6%
Non-Dept (revenue share; reserves; refunds)18.112 0.043 0.2%20.574 20.901 0.088 0.4%19.816 -$1.085 -5.2%
Transfers:
Transfer to School Division 97.042 48.773 50.3%96.058 96.058 48.029 50.0%96.058 $0.000 0.0%
Transfers to Capital, Debt, and Other Funds 18.280 4.318 23.6%16.979 16.979 12.318 72.5%16.979 $0.000 0.0%
Subtotal transfers 115.322 53.091 46.0%113.037 113.037 60.347 53.4%113.037 $0.000 0.0%
Total $210.836 $93.169 44.2%$213.266 $214.069 $97.621 45.6%$211.722 -$2.347 -1.1%
7/1/10 > 12/31/10 = 50% of year Projected FY11 Revenues in Excess of Expenditures $3.427
(1) Full Year FY09/10 Transacctions
(2) July 01, 2010 Adopted General Fund FY11 Budget Policy June 30, 2010 Available Fund Balance $2.854
(3) Estimate as of January 10, 2011
Projected June 30, 2011 Available Funds $6.281
County of Albemarle
General Fund Financial Report
Year-To-Date for the Six Months Ended December 31, 2010
($ in millions)
Revenues with black variances are positive, red variances in ( ) are shortfalls.Expenditures with red variances in ( ) are positive, black variances are over expenditures
Attachment B
County of Albemarle
General Fund Budget Comparison Report
Year-to-Date for the Six Months Ended December 31, 2010
($ in millions)
-
5.0
10.0
15.0
20.0
25.0
30.0
35.0
Administration Judicial Public Safety Public Works Human Services Parks, Rec &
Culture
Community
Development
Non-
departmental
Non-School
Transfers$ in millionsExpenditures
09/10 Actual July 1 Adopted 10/11 Appropriations 10/11 Estimate
-
20.0
40.0
60.0
80.0
100.0
120.0
Real Estate Tax Personal
Property Tax
Sales Tax Business
Licenses
Utility Tax Food_Beverage
Tax
Other Local &
Delinq Taxes
Other Local
Revenues
State Revenues Federal
Revenues
Transfers Other
Funds
Fund Balance$ in millionsRevenues
09/10 Actual July 1 Adopted 10/11 Appropriations 10/11 Estimate
95.4
95.6
95.8
96.0
96.2
96.4
96.6
96.8
97.0
97.2
1$ in millionsTransfer to School Division
Attachment C
June 30, 2010 Unaudited Fund Balance - Preliminary December 01, 2010 $24.575
Auditor Adjustments -0.010
June 30, 2010 Audited Fund Balance - April 06, 2011 24.566
Less FY11 Appropriations Approved to Date:
Budgeted FY11 Local Government Initiatives (approved in budget process)0.092
Soil and Water project refund -0.006
Restitution fees - Sheriff's Office 0.000
Reappropriation of FY10 outstanding purchase orders 0.030
Reappropriation of FY10 uncompleted projects 0.586
Fire Rescue Telecommunications Expense 0.004
Grant Leveraging Fund 0.100
Total Appropriations Approved to Date 0.807
June 30, 2010 Unaudited Fund Balance Available 23.759
Less Proposed FY11 Commitments:
Total Proposed FY11 Commitments 0.000
Proposed June 30, 2010 Available Fund Balance 23.759
Less Policy Reserves:
Fund Balance Reserve - 8% net General Government and School Operating Budgets 20.905
Total Policy Reserves 20.905
Policy June 30, 2010 Available Fund Balance $2.854
Audited General Fund Balance Report
Year-to-Date for the Six Months Ended December 31, 2010
County of Albemarle
($ in millions)
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
Update on Regional Cooperation Committees
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Final Reports from Joint City/County Committees formed
to Evaluate the Possible Consolidation of County and City
Departments of Social Services & Fire/Rescue and to
Review the Revenue Sharing/Annexation Agreement &
Local Composite Index
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Messrs. Foley, Elliott, Davis and Eggleston, and
Ms. Ralston
LEGAL REVIEW: Yes
AGENDA DATE:
April 6, 2011
ACTION: INFORMATION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: X INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS: Yes
REVIEWED BY:
BACKGROUND:
At the conclusion of the April 24, 2010 City/County meeting convened by Delegate David Toscano to discuss regional
cooperation, the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors and Charlottesville City Council agreed to further evaluate the
possible consolidation of their Departments of Social Services and Fire/Rescue as well as consider the Revenue
Sharing/Annexation Agreement & Local Composite Index. Subsequent to this meeting, the City Manager and County
Executive formed committees to evaluate the Departments of Social Services and Fire Rescue and worked with both
School Superintendents to establish the Revenue Sharing/Annexation Agreement & Local Composite Index Committee.
Both the Fire/Rescue and Department of Social Services committees were charged with exploring the consolidation of
City/County Departments, thereby yielding “increased level of services in both jurisdictions at the same cost or
providing the same level of service at a lower cost to the taxpayers of both jurisdictions”, a key working principle
established by Delegate Toscano for the April 24th City/County meeting. The purpose of the Revenue Sharing/
Annexation Agreement & Local Composite Index committee was to examine the history of the Revenue Sharing/
Annexation Agreement, review the Local Composite Index and its impact on the school systems and determine if
common ground can be reached on the lingering concerns over both agreements.
This report provides the Board of Supervisors with summary reports from both the Fire/Rescue and Social Service
subcommittees and a review of the work completed by the Revenue Sharing/Annexation Agreemen t & Local
Composite Index committee.
DISCUSSION:
Departments of Social Services
Prior to convening a committee to evaluate the consolidation of the Departments of Social Services, staff presented to
the Board background material and a list of challenges such a measure could create for the County at the Board’s
July 7, 2010 meeting, after which the Board of Supervisors:
Concurred with the concept of the County Executive convening a meeting with City and County staff to review the
information presented in the July 7, 2010 Executive Summary and discuss the challenges consolidation will p ose
to both jurisdictions.
Concluded that while it would be good to meet and review this matter with the City, the obstacles to achieving
consolidation are numerous and therefore may not merit moving forward with further evaluation.
The City/County committee, consisting of Councilors Huja and Edwards and Board members Dorrier and Snow, as
well as Mike Murphy, Diane Kuknyo, Bryan Elliott and Kathy Ralston, met on August 16, 2010 and January 10, 2011.
Based upon the research and material reviewed by the comm ittee, the consolidation of the two Departments was
determined to be not viable; however, the committee makes the following recommendations to the Board of
Supervisors and City Council:
Continue to seek further avenues of collaboration and partnership, and present opportunities for the
elected bodies to support such endeavors.
Provide opportunities to bring the advisory boards for the respective jurisdictions together to explore
areas of collaboration.
AGENDA TITLE: Update on Regional Cooperation Committees
April 6, 2011
Page 2
Explore the creation of dedicated personnel to the increasingly demanding area of emergency
operations planning and preparedness.
Share resources that allow for an effective response to the English as a Second Language (ESL)
population.
Provide opportunities for the elected bodies to join in their legislative efforts on matters that impact
Social Services and related human services.
This committee’s full report is found in “Attachment A.”
Departments of Fire Rescue
This subcommittee, consisting of Councilors Brown and Edwards and Board members Mallek and Thomas as well as
Aubrey Watts, Chief Charles Werner, Bryan Elliott, Chief Dan Eggleston and Chief Tim Cersley met four (4) times
between June and December 2010. The purpose of the committee was to expand collaboration and cooperation
between the Albemarle County Department of Fire/Rescue and Charlottesville City Fire Department to enhance the
delivery of fire/rescue services to the citizens and visitors of both jurisdictions by building upon efforts launched by
Chiefs Eggleston & Werner in the summer of 2009. Those efforts include:
Create a joint technology Request for Proposals
Continue to standardize policies, practices and equipment
Coordinate business inspection programs
Share resources for juvenile fire setter, public education, and investigation programs
Establish an Incident Command Team to help manage significant events
Further develop joint policies/programs for the Regional HazMat Team
Conduct a regional hiring process
Schedule additional joint continuing education programs for Fire and EMS
Develop a Fire RMS knowledge sharing team
Merge Fire/EMS incident dispatch and combined ECC operations
The committee concluded that consolidation of City/County Departments would not yield “increased level of services
in both jurisdictions at the same cost or providing the same level of service at a lower cost to the taxpayers of both
jurisdictions.” The committee agreed to continue to meet and discuss matters of mutual concern on an ongoing basis.
This committee’s full report is found in “Attachment B.”
Revenue Sharing/Annexation Agreement & Local Composite Index
This committee was comprised of the following representatives from each locality:
Charlottesville Albemarle
Dave Norris, Mayor Ken Boyd, County Supervisor
Kristen Szakos, City Councilor Dennis Rooker, County Supervisor
Leah Puryear, School Board Chair Eric Strucko, School Board Vice Chair
Ned Michie, School Board Member Bob Tucker, County Executive
Maurice Jones, Acting City Manager Tom Foley, Assistant County Executive
Craig Brown, City Attorney Larry Davis, County Attorney
This committee met on August 25, 2010 and at the conclusion of the meeting issued a joint statement indicating that
future discussions related to this matter should focus primarily on the local composite index and its affect on the
Albemarle and Charlottesville school systems. The committee further indicated that the next set of deliberations
should occur largely between representatives of the two school divisions, who were asked to provide regular progress
reports to this committee. The full statement of the committee is found in “Attachment C.”
BUDGET IMPACTS
While the committees formed to study the consolidation of City/County Departments of Social Services and
Fire/Rescue found that consolidation would not yield “increased level of services in both jurisdictions at the same cost
or providing the same level of service at a lower cost to the taxpayers of both ju risdictions” both acknowledge the
extensive levels of cooperation and regional support between the jurisdictions. The cooperation displayed by both
AGENDA TITLE: Update on Regional Cooperation Committees
April 6, 2011
Page 3
Fire/Rescue and Social Services, coupled with partnerships in such other areas as emergency communications, parks
and recreation services, libraries, the airport, and joint jail/juvenile detention services provide citizens in both
jurisdictions with cost efficient and effective core governmental services.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends that the Board of Supervisors accept the findings of the attached reports regarding the
Departments of Fire/Rescue and Social Services and in conjunction with City Council communicate these findings to
Delegate Toscano. Regarding the Revenue Sharing/Annexation Agreement and Local Composite Index, the County
Executive and City Manager have requested updates from their respective School Superintendents.
ATTACHMENTS
A – Department of Social Services Committee Report
B – Fire/Rescue Committee Report
C – Revenue Sharing/Annexation/Local Composite Index Committee Statement
Return to consent agenda
Return to regular agenda
Page 1 of 9 3/21/2011
Final Report
City-County Cooperative Fire Rescue Services
Page 2 of 9 3/21/2011
Background:
At the April 24, 2010 City/County meeting convened by Delegate David Toscano, the Albemarle County Board
of Supervisors and Charlottesville City Council agreed to the formation of a subcommittee to evaluate areas of
possible further collaboration and cooperation between the Departments of Fire/Rescue for each jurisdiction.
At the conclusion of the April 24th meeting, both bodies instructed County Executive Bob Tucker and Interim
City Manager Maurice Jones to form a subcommittee comprised of two (2) Council members, two (2) Board of
Supervisors members and staff.
In 2006, the City and County retained the services of Matrix Consulting Group to conduct a Regional Fire an d
Rescue Study. Matrix completed its evaluation in the spring of 2007 and concluded that “consolidation of the
Departments would offer minimal opportunities to reduce staff levels” and would result in additional costs
rather than cost savings.1 Although this analysis concluded that it was not economically viable to consolidate
departments, an ongoing dialogue exists to achieve efficiencies. In the summer of 2009, command staff from
both Departments met to discuss areas of collaboration and cooperation. Th ese areas included a plan to fund
a joint technology RFP, developing a regional fire investigation task force, conducting regional fire prevention
educational sessions, standardizing operational policies between departments, conducting a regional hiring
process, and strengthening the regional hazardous materials team.
Committee Members:
a) County: Ann Mallek, Rodney Thomas, Bryan Elliott & Chief Dan Eggleston
b) City: David Brown, Holly Edwards, Aubrey Watts & Chief Charles Warner
Purpose:
Expand collaboration and cooperation between the Albemarle County Department of Fire/Rescue and
Charlottesville City Fire Department to enhance the delivery of fire/rescue services to the citizens and guests
of both jurisdictions by building upon efforts already launched by Chiefs Eggleston & Warner in the summer of
2009.
Goal:
Examine delivery of current/future services & implement measures which increase the level of fire/rescue
services at the same cost or provide the same level of service at lower cost to taxpayers of both jurisdictions.2
1 COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE AND CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA
Regional Fire and Rescue Study, page 9
2 WORKING PRINCIPLES/GOALS FOR APRIL 24, 2010 MEETING, authored by Delegate David Toscano
Page 3 of 9 3/21/2011
Department Profiles
Charlottesville Albemarle
Personnel
FTE staff (uniformed & non-uniformed) 89 80
Volunteers 25 750
Budget
Operating budget (FY2011) $8,785,536 $9,213,501
Capital budget (5 year 2011-2016) $15,000,000 $9,899,000
Area served
Population 41,228 95,247
Square miles 10.4 726
Call volume
Fire responses 2,200 3,370
Fire first responses to EMS incidents 2,300 3,901
Rescue/Ambulance responses N/A 9,384
Service goals
Urban 6:00 min @ 80% 5:00 min average
Rural N/A 13:00 min average
Ratings/Assessment
Accredited? Yes No
ISO rating 2 Ranges from 4 to 10
Charlottesville City
The Fire Department consists of five divisions: Administration, Fire Fighting, Fire Prevention, Maintenance, and
Training and Technology. Administration seeks input from members of the Department, other City
departments, and citizens to develop and coordinate the Fire Department’s mission. Fire Fighting responds to
over 6,200 requests for fire suppression and emergency medical service annually. Fire Prevention is
responsible for enforcement of the Fire Prevention Code, plans review, fire investigations, and public fire
education. Training and Technology provides administrative, technical, communication and training support
for the Department’s programs.
Albemarle County
Emergency services in Albemarle County are provided by a combination system consisting of volunteer and
career personnel working cooperatively and collaboratively together to provide fire, rescue, and emergency
medical services to the community while at the same time partnering with other local and regional emergency
services organizations. The system consists of two County stations staffed full -time by career personnel, seven
volunteer fire companies and three volunteer rescue squads. In addition, the County contracts with the City of
Charlottesville to provide fire/rescue services primarily in the Pantops development area and Ivy. The system
is an equal opportunity, progressive organization whose goal is to provide the highest quality service within
the constraints of its funding and personnel resources.
Page 4 of 9 3/21/2011
Areas Explored
1) Compared the departments’ divisions to seek opportunities for further cooperation.
Administration
The Administration Division provides guidance, technical assistance, budget oversight, and emergency
service management to several “divisions" of the Department. Administration is responsible for
planning the future of Fire and EMS system and improving the wor king relationship with employees
and volunteer fire and EMS personnel.
Prevention
The Fire Prevention Division develops and implements programs aimed at the prevention of fire and
life safety emergencies within the respective jurisdictions. Programs are also developed to take an
analytical approach to problem solving as well as “targeting" fire prevention. This approach involves a
proactive target hazard inspection program, permit process, building construction plan review, public
education and fire investigation. The division places an emphasis on compiling data that is gathered
from performing duties. This information is passed along to all other divisions as well as the public. The
Fire Prevention Division acts as a contact point for all fire and life safety information and guidance as
well as information on local, state and federal laws and ordinances pertaining to fire.
Training
The Training Division increases the training level of emergency responders throughout the respective
departments, provides a training academy, conducts on-going continuing education for employees,
plans and implements annual regional training schools, and assists volunteers with implementing an
aggressive, in-house training curriculum.
Operations
The Operations Division responds to fires, medical emergencies, hazardous materials incidents, and
other emergencies that endanger life and/or property throughout the respective jurisdictions.
Responses to emergencies are handled through a network of fire and rescue stations strategically
placed throughout the region.
Page 5 of 9 3/21/2011
2) Examined existing and future City/County station locations
Pantops (County)
This project involves future construction of the Pantops -area Fire Rescue station and for the purchase of fire
rescue equipment (i.e., engines, ambulances, etc.) This station will serve the Pantops Mountain urban are a
and other surrounding areas to backup existing stations.
The Pantops development area has become one of the highest risk areas in the County with the planned
Martha Jefferson hospital (400,000 sq ft hospital), over 640 units of progressive care, assisted living, and
independent living: West Minster Canterbury, Winterhaven I & II, Jefferson Heights, New construction planned
(next door to Winterhaven), Carriage Hill, and Overlook.
Existing coverage to the Pantops area does not meet the County’s urban response time goals. GIS analysis
shows that a fire rescue station placed in the middle portion of the development area would enable the
County to meet its response time goals of an average of (5) five minutes.
Ivy (County)
This project involves the future construction of the Ivy-area Fire Rescue station and for the purchase of fire
rescue equipment (i.e., engines, tankers, ambulances, etc.).
A fire rescue station is needed in the east Ivy area of the County to:
a) To meet the urban response time goals in the western portion of the county’s development area that is
adjacent to the City. Currently, the area is served by the City’s Ivy Rd station which will be relocated to
the Fontaine Research park area. The relocated station will not be able to meet the response time
requirements in the western portion of the county’s development area that is adjacent to the City.
b) There is a need to provide services within 5 miles of the densely populated area of Ivy (the most
populated rural area of the County) to help lower insurance ratings from a 10 (worst rating) to a 5 or 4.
Staff estimates that a citizen who lives within 600 ft of a fire hydrant would save an average of 50% on
their annual insurance premium.
Page 6 of 9 3/21/2011
Fontaine (City)
The future Fontaine Avenue Fire Station will be a new fire station facility which will relocate the present
temporary fire station (trailer and garage) and its respective fire apparatus/staffing from the current location
on Ivy Road. This fire station on Ivy Road was initially a temporary relocation of one City engine company
during the Ridge Street railroad bridge replacement in 1993. The new location will better serve the Jefferson
Park Avenue and Fry’s Spring Neighborhoods which currently exceeds the City’s response time goal of 80%
within (6) six minutes . This geographic area of the City is the furthest from fire and EMS facilities. This
relocation better serves the City and compliments responses to the University of Virginia and Albemarle
County.
Impact of existing and future City/County station locations
The proposed Ivy and Pantops stations and the relocation of the City’s Station 10 to Fontaine Avenue will
significantly improve response times in the first due areas served by the stations. Moreover, the stations will
provide additional support to both the City and the County’s urban ring and rural districts during multi-station
incidents and where one or more station is already committed elsewhere. The following map helps to
illustrate how the proposed and existing stations will create a regional network that will cover the City and
County urban areas.
*note that response time improvements will occur with addition of the Meadow Creek Parkway, new road in
area B, and the Avon-5th connector.
Page 7 of 9 3/21/2011
Page 8 of 9 3/21/2011
Identified Current and On-going Regional Cooperative Efforts
1) Administration
a) Create a joint technology RFP
The goal is to develop an overall master plan on how the two departments would implement various
technologies such as computer-aided-dispatch, mobile data computers, automatic vehicle locators,
pre-alerting systems, and traffic preemption devices to reduce overall response time, improve service
delivery, and create a safer environment for all personnel.
b) Continue to standardize policies, practices, equipment
The goal is to collaboratively analyze, evaluate, and provide policy recommendation s concerning:
regional public safety issues related to fire and emergency medical services, hazardous materials
emergencies, technical rescue, fire prevention and code enforcement, homeland security and
infrastructure protection, emergency response to weapons of mass destruction and all hazards disaster
response.
2) Prevention
a) Coordinate business inspection programs
The goal is to coordinate and standardize compliance to the statewide fire prevention code by utilizing
on-duty operations personnel working in concert with fire prevention inspectors.
b) Share resources for juvenile fire setter, public education, and investigation programs .
The goal is to create opportunities to share resources to expand public education and enforcement
initiatives through respective fire prevention divisions.
3) Training/Operations
a) Establish an Incident Command Team to help manage significant events
The goal is to establish and share regional ICS teams that can be used for any City/County significant
event.
b) Further develop joint policies/programs for the Regional HazMat Team
The goal is to further develop the direction and long-term sustainability of the Regional HazMat Team
c) Conduct a regional hiring process
The goal is to share resources by conducting joint hiring process which includes physical ability and
written test processes.
Page 9 of 9 3/21/2011
d) Schedule additional joint continuing education programs for fire and EMS
The goal is to share resources by conducting joint fire and EMS educational programs for career and
volunteer personnel.
e) Develop a Fire RMS knowledge sharing team
The goal is to develop an in-house knowledge sharing team that helps to better utilize our common
records management system.
f) Merge Fire/EMS incident dispatch and combined ECC operations
The goal is to create a more effective and efficient dispatching system by consolidating fire and EMS
dispatching channels and protocols.
Meeting of the Revenue Sharing/Annexation Agreement
and the Local Composite Index Committee
CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA – The committee tasked with finding common ground
between the City of Charlottesville and Albemarle County on the issues of the revenue
sharing/annexation agreement and the local composite index met on Wednesday, August 25th.
The committee was formed by Bob Tucker, the County Executive for Albemarle County and
Maurice Jones, the Acting City Manager of Charlottesville, following the April 24, 2010
meeting of the City Council, Board of Supervisors, and the School Boards from both the City
and the County, convened by Delegate Davis Toscano.
The following is a joint statement from the members of the committee:
“After a spirited debate the group decided that future discussions should focus primarily on
the local composite index and its affect on the Albemarle and Charlottesville school systems.
It was agreed that the next set of deliberations will occur largely between representatives of
the two school divisions, who will be asked to provide regular progress reports to this
committee.
Our meeting proved to be a good first step in what we hope will be a positive interaction
between the school districts. We are confident both sides will come to the table in good faith.
Obviously we all have strong opinions concerning the local composite index. However we
believe there is hope of reaching a mutually beneficial conclusion in the near future.”
The committee is comprised of the following representatives from each locality:
Charlottesville
Dave Norris, Mayor
Kristin Szakos, City Councilor
Leah Puryear, School Board Chair
Ned Michie, School Board Member
Maurice Jones, Acting City Manager
Craig Brown, City Attorney
Albemarle
Ken Boyd, County Supervisor
Dennis Rooker, County Supervisor
Eric Strucko, School Board Vice Chair
Bob Tucker, County Executive
Tom Foley, Assistant County Executive
Larry Davis, County Attorney
###
RESOLUTION URGING REVENUE STREAM AND DEDICATED REVENUE SOURCE FOR
THE INTERCITY PASSENGER RAIL OPERATING AND CAPITAL FUND
WHEREAS, Virginia's first state-supported intercity passenger rail service between
Lynchburg and Washington, DC and continuing to New York and Boston as an extension of
Amtrak's Northeast Regional System began serving communities on Virginia's Piedmont Rail
Corridor on October 1, 2009; and
WHEREAS, The Lynchburg-DC passenger train serves stations in Lynchburg,
Charlottesville, Culpeper, Manassas, Alexandria and Fairfax County; and
WHEREAS, the Lynchburg-DC intercity passenger service has proven to be
extraordinarily successful, achieving 253% of its first-year ridership goal and 246% of its first-
year revenue goal in its first twelve months of operation; and
WHEREAS, the Lynchburg-DC train has provided mobility and access to convenient,
reliable and affordable alternative transportation for over 126,000 Virginia passengers since it
began service; and
WHEREAS, Amtrak has called the Lynchburg-DC train its "Best performing state-
supported train in Amtrak's system in terms of cost recovery;" and
WHEREAS, the Lynchburg-DC train has contributed positively to the transportation
system, economic well-being, economic development, business climate, tourism and quality of
life of communities throughout the US29 Corridor from Danville to Northern Virginia; and
WHEREAS, it is vitally important to Virginia's citizens, businesses, universities, defense
and tourism industries on the US29 Corridor that the Lynchburg-DC train continue to be
operated and continue to grow, including extensions to Roanoke and Southwest Virginia; and
WHEREAS, the Lynchburg-DC train is operated under a three-year contract between the
Commonwealth of Virginia and Amtrak in which the Commonwealth pays the direct operating
costs of the service not covered by fare revenues attributable to Virginia passengers; and
WHEREAS, a second state-supported train between Richmond, VA and Washington,
DC, also an extension of the Amtrak's Northeast Regional System, began service on July 20,
2010 and is also included in the three-year contract between Amtrak and the Commonwealth of
Virginia where operating costs and revenues of all state funded trains are combined as one
state-funded regional intercity passenger rail network; and
WHEREAS, according to DRPT Director, Thelma Drake, "A key challenge facing the
new service is the availability of operating funds. Virginia has no dedicated source of state rail
operating funds today. Governor McDonnell and the General Assembly authorized up to $6.0
million in Rail Enhancement Funds to support operating costs through the Demonstration
Period, but there is not sufficient funding identified beyond FY 2011;" and
WHEREAS, although the Rail Enhancement Fund has a dedicated source of funds in
State Vehicle Rental Tax revenues, these funds can only be appropriated for the capital costs of
rail projects and cannot legally be used for passenger rail operations, and therefore there is no
legal mechanism in the State Code to provide for the operating costs of intercity and high speed
passenger rail; and
WHEREAS, Section 209 of the Federal "Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement
Act" of 2008 (PRIIA) will require that in addition to the two state funded regional trains the state
assume the operating and capital costs of four existing intercity corridor trains that are now
funded by Amtrak but are not part of Amtrak's national routes, thus escalating the state's
obligations to pay for intercity passenger rail services if these services are to continue; and
WHEREAS, the 2010 General Assembly passed Senate Joint Resolution 63 (SJ63)
directing DRPT to evaluate potential state operating fund sources and to report back to the
General Assembly before the beginning of the 2011 session; and
WHEREAS, the resulting report, "Funding Strategies for State-Sponsored Intercity and
High Speed Passenger Rail" (Senate Document 14), submitted on November 23, 2010, outlined
possible steps the Commonwealth could take to ensure the sustainability and stability of funding
for existing and future expansions of state-supported passenger rail; and
WHEREAS, every transportation modality, including highways, transit, air transportation,
ports and waterways requires public subsidies in order to pay the costs of construction,
maintenance and operation; and
WHEREAS, continuing to support and expand intercity and high speed passenger rail in
the Commonwealth is a key to Virginia's global competitiveness and continued prosperity; and
WHEREAS, the 2011 General Assembly passed legislation establishing an Intercity
Passenger Rail Operating and Capital Fund in the State Code of Virginia for the purpose of
providing the legal mechanism and conduit for any funds appropriated by the General Assembly
for the purposes of providing for intercity passenger rail capital projects and costs of continued
and expanded intercity passenger rail operations;
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Albemarle County Board of
Supervisors urges the Virginia Secretary of Transportation and the Commonwealth
Transportation Board to establish a funding stream that provides for increased needs for funding
existing and future state-supported intercity and high speed passenger rail operations and
capital, (including and most urgently the existing state-supported Northeast Regional Services
between Lynchburg and Washington, DC and its future extensions, and between Richmond and
Washington, DC and its future extensions), as outlined in the SJ63 Report; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors urges
Governor McDonnell, Secretary of Transportation Connaughton, Department of Rail and Public
Transportation Director Drake and the Virginia General Assembly to work together to create a
dedicated revenue source that is sustainable and will provide for the continuation and expansion
of intercity and high speed passenger rail in the Commonwealth after review and consideration
of potential funding mechanisms as described in DRPT's SJ63 Report, "Funding Strategies for
State-Sponsored Intercity and High Speed Passenger Rail."
********
Return to consent agenda
Return to regular agenda
The Board of County Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virgin ia, in regular meeting on the
6th day of April 2011, adopted the following resolution:
R E S O L U T I O N
WHEREAS, the street(s) in West End at Western Ridge Subdivision, as described on
the attached Additions Form AM-4.3 dated April 6, 2011, 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 West End at Western
Ridge Subdivision, as described on the attached Additions Form AM-4.3 dated April 6, 2011, 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) Park Ridge Court (State Route 1326) from the intersection of Route 1250 (Park
Ridge Drive) west to the end of the cul-de-sac, as shown on plat recorded in the
office the Clerk of Circuit Court of Albemarle County in Deed Book 3526, pages
280-300, with a 50-foot right-of-way width, for a length of 0.11 miles.
2) Park Ridge Drive (State Route 1250) from the intersection of Route 1326 (Park
Ridge Court) southwest end of state maintenance, as shown on plat recorded in the
office the Clerk of Circuit Court of Albemarle County in Deed Book 3526, pages
280-300, with a 60-foot right-of-way width, for a length of 0.02 miles.
3) Park Ridge Court (State Route 1327) from the intersection of Route 1250 (Park
Ridge Drive) east to the end of the cul-de-sac, as shown on plat recorded in the
office the Clerk of Circuit Court of Albemarle County i n Deed Book 3526, pages
280-300, with a 50-foot right-of-way width, for a length of 0.06 miles.
4) Park Ridge Drive (State Route 1250) from the intersections of Route 1258 and
Route 1251 southwest to the intersection of Route 1326 (park Ridge Court), as
shown on plat recorded in the office the Clerk of Circuit Court of Albemarle County
in Deed Book 3526, pages 280-300, with a 60-foot right-of-way width, for a length of
0.08 miles.
Total Mileage – 0.27
Return to consent agenda
Return to regular agenda
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
Amendment to County Code Appendix A.1, Acquisition of
Conservation Easements Program (ACE)
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Set public hearing to consider adoption of amendments to
the County Code Appendix A.1, Acquisition of
Conservation Easements Program, by amending Sections
A.1-103, Definitions and construction, A.1-108, Ranking
criteria, and A.1-109, Easement terms and conditions
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Messrs. Foley, Elliott, Davis, Herrick, Graham, Benish and
Goodall
LEGAL REVIEW: Yes
AGENDA DATE:
April 6, 2011
ACTION: INFORMATION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: X INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS: YES
REVIEWED BY:
BACKGROUND:
The Acquisition of Conservation Easements (ACE) Committee is charged with reviewing the program’s ordinance and
recommending to the Board of Supervisors any changes needed to maintain the program’s consistency with the
County’s Comprehensive Plan and policies, and/or to improve the administration, implementation and effectiveness of
the program.
DISCUSSION:
The ACE Committee has been reviewing the ACE Ordinance over the past two years, focusing on the effectiveness of
the ranking evaluation criteria for identifying those properties most worthy of protection by a conservation easement.
As a result of its review, the Committee recommends the following changes to the ACE Ordinance:
Require that any identified resource be protected – Under the current practice, if a resource is identified on a
property, owners are required to protect that resource only if they elect to receive ACE ranking points during the
evaluation process for having that resource. This owner election leaves open the possibility that an ACE
easement could leave an identified resource unprotected. To fill this gap, the ACE Committee recommends that
both the award of points and the protection of all identified resour ces be made mandatory. (§§ A.1-108(C)(1),
(C)(3), and (C)(8); § A.1-109(B)(1), (B)(2), (B)(4), and (B)(5)) While this approach may deter some applicants, it
sets a higher standard that will enhance the overall quality and value of ACE easements.
Amend the ACE ranking criteria as follows:
o Proration of ACE ranking points -- Clarify that ACE ranking points be prorated, as they are already required to
be “rounded to the first decimal.” (§ A.1-108)
o Parcel size -- Increase the points awarded for parcels over 200 acres from 1 point per 50 acres over 200
acres to 2 points per 50 acres over 200 acres. (§ A.1-108(A)(2)) This recommendation is to reward larger
properties that tend to cost less per acre so that the County can protect more acres per dollar.
o Parcels threatened with forced sale -- Reduce the award of ACE ranking points from five to three for parcels
threatened with forced sale. (§ A.1-108(B)(2))
o Working family farms (§ A.1-108(C)(2))
Redefine “family member” in § A.1-103(A)(5) to clarify for which family members applicants may receive
“working family farm” points, to encompass second cousins and closer relatives as family members.
Award one additional ACE ranking point for certified Virginia Century Farms, which have been in
operation for at least 100 consecutive years.
o Artifacts -- Remove the award of ACE ranking points for artifacts. ACE ranking points would still be awarded
for sites of archaeological or architectural significance . (§ A.1-108(C)(4)) Unless the term “artifact” is defined
more specifically, it may be too general and inclusive of a term, rewarding items that may not be significant.
AGENDA TITLE: Amendment to County Code Appendix A.1, Acquisition of Conservation Easements Program
(ACE)
April 6, 2011
Page 2
o Natural heritage/biodiversity -- Remove the award of ACE ranking points for mere proximity to an occurrence
listed on the State Natural Heritage Inventory. (§ A.1-108(C)(5)) Since proximity to an occurrence could have
little or no bearing on protecting it (depending on the type of occurrence), the Committee believed that this
criterion was too vague and potentially ineffective, especially if the resource we re on someone else’s
property.
o Ragged Mountain Reservoir Watershed -- Award ACE ranking points for parcels within the Ragged Mountain
Reservoir Watershed. (§ A.1-108(C)(7)) This was inadvertently omitted from the original list of protected
watersheds.
o Voluntary stream buffers – Outside of the identified watersheds and streams, owners would still elect whether
to have voluntary stream buffers, and to receive ACE ranking points accordingly. For voluntary stream
buffers, the ACE Committee is recommending that the buffer measurement requirements of the three
designations for which ACE ranking points are awarded be rounded-up to the cut-off widths of 35, 50, and
100 feet wide, respectively. (§ A.1-108(C)(9))
The ACE Committee recommends the following changes to the Deeds of easement:
Mountain resources – Clarify the correct name of the Mountain Design Standards in the Natural Resources and
Cultural Assets Component of the Comprehensive Plan (§ A.1-109(B)(1))
Dwellings along scenic highways or byways -- Clarify that on parcels fronting scenic highways or byways ,
dwellings may be located within 250 feet of the highway or byway only if the dwelling is not visible from the scenic
highway or byway at any time of the year. (§ A.1-109(B)(2))
Protected stream buffers -- Require stream buffers for any parcel awarded points for being located in a watershed
or along a stream named in § A.1-108(C)(7). (§ A.1-109(B)(3))
Dwellings along scenic rivers -- Clarify that on parcels fronting scenic rivers, dwellings may be located within 250
feet of the river only if the dwelling is not visible from the scenic river at any time of the year . (§ A.1-109(B)(4))
Sites of archaeological or architectural significance -- Require that no site of archaeological or architectural
significance under an ACE easement be razed, demolished or moved unless approved by the County and the
PRFA. (§ A.1-109(B)(5))
Voluntary stream buffers -- Require stream buffers where owners requested that the parcel be awarded ACE
ranking points for having a voluntary stream buffer. (§ A.1-109(B)(6))
BUDGET IMPACT:
Funding for the purchase of ACE conservation easements comes from the Capital Improvements Program (CIP):
Planning-Conservation fund (budget line-item 9010-81010-580409). The proposed amendments will not have a direct
budget impact.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends that the Board schedule a public hearing for May 4, 2011 to consider the proposed changes to the
ACE Ordinance. (Attachment A).
ATTACHMENTS
A – Proposed Ordinance
Return to consent agenda
Return to regular agenda
Draft: March 18, 2011
Attachment A
1
ORDINANCE NO. 11-A.1(1)
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND APPENDIX A.1, ACQUISITION OF CONSERVATION EASEMENTS
PROGRAM, OF THE CODE OF THE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA
BE IT ORDAINED By the Board of Supervisors of the County of Albemarle, Virginia, that Appendix A.1,
Acquisition of Conservation Easements Program, is hereby amended and reordained as follows:
By Amending:
Sec. A.1-103 Definitions and construction
Sec. A.1-108 Ranking criteria
Sec. A.1-109 Easement terms and conditions
Appendix A.1 Acquisition of Conservation Easements Program
Sec. A.1-103. Definitions and construction.
A. The following definitions shall apply in the interpretation and implementation of the ACE
program:
(1) Conservation easement. The term “conservation easement” means a nonpossessory
interest in one or more parcels of one or more qualified easement holders under section A.1 -109(E) acquired
under the Open-Space Land Act (Virginia Code § 10.1-1700 et seq.), whether the easement is appurtenant or in
gross, voluntarily offer ed by an owner and acquired by purchase pursuant to the ACE program, imposing
limitations or affirmative obligations for the purpose of retaining or protecting natural or open -space values of
the parcel or parcels, assuring availability for agricultural, forestal, recreational or open-space use, protecting
natural resources, maintaining or enhancing air or water quality, or preserving the historical, architectural or
archaeological aspects of the parcel or parcels.
(2) Division rights. The term “division rights” means the number of parcels into which a
parcel could be divided and developed with a dwelling and all associated improvements and utilities, counting
both those parcels less than twenty-one (21) acres in size and those twenty-one (21) acres in size or greater that
could be created, by a by-right conventional development under the rural areas zoning district regulations stated
in Section 10 of Chapter 18, Zoning, of the Albemarle County Code, where each potential parcel could comply
with all applicable requirements of Chapter 14, Subdivision of Land, and Chapter 18, Zoning, of the Albemarle
County Code. Each division right represents the right to build a single dwelling, regardless of whether it is a
primary or secondary dwelling.
(3)(5) Immediate fFamily member. The term “immediate family member” means a great
grandparent or any natural or legally defined descendant of a great grandparent of an owner’s spouse and his or
her offspring residing in the same household as the owner , or any spouse of a great grandparent or of any natural
or legally defined descendant of a great grandparent of an owner .
(4)(3) Forced sale. The term “forced sale” means a sale of a parcel with unused development
rights in a manner prescribed by law that is conducted under a judgment, order or the supervision of a court of
competent jurisdiction, other than a sale arising from a partition action; a sale resulting from foreclosure under
the laws of the Commonwealth of Virginia; or, a sale that is not t he voluntary act of the owner but is compelled
in order to satisfy a debt evidenced by a mortgage, judgment, or a tax lien.
(5)(4) Hardship. The term “hardship” means an economic hardship, other than a circumstance
causing a forced sale, experienced by the owner of the parcel so as to compel him to place a parcel with unused
development rights for sale or to use such development rights.
(6) Owner. The term “owner” means the owner or owners of the freehold interest of the
parcel.
Draft: March 18, 2011
Attachment A
2
(7) Program administrator. The term “program administrator” means the director of
planning.
(8) Parcel. The term “parcel” means a lot or tract of land, la wfully recorded in the clerk’s
office of the circuit court of the County of Albemarle.
(9) Retained division rights. The term “retained division rights” means the number of
parcels into which a parcel subject to a conservation easement may be divided a s provided in section A.1-
109(A).
B. Construction. Because a conservation easement may contain one or more parcels, for purposes
of the ACE program the term “parcel” shall include all parcels covered by, or proposed to be covered by, the
conservation easement.
(Ord. 00-A.1(1), 7-5-00; Ord. 02-A.1(1), 12-11-02; Ord. 07-A.1(1), 12-5-07; Ord. 09-A.1(1), 6-10-09)
Sec. A.1-108. Ranking criteria.
In order to effectuate the purposes of the ACE program, parcels for which conservation easement
applications have been received shall be ranked according to the criteria and the point values assigned as
provided below. Points shall be prorated and rounded to the first decimal.
A. Open-space resources.
1. The parcel adjoins an existing permanent conservation easement, a national, state or
local park, or other permanently protected open-space: two (2) points, with one (1) additional point for every
five hundred (500) feet of shared boundary; or the parcel is within one-quarter (1/4) mile of, but not adjoining,
an existing permanent conservation easement, a national, state or local park, or other permanently protected
open-space: two (2) points.
2. Size of the parcel: zero (0) points for parcels of less than fifty (50) acres; one (1) point
for parcels of at least fifty (50) acres; one (1) additional point for each fifty (50) acres over fifty (50) acres; one
(1) additional point for each fifty (50) acres over two hundred (200) acres .
B. Threat of conversion to developed use.
1. The parcel is threatened with forced sale or other hardship: five (5) three (3) points.
2. The parcel is threatened with other hardship: three (3) points.
23. The number of division rights to be eliminated on the parcel: one-half (1/2) point for
each division right to be eliminated, which shall be determined by subtracting the number of retained division
rights from the number of division rights.
C. Natural, cultural and scenic resources.
1. Mountain protection: one (1) point for each fifty (50) acres in the mountain overlay
district, as delineated in the Ccomprehensive Pplan; an additional one (1) point may be awarded for each twenty
(20) acres within a ridge area boundary. For purposes of this section, the term “ridge area boundary” means the
area that lies within one hundred (100) feet below designated ridgelines shown on county mountain overlay
district elevation maps. The deed restriction set forth in section A.1-109(B)(1) shall apply if the parcel is
eligible for and the owner requests that points be awarded for under this criterion.
2. Working family farm, including forestry: five (5) points if at least one family member’s
principal occupation and income (more than half) is farming or foresting the parcel; three (3) points if at least
one family member has as a secondary occupation farming or foresting the parcel so that it is eligible for or
subject to land use taxation as land devoted to agriculture, horticulture or forest use under Albemarle County
Draft: March 18, 2011
Attachment A
3
Code § 15 -800 et seq.: one (1) additional point if the parcel is certified as a Virginia Century Farm by the
Virginia Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services.
3. The parcel adjoins a road designated either as a Virginia scenic highway or byway, or
as an entrance corridor under section 30.6.2 of Chapter 18 of the Albemarle County Code: two (2) points, with
one (1) additional point for each six hundred (600) feet of road frontage if the par cel is subject to a deed
restriction as provided herein; otherwise, one (1) point for each one thousand (1000) feet of road frontage; the
parcel adjoins a public road: two (2) points, with one (1) additional point for each one thousand (1000) feet of
road frontage; or, the parcel is substantially visible from, but is not contiguous to, a public road designated either
as a Virginia scenic highway or byway, or as an entrance corridor under section 30.6.2 of Chapter 18 of the
Albemarle County Code: two (2) points. The deed restriction set forth in section A.1-109(B)(2) shall apply if
the parcel is eligible for points and the owner requests that two (2) points, with one (1) additional point for each
six hundred (600) feet of road frontage, be awarded for adjoining a Virginia scenic highway or byway.
4. The parcel contains historic resources: three (3) points if it is within a national or state
rural historic district or is subject to a permanent easement protecting a historic resource; two (2) points if the
parcel is within the primary Monticello viewshed, as shown on viewshed maps prepared for Monticello and in
the possession of the county; two (2) points if the parcel contains artifacts or a site of archaeological or
architectural significance as determined by a qualified archaeologist or architectural historian under the United
States Department of Interior’s professional qualification standards. The deed restriction set forth in section
A.1-109(B)(4) shall apply if the parcel is eligible for and the owner requests that points be awarded for under
this criterion.
5. The parcel contains an occurrence listed on the state Virginia nNatural hHeritage
iInventory or a qualified biologist submitted documentation of an occurrence of a natural heritage resource to
the program administrator and the Virginia Division of Natural Heritage on behalf of the owner: five (5) points ;
or the parcel is within one-quarter (1/4) mile of an occurrence list on the State Natural Heritage Inventory: two
(2) points.
6. The parcel contains capability class I, II or III soils (“prime soils”) for agricultural lands
or ordination symbol 1 or 2 for forest land, based on federal natural resources conservation service
classifications found in the United States Department of Agriculture Soil Survey of Albemarle County, Virginia:
one (1) point for each fifty (50) acres containing such soils to a maximum of five (5) points.
7. The parcel is within the South Fork Rivanna Reservoir Watershed, the Chris Greene
Lake Watershed, the Ragged Mountain Reservoir Watershed, or the Totier Creek Reservoir Watershed: three (3)
points; or the parcel adjoins the Ivy Creek, Mechums River, Moormans River, Rocky Creek (of the Moormans
River), Wards Creek (of the Moormans River), Buck Mountain Creek, South Fork Rivanna River, North Fork
Rivanna River, Swift Run (of the North Fork Rivanna River), Lynch River (of the North Fork Rivanna River),
Hardware River, Rockfish River, James River, any waters designated as “Exceptional Waters” by the Virginia
Water Control Board, any public water supply reservoir or emergency water supply reservoir: one -half (1/2)
point for each one thousand (1000) feet of frontage.
8. The parcel adjoins a waterway designated as a state scenic river: one-half
(1/2) point for each one thousand (1000) feet of frontage. The deed restriction set forth in section A.1 -109(B)(3)
shall apply if the parcel is eligible for and the owner requests that points be awarded for under this criterion.
9. If the owner voluntarily offers in his application to place the parcel in a permanent
easement that establishes or maintains The parcel is subject to a permanent easement whose primary purpose is
to establish or maintain forest buffers adjoining perennial or intermittent streams, as those t erms are defined in
Chapter 17 of the Albemarle County Code or if the parcel is subject to such an existing permanent easement :
one (1) point for each one thousand (1000) linear feet of buffer that is between at least thirty-five (35) and fifty
(50) feet wide; one and one-half (1 ½) points for each one thousand (1,000) linear feet of buffer that is at least
greater than fifty (50) feet but not more less than one hundred (100) feet wide; two (2) points for each one
thousand (1000) linear feet of buffer that is at least greater than one hundred (100) feet wide. If the owner
Draft: March 18, 2011
Attachment A
4
voluntarily offers in his application to place the parcel in such a permanent easement, then the above-referenced
points may also be awarded.
10. The parcel is within a sensitive groundwater recharging area identified in a county-
sponsored groundwater study: one (1) point.
11. The parcel is within an agricultural and forestal district: two (2) points.
12. The parcel is subject to a professionally prepared Forestry Stewardship Management
Plan approved by the Virginia Department of Forestry: one (1) point.
D. County fund leveraging. State, federal or private funding identified to leverage
the purchase of the conservation easement: one (1) point for each ten (10) percent of the pu rchase price for
which those funds can be applied.
(Ord. 00-A.1(1), 7-5-00; Ord. 02-A.1(1), 12-11-02; Ord. 04-A.1(1), 10-6-04; Ord. 07-A.1(1), 12-5-07)
Sec. A.1-109. Easement terms and conditions.
Each conservation easement shall conform with the requirements of the Open-Space Land Act of 1966
(Virginia Code § 10.1-1700 et seq.) and of this appendix. The deed of easement shall be in a form approved by
the county attorney, and shall contain, at a minimum, the following provisions:
A. Restriction on division. The parcel shall be restricted from division as follows: (i) if the parcel
is less than one hundred (100) acres, it shall not be divided; (ii) if the parcel is one hundred (100) acres or larger
but less than two hundred (200) acres, it may be divided into two (2) lots; (iii) if the parcel is two hundred (200)
acres or larger, it may be divided into as many lots so as to maintain an average lot size of at least one hundred
(100) acres, plus one additional lot for any acres remaining above the required minimum average lot size (e.g.,
an eight hundred fifty (850) acre parcel may be divided into as many as nine (9) parcels, eight (8) of which
maintain an average lot size of at least one hundred (100) acres, and the ninth of which consists of t he remaining
acres).
B. Protection of mountain, scenic and historic resources. The deed of easement shall include the
following restrictions if the owner agrees to use is eligible for points received under section A.1-108 for
mountain, scenic or historic the resources identified therein:
1. Mountain resources. If the owner voluntarily requested in his application that the
parcel be awarded is eligible for points in the evaluation process under section A.1-108(C)(1) for mountain
protection, the deed of easement shall prohibit establishing all primary and accessory structures and other
improvements, provided that one or more farm buildings or agricultural structures may be permitted within the
mountain overlay district with the prior written approval fr om each grantee; the deed of easement also shall
assure that the parcel is used and maintained in a manner consistent with the comprehensive plan as it pertains to
mountain resources and, in particular, the Open Space Plan as it pertains to mountain resources, and the
Mountain Design Standards in Chapter 2 the Natural Resources and Cultural Assets Component of the
Ccomprehensive Pplan.
2. Scenic highways and byways. If the owner voluntarily requested in his application that
the parcel be awarded t wo (2) points, with one (1) additional point for each six hundred (600) feet of road
frontage, is eligible for points in the evaluation process under section A.1-108(C)(3) for adjoining a Virginia
scenic highway or byway, the deed of easement shall require that each new dwelling (a) have a two hundred
fifty (250) foot setback from the edge of the right-of-way of the scenic highway or byway or (b) if within two
hundred fifty (250) feet of the edge of the right -of-way of the scenic highway or byway, shall be sited in a
location approved by each grantee prior to issuance of a building permit to assure that the dwelling is not visible
from the scenic highway or byway at any time of the year.
Draft: March 18, 2011
Attachment A
5
3. Stream buffers. If the parcel is eligible for points in the evaluation process under
section A.1-108(C)(7) for being located within a watershed named therein or adjoining a stream named therein,
the deed of easement shall require a stream buffer along any perennial stream, as that term is defined in Chapter
17, Water Protection, of the Albemarle County Code.
43. Scenic rivers. If the owner voluntarily requested in his application that the parcel be
awarded is eligible for points in the evaluation process under section A.1-108(C)(8) for adjoining a Virginia
scenic river, the deed of easement shall require that each new dwelling (a) have a two hundred fifty (250) foot
setback from the top of the adjoining stream bank or (b) if within two hundred fifty (250) feet of the top of the
adjoining stream bank, shall be sited in a location approved by each grantee prior to issuance of a building
permit to assure that the dwelling is not visible from the scenic river at any time of the year.
54. Historic resources. If the owner voluntarily requested in his application that the parcel
be awarded is eligible for points in the evaluation process under section A.1-108(C)(4) for artifacts or sites of
archaeological or architectural signif icance, the deed of easement shall require that these adjoining a Virginia
scenic highway or byway or an entrance corridor, the deed of easement shall require that no such site shall be
razed, demolished or moved until the razing, demolition or moving ther eof is approved by each grantee these
historic resources be permanently protected in the manner specified by the Virginia Department of Historic
Resources.
6. Voluntary stream buffers. If the owner voluntarily requested in his application that the
parcel be awarded points in the evaluation process under section A.1 -108(C)(9) for a voluntary stream buffer,
the deed of easement shall require a stream buffer along any perennial or intermittent streams, as those terms are
defined in Chapter 17, Water Protection, of the Albemarle County Code.
C. No buy-back option. The owner shall not have the option to reacquire any property rights
relinquished under the conservation easement.
D. Other restrictions. The parcel also shall be subject to standard restrictions contained in
conservation easements pertaining to uses and activities allowed on the parcel. These standard restrictions shall
be delineated in the deed of easement and shall include, but not necessarily be limited to, restrictions pertaining
to: (i) the accumulation of trash and junk; (ii) the display of billboards, signs and advertisements; (iii) the
management of forest resources; (iv) grading, blasting or earth removal; (v) the number and size of primary and
secondary dwellings, non-residential outbuildings and farm buildings or structures; (vi) the conduct of industrial
or commercial activities on the parcel; and (vii) monitoring of the easement.
E. Designation of easement holders. The county and one or more other public bodies, as defined
in Virginia Code § 10.1-1700, and designated by the board of supervisors shall be the easement holders of each
easement. The public body or bodies who may be designated by the board shall include, but not be limited to,
the Albemarle County Public Recreational Facilities Authority and the Virginia Outdoors Foundation.
(Ord. 00-A.1(1), 7-5-00; Ord. 02-A.1(1), 12-11-02; Ord. 07-A.1(1), 12-5-07)
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. Dorrier ____ ____
Draft: March 18, 2011
Attachment A
6
Ms. Mallek ____ ____
Mr. Rooker ____ ____
Mr. Snow ____ ____
Mr. Thomas ____ ____
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
EMS Cost Recovery Program Update
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
One year update of the EMS Cost Recovery Program
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Messrs. Foley, Elliott, Davis, Eggleston, and Ms. Kim
LEGAL REVIEW: Yes
AGENDA DATE:
April 6, 2011
ACTION: INFORMATION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: INFORMATION: X
ATTACHMENTS: No
REVIEWED BY:
BACKGROUND:
On September 9, 2009, the Board adopted an ordinance authorizing the County to charge fees for emergency
medical service (EMS) vehicle transports provided by the Department of Fire and Rescue and any volunteer rescue
squad that applied for and was issued a permit to charge fees. The Board directed staff to establish a billing system
to be operable by February 1, 2010.
Soon after the Board’s September 9, 2009 meeting, the County procured the services of Dive rsified Ambulance Billing
(now known as Fidelis Billing) to act as the billing agent for the County and Scottsville Volunteer Rescue Squad
(“SVRS”), the only volunteer rescue squad that applied for and was issued a permit to charge fees. The Board
adopted a Resolution to establish fees for EMS transports on December 2, 2009. Staff and members of SVRS worked
together to develop and implement an extensive public information plan to inform the public about the EMS Cost
Recovery program. On February 1, 2010, ambulances stationed at Monticello, Hollymead, and Scottsville Volunteer
Rescue Squad began billing for EMS transports.
On August 4th, 2010, staff provided an update to the Board on the EMS Cost Recovery program for the five months of
billing in FY10. Staff’s report addressed citizen feedback, administrative workload for SVRS and County staff, FY10
actual revenue, and FY11 revenue projections.
At the Board’s request, staff is providing an update of the first year of billing (February 1, 2010 – January 31, 2011) as
well as an updated revenue projection for FY11.
DISCUSSION:
Citizen Feedback:
Staff continues to monitor customer feedback to ensure that the program is operating properly. Since the August 4,
2010 report to the Board, there have been only two inquiries reported to the Fire Rescue office; the first inquiry was
related to an incorrect Medicare number and the other was a request for a copy of the signed transport form.
In addition, Fidelis began conducting customer satisfaction surveys, and as of this date, their customer service rating
remains high. Fidelis has not received any complaints about Albemarle County’s EMS billing program .
Administrative Workload:
On November 23, 2010, the County signed a new one-year contract with Fidelis. Last year, County and Scottsville
ambulances moved from a paper based patient care report system to a computer based system. The paper-to-
computer migration enabled the County to renegotiate better terms with Fidelis (collection fee was lowered from 6.5%
to 6.0%) and County staff eliminated approximately 1-2 hours of processing time per week.
Report Data on First Full Year of Billing:
In February of this year, Fidelis provided staff with standard reports outlining performance of the County’s billing
system for the first full year of operation (2/1/10 – 1/31/11). Some of the highlights included:
1. Billing Rates: The initial billing rates set by the Board on December 2, 2009 ($350 – Basic Life Support
(BLS), $450 – Advanced Life Support (ALS) 1, $550 - ALS 2, and $8.50/mile) were based primarily on rates
no lower than the usual and customary costs allowed by private insurers and on rates set by surrounding
localities.
AGENDA TITLE: EMS Cost Recovery Program Update
April 6, 2011
Page 2
Fidelis advised staff that the County rates are within the normal range, but should be monitored over the next
year.
2. Patient Payer Mix (the type of monies recieved): Fidelis advised staff that the County patient payer mix is
within the normal range: approximately 35% Medicare/2%Medicaid, 30% Private Insurance, 31% Private pay
(no insurance) and 2% Military or Auto Insurance. Fidelis expects the Private Pay percent to decrease and
the Private Insurance to increase as the final 5 months of collections come in from the f irst year (accounts are
coded Private Pay until an insurance carrier is identified). The patient payer percentage should also increase
as electronic billing moves to the point where Fidelis can collect all the data directly from the state systems,
rather than relying on the hospital to provide information.
3. Bad Debt Write Off Rate: Fidelis advised staff that the County wrote off approximately 22% of the total billed
the first year which was low compared to the first years of billing for Louisa, Orange and C ulpepper Counties
(which were between 34-48%). The low “Bad Debt Write Off Rate” is one indicator that our billing rates are
within a normal range.
4. Cash Collections as a Percent of Net Billable: (amount of money collected after deducting the mandatory
contractual adjustments from the insurance companies ). As of January 31, the County collected
approximately 57% of net billable. Fidelis advised staff that a 57% collection rate is satisfactory considering
that additional revenue from the previous year will be collected over the next 5 months. Fidelis expects the
County to ultimately fall within the 65% range. By comparison, Louisa, Orange and Culpepper were between
47-66% for their first year of billing.
In addition, Fidelis provided reports on several other aspects of the County’s ambulance transports:
Number of transports: 2035 (1202 ACFR; 833 SVRS)
BLS/ALS: 51% of our transports were BLS; 49% were ALS
Hospital: 59% went to UVA; 41% went to MJH
Pick up location: 70% were transported from a residence; 30% were transported from a non-residence
ACFR/SVRS: 67% were in Hollymead or Monticello ambulances; 33% were in Scottsville
ambulances (with both career and volunteer providers)
Top three reasons for transport:
13% Abnormal Respiratory
11% Chest Pain
9% Syncope & Collapse
Hardship Waivers: 27 hardship waivers were requested and approved for $9,186
(22 in FY10 and 5 in FY11)
Electronic Patient Care Reporting System
The Electronic Patient Care Reporting System continues to evolve. Staff and volunteers at Hollymead, Monticello and
Scottsville are using laptops to capture patient care information. The information is transmitted electronically to the
State Office of EMS and is assessable by Fidelis for patient billing. The next phase of the project includes
incorporating hospital data along with patient care data. Once completed, collection rates should improve.
BUDGET IMPACT:
As of January 31, 2011 (one calendar year of billing) the County collected $394,678 in revenue. Due to the lag time
of two to six months for collection, that amount does not represent the total expected for the first 12 months. Most of
the balance should be collected by June 30th and the final revenue figure should be closer to $500,000 for the first full
year of billing.
The revenue budgeted for FY11 is $444,500. This estimate is based on the anticipated collection rate for the first
full calendar year of billing.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
This update is presented for the Board’s information only, no action is required.
Return to consent agenda
Return to regular agenda
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
Resource Management Review Update
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Status of the disposition and implementation of recom -
mendations from the 2009 Resource Management Review
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Messrs. Foley, Elliott, Letteri, and Davis, and Ms. Jammes
LEGAL REVIEW: Yes
AGENDA DATE:
April 6, 2011
ACTION: X INFORMATION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS: Yes
REVIEWED BY:
BACKGROUND:
In February 2009 the Commonwealth Educational Policy Institute (CEPI) at Virginia Commonwealth University presented to
the Board of Supervisors its assessment of the effectiveness of the manner in which the County utilizes its financial,
human, and capital resources. This top-to-bottom analysis of the County’s administrative and operational support systems
was conducted to determine if current programs and services are being delivered in the most efficient and effective manner
possible. Overall, the report provided an aff irmative assessment of the County’s performance and systems.
Since presentation of this report, staff has been providing the Board ongoing and consistent updates on the disposition
and implementation of CEPI’s recommendations. While the report listed 148 recommendations, staff consolidated similar
or related recommendations in order to improve the clarity of the report’s findings and allow for better management of and
reporting on the status of recommendations. This effort resulted in the number of recomm endations being reduced from
148 to 85 as well as established a method for categorizing the findings based on their status. In January 2011, staff
indicated that 83 percent of the report’s recommendations were either resolved or in the process of being im plemented.
DISCUSSION:
The purpose of this report is to apprise the Board of the status of the remaining 32 recommendations (Attachment A)
and the plan for addressing any of those considered outstanding at this point in time . Since the last update on this
matter to the Board in January, a host of initiatives have been resolved and/or addressed either through the FY12
budget process and/or assignment of tasks to departmental work plans. In addition, the four (4) recommendations
related to fire/rescue services are poised to be addressed through the deployment of a collaborative system s approach
being proposed through the recommended Fire/Rescue Ordinance scheduled to be considered by the Board later in
April.
Among the initiatives/projects completed sin ce January are the installation of an emergency generator to power the
County’s information technology functions during inclement weather/power outages, publication of the County’s
performance management data on its website and completion of the assessment of City/County cooperative and
collaborative ventures (ie. Social Services and Fire/Rescue).
Items addressed through the FY12 budget process include the acquisition of an on-line reservation system for the Parks
& Recreation Department, enhancing staff support for the Finance Department through the reallocation of positions
from other departments, unfreezing two (2) Police Officer positions to establish a foundation for achieving the County’s
Comprehensive Plan Police Department staffing goal and upgrading the County’s Computer Assisted Mass Appraisal
System.
Several recommendations have been or will be assigned to individual departments for implementation through their
work plans for the coming year , including development of an Employee Handbook (Human Resources), ongoing
training and development of Finance Department staff , assessment of the County’s risk management functions
(Finance Department) and an offsite information technology recovery system (Information Technology/Technical
Resources Committee).
Staff believes that the overwhelming majority of the recommendations contained in CEPI’s report are now complete or
will be accomplished in the not too distant future. Accordingly, staff is seeking Board concurrence and approval to
proceed with implem enting the balance of any outstanding issues thro ugh departmental work plans or as future funding
becomes available.
AGENDA TITLE: Resource Management Review Update
April 6, 2011
Page 2
BUDGET IMPACT:
Recommendations that will require additional resou rces to analyze or implement beyond the reallocation of existing
resources, such as hiring an additional attorney for the Commonwealth Attorney’s Office, will be brought to the
Board for discussion and action.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends that the Board affirm the completion of the recommendations contained in the County’s 2009
Resource Management Review prepared by the Commonwealth Educational Policy Institute (CEPI) at Virginia
Commonwealth University.
ATTACHMENTS:
A – Resource Management Status Report
Return to regular agenda
StatusPageRecommendations that have been completed since last report2Recommendations that have been resolved either by implementation or continuing existing County processes or practices9Table of ContentsAttachment A - Status of Resource Management Review Recommendations
# Department Recommendation Comments/Next Steps Status Update1 Board of SupervisorsConsider 1) including school debt as part of the transfer to the schools budget 2) annually adjusting the "60/40 split" based upon population, enrollment and other considerations, and 3) negotiating an appropriate fund balance for the schools to maintain.The BOS determined that school debt would not be considered in the context of the "60/40" split and that no adjustment to the formula is needed at this time. Further direction from the Board on the appropriate level of fund balance to maintain will be considered in the future through review of finance policies and the Five‐Year Financial Plan.Completed Since Last Report2 Community DevelopmentProcess Management: 1) Define "critical paths" for initiatives, including labor and material estimates; and 2) cost should be part of the criteria when selecting projects. Demands for public hearings, reports, work sessions and revisions may be reduced.Staff implemented this recommendation as part of the Crozet Master Plan update and will utilize these procedures going forward.Completed Since Last Report3 Community DevelopmentGeographic Data Services : 1) Document the anticipated and actual cost savings to the County of their services; and 2) conduct an independent analysis to determine the potential cost savings and benefits of moving Geographic Data Services (GDS) within IT.This item will be evaluated in the broader context of IT staffing and the County's service reallocation as the County proceeds with the Access Albemarle project. This reorganization was considered as part of the 2002 GIS Project Evaluation and based on that study, the County decided that the GDS was properly located. This decision will continue to be annually reviewed by the County’s GIS Steering Committee as part of its work program considerations. Staff now considers this an ongoing consideration rather than a new initiative.Completed Since Last Report4 Comprehensive Services Act (CSA): Administrative Issues1) Make it a priority to reduce costs to localities and the number of at‐risk children, 2) reduce the number administrative meetings, 3) advocate for "community‐based" rather than "congregate" care, and 4) reduce or eliminate the "threshold" categoryRecommendations 1 through 3 have been completed via the ongoing operational philosophies in the Charlottesville‐Albemarle CSA Program. The threshold category will be completely eliminated as of June 30, 2011 (Recommendation 4). The new fiscal structure will be in place as of July 1, 2011.Completed Since Last ReportStatus: Recommendations that have been completed since last reportAttachment A - Status of Resource Management Review Recommendations2
# Department Recommendation Comments/Next Steps Status UpdateStatus: Recommendations that have been completed since last report5 County Executive's OfficeEnhance areas of opportunity to further cooperate or consider consolidating with the City of Charlottesville for benefit of the region and to realize efficiencies.Staff to present reports from the City/County Social Services and the Fire/Rescue Committees in the Spring of 2011.Completed Since Last Report6 County Executive's OfficeWhere not presently used, encourage the use of performance‐based contracts and memorandums for partners.CCF is scheduled to recommend to the City and County a new agency funding review process in the spring of 2011. These recommendations will be presented to the Board and City Council. If accepted by both governing bodies, these new procedures will be utilized for the FY13 funding cycle. Completed Since Last Report7 County Executive's OfficeEstablish an internal operational "County Calendar" that lists all the key dates for the coming year as part of an internal communications strategy.The calendar function for the upgraded website provides the functionality necessary to list appropriate key dates for both internal and external use. Additionally, "Inside Albemarle" the County's intranet site, also provides functionality to keep employees aware of critical dates, deadlines and events. Completed Since Last Report8 County Executive's OfficeConduct a review of the performance management system with input of the Board and citizens to increase transparency and improve the significance of key performance indicators.These data were deployed on the County's website in January 2011.Completed Since Last Report9 County Executive's OfficeFor those community agencies where it is not a current practice, request and review quarterly progress reports on outcome measures.This item is not complete; staff will work in collaboration with the City of Charlottesville to develop outcome measures and quarterly progress reports for community agencies as appropriate. The Director of the Office of Housing will lend support to this effort effective FY12.Completed Since Last ReportAttachment A - Status of Resource Management Review Recommendations3
# Department Recommendation Comments/Next Steps Status UpdateStatus: Recommendations that have been completed since last report10 Finance Ensure employees remain current on aspects of operations and compliance and continue training and development opportunities for staff; address the aging Computer Assisted Mass Appraisal system (CAMA) to ensure timely and fair appraisals in the future.The new Director of Finance will be responsible for ensuring employees remain current on all aspects of operations and compliance. This position will also ensure that adequate training and development opportunities are made available to staff. Funding for replacement of the CAMA System is included in the FY 11/12 CIP.Completed Since Last Report11 Finance Re‐examine the need to have a separate and distinct set of procurement regulations and revisit the policy of not issuing key employees purchasing cards.Current procurement regulations will be reviewed as a work plan item for the new Finance Director to determine if any changes should be considered. The deployment of Purchasing Cards will be evaluated as part of the implementation of the Procurement Module in the Access Albemarle project set to be deployed in June 2011.Completed Since Last Report12 Finance Develop memorandums of understanding with entities that routinely receive County services and project agreements for one‐time projects that are managed on behalf of agencies. Also, formalize the roles associated with services provided to the Schools.Staff will work with agencies that use the County as fiscal agent to formulate a standard agreement. The roles associated with services provided to the Schools will also be evaluated and documented. Completed Since Last Report13 Finance Undertake a study of the staffing needs for the financial operations of the County while moving forward with "Access Albemarle."Staff has proposed ‐ and are in the process of implementing ‐ a number of staff changes to the finance department to address staff shortages. These measures include reallocation of the Coordinator of Research and Analysis to the finance department, the unfreezing of the Senior Account Clerk position and transfer of the Grants management function to the Housing Director. Further review will be conducted by the new Finance Director. Completed Since Last ReportAttachment A - Status of Resource Management Review Recommendations4
# Department Recommendation Comments/Next Steps Status UpdateStatus: Recommendations that have been completed since last report14 Human Resources Develop employee handbooks to serve as a quick reference for questions related to policies and guidelines.An employee handbook for all local government employees is currently being developed and will be distributed to employees in August 2011. Completed Since Last Report15 Human Resources Extend the HR Satisfaction and Employee Climate Surveys to school employees to receive feedback from all segments of County. For local government, add performance evaluation and pay‐for‐performance plan questions on the Climate Surveys.The Employee Climate Survey for all Local Government employees was completed in January 2011 and included performance evaluation and pay‐for‐performance plan questions. Currently, staff is reviewing the organization‐wide and departmental data to identify opportunities for improvement. The School Division climate survey is scheduled to be deployed in May 2011. Completed Since Last Report16 Office of Housing Develop a strategic plan to guide investment and partnership decisions of the Office of Housing and affordable housing policy.Although the current economic realities necessitated the discontinuance of annual funding for the Community Development Loan Fund, the Housing Committee remains focused on their strategic plan it developed in August 2009. Some elements of the plan will be reviewed in conjunction with a review of the current Affordable Housing Policy as a part of the Comprehensive Plan Update. Additional strategies and recommendations may develop during this process. It should also be noted that in February 2011 the Board approved the Housing Committee's recommendations for use of available funds in the Community Development Loan Fund for targeted affordable housing initiatives in the County. The Housing Committee and staff will continue this process as additional funds are received. Staff will monitor all existing proffers and work with developers on future proffers in accordance with the current Housing Policy and revise the Policy as applicable.Completed Since Last ReportAttachment A - Status of Resource Management Review Recommendations5
# Department Recommendation Comments/Next Steps Status UpdateStatus: Recommendations that have been completed since last report17 Social Services Assess cost savings from Community Services Board (CSB) Diagnostic Center, and if positive, encourage local usage.This analysis will be presented and reviewed by Community Policy Management Team (CPMT) on an ongoing basis.Completed Since Last Report18 Information TechnologyIncrementally create a "dashboard" of projects so the community and Executive Management can see projects that IT is working on as well as the projects' status. Create indicators for project success such as "on time," "within cost," etc.The dashboard is developed and in use. The technology resources team needs to approve posting of the IT Projects dashboard on their April/May 2011 agenda.Completed Since Last Report19 Commonwealth Attorney's OfficeProvide local funding for an Assistant Commonwealth's Attorney position if position is approved by State Compensation Board.When the State Compensation Board approves funding for an additional position, the County will seek to identify sufficient local funds to support this position for consideration during a future budget process. Completed Since Last Report20 County Executive's OfficeOffer IT services to help review the feasibility of automating medical records to support the Regional Jail Authority.This was deemed not the responsibility of Albemarle County and is considered complete.Completed Since Last Report21 Information TechnologyBudget Issues: Consider funding 1) a recovery service located at least 100 miles away to restore systems faster; 2) Intrusion Detection/Protection Systems (IDS/IPS) to better provide IT security; and 3) an additional desktop support staff memberIT has installed an emergency generator to ensure consistency in operation during weather events or emergencies; the Intrusion detection/Protection system is in place and staff has elected not to pursue additional desktop support staff at this time. Further evaluation of an offsite recovery system is underway with the Technology Resources Committee.Completed Since Last Report22 Police Consider funding various positions and/or resources to improve Police servicesStaffing is being addressed in the FY 11/12 Budget and Five Year Financial Plan. Emphasis will continue to be placed on achieving staffing goals established in the Comprehensive Plan.Completed Since Last ReportAttachment A - Status of Resource Management Review Recommendations6
# Department Recommendation Comments/Next Steps Status UpdateStatus: Recommendations that have been completed since last report23 Parks and RecreationMake it a priority to develop a web‐based registration system for parks and recreation activities to reduce the burden on administrative staff and increase revenues.This recommendation is included in the FY 11/12 Budget. Completed Since Last Report24 Finance Establish a proactive risk management and internal control function and consider holding a "table top" disaster drill associated with recovery of a major disaster impacting County financial operations.Current staffing levels and financial constraints limit the department's ability to provide a proactive risk management function at this time. This item will be considered by the County's new Finance Director and, if supported, reviewed during a future budget process.Completed Since Last Report25 Fire Rescue Consider painting all fire and rescue vehicles (both paid and volunteer) the same color with the same markings so vehicles can be transferred between stations for better management of apparatus' life cycles.This recommendation is to be considered by the Fire/Rescue system once the Board of Supervisors adopts a Fire/Rescue Ordinance currently scheduled for consideration in April 2011.Completed Since Last Report26 Fire Rescue Work towards requirement that all first responders (both volunteers and County staff) adhere to standards of Incident Command, all radio standard operating procedures and discipline.This recommendation is to be considered by the Fire/Rescue system once the Board of Supervisors adopts a Fire/Rescue Ordinance scheduled for consideration in April 2011.Completed Since Last Report27 Fire Rescue Develop a central automated Emergency Medical Services (EMS) reporting system.This recommendation is to be considered by the Fire/Rescue system once the Board of Supervisors adopts a Fire/Rescue Ordinance scheduled for consideration in April 2011.Completed Since Last Report28 Fire Rescue Utilize the career department with the volunteer departments as one cohesive professional agency.This recommendation is to be considered by the Fire/Rescue system once the Board of Supervisors adopts a Fire/Rescue Ordinance scheduled for consideration in April 2011.Completed Since Last ReportAttachment A - Status of Resource Management Review Recommendations7
# Department Recommendation Comments/Next Steps Status UpdateStatus: Recommendations that have been completed since last report29 Parks and RecreationEvaluate whether the joint operation of Albemarle and Charlottesville Parks and Recreation Departments will improve efficiencies and enhance resources.While not a joint operation, the City and County Parks and Recreation departments presently collaborate extensively on a host of projects and initiatives. As was determined with the evaluation of the consolidation of City/County Fire/Rescue as well as Departments of Social Services, consolidation of this Department is not practical or cost‐effective for the County.Completed Since Last Report30 Parks and RecreationDevelop a more comprehensive strategic plan that includes longer term master planning for parks and recreational programming.A comprehensive needs assessment for the Parks & Recreation Department was completed in 2003. The recommendations from this plan have been previously addressed in the County's Capital Improvement Plan and will be updated on an ongoing basis. The Department has completed an organizational assessment of its operations and will implement recommendations developed through this process to advance a more longer‐term strategic plan.Completed Since Last Report31 Police Expand the use of volunteers in Animal Control.The Albemarle County Police Department is in the process of updating its strategic plan. The capability of including a volunteer corps for the Animal Control Division will be evaluated and potentially prioritized in the department’s strategies and objectives to be developed as part of its strategic planning process. Completed Since Last Report32 Sheriff's Office Coordinate regular traffic enforcement and traffic control during emergencies between the Sheriff and Police to help avoid duplication of efforts. Also, Sheriff should report to the Police Department the number of traffic tickets issued.A signed MOU is in place and will be routinely reviewed for updates and changes as needed.Completed Since Last ReportAttachment A - Status of Resource Management Review Recommendations8
Status: Recommendations that have been resolved either by implementation or continuing existing County processes or practices# Department Recommendation Status Update1 Community DevelopmentConsider adjusting the number of supervisory titles and positions in Zoning Administration. Flatten supervisory structure.Previously Reviewed & Completed2 Community DevelopmentInspections; 1) Consider transforming the inspection process into an enterprise operation with fees to recover costs; and 2) continue cross‐training inspectors to assist with other code enforcement activities.Previously Reviewed & Completed3 Community DevelopmentPlanning Commission Procedures: Consider 1) reducing the number of meetings; 2) where work may be reduced while still meeting state code requirements (e.g. staff approval of preliminary plats, site and subdivision plans) and 3) consider action minutesPreviously Reviewed & Completed4 Community DevelopmentConsider higher level sign‐off on deferring follow‐up actions on minor code violation complaints. Previously Reviewed & Completed5 Community DevelopmentEliminate the backlog of old incomplete inspection permits and establish completion deadlines and status reporting schedules to prevent backlogs of permits.Previously Reviewed & Completed6 Community DevelopmentInvite the County Engineer to the employee team that defines transfer of Water Resources personnel to Community Development.Previously Reviewed & Completed7 Community DevelopmentReduce backlog of old bonds being carried on the books which carry costs to developers. They should be released if requirements are satisfied.Previously Reviewed & Completed8 Comprehensive Services Act (CSA): Policy IssuesConsider reorganization of CSA administration to streamline system, including 1) housing CSA staff within Social Services while retaining a regional focus and 2) redefining the CSA Coordinator's role through the Commission on Children and Families (CCF).Previously Reviewed & Completed9 County Executive's OfficeLegislative: Bring to the attention of the General Assembly 1) the disadvantageous effects of the 2006 telecommunications tax reform legislation; and 2) the circumstances that legislative actions regarding annexation policy have placed upon the CountyPreviously Reviewed & Completed10 County Executive's OfficeContinue refinement of Key Performance Indicators (KPI's) and reporting to make it a more formal part of County management practice. Continue to train staff in the collection and utilization of KPI's to improve performance and management.Previously Reviewed & Completed11 Emergency Communications CenterReplace and/or update the Computer‐Aided Dispatch (CAD) system since it is unable to provide all statistical needs for supervisors and plan for the expansion of the Emergency Communications Center and its Emergency Management Office.Previously Reviewed & CompletedAttachment A - Status of Resource Management Review Recommendations9
Status: Recommendations that have been resolved either by implementation or continuing existing County processes or practices# Department Recommendation Status Update12 Finance Review all fees on an annual basis to keep the appropriate costs in discretionary services up to date. Previously Reviewed & Completed13 Finance Ensure citizens understand the nuances of state funding formulas that make the County's operations more dependent upon local revenue sources.Previously Reviewed & Completed14 Finance Ensure adequate resources are applied to the successful completion of the "Access Albemarle" project, including a comprehensive Human Resources Information System (HRIS). A champion should be designated to run the project and ensure success.Previously Reviewed & Completed15 Finance Monitor whether local‐only funds diverted from the Health Department to non‐profits are going to direct and needed services.Previously Reviewed & Completed16 Fire Rescue Continue to require independent annual audits of all volunteer departments to which County contributes public funds.Previously Reviewed & Completed17 Fire Rescue Evaluate the need for hiring another Battalion Chief for better coverage and more reasonable span of control.Previously Reviewed & Completed18 Fire Rescue Implement as soon as practical a revenue recovery program for medical transports. Previously Reviewed & Completed19 Human Resources Maintain the employee wellness program and expand its range of activities as funding permits. Previously Reviewed & Completed20 Human Resources Create a systematic plan for safety audits to assess current and potential health and safety problems for schools and local government.Previously Reviewed & Completed21 Human Resources Identify steps to address the areas in the 2007 HR Satisfaction Survey that show opportunities for improvement.Previously Reviewed & Completed22 Human Resources Analyze the Voluntary Early Retirement Incentive Program (VERIP) and determine 1) whether it serves its designated purpose and 2) include an evaluation of part‐time employee benefits as a part of this analysis.Previously Reviewed & CompletedAttachment A - Status of Resource Management Review Recommendations10
Status: Recommendations that have been resolved either by implementation or continuing existing County processes or practices# Department Recommendation Status Update23 Human Resources Revisit collaborative efforts in training to ensure that the needs of all schools and local government employees are met. Work towards more collaborative means to address training needs for all employees.Previously Reviewed & Completed24 Human Resources Continue several ongoing processes and efforts of the Human Resources Department Previously Reviewed & Completed25 Information TechnologyConsider creating a County‐wide IT Steering Committee to prioritize and assign funding to projects. Previously Reviewed & Completed26 Information TechnologyConsider allocating staff positions from other departments to IT or allocate additional funding for part‐time or contract staff for critical system support. If not a possibility, consider partnering with neighboring localities to share technical support.Previously Reviewed & Completed27 Information TechnologyVendor management: 1) Implement formalized reporting structure to document vendor management savings; 2) negotiate with existing vendors for lower maintenance costs; and 3) Continue to work with vendor partners to creatively approach server consolidation.Previously Reviewed & Completed28 Information TechnologyUpdate documentation (Network diagrams, Mainframe, Change control, Disaster Recovery Plan and IT Strategic Plan). Store a printed copy of the IT Disaster Recovery Plan offsite.Previously Reviewed & Completed29 Information TechnologySecurity: Implement 1) regular external and internal penetration testing for IT networks; 2) more formal security and awareness training for County employees; and 3) formal Security Architecture Review (SAR) process reviews by committee.Previously Reviewed & Completed30 Information TechnologyCreate a Project Management Office (PMO) within IT to manage large projects in the County. Staff it with Project Management Professional (PMP's).Previously Reviewed & Completed31 Information TechnologyAccess Albemarle: 1) Hire a full time Project Management Professional; 2) implement a more effective communications plan; 3) institute load and integration testing prior to migration; and 4) allocate and train at least two Systems AdministratorsPreviously Reviewed & Completed32 Office of Facilities DevelopmentEnlist the assistance of architects, engineers, and building contractors to review design and architectural plans before they are put to bid to advise the County about design elements that might save costs.Previously Reviewed & Completed33 Office of Facilities DevelopmentImplement "value engineering" as a matter of policy in every building project and regularly track and report the savings.Previously Reviewed & CompletedAttachment A - Status of Resource Management Review Recommendations11
Status: Recommendations that have been resolved either by implementation or continuing existing County processes or practices# Department Recommendation Status Update34 Office of Housing Consider establishing a regional consortium and oversight body for the allocation of Section 8 vouchers.Previously Reviewed & Completed35 Office of Housing Clarify role of Housing Committee and their deliverables. Reevaluate the time used by four different housing committees in the region and explore opportunities for regional consolidation.Previously Reviewed & Completed36 Office of Housing Develop key performance indicators that measure the Office's role in increasing the stock of affordable housing for residents.Previously Reviewed & Completed37 Office of Housing Include outcome measures for Albemarle Housing Improvement Program (AHIP) and Piedmont Housing Alliance (PHA) applications. Review annually by an intergovernmental team to supplement the review by Housing Director and OMB.Previously Reviewed & Completed38 Parks and RecreationConsider collapsing the reporting relationships for maintenance staff with ratios of 1:8 instead of current 1:1 reporting relationships.Previously Reviewed & Completed39 Parks and RecreationConsider increasing the use of inmate labor for maintenance at school grounds when schools are not in session.Previously Reviewed & Completed40 Parks and RecreationDevelop mechanisms for tracking performance data for park maintenance, trails, ball fields and facilities, including utilizing customer satisfaction surveys on web, at program sites and comment boxes.Previously Reviewed & Completed41 Parks and RecreationLegal Department should review all proffer deeds prior to sending them to Parks and Recreation Department.Previously Reviewed & Completed42 Parks and RecreationIdentify one person to serve as the coordinator for volunteer programming. Consider jointly hiring or funding this position with the City of Charlottesville.Previously Reviewed & Completed43 Police Continue efforts with other jurisdictions to staff the Jefferson Area Drug Enforcement (JADE) Task Force.Previously Reviewed & Completed44 Police Within existing staff, 1) assign resources to expand the Volunteers in Police Services Program (VIPS) and 2) schedule both detectives and traffic officers for both day and evening shifts on weekdays and at least one on weekends.Previously Reviewed & CompletedAttachment A - Status of Resource Management Review Recommendations12
Status: Recommendations that have been resolved either by implementation or continuing existing County processes or practices# Department Recommendation Status Update45 Regional Jail AuthoritySupport 1) options for jail expansion; 2) a review of the current gate/pass system with a biometric system; and 3) efforts to repair the locator systemPreviously Reviewed & Completed46 Social Services Assess the benefits of consolidation with Head Start including an assessment of costs and savings. Previously Reviewed & Completed47 Social Services Collect data on usage and benefits of Career Center in Social Services, then seek grant support and encourage Workforce Investment Board (WIB) to pay for this function.Previously Reviewed & Completed48 Social Services Work to improve outcomes of Adult Services (APS) and Child Protective Services (CPS). Previously Reviewed & Completed49 Social Services Work with the University of Virginia to provide Department of Social Services staff ability to conduct Medicaid enrollment in all localities.Previously Reviewed & Completed50 County Executive's OfficeReconsider the frozen auditor position in the Finance Department. Previously Reviewed & Completed51 Board of SupervisorsApprove a strategic plan that could make economic development a priority and identify this area as a potential major generator of revenue.Previously Reviewed & Completed52 Finance Increase efforts to determine whether or not County businesses with Charlottesville zip codes are making payments to the proper locality.Previously Reviewed & Completed53 Parks and RecreationEvaluate the shared responsibilities between the Director and the Deputy Director and clarify job descriptions. Consider adding partnership development and revenue generation to Deputy Director's role.Previously Reviewed & CompletedAttachment A - Status of Resource Management Review Recommendations13
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
Review of Road Improvement Priorities for Primary and
Secondary Roads and VDOT Six Year Construction Program
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Work session to review the County’s Priority List of both
Primary & Secondary Road improvements
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Messrs. Foley, Elliot, Davis, Graham, Cilimberg, and Benish
LEGAL REVIEW: Yes
AGENDA DATE:
April 6, 2011
ACTION: INFORMATION: X
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS: Yes
REVIEWED BY:
BACKGROUND:
Primary Road Improvement Priorities:
The Commonwealth Transportation Board (CTB) will conduct a public hearing at the VDOT Central Office in Richmond
on May 18, 2011 to give citizens and public officials an opportunity to provide comments on projects in the Working Draft
Fiscal Year 2012-2017 Six-Year Improvements Program (SYIP). This hearing will provide an opportunity for the County to
inform the CTB of the County’s interstate, primary road, rail, bicycle, pedestrian, and transit improvement priorities.
Primary roads are those roads with route numbers below 600, including interstate highways (Route 6, 20, 22, 29, 231,
240, 250 and I-64).
The Six Year Interstate and Primary Road Plan process differs from the Secondary Road Plan process in that specific
amounts of funds are set aside for secondary road projects in the County, whereas funds for primary road projects are
allocated for each construction district. All primary road projects proposed within all localities in the district compete for
those district funds. The Culpeper District includes Albemarle, Culpeper, Fauquier, Fluvanna, Greene, Louisa, Madison,
Orange, and Rappahannock Counties.
Secondary Road Improvement Priorities:
The County’s Priority List establishes the priorities for road improvements in the State’s Secondary Road system (roads
with a route number of 600 or higher). The Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) Six Year Secondary
Construction Program is based on the County’s Priority List and reflects available state road funding allocated to the
County. The County’s Priority List and the VDOT Six Year Construction Program and budget are typically reviewed
annually.
DISCUSSION:
Primary Road Improvement Priorities
Attachment A is staff’s proposed priority list of improvements for inclusion in the FY 2012-2017 SYIP based on the
UnJAM 2035 Charlottesville-Albemarle MPO Transportation Project List and prior Board priority lists. With the Board’s
approval, staff will forward the priority list to the CTB for inclusion in the record of the May 18th public hearing.
Secondary Road Improvement Priorities:
Attachment B is the priority list of secondary road improvements adopted by the Board in 2010. Staff will revise the list
for public hearing based on input received from the Board.
Available Funding – VDOT has provided the following projected funding allocations for Albemarle County:
FISCAL YEAR REG. STATE
FUNDS AVAILABLE
MIN. UNPAVED
ROAD FUNDS FEDERAL FUNDS TOTAL FUNDS
2011-12 $366,810 $0 $0 $366,810
2012-13 $345,568 $0 $0 $345,568
2013-14 $345,568 $0 $0 $345,568
2014-15 $345,568 $0 $0 $345,568
2015-16 $345,568 $0 $0 $345,568
2016-17 $345,568 $0 $0 $345,568
AGENDA TITLE: Review of Road Improvement Priorities for Primary and Secondary Roads and VDOT Six
Year Construction Program
April 6, 2011
Page 2
The projected funds for FY 2012 through FY 2016 are allocated to the Jarmans Gap Road and Broomley Road bridge
projects in the current VDOT Six Year Secondary Construction Program. FY 2017 is the “new” sixth year of the Program
and those funds are not allocated to a project at this time.
The VDOT Revenue Sharing Program will again be available this year and would be a source of additional funding for
transportation projects. The Revenue Sharing Program will potentially match, dollar-for-dollar up to $10.0 million, a
locality’s contribution toward funding of transportation projects. The Board has indicated its intent to participate in the
State Revenue Sharing Program and has identified $484,000 for program participation. A full match of the County
funds would provide a total of $968,000 in additional funds, which can be used in the Six Year Program to fund project
development. This is a competitive program, so an award of matching funds is not guaranteed, and a partial match is
possible. The Board has indicated that the Revenue Sharing funds should be used to advance the Broomley Road
bridge project. Staff will provide a resolution of intent to participate in the Revenue Sharing Program for Board
approval at the April 6 meeting.
Public Requests – Staff has received five requests for new road improvements, as follows:
Route 708, Red Hill Road, road paving request – Request to pave Route 760 near Red Hill School in North Garden.
This road serves the Red Hill Elementary School and carries between 70 and 170 vehicle trips per day. This project
was previously in the County’s priority list and was determined to be eligible for construction as a rural rustic road
project. The proposed project was presented to the residents in the area several years ago following the public input
process prescribed for a rural rustic roads project by the Board of Supervisors. There was some opposition to the
project from area residents, so the project was not pursued further and subsequently deleted from the priority list. If the
Board believes this project merits reconsideration for possible paving, the road should be added to the Rural Rustic
Road List.
Gillums Ridge Road (Rt. 787), road paving request – Request to pave a 0.9 mile section of this road from Broad Axe
Road to Dry Bridge. The other half of this road from Route 250 west to Broad Axe Road is already paved. This road
carries 290 vehicle trips per day. Staff recommends this request be prioritized and added to the road paving priority
list.
Patterson Mill Lane (Rt. 824), road paving request – Request to pave a 1.04 mile section of this road. Patterson Road
runs from Route 250 west of Midway Road (Rt. 688). A short portion of the road is already paved (0.6 mile). This road
carries 200 trips per day. Staff recommends this request be prioritized and added to the road paving priority list.
Sunset Road (Rt. 781) sidewalk improvements/Sunset-Fontaine Connector Road – Requests have been received to
install sidewalks on Sunset Avenue and to construct the Sunset-Fontaine connector road. These improvements are
already prioritized in the County’s Priority List (priority #5 on the Strategic Priorities).
Brocks Mill Road, rural addition request – Request to upgrade Brocks Mill Road and include it in the state secondary
road system for maintenance. The road has become difficult for residents to maintain. This dead-end road is 0.5 mile
long and provides access to 20 parcels, most of which are undeveloped. There are currently seven homes served by
the road. The road has been determined to be an old public right of way that was not included in the state secondary
road system when the system was created in 1932. The road is eligible for inclusion in the secondary system under
the VDOT Rural Addition Program. One property owner has been working for several years to determine if sufficient
right of way for the project could be obtained from the adjacent property owners. Property owners along the road have
now provided written statements indicating a willingness to dedicate the necessary right of way to upgrade the road to
state standards. VDOT has determined that the right of way is adequate for the project. VDOT estimates the cost of
the improvements to be between $200,000 and $250,000.
Under the Rural Addition Program, the Board must take formal action to approve the addition of the road to the
Secondary System and request that VDOT maintain the road. The Board must also identify the source of funding to be
used for the improvements. $250,000 has been set aside for Rural Addition projects in the adopted VDOT Six Year
Secondary Construction Program to fund potential Rural Addition projects, including this project. These funds are not
required to be used for rural addition projects and can be reallocated for other regular construction, bridge, or unpaved
road projects. Historically, the County’s policy has been that the property owners are responsible for the cost of the
improvements and the use of Rural Addition funding has been limited to unique hardship situations (e.g., Corville Farm
subdivision).
AGENDA TITLE: Review of Road Improvement Priorities for Primary and Secondary Roads and VDOT Six
Year Construction Program
April 6, 2011
Page 3
Staff’s opinion is that this project would provide a relatively limited community benefit for the amount of public funding
used. The $250,000 in Rural Addition funds could be more effectively used on higher priority projects or other projects
providing a greater benefit. Staff requests direction from the Board on this project.
Road Paving Projects – Board members have recently expressed a renewed interest in funding road paving projects.
There are no dedicated funds available from the state for road paving, and no indication that road paving funds will be
available in the future; therefore, road paving projects would have to be funded using regular state road fund
allocations (estimated at $345,000 per year for the six years), revenue sharing program awards (and County match),
or potentially one time funding from existing line item funds in the adopted Program (for example, for Rural Addition
funds, traffic calming funds). The regular state road funds have been allocated to the highest priority projects over the
next five years of the Program (Jarmans Gap Road and Broomley Road bridge projects).
The Board’s previous direction regarding unpaved road projects was to prioritize unpaved road allocations to projects
located in the Development Areas. Dickerson Road and Rio Mills Road, located in Hollymead, were determined to be
the two highest priority projects. Subsequent to that decision, dedicated state funds for unpaved roads were
eliminated. The Dickerson Road project was not sufficiently funded to complete the project; therefore, the Board and
VDOT proceeded with an amendment to the Six Year Secondary System Construction Program in 2010 to transfer the
unused road paving funds from the Dickerson Road Paving Project to the Broomley Road Bridge Improvement
Project.
Staff requests that the Board provide County and VDOT staff further direction regarding its expectations for the funding
of unpaved road projects.
BUDGET IMPACT:
The Six Year Secondary Road process establishes the County’s priorities for the expenditure of State/VDOT
secondary road construction funds and does not impact County funding. Should the County also decide to participate
in the Revenue Sharing Program, the County’s match would be funded from anticipated appropriations in the CIP.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff requests that the Board provide comments on the County’s Priority List of Primary Road Improvements
(Attachment A) and Priority List for Secondary Road Improvements (Attachment B), and recommends that a public
hearing on the County Priority List and VDOT Six Year Secondary Construction Program be scheduled for May 11,
2011. Staff also recommends adoption of the resolution of intent to participate in the Revenue Sharing Program (to be
provided to the Board at the April 6 work session).
ATTACHMENTS
A – Albemarle County Recommended Priorities for FY 2012-2017 SYIP
B – Albemarle County Priority List for Secondary Road Improvements
Return to regular agenda
ATTACHMENT A
ALBEMARLE COUNTY RECOMMENDED PRIORITIES FOR FY 2012-2017 SYIP
(APRIL 2011)
I. MAJOR IMPROVEMENTS
1. Construct Meadow Creek Parkway from Route 250 Bypass to Melbourne Rd., including the
interchange at the Route 250 Bypass.
2. Improvements to Route 29 North Corridor:
a. Funding of 29H250 Phase II Study, Option B design recommendations, most
particularly additional north and southbound lanes on Route 29 from the Hydraulic
Road intersection to the Route 250 Bypass and an additional ramp lane from Route
29 southbound onto the Route 250 Bypass West;
b. Construct a third lane on the northbound and southbound lanes of Route 29 North
from the South Fork Rivanna River to the Hollymead Town Center;
c. Construct Hillsdale Drive extension from Hydraulic Road to Greenbrier Drive; and
d. Construct Berkmar Drive extension.
3. Improve Route 250 East corridor as recommended in the Pantops and Village of Rivanna
Master Plans (improvements to I-64 interchange, pedestrian crossings in Pantops, parallel
roads, new bridge/crossing at Rivanna River and widening of Route 250 east from the I-64
interchange to Village of Rivanna).
4. Improvements in accord with the recommendations of the Crozet Master Plan:
a. Implement sidewalk plan (per Downtown Sidewalk and Parking Study and Crozet
Master Plan);
b. Create bike lanes to and in downtown;
c. Construct Eastern Avenue, to include the Lickinghole Bridge and a railroad crossing;
and
d. Construct un-built sections of Library Ave. east from Crozet Avenue to Hill Top St.
5. Widen Route 20 North from Route 250 to Elks Drive/Fontaine Drive intersection, including
bike lanes and sidewalks.
6. Undertake improvements recommended in the Southern Urban Area B Study, including
improvements to Fontaine Avenue and construction of Fontaine Avenue to Sunset Avenue
connector road.
7. Widen Route 20 South from I-64 to Mill Creek Drive, including bike lanes and sidewalks.
8. Improve two intersections on Route 20 (Valley Street) in Scottsville: the Warren Street
intersection and the Hardware Street intersection.
II. TRANSIT IMPROVEMENTS
1. Regional Transit Authority - Funding to establish a regional transit authority to provide
expanded transit service to Albemarle County and Charlottesville.
2. Expand Existing Service - Funding to expand existing transit service capacity for CAT,
JAUNT and RideShare, including capital projects to enhance capital operations (such as bus
pull-outs, shelters, etc.).
3. Funding for Transit Operational Costs - Fully fund the State’s existing formula share of transit
operating costs or provide fuel subsidies in the face of rapidly escalating fuel costs.
4. Inter-City Rail – Maintain increased inter-city rail service initiated to Charlottesville/Albemarle
County in 2009.
III. SAFETY IMPROVEMENTS
1. Construction of pedestrian walkways and/or bikeways along primary roads in the County’s
Urban Neighborhoods and Development Areas as part of road widening/improvement
projects. Absent major road improvements, the following are prioritized for pedestrian and/or
bikeway improvement:
a. Route 240 in downtown Crozet;
b. Pedestrian crossings at strategic locations on Rt 29 North;
c. Route 250 East in Pantops - complete existing sidewalk system through extension and
connections; provide pedestrian crossings at strategic locations;
d. Route 250 West from the City limits to the 250 Bypass area; and
e. Route 20 South from City limits to Mill Creek Drive extended.
2. Intersection improvements on Route 250 West at 1) Tilman Road and 2) Owensville Road.
3. Full lane widths, paved shoulders and spot improvements on Route 22 and Route 231.
4. Traffic control improvements at the intersection of Route 250 West and Route 151.
STRATEGIC PRIORITIES FOR ALBEMARLE COUNTY PRIORITY LIST FOR SECONDARY ROAD IMPROVEMENTSAdopted April 2010 Strategic Priorities (Projects 1-22)In VDOT Secondary Plan County's Proposed RankingRoute Number and NameLocation From - ToEstimated Advertisement DateEstimated CostDescription/CommentsJustification for project/Source of Request Year Project was placed on Priority ListMost Current Traffic County and year of Count Y0County wideCounty widevaries County services/improvements: signs,pipe,plant mix projects, raised median, crosswalks, restripe, lighting, etc safety, maintain function/staff, public req.Y0County wideTraffic mgmt. Programvaries Designated for traffic calming projects through out the County that meet requirements and sidewalk improvements.Safety/Public Request, studies-plansY1Meadow Creek PkwyMelbourne Rd to Rio Rdunder constr.$30,162,877 Two lane design approved by County and Comm. Transport. Bd., includes bridge over CSX RRCapacity/ CHART20,000-2006Y2691 Jarmans Gap RoadRt 240 to Gray Rock Construction--Spring 2011$16,026,149 Curb &Gutter, sidewalk/crosswalk/bikelanes, turn lane improvementsCapacity,safety/Land Use Plan2,700-2006 anticpates 4,500 in future)Y3656 Georgetown RoadRt 654 to Rt 743Construction--Spring 2011$3,001,450 Curb &Gutter, sidewalk/crosswalk, improvements to certain turn lanesCapacity,safety/G'town Rd Plan, Public17,000-20074649 Proffit RoadRt 29 to 1.6 miles eastimprove alignment, urban x-section with bikelanes/sidewalk and multi-use pathCapacity, safety/Land Use Plan 6,800-20075781 Sunset AvenueFontaine/Sunset ConnectorImprovements to Sunset Ave. and constr. of Fontaine/Sunset Ave. Connector Area B Study,Capacity/ LU Plan20074,600-20066Berkmar Dr Ext. Bridge End of Berkmar Dr to HTCNew parallel road in the Rt. 29 Corridor UnJAM 2025200623,5007631 Old Lynchburg Rd1.35 MI. S. I-64 to Rt 708Spot improvements at various locations to serve development in Southern DA/County Capacity/Land Use Plan2,300-2007Y8Bridge Improvement ProjectsVarious locations (See Att. A) Improve/replace low sufficiency rated bridges based on County and VDOT priorityvaries9726 James River RoadRt 795 to Rt 1302Spot improvement to improve sight distanceSafety/Scottsville1,900-200610Hillsdale DriveGreenbrier Dr. to Seminole Sq.New connector between Greenbrier Dr. and Hydraulic Rd; constructed with urban system fundsCapacity/Hillsdale Drive Extension Study11601 Old Ivy RoadIvy Rd to 250/29 BypWiden, improve alignment , coordinate with UVA Gateway project Capacity/Land Use Plan6,900-200712Southern ParkwayAvon St to Fifth StExtend to 5th St., with pedestrian/bike facility, and Neighborhood street design/speedCapacity/Southern City Study15,000-200413795 Blenheim RoadIntersection of Rt 790Intersection improvement. Safety/Scottsville Request670-200714Eastern AvenueRt 240 to Rt 250Interconnect future neighborhood streets, includes RR underpass and bridge over Lickinghole Crk Capacity/Crozet Master Plan4,100-2003
STRATEGIC PRIORITIES FOR ALBEMARLE COUNTY PRIORITY LIST FOR SECONDARY ROAD IMPROVEMENTSAdopted April 2010 In VDOT Secondary Plan County's Proposed RankingRoute Number and NameLocation From - ToEstimated Advertisement DateEstimated CostDescription/CommentsJustification for project/Source of Request Year Project was placed on Priority ListMost Current Traffic County and year of Count 15631 Rio RoadRio Rd @ Pen Park LnImprove substandard intersection (may be funded in part with City/private developer funds) Safety/City26,000-200716643 Polo Grounds RoadRt 29 to Rt 649Improvement alignment, spot improvements. Safety/Public Request1,300-200617Main Street Crozet Ave to Eastern AveNew road as recommended in the Crozet Master Plan, to be built with development of siteCapacity/Crozet Master Plan20033,600-2003*18743 Hydraulic RoadIntersection with Rt 29 (29H250)Improvements recommended from 29H250 Phase 2 Study Capacity,safety/29H250 Study200318,000-200719866 Greenbrier DriveIntersection with Rt 29 (29H250)Improvements recommended from 29H250 Phase 2 Study Capacity,safety/29H250 Study20038,200-200620Eastern ConnectorRt 250 to Rt 29Initial study of new road concept completed. Further study of alignment on holdCapacity/CHART200621702 Reservoir RoadFontaine Ave. Ext to Dead endPaving and spot improvements, to be done as part of the reservoir reconstruction project Safety/Public Request20032,000-200622Dickerson RoadN. of Rt 805 to just S. of Rt 1030Paving of unpaved road segments--no state unpaved road funds available for the foreseeable futureUnJam 2030; DA location; Rt 29 alternate route2008200- 2003
DRAFT ALBEMARLE COUNTY PRIORITY LIST FOR SECONDARY ROAD IMPROVEMENTS FOR BRIDGE IMPROVEMENTSAdopted April 2010[Some projects may not be completed as prioritized due to project complexity and/or available funding]Bridge Priorities - In Priority OrderIn VDOT Secondary PlanRoute Number, Road NameLocation From-ToSufficiency Rating**Traffic CountDescription/CommentsEstimated cost/funding sourceYRoute 708, Dry Bridge RoadBuckingham Branch Railroad261128suff rating, high traffic count -- Advertisement Date (EAD) Oct. 2012$2,736,912 / federal bridge funds YRoute 616, Black Cat RoadBuckingham Branch 54.41479suff rating, high traffic count -- EAD Mar. 2014federal bridge fundsYRoute 677, Old Ballard RoadBuckingham Branch 42.21267suff rating, high traffic count -- EAD Dec. 2014$4,499,373 / federal bridge and secondary fundsRoute 637, Dick Woods RoadIvy Creek36.11251suff rating, high traffic count -- EAD Dec. 2014Route 795, Presidents RoadHardware River19.4147low sufficiency ratingRoute 745, Wheeler RoadNorfolk Southern Railroad20.987low sufficiency ratingRoute 641, Frays Mills RoadMarsh Run49.6391low sufficiency ratingRoute 649, Proffit RoadNorfolk Southern Railroad35.25094upgraded in Summer 2007, has high traffic countRoute 606, Dickerson Road Jacobs Run200low suff. Rating; in Devel. Area; parallel road to Rt. 29 Route 606, Dickerson Road North Fortk of Rivanna River200low suff. Rating; in Devel. Area; parallel road to Rt. 29 Programmed into future allocations of federal bridge funds in Culpeper District.**Sufficiency Rating is utilitzed by VDOT to rate bridge structure.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PRIORITY LIST FOR SECONDARY ROAD IMPROVEMENTS FOR PAVING PROJECTS Adopted April 2010[Some projects may not be completed as prioritized due to project complexity and/or available funding]POTENTIAL ROAD PAVING PROJECTSRURAL RUSTIC ROAD PAVING PROJECTS IN PRIORITY ORDER (HIGH TO LOW) VDOT makes the determination on whether a road is eligible for RRR paving. All projects are placed on the regular paving list until the determination is made by VDOT. Route Number, Road Name,County PriorityLocation From - ToFunding StatusEstimated Cost Regular/RRRMost Current Traffic County and Year of Count Description/CommentsYear Project placed on Priority ListEstimated Advertisement Date762 Rose Hill Church LnRt 732 to Dead EndNot Funded$97,596 120-2006Public request. At current ranking due to traffic count.no date704 Fortune LaneRt 715 to Dead EndNot Funded$142,443 130-2006Public request. At current ranking due to traffic count.no date672 Blufton RoadRt 810 to Dead endNot Funded$92,017 170-2006School Request in 20072003no date608 Happy Creek RoadRoute 645 to Route 646Not Funded$108,333 140-2006Public request. At current ranking due to traffic count.no date662 Bleak House RoadRt 660 to Rt 665Not Funded320-2003Public request. At current ranking due to traffic count.no date774 Bear Creek RoadNCL to dead endNot Funded80-2006Public request. At current ranking due to traffic count.no date703 Pocket LaneRt 715 to Dead endNot Funded110-2006Public request. At current ranking due to traffic count.2005no date637 Dick Woods RoadRt 691 to Rt 758Not Funded110-2006Public request. At current ranking due to traffic count.2005no date747 Preddy Creek RoadRt 600 to Rt 640Not Funded110-2006School request. At current ranking due to traffic count.no date600 Stony Point Pass2.5 miles east to Rt. 231Not Funded80-2006Public request. At current ranking due to traffic count.no date769 Beam RoadRt 1484 to dead endNot Funded60-2006Public request. At current ranking due to traffic count.no date629/624 Browns Gap TP/Headqrters LnRt 810 to end of Rt 624Not Funded90/50-2006Public request. At current ranking due to traffic count.2010no dateStaff and VDOT will further evaluate the cost closer to construction, which may decrease or increase.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PRIORITY LIST FOR SECONDARY ROAD IMPROVEMENTS FOR PAVING PROJECTSAdopted April 2010[Some projects may not be completed as prioritized due to project complexity and/or available funding]POTENTIAL ROAD PAVING PROJECTSREGULAR PAVING PROJECTS IN PRIORITY ORDER (HIGH TO LOW) VDOT makes the determination on whether a road is eligible for RRR paving. All projects are placed on the regular paving list until the determination is made by VDOT. Route Number, Road Name,County PriorityLocation From - ToFunding StatusEstimated Cost Regular/RRRMost Current Traffic County and Year of Count Description/CommentsYear Project placed on Priority ListEstimated Advertisement Date643 Rio Mills RoadRt 29 to Rt 743 Not Funded$3,218,665 650-2003Staff request. At current ranking due to traffic count. 2003Dec-15784 Doctors Crossing Rt 600 to Rt 640Not Funded$1,842,855 260-2006School Request in 2007, public request as wellAug-11688 Midway RoadRt 635 to Rt 824Not Funded$213,513 300-2006Public request. At current ranking due to traffic count.no date689 Pounding Creek RdRt 250 to Rt 635Not Funded590-2006Public request. At current ranking due to traffic count.no date731 Keswick DriveRt 744 to Rt 22Not Funded310-2006Public request. At current ranking due to traffic count.2005no date787 Gillums Ridge Rd.Rt 682 to Rt 708Not Funded$1,427,288 290-2006Public request. At current ranking due to traffic count.no date671 Wesley Chapel RdRt 609 to Rt 674Not Funded820-2006School transportation request2007no date685 Bunker Hill RoadRt 616 to Dead endNot Funded310-2003Public request. No longer qualifies for RRR due to align-ment and utility problems, will have to be reg. paving project.784 Doctors Crossing Rt 600 to Dead EndNot Funded260-2006Public request. At current ranking due to traffic count.2004no date720 Harris Creek RoadRt 20 to dead endNot Funded250-2006Public request2007no date736 White Mtn RoadRt 636 to dead end Not Funded (sect. btwn Rt 635 & 636 doesn't meet VDOT requirements)230-2006Public request. At current ranking due to traffic count.no date731 Keswick Road .60 ME Rt 744 to Rt 744Not Funded (short road seg. btwn P.O & K.C.C.-may be eligible for RRR) 230-2003Public request. ranking due to traffic count. Possible RRR2004no date683 Shelton Mill RoadRt 751 to dead endNot Funded230-2006Public request. At current ranking due to traffic count.2007no date712 North Garden LaneRt 692 to Rt 29Not Funded220-2006Public request. At current ranking due to traffic count.no date712 Coles Crossing RdRt 713 to Rt 795Not Funded220-2006Public request. At current ranking due to traffic count.no dateStaff and VDOT will further evaluate the cost closer to construction, which may decrease or increase.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PRIORITY LIST FOR SECONDARY ROAD IMPROVEMENTS FOR PAVING PROJECTSAdopted April 2010[Some projects may not be completed as prioritized due to project complexity and/or available funding]POTENTIAL ROAD PAVING PROJECTSREGULAR PAVING PROJECTS IN PRIORITY ORDER (HIGH TO LOW) VDOT makes the determination on whether a road is eligible for RRR paving. All projects are placed on the regular paving list until the determination is made by VDOT. Route Number, Road Name,County PriorityLocation From - ToFunding StatusEstimated Cost Regular/RRRMost Current Traffic County and Year of Count Description/CommentsYear Project placed on Priority ListEstimated Advertisement Date712 North Garden LaneRt 29 to Rt 760Not Funded220-2006This project will be paved as part Rt. 712 -btwn Rt. 713 to Rt. 795no date671 Wesley Chapel RdRt 609 to Rt 749Not Funded100-2006School transportation request2007no date829 Horseshoe Bend RdRt 601 to Dead EndNot Funded210-2006Public request. At current ranking due to traffic count.2004no date645 Magnolia RdRt 608 to Orange CLNot Funded 190-2006Public request. At current ranking due to traffic count.no date637 Dick Woods RdRt 691 to Rt 635Not Funded180-2006Public request. At current ranking due to traffic count.2006no date674 Sugar Ridge RoadRt 614 to Rt 673Not Funded180-2006Public request. At current ranking due to traffic count.no date761 Briery creek Road Rt 622 to County LineNot Funded160-2006Public request. At current ranking due to traffic count.2005no date682 Broad Axe RoadRt 637 to to current paved sectionsNot Funded160-2006Public request. At current ranking due to traffic count.no date678 Decca LaneRt 676 to Rt 614Not Funded 160-2006Public request. At current ranking due to traffic count.no date640 Gilbert Station RoadAshleigh Way Dr to paved sectionNot Funded$1,500,000 120-2006Public request. At current ranking due to traffic count.no date856 Burton Lane Rt. 711 to dead endNot Funded120-2006Public request. At current ranking due to traffic count.2007no date687 Shifflett Mill Road Rt.601 to Rt 810 Not Funded45-2006School Department Request 2007no date668 Fox Mountain TrailRt 601 to Rt 810 Not Funded30-2006School Department Request 2007no date605 Durrett Ridge Road Rt 743 to Swift Run (including bridge)Not Funded140-2006Public request. At current ranking due to traffic count.no date723 Sharon RoadRoute 6 to Route 626Not Funded130-2006Public request. At current ranking due to traffic count.no date633 Cove Garden Rt 29 to Rt 712Not Funded130-2006Public request. At current ranking due to traffic count.2004no dateStaff and VDOT will further evaluate the cost closer to construction, which may decrease or increase.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PRIORITY LIST FOR SECONDARY ROAD IMPROVEMENTS FOR PAVING PROJECTSAdopted April 2010[Some projects may not be completed as prioritized due to project complexity and/or available funding]POTENTIAL ROAD PAVING PROJECTSREGULAR PAVING PROJECTS IN PRIORITY ORDER (HIGH TO LOW) VDOT makes the determination on whether a road is eligible for RRR paving. All projects are placed on the regular paving list until the determination is made by VDOT. Route Number, Road Name,County PriorityLocation From - ToFunding StatusEstimated Cost Regular/RRRMost Current Traffic County and Year of Count Description/CommentsYear Project placed on Priority ListEstimated Advertisement Date707 Blair Park RoadRt 691 to Dead endNot Funded130-2006Public request. At current ranking due to traffic count.no date698 Hungrytown Road Rt 633 to DENot Funded90-2006School transportation request2006no date813 Starlight Road Rt 712 to Dead EndNot Funded80-2006Public request. At current ranking due to traffic count.2004no date600 Stony Point Pass2.5 miles west to Rt 20Not Funded80-2006Public request. At current ranking due to traffic count.no date634 Spring Valley RoadRt 633 to Rt 635Not Funded80-2006Public request. At current ranking due to traffic count.2007no date637 Dick Woods RoadRt 151 to Nelson CLNot Funded70-2006Public request. At current ranking due to traffic count.2007no date721 Old Dominion RdRt 6 to Rt 630Not Funded70-2006Public request. At current ranking due to traffic count.2006no date776 Buck Mtn Ford LaneRt 667 to Rt 664Not Funded20-2006Public request. At current ranking due to traffic count.2004no dateStaff and VDOT will further evaluate the cost closer to construction, which may decrease or increase.
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
2011 Redistricting Work Session
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Work session on Proposed Redistricting Plan Options
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Messrs. Foley, Elliott, Davis, Kamptner, Washburne,
Weaver, Burton, and Pettit, and Ms. Schermerhorn
LEGAL REVIEW: Yes
AGENDA DATE:
April 6, 2011
ACTION: X INFORMATION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS: Yes
REVIEWED BY:
BACKGROUND:
On March 2, 2011, the Board approved the Redistricting Guidelines, hereinafter, the “Guidelines”, to be used in preparing
the 2011 redistricting plan and directed staff to develop an implementing ordinance for its consideration and adoption.
Census data has been received and analyzed by County staff and staff has developed two redistricting plan options. The
Plan 1 option attempts to maximize consistency with the approved Guidelines. The Plan 2 option is similar to the Plan 1
option but makes boundary adjustments between the Rivanna and Scottsville Magisterial Districts requested to be
considered by a Board member and attempts to maximize the consistency of those boundary changes to the approved
Guidelines.
DISCUSSION:
This section summarizes the Census data, analyzes the two redistricting plan options, reviews the two plans’ compliance
with the Guidelines and concludes with a discussion of the remaining schedule to assure that an approved plan is timely
precleared by the Department of Justice under the Voting Rights Act prior to the 2011 elections.
Census data
The 2010 Census data establishes the County’s population to be 98,970, broken down by magisterial districts as follows:
Magisterial District
Total
Population
Ideal
Population
Difference
from Ideal
Percentage Difference
from Ideal
Jack Jouett 14,563 16,495 -1932 -11.71%
Rio 15,682 16,495 -813 -4.93%
Rivanna 17,425 16,495 +930 +5.64%
Samuel Miller 15,136 16,495 -1359 -8.24%
Scottsville 19,018 16,495 +2530 +15.30%
White Hall 17,146 16,495 +651 +3.95%
Total Population 98,970 98,970
One of the requirements of the redistricting process is to rebalance the populations within each magisterial district to
establish population equality among them as nearly as practicable, with a goal of having a deviation in population not to
exceed +/-5% (absolute population equality is the “ideal population”), while maintaining consistency with the other
Guidelines.
Proposed Redistricting Plans
Following are summaries of Plans 1 and 2. Because the two plan options vary from one another only within the Rivanna
and Scottsville Magisterial Districts, a single analysis of each district is provided below, highlighting the changes to district
and precinct boundaries and changes to polling places. Additional analysis of Plan 2 is provided for the Rivanna and
Scottsville Magisterial Districts. Maps of Plan 1, which include breakout maps highlighting each of the changes to the
magisterial district and precinct boundaries and the changes to polling place locations, are included as Attachment A. A
map of Plan 2, showing the differences in the Rivanna and Scottsville magisterial districts under that plan, and a breakout
map, are included as Attachment B. An analysis of both Plan 1 and Plan 2 compliance with the Guidelines is included as
Attachment C.
AGENDA TITLE: 2011 Redistricting Work Session
April 6, 2011
Page 2
The following table shows how the population would be distributed under Plans 1 and 2.
Magisterial
District
Current
Population
(2010 Census)
Ideal
Population
Current
Difference
from Ideal
Revised
Population
Revised Difference
from Ideal
Jack Jouett 14,563 16,495 -11.71% 17,007 +3.10%
Rio 15,682 16,495 -4.93% 16,807 +1.89%
Rivanna 17,425 16,495 +5.64%
16,300 (Plan 1)
16,915 (Plan 2)
-1.18% (Plan 1)
+2.55% (Plan 2)
Samuel Miller 15,136 16,495 -8.24% 16,039 -2.76%
Scottsville 19,018 16,495 +15.30%
16,622 (Plan 1)
16,007 (Plan 2)
+0.77% (Plan 1)
-2.96% (Plan 2)
White Hall 17,146 16,495 +3.95% 16,195 -1.82%
Jack Jouett
District boundary: The eastern-most portion of the East Ivy precinct (bounded by U.S. 250 on the north, U.S. 29-
Route 250 by-pass on the west, and Fontaine Avenue and the City boundary line on the south) of the Samuel
Miller Magisterial District would be added to the Jack Jouett Magisterial District (University Hall precinct) (see
Attachment A-1). This change would increase the population of the magisterial district by 2,444 persons.
Precincts: The reconfigured University Hall precinct would include the lands from the East Ivy precinct being
moved from the Samuel Miller Magisterial District. The number of active registered voters (hereinafter, “voters”) in
the reconfigured University Hall precinct would increase by 1,003 to a new total of 3,006. The precinct would retain
its name. The boundaries of the other precincts would remain the same.
Polling places: The polling place for the University Hall precinct would continue to be University Hall. The polling
places of the other precincts would remain the same.
Rio
District boundary: The Briarwood and Camelot subdivisions within the Hollymead precinct of the Rivanna
Magisterial District would be added to the Rio Magisterial District (Northside precinct) (see Attachment A-2). This
change would increase the population of the magisterial district by 1,125 persons.
Precincts: The reconfigured Northside precinct would include the Briarwood and Camelot subdivisions moved from
the Rivanna Magisterial District and the number of voters in that precinct would increase by 677 to a new total of
2,769. The increase in the number of voters in the Northside precinct would require the addition of one voting
machine. The boundaries of the other precincts would remain the same.
Polling places: All of the precincts, including Northside, would retain their current polling places. The polling place
for the Northside precinct is the Earlysville Volunteer Fire Station.
Rivanna
District boundary: The Briarwood and Camelot subdivisions in the Burnley precinct would be moved to the Rio
Magisterial District (see Attachment A-2). This change would decrease the population of the magisterial district by
1,125 persons.
Additional district boundary changes under Plan 2: The north-central portion of the Stone-Robinson precinct
(bounded by Interstate 64 on the north, Milton Road on the west, the Rivanna River on the south and Limestone
Creek, Route 250 and Black Cat Road on the east; this area is composed primarily of the Glenmore and
Running Deer subdivisions and the area north of those subdivisions between Route 250 and Interstate 64 and is
hereinafter referred to as the “Glenmore and Running Deer area”) of the Scottsville Magisterial District would be
added to the Rivanna Magisterial District (2,183 persons). The southeastern portion of the Keswick precinct
(bounded by Louisa Road on the north and west and by Black Cat Road on the southwest) would be moved to
the Scottsville Magisterial District (760 persons). The southwestern portion of the Free Bridge precinct (bounded
by Route 250 on the north and east, the Rivanna River on the west and south, and Interstate 64 on the south
and east) would be moved to the Scottsville Magisterial district (808 persons). For all of these changes, see
AGENDA TITLE: 2011 Redistricting Work Session
April 6, 2011
Page 3
Attachments B and B-1. These changes, including those under Plan 1, would decrease the population of the
magisterial district by 551 persons.
Precincts: The Burnley precinct would be expanded to the south from the North Fork Rivanna River to Powell
Creek/Lake Hollymead. This would correspondingly reduce the size of the Hollymead precinct. Even with the
Briarwood and Camelot subdivisions being moved to the Rio Magisterial District, the current number of voters in the
reconfigured Burnley precinct would be increased to 2,104 and the number of voters in the reconfigured Hollymead
precinct would be decreased to 2,240. This proposed change allows a net reduction of one or two voting machines
required for the two precincts. The Burnley precinct would be renamed the Baker-Butler precinct. The Hollymead
precinct would retain its name. The boundaries of the other precincts would remain the same.
Additional precinct changes under Plan 2: The Keswick precinct would be reconfigured to include the Glenmore
and Running Deer area being added from the Scottsville Magisterial District. The number of voters in the
reconfigured Keswick precinct would increase by 1,164 to a new total of 2,482, The precinct would retain its
name. The reconfigured Free Bridge precinct would lose 544 voters, decreasing the number of voters to 2,659.
Polling places: The polling place for the renamed Burnley (to become Baker-Butler) precinct would be moved from
Northridge Community Church to Baker-Butler Elementary School, which is closer to the population center of that
precinct. The polling place for the reconfigured Hollymead precinct would remain at Hollymead Elementary School.
The polling places of the other precincts would remain the same.
Additional polling place changes under Plan 2: The polling place for the Keswick precinct would remain at Mount
Zion Baptist Church. The polling place for the Free Bridge precinct would remain at the Elk’s Lodge Hall.
Samuel Miller
District boundary: The eastern-most portion of the East Ivy precinct (bounded by U.S. 250 on the north; U.S. 29-250
by-pass on the west, and Fontaine Ave. and the City boundary line on the south) would be moved to the Jack Jouett
Magisterial District (2,444 persons) (see Attachment A-1). The entire Yellow Mountain precinct of the White Hall
Magisterial District would be added to the Samuel Miller Magisterial District (951 persons) (see Attachment A-3). The
entire Porter’s precinct of the Scottsville Magisterial District would be added to the Samuel Miller Magisterial District
(2,396 persons) (see Attachment A-4). These changes would increase the population of the magisterial district by
903 persons.
Precincts: The number of voters in the reconfigured East Ivy precinct would decrease by 1,003 to a new total of 958.
The precinct would retain its name. The boundaries of the Yellow Mountain precinct, added from the White Hall
Magisterial District, would remain the same. The boundaries of the Porter’s precinct, added from the Scottsville
Magisterial District, would remain the same. The boundaries of the other precincts would rem ain the same.
Polling places: The polling place for the East Ivy precinct would continue to be The Miller Center. The polling place
for the Yellow Mountain precinct would continue to be Mount Ed Baptist Church. The polling place for the Porter’s
precinct would continue to be Yancey Elementary School. The polling places of the other precincts would remain the
same.
Scottsville
District boundary: The entire Porter’s precinct would be moved to the Samuel Miller Magisterial District (see
Attachment A-4). This change would decrease the population of the magisterial district by 2,396 persons.
Additional district boundary changes under Plan 2: The Glenmore and Running Deer area (whose boundaries
are described in the Rivanna Magisterial District Plan 2 analysis) of the Stone-Robinson precinct would be
moved to the Rivanna Magisterial District (2,183 persons). The southeastern portion of the Keswick precinct
(bounded by Louisa Road on the north and west and on Black Cat Road on the southwest) of the Rivanna
Magisterial District would be added to the Scottsville Magisterial District (760 persons). The southwestern
portion of the Free Bridge precinct (bounded by Route 250 on the north and east, the Rivanna River on the west
and south, and Interstate 64 on the south and east) of Rivanna Magisterial district would be added would be
added to the Scottsville Magisterial District (808 persons). For all of these changes, see Attachments B and B-1.
These changes, including those under Plan 1, would reduce the population of the magisterial district by 2,970
persons.
AGENDA TITLE: 2011 Redistricting Work Session
April 6, 2011
Page 4
Precincts: The eastern boundary of the Cale precinct would be moved from Route 20 South to Avon Street
Extended. This would correspondingly increase the size of the Monticello precinct (see Attachment A-5). The
number of voters in the reconfigured Cale precinct would decrease by 730 to a new total of 3,325 and the number of
voters in the reconfigured Monticello precinct would increase by 730 to a new total of 2,188. This proposed change
also allows a possible net reduction of one voting machine required for the two precincts. The boundaries of the
other precincts would remain the same.
Additional precinct changes under Plan 2: The Stone-Robinson precinct would be reconfigured to include the
southwestern portion of the Free Bridge precinct, and the southeastern portion of the Keswick precinct, both
being added from the Rivanna Magisterial District. The number of voters in the reconfigured Stone-Robinson
precinct would decrease by 636 to a new total of 2,069. The precinct would retain its name.
Polling places: The polling places of the remaining precincts would remain the same.
Additional polling place changes under Plan 2: The polling place for the Stone-Robinson precinct would remain
at Stone-Robinson Elementary School.
White Hall
District boundary: The entire Yellow Mountain precinct would be moved to the Samuel Miller Magisterial District (see
Attachment A-3). This change would decrease the population of the magisterial district by 951 persons.
Precincts: The boundaries of the remaining precincts would remain the same.
Polling places: The polling places of the remaining precincts would remain the same.
Compliance with the Redistricting Guidelines
Staff has reviewed the proposed changes under Plans 1 and 2 and has concluded that both plans comply with the
Guidelines.
Magisterial District Guideline 1 requires the changes in the magisterial district boundaries to achieve population equality
among the magisterial districts as nearly as practicable, and all of the reconfigured districts would be +/- 5% of the ideal
population. Magisterial District Guidelines 2 and 3, which pertain to the Voting Rights Act, were considered in developing
the two plan options. The classes protected under the Voting Rights Act continue to be fairly evenly distributed through-
out the County’s six magisterial districts. The changes to the populations of the protected classes within the current
magisterial districts under either plan options are extremely minor and it is staff’s opinion that none of the proposed
boundary changes would have the effect of denying or abridging the right to vote on account of race, color or status as a
member of a language minority group (Magisterial District Guideline 2). Likewise, it is staff’s opinion that none of the
foregoing protected classes would lose voting strength under either plan option (Magisterial District Guideline 3).
Attachment C provides a detailed analysis of the plans’ compliance with all of the Guidelines. Attachment D shows the
demographics of the current magisterial districts and under the two plan options
Remaining Schedule
May 4 or 11: The Board will hold a public hearing on a redistricting plan and adopt the implementing ordinance.
Mid-May: After the Board has adopted the implementing ordinance, staff will submit the ordinance to the United States
Department of Justice for preclearance under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act.
This schedule is intended to assure that all statutory requirements are met and the implementing ordinance is adopted in
time for the County to obtain a preclearance under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act with sufficient time to allow the
General Registrar to meet-election related deadlines.
The preclearance process requires at least 60-90 days from the date the Board adopts the redistricting ordinance. Once
preclearance from the Department of Justice is obtained, the General Registrar will send notices to voters about their
magisterial district, precinct and polling place as required by State law prior to the November 2, 2011 general election. The
General Registrar also must meet other election-related deadlines such as mailing out absentee ballots. In addition to the
November 2011 general election, it is possible that primary elections could be sooner.
AGENDA TITLE: 2011 Redistricting Work Session
April 6, 2011
Page 5
BUDGET IMPACT:
The cost of the redistricting process is already incorporated into various offices’ and departments’ workplans. When
the redistricting process is completed, the General Registrar will incur the cost of mailing new voter registration cards.
This cost will be approximately $38,000 and it is already included in the budget.
Redistricting will result in the need to add one voting machine under either plan option. However, as explained below,
State district boundaries could require additional voting machines in the reconfigured University Hall and Stone-
Robinson precincts.
The proposed change under both plan options is to move the eastern portion of the East Ivy precinct in the Samuel
Miller Magisterial District to the Jack Jouett Magisterial District (University Hall precinct), and under Plan 2 the
proposed change is to move the southern portion of the Free Bridge precinct in the Rivanna Magisterial District to the
Scottsville Magisterial District (Stone-Robinson precinct). These changes could result in the reconfigured University
Hall and Stone-Robinson precincts being split by the current configurations of the 57th and 58th House of Delegates
districts if those two precincts remain split by the 57th and 58th districts after State redistricting. If the districts remain
split, it is likely that additional costs will be incurred from adding one or two elections officers and one or two additional
voting machines.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff requests that the Board consider the two plans and direct staff to proceed to public hearing on May 4th on one plan
and the implementing ordinance to establish the magisterial district and precinct boundaries and to designate the polling
places for each precinct.
ATTACHMENTS
A – Plan 1 Map B – Plan 2 Map
A1* – East Ivy/University Hall Precincts B1 – Free Bridge/Keswick/Stone-Robinson Precincts
A2* – Baker-Butler/Hollymead/Northside Precincts C – Analysis of Redistricting Guidelines to Plans 1 and 2
A3* – Yellow Mountain Precinct D – Demographics of the Magisterial Districts
A4* – Porters Precinct
A5* – Cale/Monticello Precincts
*Same map for Plan 1 and Plan 2
Return to agenda
"h
"h
"h "h
"h
"h
"h
"h "h"h
"h
"h "h
"h
"h
"h
"h "h "h
"h
"h "h
"h
"h
"h
"h
"h
"h
!(ñ
!(ñ
!(ñ
!(ñ
!(ñ
!(ñ
!(å
!(å
!(å
!(å
!(å!(å
!(å
£¤29
£¤250
£¤29
£¤250
£¤250
§¨¦ }ÿ53 }ÿ20
}ÿ6 }ÿ22 }ÿ231
}ÿ151 }ÿ240
}ÿ20
}ÿ6¡810
}ÿ22
64
64§¨¦ 64
Albemarle County, Virginia2011 Redistricting Plan #1, dated April 6, 2011
BOS MembersColor coded by District color
School Board MembersColor coded by District color At-LargeMember!(å
VirginiaAlbemarleCounty of
0 1 2 3 4 5
Miles²Map C reated: March 2011Created By: Damon Pettitt, GDS
!(ñ !(å
"h Proposed Polling Places
Proposed Voting Precincts
Current (Pre 2010 Census)Magisterial Districts
Proposed Magisterial Districts
Jack Jouett
Rio
Rivanna
Samuel Miller
Scottsville
White Hall
"h
"h
"h
"h
"h
"h
!(å
UVA
EastIvy
Belfield
UniversityHall
Georgetown
City ofCharlottesville
Belfield
£¤29
£¤250
£¤250
£¤29250
£¤29
OLD IVY R
D
OLD FARM RDIVY RD
CANTERBURY RDOL
D GART
H R
D
EMMET ST SR ESERV O IR R D UN
IVERSITY AV
E
D E E R PATHCOPELE Y R D
MCCORMICK RD
ALDERMAN RDW MAIN ST
2 5 0 /2 9 B Y P A S S¡601
£¤29
£¤250
BARRA
C
K
S R
D
FONTAINE AVE EXT RUGBY RDPRESTON AVEEMMET ST NJP A
JPA EXTMOR
E
Y C
R
EEKMEA DO W C R E EK"h Proposed Polling Places
Proposed Voting Precincts
Current (Pre 2010 Census)Magisterial Districts
BOS MembersColor coded by District color
School Board MembersColor coded by District color At-LargeMember!(å
0 1
Miles²Map C reated: March 2011Created By: Damon Pettitt, GDS
Jack Jouett
Rio
Rivanna
Samuel Miller
Scottsville
White Hall
VirginiaAlbemarleCounty of
!(ñ !(å
Proposed Magisterial Districts
Ivy
Albemarle County, Virginia2011 Redistricting Plan #1/#2, dated April 6, 2011East Ivy/University Hall Precincts
Proposed Change Summary1) Move boundary between JackJouett District (University HallPrecinct) and Samuel Miller District(East Ivy Precinct) west fromwithin portions of UVA to Rt 29Bypass and Fontaine Ave Ext.
"h
"h
"h
"h
"h
"h
"h
"h
"h
"h
"h
"h
!(ñ
!(ñ
!(ñ
!(å
Camelot
Briarwood
Baker-Butler
NorthridgeCommunityChurch
Hollymead
£¤29
DICKERSON RDWA
T
T
S P
ASSA
G
EADVANCE MILLS R D FRAYS MILL R D
FRAYS MTN RDBUFFALO RIVER RDPROFFIT RDPRIT CHETT LNBU
C
K
MOU
N
T
AIN RD
AIRPORT RD
DURRETT RIDGE R D
BURNLEY STATIO
N RD
D ICKERSON RDSEMINOLE TRL¡743
¡785
¡600
¡606
¡641
¡844
¡664
¡747¡764
¡649
¡606
¡743
¡641
¡660
¡600
£¤29REAS F O RD R D
¡743
¡649 }ÿ20
StonyPoint
Earlysville
Baker-Butler
Northside
JackJouett
Dunlora
Hollymead
WoodbrookAgnor-Hurt
Georgetown
Branchlands PREDDY CREEKSOUTH FORK RIVANNA RIVER
JACOBS RUN
NAKED CREEKPOWELL CREEKJA C O B S R
U
N
N
F
ORK RIVANNA RIVER
FLAN N I G A N BRANCH
"h Proposed Polling Places
Proposed Voting Precincts
Current (Pre 2010 Census)Magisterial Districts
BOS MembersColor coded by District color
School Board MembersColor coded by District color At-LargeMember!(å
0 1
Miles²Map C reated: March 2011Created By: Damon Pettitt, GDS
Jack Jouett
Rio
Rivanna
Samuel Miller
Scottsville
White Hall
VirginiaAlbemarleCounty of
!(ñ !(å
Proposed Magisterial Districts
Ivy
Albemarle County, Virginia2011 Redistricting Plan #1/#2, dated April 6, 2011Baker-Butler/Hollymead/Northside Precincts
Proposed Change Summary1) Rename Burnley Precinct to Baker-Butler;2) Move Briarwood and Camelot subdivisionsfrom Rivanna District (Baker-Butler Precinct)to Rio District (Northside Precinct);3) Move boundary between Hollymead Precinctand Baker-Butler Precinct south from theNorth Fork Rivanna River to a stream betweenForest Lakes and Hollymead subdivisions;4) Move Baker-Butler Precinct polling placefrom Northridge Community Church toBaker-Butler elementary school.
POLO GROUNDS RD
N FORK RIVANNA RIVERPROFFIT R
D
EARLYSVILLE R
D
"h
"h
"h
"h
"h
"h
!(å
£¤250
§¨¦64
§¨¦64
PLANK RDROCKFISH G A P T P K E
O
RTMAN RDCRAIGS STORE RDD IC K W O O D S R D
M IL L E R S C HOOL RDB A T E S V IL L E R D
B
U
R
C
H
S CRE
E
K R
D
JARMA N S GA P R D
CASTLE R
O
C
K
R
DNEWTOWN RDCROZET AVEM I D WAY RD
WHITE MOUNTAIN RDP O U N D I N G CREEK RDGREENWOOD RDSTILLHOUSE CREEK RDS MITH RDED G E V A LLEY RDT H R E E N O T C H 'D R D
D I CK W OOD S R D
DI C K W O O D S R D
¡635
¡691
¡637
¡692
¡689
¡683
¡694
¡636
¡690
¡824
¡635
¡695
¡684
¡691
¡637 ¡637∙151 ∙240
¡691
¡691
¡690
¡692
£¤250
RedHill
Brownsville
YellowMountain
S T O C KTON CREEK
MECHUMS RIVERL I C K I N G H O L E C R E E K
D O L L I N S CREEK
S T O C K T O N M ILL CR E E K
STILLHOUSE CREEKSLAB T O W N B R A NCH"h Proposed Polling Places
Proposed Voting Precincts
Current (Pre 2010 Census)Magisterial Districts
BOS MembersColor coded by District color
School Board MembersColor coded by District color At-LargeMember!(å
0 1
Miles²Map C reated: March 2011Created By: Damon Pettitt, GDS
Jack Jouett
Rio
Rivanna
Samuel Miller
Scottsville
White Hall
VirginiaAlbemarleCounty of
!(ñ !(å
Proposed Magisterial Districts
Ivy
Albemarle County, Virginia2011 Redistricting Plan #1/#2, dated April 6, 2011Yellow Mountain Precinct
Proposed Change Summary1) Move Yellow Mountain Precinctfrom White Hall District toSamuel Miller District.
PLAN
K
R
D
"h "h"h "h
!(ñFABER RD£¤29
IRISH RD
PLANK RD
PORT
E
RS RD
E SM O N T RDGREEN CREEK RDALBE
R
EN
E R
D
OLD GREEN MTN RDH
OWAR
D
S
VIL
L
E TPKE SECRETARYS SAND RDLANGHORNE RDFRYS PATH
MONACAN TRAIL RDSHARON RD GLENDO W E R R D
M T A L T O RDBOAZ RD SECRETARY S R D
FORTUNE LNH
A
TT
O
N FER
R
Y R
DSCHUYLER RD¡626
¡627
¡712
¡722
¡717
¡715
¡630
¡713
¡724
¡602
¡721
¡812
¡716
¡726
¡627
¡633
¡627
¡717¡719
¡715
¡712
}ÿ20
}ÿ6 }ÿ6
¡626 }ÿ6
B
UNGLETOWN RD
¡602
S
C
OTTSVILLE RD
J A M E S RIVER R DCHESTNUT GROVE RD
¡726
RedHill
Porters
Monticello
Scottsville
JAM E S R IV E RGREEN CREEKTOTIER CREE
KCOVE CREEKB
A
LLIN
G
E
R
C
REEKHA
RD
WA
RE RIVER
"h Proposed Polling Places
Proposed Voting Precincts
Current (Pre 2010 Census)Magisterial Districts
BOS MembersColor coded by District color
School Board MembersColor coded by District color At-LargeMember!(å
0 1
Miles²Map C reated: March 2011Created By: Damon Pettitt, GDS
Jack Jouett
Rio
Rivanna
Samuel Miller
Scottsville
White Hall
VirginiaAlbemarleCounty of
!(ñ !(å
Proposed Magisterial Districts
Ivy
Albemarle County, Virginia2011 Redistricting Plan #1/#2, dated April 6, 2011Porters Precinct
Proposed Change Summary1) Move Porters Precinct fromScottsville District to Samuel MillerDistrict.
"h
"h
"h
"h
"h
"h
!(å
Monticello
Stone-Robinson
CountryGreen
EastIvy
Cale
CountryGreen
City ofCharlottesville£¤29
§¨¦64
§¨¦64
SCOTTSVILL E R DAVON STREET EXT5 T H STOLD LYNCHBURG RDRE S ER V O IR R D
OV
ERL OOK DR¡742
¡781
¡780
}ÿ53
}ÿ20 }ÿ20HICKORY ST¡631 BISCUIT RUNLEE
J
ONES CREEK
MOORES CREEK
"h Proposed Polling Places
Proposed Voting Precincts
Current (Pre 2010 Census)Magisterial Districts
BOS MembersColor coded by District color
School Board MembersColor coded by District color At-LargeMember!(å
0 1
Miles²Map C reated: March 2011Created By: Damon Pettitt, GDS
Jack Jouett
Rio
Rivanna
Samuel Miller
Scottsville
White Hall
VirginiaAlbemarleCounty of
!(ñ !(å
Proposed Magisterial Districts
Ivy
Albemarle County, Virginia2011 Redistricting Plan #1/#2, dated April 6, 2011Cale/Monticello Precincts
M
O
NTICELLO AVE
HAR R I S RD
Proposed Change Summary1) Move boundary between CalePrecinct and Monticello Precinctwest from Rt 20 (Scottsville Rd) toRt 742 (Avon St Ext).
"h
"h
"h "h
"h
"h
"h
"h "h"h
"h
"h "h
"h
"h
"h
"h "h "h
"h
"h "h
"h
"h
"h
"h
"h
"h
!(ñ
!(ñ
!(ñ
!(ñ
!(ñ
!(ñ
!(å
!(å
!(å
!(å
!(å!(å
!(å
£¤29
£¤250
£¤29
£¤250
£¤250
§¨¦ }ÿ53 }ÿ20
}ÿ6 }ÿ22 }ÿ231
}ÿ151 }ÿ240
}ÿ20
}ÿ6¡810
}ÿ22
64
64§¨¦ 64
Albemarle County, Virginia2011 Redistricting Plan #2, dated April 6, 2011
BOS MembersColor coded by District color
School Board MembersColor coded by District color At-LargeMember!(å
VirginiaAlbemarleCounty of
0 1 2 3 4 5
Miles²Map C reated: March 2011Created By: Damon Pettitt, GDS
!(ñ !(å
"h Proposed Polling Places
Proposed Voting Precincts
Current (Pre 2010 Census)Magisterial Districts
Proposed Magisterial Districts
Jack Jouett
Rio
Rivanna
Samuel Miller
Scottsville
White Hall
"h
"h
"h
"h
"h
"h
"h
"h
"h
!(ñ
Pantops
City ofCharlottesville
Glenmore
Eastern Keswick AreaMECHUNK CREEKB U CK ISLAND CREEKR IVANN A R I V E R
Keswick
Monticello
StonyPoint
Stone-Robinson
JackJouett
Cale
FreeBridge
Dunlora
Hollymead
WoodbrookAgnor-Hurt
UniversityHall
Georgetown
Branchlands
Stone-Robinson
£¤250
§¨¦64LOUISA RDRICHMO N D RD
ROLLI
NG RDTHOMAS JEFFERSON PKWYSTONY POINT RD
MILTON RDR IO RD ECAMPB
E
L
L
R
D
BL
ACK CAT R
D
MARTIN K INGS RDJAMES MONROE PKWY¡729
¡686
¡610
¡759
¡616
¡799
¡744
}ÿ53 }ÿ22
¡729
£¤250}ÿ20 }ÿ22£¤231
¡600
¡600
¡648
¡640
"h Proposed Polling Places
Proposed Voting Precincts
Current (Pre 2010 Census)Magisterial Districts
BOS MembersColor coded by District color
School Board MembersColor coded by District color At-LargeMember!(å
0 1
Miles²Map C reated: March 2011Created By: Damon Pettitt, GDS
Jack Jouett
Rio
Rivanna
Samuel Miller
Scottsville
White Hall
VirginiaAlbemarleCounty of
!(ñ !(å
Proposed Magisterial Districts
Ivy
Albemarle County, Virginia2011 Redistricting Plan #2, dated April 6, 2011Free Bridge/Keswick/Stone-Robinson Precincts
Proposed Change Summary1) Move a portion of the Pantopsarea that is south of Rt 250 fromthe Rivanna District (Free BridgePrecinct) to the ScottsvilleDistrict (Stone-Robinson Precinct);2) Move a portion of the Keswickarea that is along the easternCounty boundary from the RivannaDistrict (Keswick Precinct) to theScottsville District (Stone-Robinson Precinct);3) Move the area that is south ofI-64, which includes Glenmore,from the Scottsville District (Stone-Robinson Precinct) to theRivanna District (Keswick Precinct).
1
Analysis of Redistricting Guidelines to Plans 1 and 2
Plan 1 Laws and Guidelines Plan 2
Magisterial District Guidelines
Federal Law
The changes in the magisterial district
boundaries are required to achieve
population equality among the magisterial
districts as nearly as practicable, and all of
the reconfigured districts would be +/- 5% of
the ideal population.
1. Establish population equality among
the magisterial districts as nearly as
practicable, with a goal of having a
deviation in population not to exceed
+/-5%, in order to assure
representation in proportion to the
population of the district. (White v.
Regester, 412 U.S. 755 (1973)
(allowing some minor variation from
population equality; also, United
States Constitution, Article I, § 2,
Virginia Constitution, Article VII, § 5
and Virginia Code §§ 24.2-304.1(B))
Compliance. See Plan 1 comments.
Plan 2 results in a larger deviation from
the “ideal population” in the Rivanna and
Scottsville Districts but is within the
acceptable range.
The changes to the populations of the
protected classes within the current
magisterial districts under either plan options
are extremely minor and it is staff’s opinion
that none of the proposed boundary
changes would have the effect of denying or
abridging the right to vote on account of
race, color or status as a member of a
language minority group.
2. Assure that any change in a
magisterial district boundary does not
have the effect of denying or abridging
the right to vote on account of race,
color or status as a member of a
language minority group. (Section 2 of
the Voting Rights Act of 1965)
Compliance. See Plan 1 comments.
The changes to the populations of the
protected classes within the current
magisterial districts under either plan options
are extremely minor and it is staff’s opinion
that none of the foregoing protected classes
would lose voting strength under either plan
option.
3. Assure that no protected class
identified in Guideline 2 loses voting
strength under the new redistricting
plan. (Section 5 of the Voting Rights
Act of 1965)
Compliance. See Plan 1 comments.
State Law and State-Level Redistricting Criteria
Compliance, and more so than Plan 2. 4. Maintain geographical compactness in
each magisterial district. (Virginia
Code § 24.2-304.1(B); Virginia Code §
24.2-305(A); also, Virginia
Constitution, Article VII, § 5)
Compliance, but less so than Plan 1
because the Rivanna Magisterial District
would be reconfigured so that portions
extend into what is currently within the
Scottsville Magisterial District; and the
Scottsville Magisterial District would be
reconfigured so that portions extend into
what is currently within the Rivanna
Magisterial District.
Compliance 5. Maintain geographical contiguity in
each magisterial district. (Virginia
Code § 24.2-304.1(B); Virginia Code §
24.2-305(A); also, Virginia
Constitution, Article VII, § 5)
Compliance
Compliance 6. Assure magisterial districts have
clearly observable boundaries.
(Virginia Code § 24.2-305(A) and (B))
Compliance
Compliance 7. Use only 2010 census data for the
County. (Virginia Code § 24.2-
304.1(C))
Compliance
2
Compliance, and more so than Plan 2. 8. Factors to consider include, but are
not limited to, economic, social and
cultural factors, geographical features,
and service delivery areas. (Based on
Virginia Senate and House 2001
Redistricting Criteria)
Compliance, but less so than Plan 1
because the portion of the current Free
Bridge precinct generally south of Route
250 in Pantops that would be moved
from the Rivanna to the Scottsville
Magisterial District splits a service
delivery area and a Master Plan area.
Also, because the portion of the current
Keswick precinct that would be moved
from the Rivanna to the Scottsville
Magisterial District would remove it from
the remaining Keswick area, which is a
community of interest (See Magisterial
District Guideline 13).
Not applicable 9. If there is a conflict between
Guidelines 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 or 6 and
Guidelines 8, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15 or
16, priority shall be given to Guidelines
1, 2, 3, 4, 5 or 6 because they are
based on Federal and State law
requirements. (Based on Virginia
Senate and House 2001 Redistricting
Criteria) If there is a conflict within
Guidelines 1 through 6, priority shall be
given to population equality,
compliance with the United States and
Virginia Constitutions, and compliance
with the Voting Rights Act.
Not applicable
County Considerations
Compliance 10. Maintain six magisterial districts. Compliance
Compliance 11.Have each magisterial district contain
both urban and rural areas of the
County.
Compliance
Compliance because this plan option results
in the minimum changes required to achieve
population equality as nearly as practicable
under Magisterial District Guideline 1.
12. Minimize changes to existing
magisterial district boundaries.
The changes to the shared Rivanna and
Scottsville Magisterial District boundary is
not required to achieve population
equality targets.
Compliance 13. Preserve communities of interest,
including neighborhoods, within the
same magisterial district.
The Pantops community of interest would
be split by the proposal to move a portion
of the current Free Bridge precinct
generally south of Route 250 in Pantops
from the Rivanna Magisterial District to
the Scottsville Magisterial District.
The Keswick community of interest would
be split by the proposal to move a portion
of the current Keswick precinct from the
Rivanna Magisterial District to the
Scottsville Magisterial District.
Compliance 14. Avoid the pairing of incumbent
members of the Board of Supervisors
or the School Board in the same
magisterial district.
Compliance
Compliance 15. Avoid splitting census blocks to assure
the accuracy of the census data.
Compliance
Compliance 16. Preserve the historic core of existing
magisterial districts.
Compliance, but the portion of the current
Keswick precinct that would be moved
from the Rivanna Magisterial District to
the Scottsville Magisterial District may
arguably remove a portion of the historic
core of the Rivanna Magisterial District.
3
Precinct Guidelines
State Guidelines and State-Level Redistricting Criteria
Compliance 1. In no event shall a precinct have fewer
than 100 registered voters nor more
than 5,000 registered voters. (Virginia
Code § 24.2-307)
Compliance
Compliance 2. Each precinct shall be wholly
contained within a magisterial district.
(Virginia Code § 24.2-307)
Compliance
Compliance 3. Maintain geographical compactness in
each precinct. (Virginia Code § 24.2-
305(A))
Compliance
Compliance 4. Maintain geographical contiguity in
each precinct. (Virginia Code § 24.2-
305(A))
Compliance
Compliance 5. Assure precincts have clearly
observable boundaries. (Virginia Code
§ 24.2-305(A) and (B))
Compliance
Not applicable 6. If there is a conflict between
Guidelines 1, 2, 3, 4 or 5 and
Guidelines 7 or 8, priority shall be
given to Guidelines 1, 2, 3, 4 or 5
because they are based on State law
requirements. (Based on Virginia
Senate and House 2001 Redistricting
Criteria)
Not applicable
County Considerations
Jack Jouett: The reconfigured Burnley
(Baker-Butler) and Hollymead precincts
would be closer to the target size; the
reconfigured University Hall precinct would
be large (3,006 voters) but manageable.
Samuel Miller: The reconfigured East Ivy
precinct would be small (958 voters) but
manageable.
Scottsville: Although the reconfigured Cale
precinct would still exceed the target size
(3,325 voters), both it and the reconfigured
Monticello precincts (2,188 voters) are closer
to the target size than under current
configurations.
7. The target size of a precinct shall be
not more than 2,500 registered voters
Rivanna: The reconfigured Free Bridge
precinct would decrease in size, closer to
the target size (2,659 voters).
Scottsville: The reconfigured Stone-
Robinson precinct would decrease in size
by 636 voters to below the target size
(2,069 voters).
Also see Plan 1 comments.
Jack Jouett: The reconfigured University Hall
precinct would be split by the current 57th
and 58th House of Delegates districts. Staff
will work with the State to put the entire
precinct in the 57th district, which is
underpopulated.
8. Avoid splitting precincts with Virginia
Senate and House of Delegates
district lines and United States House
of Representatives district lines.
Scottsville: The reconfigured Stone-
Robinson precinct would be split by the
current 57th and 58th House of Delegates
districts.
Also see Plan 1 comments.
4
Polling Place Guidelines
State Guidelines and State-Level Redistricting Criteria
Compliance 1. Each precinct shall have one polling
place. (Virginia Code § 24.2-307)
Compliance
Compliance.
Samuel Miller: The current polling places for
the East Ivy precinct (The Miller Center) and
the Yellow Mountain precinct (Mount Ed
Baptist Church) (to be added to the Samuel
Miller Magisterial District), are outside of the
respective precincts but within one mile.
White Hall: The current polling place for the
Earlysiville precinct (Broadus Wood
Elementary School is outside but abutting
the precinct boundary.
2. If a polling place cannot be located
within the precinct, it shall be located
within one mile (as measured in a
straight line) from the precinct
boundary. (Virginia Code § 24.2-
310(A))
See Plan 1 comments.
Jack Jouett: The proposed change of the
polling place for the reconfigured Burnley
((Baker-Butler) precinct from Northside
Community Church to Baker-Butler
Elementary School, a public building,
satisfies this guideline.
3. Each polling place should be located
in a public building whenever
practicable. (Virginia Code § 24.2-
310(B))
See Plan 1 comments.
Compliance 4. No polling place shall be located in a
building which serves primarily as the
headquarters, office, or assembly
building for any private organization,
other than an organization of a civic,
educational, religious, charitable,
historical, patriotic, cultural or similar
nature unless the State Board of
Elections has approved the use of the
building because no other building
meeting the accessibility requirements
set forth in Guideline 5 is available.
(Virginia Code § 24.2-310.1)
Compliance
Compliance 5. Each polling place shall be accessible
to qualified voters as required by the
provisions of the Virginians with
Disabilities Act (Virginia Code § 51.5-1
et seq.), the Voting Accessibility for
the Elderly and Handicapped Act (42
U.S.C. § 1973ee et seq.), and the
Americans with Disabilities Act relating
to public services (42 U.S.C. § 12131
et seq.). (Virginia Code § 24.2-310(C))
Compliance
Compliance 6. If there is a conflict between
Guidelines 2, 3, 4 or 5 and Guidelines
7, 8 or 9, priority shall be given to
Guidelines 2, 3, 4 or 5 because they
are based on State law requirements.
(Based on Virginia Senate and House
2001 Redistricting Criteria)
Compliance
5
County Considerations
Jack Jouett: The change of the polling place
for the reconfigured Burnley (Baker-Butler)
precinct from Northside Community Church
to Baker-Butler Elementary School is closer
to that precinct’s population center so the
majority of voters will have a shorter
commute. There is almost no change in the
commute for voters moved from the East Ivy
precinct of the Samuel Miller Magisterial
District to the University Hall precinct,
because the polling places are close to each
other.
Rio: The voters of the Briarwood and
Camelot subdivisions, being added to the
Northside precinct, will have a longer
commute than currently, but within the 20
minute target.
Scottsville: There is almost no change in the
commute for voters moved from the Cale
precinct to the Monticello precinct, because
the polling places are close to each other.
7. Each polling place should be centrally
located within the precinct so that the
maximum travel time for a voter does
not exceed 20 minutes.
Rivanna: The voters of the Glenmore and
Running Deer area, being added to the
Keswick precinct, will have a longer
commute than currently, but within the 20
minute target.
Scottsville: The voters of the
southeastern portion of the Keswick area,
being added to the Stone-Robinson
precinct, will have a longer commute than
currently, but within the 20 minute target.
Also see Plan 1 comments.
Jack Jouett: The proposed change of the
polling place for the reconfigured Burnley
((Baker-Butler) precinct from Northside
Community Church to Baker-Butler
Elementary School, a public building, does
not meet this guideline but satisfies Polling
Place Guideline 3.
8. Existing polling places should be
maintained, provided that they satisfy
Guidelines 2, 3, 4 and 5.
See Plan 1 comments.
Compliance 9. Polling places should be located
where public transportation is
available, where appropriate.
Compliance
Magisterial Total White White Pop. Hispanic Hispanic Pop. Black Black Pop. Asian Asian Pop. AIAN AIAN Pop.District Name Population Population Percentage Population Percentage Population Percentage Population Percentage Population PercentageJack Jouett 14,571 9,457 64.90% 1,107 7.60% 2,096 14.38% 1,481 10.16% 13 0.09%Rio 15,682 11,065 70.56% 1,361 8.68% 2,032 12.96% 778 4.96% 39 0.25%Rivanna 17,425 14,237 81.70% 554 3.18% 1,498 8.60% 731 4.20% 28 0.16%Samuel Miller 15,126 12,562 83.05% 547 3.62% 868 5.74% 825 5.45% 20 0.13%Scottsville 19,020 14,416 75.79% 1,392 7.32% 2,359 12.40% 450 2.37% 30 0.16%White Hall 17,146 15,393 89.78% 456 2.66% 634 3.70% 332 1.94% 20 0.12%Albemarle County 98,970 77,130 77.93% 5,417 5.47% 9,487 9.59% 4,597 4.64% 150 0.15%Magisterial NHPI NHPI Pop. OTH1Race OTH1Race Pop. 2ORMORE_Races 2ORMORE_Races Pop. 18&OVER 18&OVER Pop.District NamePopulationPercentagePopulationPercentagePopulationPercentagePopulationPercentageJack Jouett 6 0.04% 24 0.16% 387 2.66% 12,448 85.43%Rio 8 0.05% 28 0.18% 371 2.37% 12,258 78.17%Rivanna 6 0.03% 49 0.28% 322 1.85% 13,090 75.12%Samuel Miller 3 0.02% 14 0.09% 287 1.90% 11,998 79.32%Scottsville 18 0.09% 31 0.16% 324 1.70% 15,044 79.10%White Hall 1 0.01% 27 0.16% 283 1.65% 12,847 74.93%Albemarle County 42 0.04% 173 0.17% 1,974 1.99% 77,685 78.49%Notes:Albemarle County, VirginiaCurrent Magisterial Districts (adopted May 9, 2001) - Race Population figures are derived from population statistics with Hispanic population reported separately; Table P2,HISPANIC OR LATINO, AND NOT HISPANIC OR LATINO BY RACE [73]; 2010 Census Redistricting data - Individual Race Population percentages may add up to less than 100% (due to rounding from four decimals to two decimal places)Created: 3/24/2011Created By: Roderick Burton, Office of Geographic Data Services (GDS) - AIAN: American Indian or Native Alaskan - NHPI: Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander - OTH1Race: Individuals of some other singular race. (Not considered Black, White, Hispanic, Asian, AIAN, or NHPI) - 2ORMORE_Races: Individuals of two or mores races - Individual Race Population percentages may add up to less than 100% (due to rounding from four decimals to two decimal places)Created: 3/24/2011Created By: Roderick Burton, Office of Geographic Data Services (GDS)
Magisterial Total White White Pop. Hispanic Hispanic Pop. Black Black Pop. Asian Asian Pop. AIAN AIAN Pop.District Name Population Population Percentage Population Percentage Population Percentage Population Percentage Population PercentageJack Jouett 17,007 10,912 64.16% 1,250 7.35% 2,312 13.59% 1,975 11.61% 15 0.09%Rio 16,807 11,726 69.77% 1,444 8.59% 2,333 13.88% 809 4.81% 39 0.23%Rivanna 16,300 13,576 83.29% 471 2.89% 1,197 7.34% 700 4.29% 28 0.17%Samuel Miller 16,039 13,609 84.85% 511 3.19% 1,315 8.20% 343 2.14% 20 0.12%Scottsville 16,622 12,809 77.06% 1,311 7.89% 1,709 10.28% 444 2.67% 28 0.17%White Hall 16,195 14,498 89.52% 430 2.66% 621 3.83% 326 2.01% 20 0.12%Albemarle County 98,970 77,130 77.93% 5,417 5.47% 9,487 9.59% 4,597 4.64% 150 0.15%Magisterial NHPI NHPI Pop. OTH1Race OTH1Race Pop. 2ORMORE_Races 2ORMORE_Races Pop. 18&OVER 18&OVER Pop.District NamePopulationPercentagePopulationPercentagePopulationPercentagePopulationPercentageJack Jouett 1 0.01% 23 0.14% 276 1.70% 12,131 74.91%Rio 7 0.04% 26 0.15% 510 3.00% 14,817 87.12%Rivanna 8 0.05% 31 0.18% 417 2.48% 13,063 77.72%Samuel Miller 6 0.04% 46 0.28% 276 1.69% 12,285 75.37%Scottsville 13 0.08% 16 0.10% 212 1.32% 12,173 75.90%White Hall 7 0.04% 31 0.19% 283 1.70% 13,216 79.51%Albemarle County 42 0.04% 173 0.17% 1,974 1.99% 77,685 78.49%Notes: - AIAN: American Indian or Native Alaskan - NHPI: Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander - OTH1Race: Individuals of some other singular race. (Not considered Black, White, Hispanic, Asian, AIAN, or NHPI) - 2ORMORE_Races: Individuals of two or mores racesAlbemarle County, Virginia2011 Redistricting Plan #1, dated April 6, 2011 - Race Population figures are derived from population statistics with Hispanic population reported separately; Table P2,HISPANIC OR LATINO, AND NOT HISPANIC OR LATINO BY RACE [73]; 2010 Census Redistricting data - Individual Race Population percentages may add up to less than 100% (due to rounding from four decimals to two decimal places)Created: 3/24/2011Created By: Roderick Burton, Office of Geographic Data Services (GDS)
Magisterial Total White White Pop. Hispanic Hispanic Pop. Black Black Pop. Asian Asian Pop. AIAN AIAN Pop.District Name Population Population Percentage Population Percentage Population Percentage Population Percentage Population PercentageJack Jouett 17,007 10,912 64.16% 1,250 7.35% 2,312 13.59% 1,975 11.61% 15 0.09%Rio 16,807 11,726 69.77% 1,444 8.59% 2,333 13.88% 809 4.81% 39 0.23%Rivanna 16,915 14,267 84.35% 473 2.80% 1,133 6.70% 678 4.01% 30 0.18%Samuel Miller 16,039 13,609 84.85% 511 3.19% 1,315 8.20% 343 2.14% 20 0.12%Scottsville 16,007 12,118 75.70% 1,309 8.18% 1,773 11.08% 466 2.91% 26 0.16%White Hall 16,195 14,498 89.52% 430 2.66% 621 3.83% 326 2.01% 20 0.12%Albemarle County 98,970 77,130 77.93% 5,417 5.47% 9,487 9.59% 4,597 4.64% 150 0.15%Magisterial NHPI NHPI Pop. OTH1Race OTH1Race Pop. 2ORMORE_Races 2ORMORE_Races Pop. 18&OVER 18&OVER Pop.District NamePopulationPercentagePopulationPercentagePopulationPercentagePopulationPercentageJack Jouett 7 0.04% 26 0.15% 510 3.00% 14,817 87.12%Rio 8 0.05% 31 0.18% 417 2.48% 13,063 77.72%Rivanna 5 0.03% 45 0.27% 284 1.68% 12,613 74.57%Samuel Miller 13 0.08% 16 0.10% 212 1.32% 12,173 75.90%Scottsville 8 0.05% 32 0.20% 275 1.72% 12,888 80.51%White Hall 1 0.01% 23 0.14% 276 1.70% 12,131 74.91%Albemarle County 42 0.04% 173 0.17% 1,974 1.99% 77,685 78.49%Notes: - AIAN: American Indian or Native Alaskan - NHPI: Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander - OTH1Race: Individuals of some other singular race. (Not considered Black, White, Hispanic, Asian, AIAN, or NHPI) - 2ORMORE_Races: Individuals of two or mores racesAlbemarle County, Virginia2011 Redistricting Plan #2, dated April 6, 2011 - Individual Race Population percentages may add up to less than 100% (due to rounding from four decimals to two decimal places) - Race Population figures are derived from population statistics with Hispanic population reported separately; Table P2,HISPANIC OR LATINO, AND NOT HISPANIC OR LATINO BY RACE [73]; 2010 Census Redistricting dataCreated: 3/24/2011Created By: Roderick Burton, Office of Geographic Data Services (GDS)
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
Community Development Work Program
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Follow-up from February 2011 for consideration of
expediting changes for Rural Area churches and the
Interstate Interchange Policy
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Messrs. Foley, Elliott, Davis, Graham, and Cilimberg
LEGAL REVIEW: Yes
AGENDA DATE:
April 6, 2011
ACTION: X INFORMATION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS: Yes
REVIEWED BY:
BACKGROUND:
On February 2, 2011, the Board considered the 2011 Community Development Work Program. (Attachment A) The
Board expressed interest in expediting a Zoning Text Amendment (ZTA) for Rural Area churches and a Comprehensive
Plan Amendment (CPA) for the Interstate Interchange Policy, requesting that staff provide an analysis of how this could
be accomplished. The purpose of this item is to provide that analysis and seek Board direction.
DISCUSSION:
Process Considerations
The consideration of any land use policy includes: 1) staff analysis, 2) public participation, 3) Planning Commission
consideration, and 4) Board consideration. This ZTA and CPA will each require a legal advertisement period and public
hearing as part of the Planning Commission and Boar d considerations. Beyond those legal requirements, the process
can be modified to fit each of the issues. For simple, noncontroversial issues, staff routinely provides a quick analysis
and limits the public participation to the required public hearings. The recently adopted ZTA for auto body shops on
Highways Commercial zoned property is a n example of success with this process. On the other hand, staff customarily
provides an extensive public participation process for complex or potentially controversial issues. The recently adopted
ZTA for farm sales is an example of success with this process. While the former example was completed in three
months, the latter required over seven months, even with public consensus and staff making this their highest pri ority.
From experience, staff has learned that attempts to shortcut the process for controversial issues is usually
counterproductive, resulting in multiple public hearings, increased resource demands, increased public distrust, and
little, if any, time savings. Staff finds it much more productive to attempt to resolve controversies, even if it delays the
schedule, prior to bringing complex or controversial issues before the Board. Even if conflict cannot be resolved, staff
uses this process to clarify any point of contention and to provide the Board with alternatives that can be considered.
Resources
The February 2011 executive summary included a chart for the proposed work program. (Attachment D of February
2011 executive summary) This chart shows that resources are very constrained for most of 2011 and there are few
opportunities to shift priorities. In addition to considering available staff time, staff must be assigned work in their areas of
expertise. For example, certain staff are experienced with Comprehensive Plan issues while others are experienced in
managing Special Use Permits (SPs). While staff can manage issues outside of their areas of expertise, this requires
more staff time and results in a loss of efficiency. In the case of the church ZTA, maintaining this efficiency would limit
choices to delaying work on the sign ordinance and industrial zoning standards. For the Interstate Interchange Policy,
this would require delaying work on the rest of the Comprehensive Plan update.
Rural Area Churches
This ordinance amendment would allow churches to avoid the need for a Special Use Permit (SP) by instead being
regulated through the use of Supplemental Regulations. Staff believes the ZTA process presented to the Board in
February should be used regardless of whether the schedule is accelerated. This process provides six months for staff
analysis and seeking public input prior to bringing an ordinance amendment to the Planning Commission. Given the
past controversy with a number of church SPs, staff believes this time is necessary to work through the issues and
minimize any controversy prior to bringing the ZTA to the Board for consideration. The February 2011 schedule shows
this work beginning in July, 2011. To accelerate work on this ZTA, staff would propose delaying work on the sign
ordinance changes and Light Industrial (LI) uses until the church ZTA is completed. Staff does not recommend this
change for two reasons. First, staff plans to begin work on the church ZTA in Ju ly, per the February schedule. A
AGENDA TITLE: Community Development Work Program
April 6, 2011
Page 2
reprioritization will only accelerate this by a couple of months and only 1 -2 church SP applications are anticipated in this
time period. Thus, the benefit of this change is relatively limited. Second, most of the work on the sign ordinance and LI
uses is nearing completion. Stopping work on those issues will result in lost momentum, effectively doubling the
remaining work when it is resumed. Staff considers this a significant impact, as the sign ordinance changes and LI uses
are priorities listed in the Board’s January 2010 Action Plan or Economic Vitality Action Plan.
Interstate Interchange Policy
The current Comprehensive Plan schedule, as discussed with the Planning Commission on March 22 nd, calls for staff
analysis of the Land Use Plan, including the Interstate Interchange Policy, in Summer 2011, followed by public
participation workshops in early Fall 2011, and then Planning Commission work sessions starting in late Fall 2011. The
schedule then provides for focused citizen input meetings, if needed, in Spring 2012, followed by additional Planning
Commission work sessions in Summer 2012, and final citizen check -ins before proceeding to public hearings for
adoption of the entire plan. Adoption is anticipated by early 2013. As noted above for complex or controversial issues,
this process is heavy in public participation and the milestones can shift depending on the rate of progress in the
resolution of issues.
If there is interest in accelerating an update to this policy, staff would recommend maintaining the current schedule
through the initial Planning Commission work session in late 2011, then breaking out this policy for a separate public
hearing in early 2012. While this approach would require additional public hearings and may result in consideration of
the policy without input from the targeted industry study, staff believes it could be accommodated with only small delays
to the rest of the work on the Comprehensive Plan. The benefit of this approach is anticipated as a nine month
acceleration of the policy consideration. The cost is estimated at 100 additional hours of staff time, delaying the rest of
the Comprehensive Plan update by a month or two, and the cost of 2 additional public hearings. Finally, given the
relationship between this policy and the Yancey Mills CPA, the Board should anticipate considerable public scrutiny of
the policy by groups that have proven vocal in the ir opposition to the Yancey plan.
While it would be possible to further accelerate this consideration by foregoing any staff analysis or public participation,
staff does not recommend this approach except in a situation where there is a critical and immediate need. As noted
above, staff’s experience finds that shortcutting this process often fails and the failure creates public distrust. Staff also
notes this approach would requir e abandoning the cooperative effort with the City and TJPDC that is scheduled for a
public kickoff on April 27th. The benefit of this approach is an additional six month acceleration of this policy
consideration. The cost of this approach is delaying other work on the Comprehensive Plan for six months, eroding City
and TJPDC trust of the County, and eroding public confidence in our processes.
BUDGET IMPACT:
Staff’s analysis has been limited to it considerations of currently available resources. Thus, the budget impacts are
limited to the cost of additional public hearings. This budget impact does not consider any “soft” costs (e.g. public
confidence in County processes).
RECOMMENDATIONS:
1. For the RA Church ZTA, staff recommends keeping the schedule and process as presented in February. At
best, staff would be able to accelerate the schedule by two months, and believes that it would not result in a
significant benefit while delaying work on other issues.
2. For the Interstate Interchange Policy CPA, staff recommends keeping the schedule and process as currently
being implemented with the Comprehensive Plan update to allow time for the target industry study to be
completed before the Board’s consideration. If the Board believes a nine month acceleration of the policy
consideration is important, staff reco mmends consideration of the Interstate Interchange Policy be separated
from the rest of the Comprehensive Plan following the initial review of the Land Use section of the
Comprehensive Plan by the Planning Commission in late Fall 2011. A separate public hearing process would
then be expedited for the Interstate interchange Policy, allowing completion in early 2012.
ATTACHMENTS
A – February 2011 Executive Summary
B – February 2011 Work Schedule, Attachment D
Return to regular agenda
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
2011 Community Development Work Program
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Establish 2011 Community Development Work Program
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Messrs. Foley, Elliot, Davis, Graham , Cilimberg, and Fritz;
and Ms. McCulley
LEGAL REVIEW: Yes
AGENDA DATE:
February 2, 2011
ACTION: X INFORMATION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS: Yes
REVIEWED BY:
BACKGROUND:
The purpose of this work session is to establish work program priorities for Community Development for calendar year
2011. Community Development reviews its workload and Board priorities annually to set direction for the upcoming
year. Historically, the recommended initiatives have greatly exceeded staff resources available to work on them,
making it necessary to prioritize initiatives. This annual review provides the Board the opportunity to set priorities and
establish an annual work program. The last annual review was completed in February 2010 and the adopted work
program is provided as Attachment A. Attachment B provides a status report of staff’s efforts on the 2010 work
program while Attachment C offers a historical review of staffing, budget, and workload for Community Development,
establishing the baseline for available staff resources.
DISCUSSION:
Resource Considerations:
In developing its 2011 work program, staff first focused on workload and available resources. Staff resources are first
dedicated to meeting federal, state and local mandates. Local mandates include County ordinances that require plan
reviews, permits issuance, and inspections. Ordinance enforcement includes enforcement of Board policy, such as
the Entrance Corridor Guidelines and the Comprehensive Plan. After meeting those mandates, the remaining staff
capacity is dedicated to the work program. To assist the Board in understanding the current workload and staffing,
staff has prepared an overview of workload in key areas. (Attachment C). In preparing this, staff notes that Community
Development staffing has been reduced from 84 FTEs in FY 06 to its current authorized level of 59 FTEs which
represents an overall 30% reduction. Staff also notes that on an inflation adjusted basis, Community Development
has witnessed a 29% budget reduction since FY 06. Through 2009, the staff reduction roughly matched the reduction
in workload. However, in 2010, the workload began to increase while staffing reductions continued. This has created
a reduction in the available staff resources to dedicate to the work program. In an effort to continue to make progress
on the achievement of the work program, staff has modified and eliminated programs that are not mandated. For
example, staff no longer provides assistance to property owners with respect to stream buffers or groundwater issues
and staff has prioritized zoning enforcement to focus limited resources on the areas of highest concern (e.g. Entrance
Corridors).
Priorities:
Staff has recommended priorities for the 2011 work program, focusing on three factors. First, staff has considered
mandates. Beyond the ordinance enforcement discussed above, t he County is required by State law to review its
Comprehensive Plan every five years. As initiated in the 2010 work program, staff has started a multi-year effort to
update the Comprehensive Plan and anticipates some of these sections will reach the Planning Commission in the
second half of 2011. Staff notes this will include last year’s State mandate with respect to “Urban Development
Areas.”
Second, staff is focused on the Board’s January 6, 2010 Action Plan, with its efforts primarily focused on modifications
to the ministerial and legislative review processes as considered by the Board in June and September 2010.
AGENDA TITLE: 2011 Community Development Work Program
February 2, 2011
Page 2
Third, and finally, staff is focused on other initiatives that address process improvements or clarify ordinance
requirements. These efforts include the current review of noise standards for wineries and simplifying the
administration of critical slope requirements in the Development Areas As these items are the lowest priority of the
three, the Board should recognize that work on these initiatives may be delayed if the mandated workload significantly
increases or new initiatives are given a higher priority.
Proposed Work Program:
Staff’s recommended work program is provided as Attachment D. In establishing the priorities, staff anticipates that
the Board could complete the review of Places 29 in the first quarter of 2011 without a need for significant staff time.
With respect to the work on the Comprehensive Plan, staff notes this will include the State mandated changes for
Urban Development Areas. Staff anticipates hiring a temporary planner in the first half of 2011, entirely funded by a
grant already received by the Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission, to assist with this effort.
Beyond work on mandated programs, staff’s primary focus is completing the modifications to the ministerial and
legislative review processes, as agreed to by the Board, recognizing that these are listed as strategies in the
Economic Vitality Action Plan that was adopted in 2010. Staff anticipates that the ordinance amendments for the
ministerial processes will reach the Planning Commission in the second quarter of 2011 and the revisions to the
legislative processes near the end of the third quarter of 2011. This puts the ministerial process ahead of the schedule
discussed with the Board in June 2010. The legislative processes are behind the September 2010 schedule due to a
surge in legislative applications seen in late 2010 and staff resources being diverted to work on Places 29, wh ich had
been expected to be completed in the first quarter of 2010. Beyond those efforts, staff anticipates supporting the
other 2011 strategies of the Economic Vitality Action Plan.
Remaining staff time has been dedicated to ordinance revisions, such as the winery noise amendment and critical
slopes. Items that have been recommended for deferral include consideration of Historic Resources or Natural
Heritage ordinances, as well as engineering process and stormwater changes. With respect to stormwater changes,
staff anticipates significant work may be required in 2012 related to the Watershed Implementation Plan for the
Chesapeake Bay TMDL, but there is not enough information at this time to estimate the level of effort that will be
required to make these mandated modifications. Finally, staff notes that some additional initiatives are listed as
“constrained” in Attachment D, meaning those are the initiatives staff plans to support on a time available basis. If
other efforts require more time than anticipated, staff anticipates these issues would be deferred to a future year.
BUDGET IMPACT:
This work program has been drafted to fit within the department’s current FY 11 budget and its anticipated FY 12
budget. Staff has assumed the workload will continue the current trend of small increases and that no additional
staff resources will be made available by the Board. If the workload exceeds what current staffing can accomplish,
or if additional staff reductions are made, it will be necessary to make adjustments to this work program and some
items may need to be deferred or eliminated.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff requests that the Board consider the 2011 work program as proposed in Attachment D, advise staff of any
changes desired in it, and authorize staff implementation.
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A – 2010 Work Program
Attachment B – Progress on 2010 Work Program
Attachment C – Historical Staffing and Workload
Attachment D – 2011 Recommended Work Program
Attachment D2011 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT WORK PROGRAM - February 2011 ReviewSTATUS2010 2011 2012 2013 20141st Qtr 2nd Qtr 3rd Qtr 4th Qtr 1st Qtr 2nd Qtr 3rd Qtr 4th Qtr 1st Qtr 2nd Qtr 3rd Qtr 4th Qtr 1st Qtr 2nd Qtr 3rd Qtr 4th Qtr 1st Qtr 2nd Qtr 3rd Qtr 4th QtrComp Plan Master Plans Places 29WITH BOARD RivannaCOMPLETE * Crozet UpdateCOMPLETE * Southern Urban DEFER Advisory CouncilsONGOINGEcon Vitality LI Uses IN PROCESS Develop Action PlanCOMPLETE * - Quarterly Updates Ongoing - LI Rezoning 2nd Half 2011 - Ministerial Process In Process - Legislative Process 2nd Half 2011 - Agriculture Roundtables Assist, 2011Comp Plan Update Natural/Cultural Comp Plan Format Land Use Plan Utilities Rural Areas Comm. FacilitiesDev Areas NMD AmendmentsCONSTRAINEDARB Update GuidelinesCONSTRAINEDHistoric PresDEFER OrdinanceNatural HeritageDEFER Study Other RedistrictingIN PROCESSInitiativesMPO, PACC, EtcONGOING Farm StandsCOMPLETE * Eng. ProcessDEFERRA Uses - ChurchesPOSTPONEDRA Uses - Home Occ's IN PROCESSZoning Ord FeesCOMPLETE *ARB Admin ProcessCOMPLETE *Wineries, Phase 2IN PROCESS Critical Slopes CONSTRAINEDSign Ordinance UpdatesIN PROCESS Dev Review, Board Action #1 WITH ECON VITALITY Stormwater - "After the Storm"DEFERZoning Ord RecodificationDEFERHousekeeping Ord, Phase IIDEFER
County of Albemarle
MEMORANDUM
TO: Members of the Board of Supervisors
FROM: Meagan Hoy, Senior Deputy Clerk
DATE: April 6, 2011
RE: Vacancies on Boards and Commissions
Attached please find an updated listing of vacancies on boards and commissions
through May 2011 provided for informational purposes only.
The following Boards and Commissions have been advertised and applications were
received as follows:
Crozet Community Advisory Council: Two vacancies.
No applications received.
Jefferson Area Disability Services Board: One vacancy, business representative.
No applications received.
Pantops Community Advisory Council: Two vacancies.
Tom Weaver
Places 29 Community Advisory Council:
Drew Lawrence
Rivanna Solid Waste Authority Citizens Advisory Committee: Three vacancies
(one being a joint City/County Chair).
No applications received.
Village of Rivanna Community Advisory Council: One vacancy.
William Craddock
Dr. William Orr
Lynda White
Workforce Investment Board:
Amanda Moxham (Nomination from Piedmont Workforce Network.)
The following reappointments require action by the Board:
Agricultural and Forestal District Advisory Committee:
CHART:
Brad Sheffield
JABA:
Constance Palmer
Dr. Richard Lindsay
Jean Wyant
1 MEMBER
TERM
EXPIRES
NEW TERM
EXPIRES
WISH TO BE
RE-APPOINTED?
DISTRICT IF
MAGISTERIAL
APPOINTMENT
ACE Committee Stephen McLean 8/1/2011 8/1/2014 Eligible No Action Required
ACE Committee A. Bruce Dotson 8/1/2011 8/1/2014 Eligible No Action Required
Advisory Council on Aging M. Waltine Eubanks 5/31/2011 5/31/2013 Eligible No Action Required
Advisory Council on Aging William Harvey 5/31/2011 5/31/2013 Eligible No Action Required
Agricultural and Forestal District Adv. Cmte.Brad Cogan 4/17/2011 4/17/2015 Eligible No Action Required
CHART Jeff Monroe 4/3/2011 4/3/2014 No To be advertised
CHART Brad Sheffield 4/3/2011 4/3/2014 Yes Action Required
CA Convention and Visitors Bureau (CACVB)Chad Zakiab 6/30/2011 6/30/2013 Eligible No Action Required
CA Convention and Visitors Bureau (CACVB)Gregory MacDonald 6/30/2011 6/30/2013 Eligible No Action Required
Commission on Children and Families Carolyn Lawlor 6/30/2011 6/30/2014 Eligible No Action Required
Commission on Children and Families Janette Martin 6/30/2011 6/30/2014 Eligible No Action Required
Commission on Children and Families Amy Skilnick 6/30/2011 6/30/2012 No To be advertised
Crozet Community Advisory Council Paul Clark 3/31/2011 3/31/2013 Resigned Advertised, No applications recv'd
Crozet Community Advisory Council David Mellen 3/31/2011 3/31/2013 No Advertised, No applications recv'd
Fiscal Impact Advisory Committee Craig Evans 7/8/2011 7/8/2013 Yes No Action Required
Fiscal Impact Advisory Committee Jeff Werner 7/8/2011 7/8/2013 Ineligible To be advertised
Historic Preservation Committee Brian Broadus 6/4/2011 6/4/2014 Eligible No Action Required
Historic Preservation Committee Jared Loewenstein 6/4/2011 6/4/2014 Eligible No Action Required
Historic Preservation Committee Steve Thompson 6/4/2011 6/4/2014 Eligible No Action Required
Historic Preservation Committee Jeff Werner 6/4/2011 6/4/2014 Eligible No Action Required
Jail Authority John Chamales 8/6/2011 8/6/2014 Ineligible To be advertised
JABA Constance Palmer 3/31/2011 3/31/2013 Yes Action Required
JABA Richard Lindsay 3/31/2011 3/31/2013 Yes Action Required
JABA Jean Wyant 3/31/2011 3/31/2013 Yes Action Required
Jefferson Area Disability Services Board Amber Capron 6/30/2013 Resigned Advertised, No applications recv'd
JAUNT Juan Wade 9/30/2011 6/30/2015 Eligible No Action Required
JAUNT Clifford Buys 9/30/2011 6/30/2015 Eligible No Action Required
Jefferson-Madison Regional Library Board Gary Grant 6/30/2011 6/30/2015 Eligible No Action Required
Jefferson-Madison Regional Library Board Anthony Townsend 6/30/2011 6/30/2015 Ineligible To be advertised
Natural Heritage Committee John Foster 9/30/2011 9/30/2015 Eligible No Action Required
Natural Heritage Committee Diana Foster 9/30/2011 9/30/2015 Eligible No Action Required
Natural Heritage Committee Anne Bedarf 9/30/2011 9/30/2015 Eligible No Action Required
Natural Heritage Committee Phil Stokes 9/30/2011 9/30/2015 Eligible No Action Required
Pantops Community Advisory Council John Crosby 6/30/2013 Resigned Advertised, 1 application recv'd
Pantops Community Advisory Council Glenna Kennett 6/30/2013 Resigned Advertised, 1 application recv'd
Region Ten Community Services Board Albert LaFave 6/30/2011 6/30/2014 Eligible No Action Required
Region Ten Community Services Board Clyde Gouldman 6/30/2011 6/30/2014 Eligible No Action Required
Rivanna Solid Waste Authority Cit. Adv. Comm.Jeffery Greer 12/31/2010 12/31/2012 Ineligible, Joint City/County Advertised, No applications recv'd
Rivanna Solid Waste Authority Cit. Adv. Comm.Deborah Rutter 12/31/2012 12/31/2011 Resigned Advertised, No applications recv'd
Rivanna Solid Waste Authority Cit. Adv. Comm.Teri Kent 12/31/2011 12/31/2011 Resigned Advertised, No applications recv'd
Village of Rivanna Community Advisory Council 3/31/2013 Advertised, 3 received
Workforce Investment Board Rod Gentry 6/30/2011 6/30/2014 Eligible No Action Required
Workforce Investment Board Barbara Kessler 6/30/2011 6/30/2014 Eligible No Action Required
Workforce Investment Board Justine Jackson 6/30/2011 6/30/2014 Resigned 1 Nomination Recv'd
Revised 03/30/11
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
Calendar Year 2011 Tax Rate Resolution
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Request Board Approval of the Calendar Year 2011 Tax
Rates
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Messrs. Foley, and Davis; and Ms. L. Allshouse
LEGAL REVIEW: Yes
AGENDA DATE:
April 6, 2011
ACTION: X INFORMATION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS: Yes
REVIEWED BY:
BACKGROUND:
On March 30, 2011, a public hearing was held on the Board of Supervisors’ proposed budget for FY 11/12. A public
hearing also was held on the calendar year 2011 tax rates.
The attached resolution to set the calendar year 2011 (tax year) tax rates must be approved by April 15, 2011,
however, adoption of the tax rate at the April 6th meeting would assist in the timely printing and mailing of the tax bills
that are due on or before June 5th.
DISCUSSION:
The attached resolution sets the tax rates for calendar year 2011. The proposed rates are set at $0.742/$100
assessed valuation for real estate, public service, and manufactured homes and at $4.28/$100 assessed valuation for
personal property, including machinery and tools.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends adoption of the attached resolution to set the proposed calendar year 2011 tax rates.
ATTACHMENTS
A – Tax Rate Resolution
Return to agenda
Attachment A
RESOLUTION TO SET
CALENDAR YEAR 2011 TAX RATES
BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, does hereby set
the County Levy for Calendar Year 2011 for general County purposes at Seventy-Four and Two-Tenths
Cents ($0.742) on every One Hundred Dollars of assessed value of real estate; at Seventy-Four and
Two-Tenths Cents ($0.742) on every One Hundred Dollars of assessed value of manufactured homes; at
Seventy-Four and Two-Tenths Cents ($0.742) on every One Hundred Dollars of assessed value of public
service assessments; at Four Dollars and Twenty-Eight Cents ($4.28) on every One Hundred Dollars of
assessed value of personal property; and at Four Dollars and Twenty-Eight Cents ($4.28) on every One
Hundred Dollars of assessed value of machinery and tools; and
FURTHER orders that the Director of Finance of Albemarle County assess and collect the taxes
on all taxable real estate and all taxable personal property.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Return to exec summary
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
Adoption of the FY 11/12 Operating and Capital Budgets
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Request Board Adoption of the FY 11/12 Operating and
Capital Budgets
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Messrs. Foley, and Davis; and Ms. L. Allshouse
LEGAL REVIEW: Yes
AGENDA DATE:
April 6, 2011
ACTION: X INFORMATION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS: Yes
REVIEWED BY:
BACKGROUND:
On February 25th, the County Executive presented his Recommended FY 11/12 Operating and Capital Budgets to the
Board of Supervisors. On March 2nd, the Board held a Public Hearing on the Recommended Budget and then held
three public Work Sessions. On March 15th, the Board authorized the advertising of a $0.742/$100 real estate tax rate
for the 2011 Tax Year. On March 30th, a Public Hearing was held on the Board of Supervisors’ Proposed FY 11/12
Operating and Capital Budgets and on the Calendar Year 2011 Tax Rates.
DISCUSSION:
The FY 11/12 Operating and Capital budgets total $304,473,215. This total is a reduction of $394,850 from the
proposed FY 11/12 Operating and Capital budgets of $304,866,065 that was included in the Notice of Public Hearing
in the Charlottesville Daily Progress on March 20. The reduction of $394,850 is due to a change made by the School
Division to its operating budget due to recent General Assembly action which lowered the Virginia Retirement System
(VRS) rate by ½ percent. The FY 11/12 Operating and Capital budgets in the amount of $304,473,215 reflects the
County Executive’s Recommended Budget, the VRS-related change described above, other changes made during the
Board’s work sessions, and a final adjustment to the School Division’s state revenues based on information provided
by the State over the past two weeks.
The other changes are summarized below:
Items funded from the General Fund Reserve for Contingencies:
o Part-Time position at Crozet Library totaling $15,414;
o One-time funding for the Hatton Ferry totaling $5,000;
One-time transfer of $484,222 from the reserve in the FY 12 General Fund for the operation of the Ivy Fire
Station to the Capital Improvement Program (CIP) for the Revenue Sharing Road Program. It is important to
note that since this is a one-time use of this reserve in FY 12, the funding for the Ivy Fire Station’s operating
costs will be continue to be available in FY 13.
Increased State Revenue to the School Fund totaling $2,293,498; and
Increased use of the School Division’s Fund Balance for the School’s operating budget in the amount of
$1,101,248.
The attached resolution formally approves the FY 11/12 Budget. Attachment A to the Resolution details the
adjustments made to the County Executive’s Recommended Budget.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends adoption of the attached FY 11/12 Budget Resolution approving the FY 11/12 Operating and
Capital Budgets as recommended by the County Executive and amended by the Board of Supervisors.
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment – Budget Resolution
Attachment to Budget Resolution
Return to agenda
FY 2011/2012
BUDGET RESOLUTION
BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia:
1) That the budget for the County for the Fiscal Year beginning July 1, 2011 is made up of the
County Executive’s Recommended Budget document and the amendments made by the Board of
Supervisors as detailed in Attachment A.
2) That the budget for the County for the Fiscal Year beginning July 1, 2011 is summarized as
follows:
FY 11/12 Adopted
Administration $10,129,050
Judicial 3,786,125
Public Safety 29,985,325
General Services 4,376,011
Human Development (including PVCC)15,712,892
Parks, Recreation, and Culture 6,042,861
Community Development 6,008,232
Other General Government 1,111,342
General Government Special Revenue Funds 12,552,125
General Government Capital Projects 7,920,474
General Government Debt Service 4,192,225
Stormwater Improvements 104,500
Education - School Operations 140,647,850
Education - Self-Sustaining Funds 20,150,906
Education - Capital Projects 9,779,403
Education - Debt Service 13,160,451
City/County Revenue Sharing 18,089,812
Reserves 723,631
TOTAL $304,473,215
3) That the budget for the County for the Fiscal Year beginning July 1, 2011 as described in 1) and
2) above is approved.
****************
View Attachment A
Return to exec summary
Board of Supervisors' FY 11/12 Operating and Capital Budgets
Changes from Recommended Budget
GENERAL FUND EXPENDITURES
FY 11/12 Recommended
Budget
FY 11/12 Adopted
Budget
General Government Operations 80,572,680
Subtotal, General Government Operations 80,572,680
General Government Additions
JMRL - Crozet Library Position 15,414
Hatton Ferry 5,000
Subtotal, General Government Additions 20,414
Refunds 173,500
Subtotal, Refunds 173,500
City Revenue Sharing 18,089,812
Subtotal, Revenue Sharing 18,089,812
Capital Improvement & Debt Service Transfers 17,192,635
Revenue Sharing Roads Program one-time transfer 484,222
Subtotal, Capital & Debt Transfers 17,192,635
Transfer for School Operations 97,245,582
Subtotal, Transfer for School Operations 97,245,582
Contingency/Other 2,307,609
Reserve for Contingencies Adjustment -20,414
Reserve for Ivy Fire Station -484,222
Subtotal, Contingency/Other 2,287,195
FY 11/12 GENERAL FUND EXPENDITURES 215,581,818 215,581,818
GENERAL FUND - REVENUES & FUNDING SOURCES
FY 11/12 Recommended
Budget
FY 11/12 Adopted
Budget
COUNTY EXECUTIVE'S RECOMMENDED BUDGET 215,581,818
NO REVENUE ADJUSTMENTS
TOTAL, Revenue & Fund Balance Adjustments 0
FY 11/12 GENERAL FUND REVENUES 215,581,818 215,581,818
SCHOOL DIVISION BUDGET
FY 11/12 Recommended
Budget
FY 11/12 Adopted
Budget
School Fund Operations 141,170,652
State Revenue 2,293,498
Use of Fund Balance 1,101,248
Subtotal, School Fund Operations 144,565,398
Self-Sustaining Fund Operations 20,550,906
Subtotal, School Self-Sustaining 20,550,906
FY 11/12 SCHOOL DIVISION BUDGET 161,721,558 165,116,304
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS BUDGET
FY 11/12 Recommended
Budget
FY 11/12 Adopted
Budget
General Government Projects 8,137,410
Revenue Sharing Roads Project 484,222
Subtotal, General Government Projects 8,621,632
Storm Water Projects 104,500
Subtotal, Storm Water Projects 104,500
School Division Projects 9,923,403
Subtotal, School Division Projects 9,923,403
Debt Service 17,352,676
Subtotal, Debt Service 17,352,676
FY 11/12 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS BUDGET 35,517,989 36,002,211
SPECIAL REVENUE FUND OPERATIONS
FY 11/12 Recommended
Budget
FY 11/12 Adopted
Budget
Special Revenue Funds 14,263,381
Subtotal, Other Special Revenue Funds 14,263,381
FY 11/12 SPECIAL REVENUE FUND OPERATIONS 14,263,381 14,263,381
SUMMARY OF ALL FUNDS
FY 11/12 Recommended
Budget
FY 11/12 Adopted
Budget
General Fund 215,581,818 215,581,818
School Fund/School Self-Sustaining 161,721,558 165,116,304
Capital and Debt Service Funds 35,517,989 36,002,211
Special Revenue Funds 14,263,381 14,263,381
SUBTOTAL - ALL FUNDS 427,084,746 430,963,714
LESS INTERFUND TRANSFERS (126,006,277)(126,490,499)
TOTAL COUNTY BUDGET - ALL FUNDS 301,078,469 304,473,215
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
Albemarle County Service Authority (ACSA) Jurisdictional
Area Amendment Request for Water Service
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Public hearing for Jurisdictional Area Boundary
amendment to provide water service to an existing structure
on Tax Map 62, Parcel 28 located on Stony Point Road
(Route 20).
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Messrs. Foley, Elliott, Davis, Graham, Cilimberg and
Benish
LEGAL REVIEW: Yes
AGENDA DATE:
April 6, 2011
ACTION: X INFORMATION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS: Yes
REVIEWED BY:
BACKGROUND:
The applicant is requesting ACSA Jurisdictional Area designation for water service to a 25 acre parcel with an existing
single-family home. The parcel is located on the east side of Stony Point Road, just north of the Broadus Memorial
Baptist Church site (See Attachment A). The parcel is located within the designated Rural Areas (Rural Area 4) and is
in the Rivanna Magisterial District.
The existing well serving the property began pumping muddy/red water over four years ago, requiring a significant
filtering system to maintain a viable water supply. Due to the difficulties with operating and maintaining potable water
from the existing well, the applicant drilled a new well to replace the existing well; however, the withdrawal from the new
well produced the same quality of water, requiring significant treatment to provide potable water. The well driller does
not believe that the muddy conditions with the new well are temporary or due to the construction of the wells and also is
of the opinion that that there is no other viable well location on -site where potable water can be assured. While this is a
large parcel (25 acres), due to th e topography of the property, the location of the house and septic system, and the
necessary spacing of a well from surrounding development, the available area for a well on -site is a much smaller area
(a 5-6 acre envelope).
This Jurisdictional Area request was received in early March and is being treated as an emergency request; therefore,
this item has been scheduled for public hearing in April.
DISCUSSION:
The Comprehensive Plan provides the following concerning the provision of public water and sewer service:
“General Principle: Urban Areas, Communities, and Villages are to be served by public water and sewer (p.
114).”
“Provide water and sewer service only to areas within the ACSA Jurisdictional Areas (p. 130).”
“Follow the boundaries of the designated Development Areas in delineating Jurisdictional Areas (p.130).”
“Only allow changes in the Jurisdictional Areas outside of the designated Development Areas in cases where
the property is: 1) adjacent to existing lines; and 2) public health and/or safety is in danger (p. 130).”
Water and sewer services by policy are intended to serve the designated Development Areas where growth is
encouraged and are to be discouraged in the Rural Areas because utility services are a potential catalyst for growth.
Water supply and system capacities need to be efficiently and effectively used and reserved to serve the Development
Areas. Continued connections of properties in the Rural Areas result in further extension of lines from the fringe of the
existing Jurisdictional Area and into the Rural Areas, potentially straining limited water resources and capacity.
AGENDA TITLE: Albemarle County Service Authority (ACSA) Jurisdictional Area Amendment Request
April 6, 2011
Page 2
Based on information provided by the well driller (in writing and discussions with staff), it is staff’s opinion is that this
request meets the intent of the County policies for providing service to properties in the Rural Area. The well filtration
system is not a long term viable option for providing sustained well service to this site and there is an existing water line
located along the frontage of Stony Point Road.
BUDGET IMPACT:
The property owner will bear the costs for the water connection.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
After the public hearing, staff recommends that the Board amend the ACSA Jurisdictional Area to include Tax Map 62,
Parcel 28A for water to the existing structures only (single-family residence and cottage).
ATTACHMENTS
A – Application and well driller information
B – Location and ACSA Jurisdictional Area Designation Map
C – Site and Topography Map
Return to regular agenda
GIS-Web
Geographic Data Services
www.albemarle.org
(434) 296-5832
Tax Map Grid
Overview Roads
Primary Roads
Secondary Roads
Overview Roads - City
Road Bridges
Railroad Bridges
Road Centerlines
Road Centerlines - City
Roads
Roads - City
Railroads
Comprehensive Plan Areas
Buildings
Buildings - City
Driveways
Parcels
Lakes and Reservoirs
Ponds
Major Streams
Other Streams
ACSA Jurisdictional Areas
No Service
Water Only
Water and Sewer
Water Only To Existing Structures
Limited Service
City Water and Sewer
Albemarle Boundary
Charlottesville Boundary
Scottsville Boundary
ATTACHMENT B: ACSA JA Request, Vermillion, Location and Juris. Area Designations Legend
(Note: Some items on map may not appear in legend)
Map is for Display Purposes Only • Aerial Imagery from the Commonwealth of Virginia and Other Sources March 21, 2011
GIS-Web
Geographic Data Services
www.albemarle.org
(434) 296-5832
Tax Map Grid
Overview Roads
Primary Roads
Secondary Roads
Overview Roads - City
Road Bridges
Railroad Bridges
Road Centerlines
Road Centerlines - City
Roads
Roads - City
Railroads
Buildings
Buildings - City
Driveways
Elevation Contours (4 ft)
Parcels
Lakes and Reservoirs
Ponds
Major Streams
Other Streams
Albemarle Boundary
Charlottesville Boundary
Scottsville Boundary
ATTACHMENT C: ACSA JA Request, Vermillion (TMP 62-28A), Topography Map Legend
(Note: Some items on map may not appear in legend)
Map is for Display Purposes Only • Aerial Imagery from the Commonwealth of Virginia and Other Sources March 21, 2011
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road, North Wing
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
Phone (434) 296-5832 Fax (434) 972-4012
March 21, 2011
John D. Hash
919 2nd Street S.E.
Charlottesville, VA 22902
RE: SP2010000023 Westminster Canterbury Apartments – Parking Structure SIGN # 56 & 58
Tax Map Parcel 07800-00-00-055A6
Dear: Mr. Hash
The Albemarle County Planning Commission, at its meeting on February 22, 2011, recommended
approval on the above-noted petition, by a vote of 7:0 to the Board of Supervisors.
Please be advised that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors will review this petition and receive
public comment at their meeting on April 6, 2011.
View staff report and attachments
View PC minutes
Return to agenda
If you should have any questions or comments regarding the above noted action, please do not hesitate to
contact me at (434) 296-5832.
Sincerely,
William D. Fritz, AICP
Chief of Current Development
/ch
Cc: Westminster Canterbury of the Blue Ridge Attn: Mr. Scott Hilles
250 Pantops Mountain Road
Charlottesville, VA 22901
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
STAFF REPORT SUMMARY
Project Name: SP2010-23 Westminster
Canterbury Apartments – Parking Deck
Staff: Summer Frederick, Senior Planner
Planning Commission Public Hearing:
February 22, 2011
Board of Supervisors Public Hearing:
To be determined
Owner: Westminster-Canterbury of the Blue
Ridge
Applicant: John Hash; Timmons Engineering
Acreage: 55.79 Special Use Permit: 19.3.2.7 Stand alone parking and
parking structures.
TMP: Tax Map 78 Parcel 55A6
Location: 244 Pantops Mountain Road;
north side of Richmond Road (US Route 250)
approximately 1,000 feet east of State Farm
Blvd (Route 1117).
Existing Zoning and By-right use: PRD – Planned Residential
Development: Residential (3-34 units/acre with limited
commercial uses; and, EC – Entrance Corridor: Overlay to
protect properties of historic, architectural or cultural
significance from visual impacts of development along routes
of tourist access.
Magisterial District: Rivanna Conditions: Yes
DA (Development Area): X Requested # of Dwelling Units: N/A
Proposal: Special Use Permit to allow for a
parking structure.
Comprehensive Plan Designation: Urban Density Residential
- residential (6.01-34 units/acre) and supporting uses such as
religious institutions, schools, commercial, office and service
uses, Greenspace and Rural Areas - preserve and protect
agricultural, forestal, open space, and natural, historic and
scenic resources/ density ( .5 unit/ acre in development
density) in Neighborhood 3.
Character of Property: The 55.74 acre parcel
includes residential units for restricted age
population.
Use of Surrounding Properties: The area is primarily
characterized by commercial and retail properties.
Factors Favorable:
1. The proposed parking structure
will support additional residential
density within the PRD zoning
district, furthering the purposes of
said district.
2. Adjacent properties will not be
adversely effected by the
development of the proposed
parking structure.
Factors Unfavorable:
None identified.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of this Special Use Permit.
STAFF PERSON: Summer Frederick, Senior Planner
PLANNING COMMISSION: February 22, 2011
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS: TBD
PROPERTY OWNER: Westminster-Canterbury of the Blue Ridge
APPLICANT: John Hash; Timmons Engineering
Character of the Area:
The area is primarily characterized by commercial and retail properties (Attachment A).
Specifics of the Proposal:
The applicant is seeking approval to construct a parking structure to provide parking for residents of
additional units to be constructed above proposed structure.
Planning and Zoning History:
ZMA1997-003 Westminster Canterbury – Application to rezone acreage from R-10, R-6 and R-1 to
allow for expansion of retirement community. Approved with conditions 08.13.1997.
ZMA1999-009 Westminster Canterbury – Application to amend ZMA1997-003 to allow for
professional offices along Route 250E frontage. Approved with conditions 12.08.1999.
SDP1998-003 Westminster Canterbury Dwellings Preliminary – Preliminary site plan for duplex and
cottage units. Approved 03.23.1998
SDP1998-60 Westminster Canterbury Assisted Living Preliminary – Preliminary site plan for
construction of multi-unit assisted living facility. Approved with conditions 05.04-1998.
SDP1998-123 Westminster Canterbury Expansion Final – Final site plan for duplex and cottage units.
Approved 08.24.1998.
SDP1999-91 Westminster Canterbury Assisted Living Final – Final site plan for construction of multi-
unit assisted living facility. Approved 06.16.1999.
SDP2001-56 Westminster Canterbury Final – Final site plan for construction of additional assisted
living residential units. Approved 05.29.2001.
Conformity with the Comprehensive Plan:
The land uses supported by the Urban Density portion of the Comprehensive Plan emphasize residential
densities of 6.01-34 units per acre, and supporting uses such as religious institutions, schools,
commercial, office and service uses. The parking structure would directly contribute to the uses outlined
in the Comprehensive Plan by providing on -site, accessible parking as supportive use for a residential
density.
STAFF COMMENT:
Staff will address each provision of Section 31.6.1 of the Zoning Ordinance:
31.6.1: Special Use Permits provided for in this ordinance may be issued upon a finding by the Board of
Supervisors that such use will not be of substantial detriment to adjacent property,
The proposed parking structure is to be located well within the existing Westminster -Canterbury site, in
an area over an existing travelway/parking area. The proposed use will support the expansion of the
existing use on-site, will not alter the overall site design, or use. Therefore, the proposed parking
structure will not be of substantial detriment to adjacent prope rty.
that the character of the district will not be changed thereby and
Because the parking structure will support an expansion of the current use on -site, the character of the
district will not be changed.
that such use will be in harmony with the purpo se and intent of this ordinance,
The purpose and intent of the Planned Residential Development zoning is to promote higher density
residential development. Providing for a parking structure within an anticipated multi -unit structure
allows for additional residential density while minimizing actual development area.
with uses permitted by right in the district,
The proposed parking structure will support additional residential units, a primary by-right use within the
district.
with the additional regulations provided in section 5.0 of this ordinance,
Section 5.1.41 requires a site plan to be submitted and approved for each parking structure. If the special
use permit application is approved, the applicant anticipates submitting such a site plan for Coun ty
review and approval.
and with the public health, safety and general welfare.
The public health, safety and general welfare will be protected through the site plan review process.
SUMMARY:
Staff has identified the following factors favorable to this ap plication:
1. The proposed parking structure will support additional residential density within the PRD zoning
district, furthering the purposes of said district.
2. Adjacent properties will not be adversely affected by the development of the proposed parking
structure.
Staff has identified no unfavorable factors to this application.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Based on the findings contained in this staff report, staff recommends approval of SP2010-23
Westminster Canterbury Apartments – Parking Deck.
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A – Location Map
Attachment B – Special Use Permit Application
Attachment C – Concept Plan
Return to PC actions letter
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – FEBRUARY 22, 2011
DRAFT PARTIAL MINUTES – SP-2010-23 WESTMINSTER CANTERBURY APARTMENTS – PARKING STRUCTURE &
SP-2010-28 CHARLOTTESVILLE KOA - SUBMITTED TO BOS
1
Albemarle County Planning Commission
February 22, 2011
The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public hearing on Tuesday, February 22, 2011, at
6:00 p.m., at the County Office Building, Room #241, Second Floor, 401 McIntire Road, Charlottesville,
Virginia.
Members attending were Duane Zobrist, Chair; Ed Smith, Thomas Loach, Linda Porterfield, Don Franco,
Russell (Mac) Lafferty and Calvin Morris, Vice Chair. Julia Monteith, AICP, Senior Land Use Planner for
the University of Virginia was present.
Other officials present were Joan McDowell, Senior Planner; Ron Higgins, Chief of Zoning; Eryn Brennan,
Senior Planner; Summer Frederick, Senior Planner; Amelia McCulley, Zoning Administrator/Director of
Zoning; Bill Fritz, Director of Current Developm ent; Glenn Brooks, County Engineer; Wayne Cilimberg,
Director of Planning; and Greg Kamptner, Deputy County Attorney.
Call to Order and Establish Quorum:
Mr. Zobrist, Chair, called the regular meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. and established a quorum.
Public Hearing Items
SP-2010-00023 Westminster Canterbury Apartments - Parking Structure
PROPOSED: Parking Structure
ZONING CATEGORY/GENERAL USAGE: PRD - Planned Residential Development - PRD Planned
Residential District, which allows residential (3 - 34 units/acre) with limited commercial uses
SECTION: 19.3.2(7) Parking Structure
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE/DENSITY: Urban Density Residential - residential (6.01-34
units/acre) and supporting uses such as religious institutions, schools, commercial, off ice and service
uses, Greenspace and Rural Areas - preserve and protect agricultural, forestal, open space, and natural,
historic and scenic resources/ density ( .5 unit/ acre in development density) in Neighborhood 3.
ENTRANCE CORRIDOR: Yes
LOCATION: This facility is proposed in the Westminster Canterbury Development, which is located on the
north side of Richmond Road (US Route 250) approximately 1,000 feet east of State Farm Blvd. (Route
1117)
TAX MAP/PARCEL: 78-55A6
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Rivanna
(Summer Frederick)
Ms. Frederick presented a PowerPoint presentation and summarized the staff report.
The proposal is a special use permit to allow for a parking structure in the existing development.
Staff has identified the following factors favorable to this application:
1. The proposed parking structure will support additional residential density within the PRD zoning
district, furthering the purposes of said district.
2. Adjacent properties will not be adversely affected by the development of the propose d parking
structure.
Staff has identified no unfavorable factors to this application.
Based on the findings contained in this staff report, staff recommends approval of SP -2010-00023
Westminster Canterbury Apartments – Parking Deck.
Mr. Zobrist opened the public hearing and invited the applicant to address the Commission.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – FEBRUARY 22, 2011
DRAFT PARTIAL MINUTES – SP-2010-23 WESTMINSTER CANTERBURY APARTMENTS – PARKING STRUCTURE &
SP-2010-28 CHARLOTTESVILLE KOA - SUBMITTED TO BOS
2
Michael Mathews, with Mathews Development Company, introduced Gary Selmeczi, President and CEO
of Westminster Canterbury; and John Hash, Engineer with Timmons. They would be happy to answer
any questions. He appreciated the staff report where two favorable factors had been identified and no
unfavorable factors. It is simply a parking structure underneath some planned apartments. As he
understood the ordinance there was only one level allowed underneath the apartment by right. With two
levels, it requires the special use permit. They think two levels is more efficient for the use of this
particular site. They would hope the Commission would act in favor of their request. He introduced Mr.
Selmeczi for a couple comments.
Gary Selmeczi, President and CEO for Westminster Canterbury, said he had the pleasure of servicing
Westminster Canterbury for about 5 ½ years. He hoped the Commission knows that Westminster
Canterbury is a good neighbor and citizen of this community. They employ just over 300 employees and
serve over 400 residents in a continuum of care. They are one of the largest single properties and
consequently property taxpayers in the County and look to enhance the County with some possible future
development. What may not be known is that Westminster Canterbury is a non -profit retirement
community and has also provided over 3 million dollars in confidential financial assistance to seniors who
have outlived their resources. Therefore, they are very pleased that no one has ever left and that is their
faith based tradition. They look forward to continuing to grow that mission and service in this community.
Mr. Zobrist invited public comment. There being none, the public hearing was closed and the matter
before the Planning Commission.
Mr. Morris noted that he had been out to the property and talked to the people. A great deal of thought
has gone into it. This is going to be extremely beneficial to the current and future residents of
Westminster Canterbury. He was totally in favor it.
Motion: Mr. Morris moved and Mr. Loach seconded to recommend approval of SP -2010-00023,
Westminster Canterbury Apartments – Parking Structure as recommended in the staff report.
The motion carried by a vote of 7:0.
Mr. Zobrist noted that SP-2010-00023, Westminster Canterbury Apartments – Parking Structure would go
before the Board of Supervisors on a date to be determined in accordance with the staff report.
Mr. Fritz announced this was Summer Frederick’s last item and Planning Commission meeting. She has
taken a position with Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission. The Commission will be seeing
Ms. Frederick again in a different capacity. He thanked her for everything she has done.
The Planning Commission congratulated and thanked Summer Frederick for her services to the Planning
Commission.
Return to PC actions letter
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road, North Wing
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
Phone (434) 296-5832 Fax (434) 972-4126
March 16, 2011
Virginia Camping Resorts LLC
c/o Bryan Nettleton
3825 Red Hill Rd.
Charlottesville, VA 22903
RE: SP20100028 Charlottesville KOA
TMP 10100-00-00-052A1
Dear Mr. Nettleton:
The Albemarle County Planning Commission, at its meeting on February 22, 2011, by a vote of 7:0,
recommended approval of the above -noted petition to the Board of Supervisors.
Please note that this approval is subject to the following conditions:
1. Development of the use shall be in general accord with the conceptual plan titled “Concept Plan”,
prepared by the applicant and submitted November 15, 2010 (hereafter, the “Conceptual Plan”), as
determined by the Director of Planning and the Zoning Administrator. To be in general accord with
the Conceptual Plan, the development shall reflect the following major elements within the
development essential to the design of the development:
• Location of the pool and pavilion, the store, the gameroom/laundry, the cabins, travelways,
and bathhouse as shown on the Conceptual Plan.
Minor modifications to the Plan which do not conflict with the elements above may be mad e to
ensure compliance with the Zoning Ordinance.
2. Written approval from Fire and Rescue Division shall be required prior to the issuance of a zoning
clearance and the commencement of the use.
3. Written approval from the Health Department shall be required prior to the issuance of a zoning
clearance and the commencement of the use.
4. The use shall conform to the requirements outlined by the Virginia Department of Health Bureau of
Tourist Establishment Sanitation.
5. All site lighting exclusively for camp use must either emit 3,000 lumens or less or be full cutoff
fixtures. Lighting issues must be resolved prior to the issuance of a zoning clearance for
commencement of the use.
Please be advised that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors will review this petit ion and receive
public comment at their meeting on April 6, 2011.
If you should have any questions or comments regarding the above noted action, please do not hesit ate to
contact me at (434) 296-5832.
Sincerely,
Eryn Brennan
Senior Planner
Planning Division
Staff Report
PC Minutes
Return to agenda
SP 2010-28
PC February 22, 2011
Staff Report Page 1
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
STAFF REPORT SUMMARY
Project Name: SP201000028 Charlottesville KOA Staff: Eryn Brennan, Senior Planner
Planning Commission Public Hearing:
February 22, 2011
Board of Supervisors Public Hearing:
To be determined
Owner: Bryan Nettleton Applicant: Amy Peloquin
Acreage: 27.55 Special Use Permit: 10.2.2 (20) Day camp,
boarding camp
TMP: Tax Map 101 Parcel 52A1
Location: 3825 Red Hill Road (Rt. 708) approx.
one mile northwest of Scottsville Road (Rt. 20S)
junction
Existing Zoning and By-right use: Rural Areas:
agricultural, forestral, and fishery uses; residential
density (0.5 unit/acre)
Magisterial District: Samuel Miller Conditions: Yes
RA (Rural Areas): X Requested # of Dwelling Units: N/A
Proposal: Special Use Permit to bring an existing
campground into compliance with the Zoning
Ordinance and to add six cabins.
Comprehensive Plan Designation:
Rural Areas – preserve and protect
agricultural, forestral, open space, and
natural, historic and scenic
resources/density (0.5 unit/acre)
Character of Property: The 27.55 acre parcel is
entirely wooded and the tent sites and cabins are
intermittently dispersed in the central portion of the
parcel.
Use of Surrounding Properties: The area is
primarily characterized by rolling terrain, steep
slopes, forested areas, and scattered residential
lots and farmland. Some small single-family lots
are located to the south of the property.
Factors Favorable:
1. The proposed use would only minimally
impact the wooded character of the site
and the six cabins proposed to replace
the tent sites would not require any
removal of existing vegetation.
2. There are no anticipated detrimental
impacts on adjacent properties resulting
from the proposed use.
Factors Unfavorable:
None
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of this Special Use Permit, with conditions.
SP 2010-28
PC February 22, 2011
Staff Report Page 2
STAFF PERSON: Eryn Brennan, Senior Planner
PLANNING COMMISSION: February 22, 2011
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS: TBD
SP2010-28 Charlottesville KOA
Petition:
PROJECT: SP201000028 Charlottesville KOA
PROPOSED: Special Use Permit to bring an existing campground into compliance with the Zoning Ordinance
and to add six cabins.
ZONING CATEGORY/GENERAL USAGE: RA Rural Areas - agricultural, forestal, and fishery uses;
residential density (0.5 unit/acre in development lots).
SECTION: 10.2.2 (20) Day camp, boarding camp
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE/DENSITY: Rural Areas - preserve and protect agricultural, forestal,
open space, and natural, historic and scenic resources/ dens ity (.5 unit/ acre in development lots).
ENTRANCE CORRIDOR: No
LOCATION: 3825 Red Hill Road (Rt. 708) approx. one mile northwest of Scottsville Road (Rt. 20S) junction.
TAX MAP/PARCEL: 101000000052A1
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Samuel Miller
Character of the Area:
The area is primarily characterized by rolling terrain, steep slopes, forested areas, and scattered
residential lots and farmland. Some small single-family lots are located south of the property.
(Attachment A).
Specifics of the Proposal:
The applicant is seeking approval to construct six 15’ x 30’ cabins, each with a sink and full bath, on
existing tent sites and to bring the exiting campsite into compliance with the Zoning Ordinance
(Attachment B). The tent sites are used an average of 100 times per year, and existing cabins are
used an average of 150 times per year. The campground is open from mid-March through the end of
November (Attachment C).
The campground has existed on the site since 1966. Currently, 47 RV sites, 20 tent sites, and six
cabins are located on the campground, in addition to a store, shower and bathroom facility, pool
pavilion with a bath, and a gameroom/laundry. The hours of operation for the store are 8am to 7pm
daily during peak season, and the gameroom/laundry is open daily from 8am to 10pm.
There are currently three staff members for the campground, all of whom live in the primary
residence on the site. Several of the light fixtures on the site exceed 3,000 lumens and are not full
cutoff; however, the applicant has agreed to replace the light fixtures to bring them into conformance
with the Zoning Ordinance and this has been made a condition of approval for the special use permit
(condition 6). Zoning and Current Development staff have determined that there is ample parking on
the site to accommodate the campsites and cabins and that no improvements to the entrance are
required; therefore, a site plan would not be required.
Planning and Zoning History:
Charlottesville KOA is a legally non-conforming use. This special use permit request is the first
planning and zoning application for this property since the adoption of the Zoning Ordinance and will
bring it into conformance with the Zoning Ordinance.
SP 2010-28
PC February 22, 2011
Staff Report Page 3
Conformity with the Comprehensive Plan:
The land uses supported by the Rural Areas chapter of the Comprehensive Plan emphasize the
preservation and protection of agricultural, forestal, open space, and natural, historic and scenic
resources. Although the campground does not directly contribute to these land uses, the use does
assist in providing a rural landowner an economic opportunity that does not compromise the
agricultural and natural character of the area, which is one of the guiding principles for the Rural
Areas outlined in the Comprehensive Plan. In addition, the parcel remains primarily wooded; hence,
the development of the campground has not compromised the rural character of the site
(Attachment D). The campground also facilitates agritourism by providing an opportunity for visitors
to experience the natural and scenic beauty of the area first-hand, which is consistent with
recommendations for the Rural Areas and the Economic Development Policy component of the
Plan.
Use of Central Septic System-Review for Compliance with the Comprehensive Plan: The existing
campground is served by three separate septic and drainfield systems and one well providing water
to the entire site (Attachment E). Under the County’s ordinances, the existing water supply and
wastewater disposal systems are considered central system because ther e are three or more
connections to each system. A central system is considered a “public system” or facility, and the
Code of Virginia (15.2-2232) requires that any proposed public facility that is not already specifically
identified in the County’s Comprehensive Plan be found in compliance with the County’s
Comprehensive Plan by the Planning Commission. The existing central systems serving the
campground were established in the late 1960s, and there is no prior finding that these systems are
in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan.
Sewage disposal for the proposed six cabins that are subject to this Special Use Permit request is
to be addressed by modifying one of the three existing septic and drainfield systems on-site by
adding a new septic tank that will connect to existing drainfields and associated conveyance lines
and pump tanks. The existing water system (well) will also serve the new cabins.
The policies established in the Comprehensive Plan generally discourage the use of central
systems in the Rural Areas except to solve a public health or safety problem of existing residences.
In no cases should a rural subdivision density utilizing a central system exceed the density
achievable with the use of an independent system. The specific recommendations state:
Recommendation: New central sewer systems in the Rural Area shall be strongly
discouraged except to address health and safety problems (128).
The intent of the central system recommendation is to insure that the allowances for supporting
infrastructure are consistent with the growth management goals for the Rural Areas. Staff opinion is
that given the existing development and use of the site, and the related policies and goals of the
Comprehensive Plan, the continued use of the central systems is in substantial accord with the
Comprehensive Plan. Central systems are a practical way to serve a number of connections that
are characteristic of a campground (campsites, cabins , and supporting facilities). The provision of
individual well and septic systems for each campsite or facility would not be practical nor
necessarily more environmentally sound.
Regarding the proposed modification to the existing septic, drainfield system, and water system to
serve six new cabins, staff opinion is that this m odification is also in substantial accord with the
Comprehensive Plan. The proposed six cabins replace six existing tent sites; hence, there is no
intensification of use on the site from this modification . The modification also facilitates the
continued use of the site as a campground. The Health Department has determined that the
existing drainfields can support the proposed new septic tank and lines (Attachment F).
SP 2010-28
PC February 22, 2011
Staff Report Page 4
Staff opinion is that this request is in substantial accord with The County’s Comprehensi ve Plan.
Approval of the system would not facilitate an expansion of the use, and the use would serve to
support a business in the rural area that protects and promotes the agricultural, scenic, and natural
character of Albemarle County.
STAFF COMMENT:
Staff will address each provision of Section 31.6.1 of the Zoning Ordinance:
31.6.1: Special Use Permits provided for in this ordinance may be issued upon a finding by
the Board of Supervisors that such use will not be of substantial detriment to adjacent
property,
The campground use has operated on this site for 45 years and no complaints from adjacent
neighbors regarding the campground have ever been received. The traffic generated from the use
has not had an adverse impact on general traffic patterns in the area, and VDOT’s recent evaluation
of the site determined that the entrance has adequate commercial sight distance for the use. The
conversion of six tent sites to cabin sites also would not increase traffic in the area since no new
campsites are proposed on the property. The proposed location of the six cabins also would not be
visible from adjacent properties, and no adjacent property owners have commented on the
application since it has been submitted.
that the character of the district will not be changed thereby and
The campground site still retains a primarily wooded character consistent with the rural areas, and
only the main entrance and circular drive in front of the store have been paved. The crushed-stone
travelways used to access the surrounding camping sites are more informal and blend with the
character of the wooded site. The design of the proposed wood-frame and wood-sheathed rustic
cabins are also consistent with the site and area, and no trees would be removed to construct the
proposed new cabins.
that such use will be in harmony with the purpose and intent of this ordinance,
The purpose and intent of the Rural Areas zoning is to preserve agricultural and forestal lands and
activities, to protect the water supply, to limit service to r ural areas, and to conserve the natural,
scenic, and historic resources of the County. The campground business has not had a negative
impact on the preservation of agricultural lands or the conservation of rural areas. On the contrary,
the campground contributes to agritourism and facilitates visitors experiencing the scenic and
natural beauty of Albemarle County. The business also has not had an adverse impact on the water
supply since it is served by an on-site well, and it has created only a negligible demand for service
delivery to the Rural Areas, such as the occasional cleaning, sanitary, or delivery truck.
with uses permitted by right in the district,
The campground business does not conflict with the agricultural, forestal, and residential uses
allowed by right in the district.
with the additional regulations provided in section 5.0 of this ordinance,
The additional regulations provided in section 5.0 of the Zoning Ordinance address day camps and
boarding camps.
Staff will address each provision of Section 5.1.05 of the Zoning Ordinance as follows:
1. Provisions for outdoor cooking, campfires, cooking pits, etc., shall be subject to
Albemarle County fire official approval whether or not a site development plan is
required;
SP 2010-28
PC February 22, 2011
Staff Report Page 5
The applicant has been informed that the campground must comply with the Virginia Statewide
Fire Prevention Code. The Fire and Rescue Division had no objection to the proposal but noted
that final approval is subject to field inspection and verification.
2. All such uses shall conform to the requirements of the Virginia Department of
HealthBureau of Tourist Establishment Sanitation and other applicable requirements.
The applicant has been informed that the use shall conform to the requirements outlined by the
Virginia Department of Health Bureau of Tourist Establishment Sanitation. The applicant has
also already received approval from the Health Department for the site and proposed six cabins
(Attachment F).
and with the public health, safety and general welfare.
As previously noted, the Virginia Department of Health has approved the sanitary facilities and
VDOT has determined that the entrance has adequate commercial sight distance and meets the
requirements for the proposed use.
SUMMARY:
Staff has identified the following fact ors favorable to this application:
3. The proposed use would only minimally impact the wooded character of the site and the six
cabins proposed to replace the tent sites would not require any removal of existing
vegetation.
4. There are no anticipated detrimental impacts on adjacent properties resulting from the
proposed use.
Staff has not identified any unfavorable factors to this application.
Use of Central Septic System-Review for Compliance with the Comprehensive Plan:
Recommendation: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission find that the existing central
water and sewage system (three septic and drainfield systems) and proposed modification to serve
six cabins are in substantial accord with the Comprehensive Plan.
NOTE: This action permits the general use of a central system. The specific design for the system
is subject to an additional review and approval by the Board of Supervisors.
RECOMMENDED MOTION:
A. Should a Planning Commissioner choose to recommend that the existing central water and
sewage system (three septic and drainfield systems) and proposed modifications are in substantial
accord with the Comprehensive Plan:
Move to recommend that the existing central water and sewage system (three septic and
drainfield systems) and proposed modifications to serve six cabins on tax map 101, parcel
52A1 are in substantial accord with the Comprehensive Plan.
B. Should a Planning Commissioner choose to recommend that the existing central water and
sewage system (three septic and drainfield systems) and proposed modifications are not in
substantial accord with the Comprehensive Plan:
SP 2010-28
PC February 22, 2011
Staff Report Page 6
Move to recommend that the existing central water and sewage system (three septic and
drainfield systems) and proposed modifications to serve six cabins on tax map 101, parcel
52A1 are not in substantial accord with the Comprehensive Plan.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Based on the findings contained in this staff report, staff re commends approval of SP201000028
Charlottesville KOA subject to the following conditions:
1. Development of the use shall be in general accord with the conceptual plan titled “Concept
Plan”, prepared by the applicant and submitted November 15, 2010 (hereafter, the
“Conceptual Plan”), as determined by the Director of Planning and the Zoning Administrator.
To be in general accord with the Conceptual Plan, the development shall reflect the
following major elements within the development essential to the design of the
development:
Location of the pool and pavilion, the store, the gameroom/laundry, the
cabins, travelways, and bathhouse
as shown on the Conceptual Plan. Minor modifications to the Plan which do not conflict with
the elements above may be made to ensure compliance with the Zoning Ordinance.
2. Written approval from Fire and Rescue Division shall be required prior to the issuance of a
zoning clearance and the commencement of the use.
3. Written approval from the Health Department shall be required prior to the issuance of a
zoning clearance and the commencement of the use.
4. The use shall conform to the requirements outlined by the Virginia Department of Health
Bureau of Tourist Establishment Sanitation.
5. Any outdoor amplified sound shall conform to Section 4.18.04.
6. All site lighting exclusively for camp use must either emit 3,000 lumens or less or be full
cutoff fixtures. Lighting issues must be resolved prior to the issuance of a zoning clearance
for commencement of the use.
RECOMMENDED MOTION:
A. Should a Planning Commissioner choose to recommend approval of this special use permit:
Move to recommend approval of SP 2010-28 KOA Charlottesville subject to the conditions as
recommended by staff.
B. Should a Planning Commissioner choose to recommend denial of this special use permit:
Move to recommend denial of SP 2010-28 KOA Charlottesville. Should a commissioner motion to
recommend denial, he or she should state the reason(s) for recommending denial.
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A – Character of Area
Attachment B – Character of Site
Attachment C – Concept Plan
Attachment D – Images of the Site
Attachment E – Existing and Proposed Septic and Water Lines
Attachment F – Health Department Approval Letter
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – FEBRUARY 22, 2011
DRAFT PARTIAL MINUTES – SP-2010-23 WESTMINSTER CANTERBURY APARTMENTS – PARKING STRUCTURE &
SP-2010-28 CHARLOTTESVILLE KOA - SUBMITTED TO BOS
1
Albemarle County Planning Commission
February 22, 2011
SP-2010-00028 Charlottesville KOA
PROPOSED: Special Use Permit to bring an existing campground into compliance with the Zoning
Ordinance and to add six cabins.
ZONING CATEGORY/GENERAL USAGE: RA Rural Areas - agricultural, forestal, and fishery uses;
residential density (0.5 unit/acre in development lots).
SECTION: 10.2.2 (20) Day camp, boarding camp.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE/DENSITY: Rural Areas - preserve and protect agricultural,
forestal, open space, and natural, historic and scenic resources/ density (.5 unit/ acre in development
lots).
ENTRANCE CORRIDOR: No.
LOCATION: 3825 Red Hill Road (Rt. 708) approx. one mile northwest of Scottsville Road (Rt. 20S)
junction.
TAX MAP/PARCEL: 101000000052A1.
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Samuel Miller (Eryn Brennan)
Eryn Brennan presented PowerPoint presentation and summarized the staff report.
- This is an application for a Special Use Permit to bring an existing campground into compliance
with the Zoning Ordinance and to construct six 15’ x 30’ cabins, each with a sink and full bath, on
existing tent sites. Because the campground predates the current Zoning Ordinance,
Charlottesville KOA is a legally non-conforming use – so this is the first application and review
that has been conducted for this site. The campground has existed on the site since 1966, and
currently, there are 47 RV sites, 20 tent sites, and six cabins located on the campground. There
is also a store, shower and bathroom facility, pool pavilion with a bath, and a game room/laundry.
-
- Zoning and Current Development staff have determined that there is ample parking on the site to
accommodate the campsites and cabins and that no improvements to the entrance are required;
therefore, a site plan would not be required for the proposal. The Virginia Department of Health
has also approved the sanitary facilities and VDOT has determined that the entrance has
adequate commercial sight distance and meets the requirements for the proposed use.
- Staff has received no communication or correspondence from adjacent neighbors in regards to
this application.
- Staff reviewed images of the site. Although the campground does not directly contribute to the
Rural Area land uses outlined in the Comprehensive Plan, such as agricultural and forestal
activities, in staff opinion the use does assist in providing an economic opportunity for a rural
landowner. In addition, because the parcel remains primarily wooded, the development of the
campground has not compromised the rural character of the site. The campground also
facilitates agritourism by providing an opportunity for visitors to experience the natural and scenic
beauty of the area first-hand, which is consistent with recommendations for the Rural Areas and
the Economic Development Policy component of the Comprehensive Plan.
- The Planning Commission needs to take two actions tonight. The first action is in regards to the
existing central system and proposed modifications, and the second action is on the Special Use
Permit application. In regards to the first action, the existing campground is served by six
separate septic and drain field systems and one well providing water to the entire site. Under the
County’s ordinances, the existing water supply and waste water disposal systems are considered
an essential system because there are three or more connections to each system. A central
system is considered a “public system” or facility, and the Code of Virginia requires that any
proposed public facility that is not already specifically identified in the County’s Comprehensive
Plan be found in compliance with the County’s Comprehensive Plan by the Planning
Commission. The existing central system serving the campground was established in the late
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – FEBRUARY 22, 2011
DRAFT PARTIAL MINUTES – SP-2010-23 WESTMINSTER CANTERBURY APARTMENTS – PARKING STRUCTURE &
SP-2010-28 CHARLOTTESVILLE KOA - SUBMITTED TO BOS
2
1960s, and there is no prior finding that this system is in compliance with the Comprehensive
Plan.
- Sewage disposal for the proposed six cabins that are subject to this Special Use Permit request
is to be addressed by modifying one of the septic and drainfield systems on-site by adding a new
septic tank that will connect to existing drain fields and associated conveyance lines and pump
tanks. The existing well water system will also serve the new cabins.
- The policies established in the Comprehensive Plan generally discourage the use of central
systems in the Rural Areas except to solve a public health or safety problem for existing
residences. However, staff opinion is that given the existing development and use of the site, and
the related policies and goals of the Com prehensive Plan previously noted, the continued use of
the existing central systems is in substantial accord with the Comprehensive Plan. Central
systems are a practical way to serve a number of connections that are characteristic of a
campground. The provision of individual well and septic systems for each campsite or facility
would not be practical nor necessarily more environmentally sound.
- Regarding the proposed modification to the existing central system to accommodate the six new
cabins, staff also believes that this modification is in accord with the Comprehensive Plan.
Therefore, staff recommends that the Planning Commission find that the existing central water
and sewage system and proposed modifications to serve the six new cabins are in substantial
accord with the Comprehensive Plan.
- Regarding the Special Use Permit application to construct six new cabins on existing tent sites,
staff believes this would not constitute an intensification of use on the site and would serve to
support a business in the rural area that protects and promotes the agricultural, scenic, and
natural character of Albemarle County. The proposal would also only minimally impact the
wooded character of the site, as no removal of existing vegetation would be required.
Furthermore, there are no anticipated detrimental impacts on adjacent properties resulting from
the proposed use. Staff has not identified any unfavorable factors to this application.
- Staff outlined a suggested motion regarding the central system and proposed modification noting
that this action permits just the general use of the central system. The specific design for the
system is still subject to an additional review and approval by the Board of Supervisors.
- Staff recommends the Commission take action on the existing central system and proposed
modifications as recommended in the staff report.
Mr. Zobrist invited questions for staff.
Ms. Porterfield asked if they find this in compliance that whether or not the septic systems are functioning
properly will be checked by somebody as well that the well they are using for the central system has no
problems.
Ms. Brennan replied yes.
Ms. Porterfield asked who does those things.
Ms. Brennan replied that the Virginia Department of Health has already approved all of the existing septic
and the other systems that extend on the site. They have three drain fields all of which are very large
enough to accommodate the existing cabin and tent sites. It accommodates the additional tent sites and
cabins as well. The Health Department had no problem with the existing. It is the County’s policy in
regards to the three lines that makes it a central system and therefore has to come before us.
Ms. Porterfield asked if the Health Department requires them to test the systems. In other words, do they
have to test the well to be sure that the well is okay that is feeding that system. In addition, do they have
to test the septic systems to be sure that they are functioning properly.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – FEBRUARY 22, 2011
DRAFT PARTIAL MINUTES – SP-2010-23 WESTMINSTER CANTERBURY APARTMENTS – PARKING STRUCTURE &
SP-2010-28 CHARLOTTESVILLE KOA - SUBMITTED TO BOS
3
Ms. Brennan replied that she believ ed they have, but the applicant is present and has met with the Health
Department several times and can speak and answer the questions.
Mr. Zobrist opened the public hearing and invited the applicant to address the Commission.
Bryan Nettleton, owner, said the water is tested quarterly for bacteria and to make sure the chlorine levels
are correct. The Virginia Health Department had him hire an engineer to check the septic systems and
make sure they were working adequately and could handle the new cabins. Ms. Brennan did a great job
in explaining everything.
Mr. Zobrist invited public comment. There being no public comment, the public hearing was closed and
the matter before the Planning Commission.
Motion on Recommendation for central water/sewer system and proposed modification:
Motion: Mr. Smith moved and Mr. Lafferty seconded to recommend that the existing central water and
sewage system (three septic and drain field systems) and proposed modifications to serve six cabins on
tax map 101, parcel 52A1 are in substantial accord with the Comprehensive Plan.
The motion passed by a vote of 7:0.
Mr. Zobrist noted that motion passed and the Commission would now discuss SP-2010-00035 regarding
the special use permit.
Ms. Brennan pointed out the recommended action and conditions of approval for the special use permit
application.
Mr. Zobrist invited questions for staff.
Ms. Porterfield questioned condition #5 that amplified sound shall conform to Section 4.1.8.04. Since
amplified sound is big these days, she asked staff to tell the Commission what that is.
Ms. Brennan replied it was what is allowed by right in the rural area, which was 55 decibels at night and
60 decibels during the day.
Ms. Porterfield asked if there was a problem with that who would respond.
Mr. Kamptner replied that zoning would respond.
Mr. Zobrist suggested since there is probably going to be some amendments that they would probably
want to modify the language to say the outdoor amplified sound should conform to Section 4.1.8.04 or
any similar ordinance now in effect or that may become in effect in the future.
Mr. Franco questioned why they say anything.
Mr. Kamptner noted this was one of those conditions that is a placeholder for a standard that applies to
any use that is allowed by zoning in any district. Depending on which district you are in the decibel levels
may change. However, this is really a reference to a standard that will apply regardless of whether it
stated as a condition.
Mr. Franco noted in other words they don’t really need it as a condition because it already applies, and
Mr. Kamptner replied yes.
Ms. Brennan pointed out zoning was concerned when they had a discussion over this condition and it
was added at the last minute. Zoning was concerned about all of the discussion about outdoor amplified
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – FEBRUARY 22, 2011
DRAFT PARTIAL MINUTES – SP-2010-23 WESTMINSTER CANTERBURY APARTMENTS – PARKING STRUCTURE &
SP-2010-28 CHARLOTTESVILLE KOA - SUBMITTED TO BOS
4
music. It is redundant because like any other parcel in the rural areas they would be subject to the zoning
ordinance no matter what the changes are in the future.
Mr. Morris agreed with Mr. Franco that it was redundant. He asked Ms. McCulley to come forward and
address this issue.
Ms. Brennan noted that she had discussion with Francis MacCall who was the zoning reviewer on this
application. They decided to leave it in the condition knowing that it could be taken out by the
Commission if they felt it was appropriate.
Ms. McCulley asked for time to look up that section to make sure she was clear about what it is.
Mr. Zobrist noted that the Commission would take a five minute break.
The Planning Commission took a break at 6:28 p.m.
The meeting reconvened at 6:32 p.m.
Mr. Zobrist called the meeting back to order at 6:32 p.m. and asked Ms. McCulley to address the
Commission.
Ms. McCulley recommended removing condition #5 since it would probably avoid the question in case of
an exemption. The condition actually creates more confusion than it solves. Therefore, she
recommended its removal since it was not necessary for the noise ordinance to apply.
Mr. Zobrist invited questions.
Mr. Franco asked if condition #6 was any different.
Ms. Brennan replied that condition was included because currently there are light fixtures that do not
meet the ordinance on the property because they were put on the property before the ordinance existed.
That is in there to ensure that those light fixtures will be changed to be compliant with the ordinance
before a zoning clearance or building permit is issued.
Mr. Franco said he was comfortable with that.
Motion: Ms. Porterfield moved and Mr. Morris seconded to recommend approval of SP-2010-00028,
Charlottesville KOA subject to the conditions as enumerated by staff numbers 1, 2, 3, 4, and 6.
The motion was passed by a vote of 7:0 with the following conditions, as amended.
1. Development of the use shall be in general accord with the conceptual plan titled “Concept Plan”,
prepared by the applicant and submitted November 15, 2010 (hereafter, the “Conceptual Plan”),
as determined by the Director of Planning and the Zoning Administrator. To be in general accord
with the Conceptual Plan, the development shall reflect the following major elements within the
development essential to the design of the development:
• Location of the pool and pavilion, the store, the gameroom/laundry, the cabins,
travelways, and bathhouse as shown on the Conceptual Plan.
Minor modifications to the Plan, which do not conflict with the elements above, may be made to
ensure compliance with the Zoning Ordinance.
2. Written approval from Fire and Rescue Division shall be required prior to the issuance of a zoni ng
clearance and the commencement of the use.
3. Written approval from the Health Department shall be required prior to the issuance of a zoning
clearance and the commencement of the use.
4. The use shall conform to the requirements outlined by the Virginia Department of Health Bureau
of Tourist Establishment Sanitation.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – FEBRUARY 22, 2011
DRAFT PARTIAL MINUTES – SP-2010-23 WESTMINSTER CANTERBURY APARTMENTS – PARKING STRUCTURE &
SP-2010-28 CHARLOTTESVILLE KOA - SUBMITTED TO BOS
5
5. All site lighting exclusively for camp use must either emit 3,000 lumens or less or be full cutoff
fixtures. Lighting issues must be resolved prior to the issuance of a zoning clearance for
commencement of the use.
Mr. Zobrist noted that SP-2010-00028, Charlottesville KOA would go before the Board of Supervisors on
a date to be determined with a recommendation for approval with conditions.
(Recorded and transcribed by Sharon C. Taylor, Clerk to Planning Commission & Planning Boards)
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
Charlottesville KOA campground central water and
sewer systems
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Public hearing to consider the approval of the
existing water and sewer systems and the
establishment of one additional sewer system on
the KOA campground site on TMP 10100-00-00-
052A1
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Messrs. Foley, Elliott, Davis, Kamptner, Graham,
Brooks, and Ms. Brennan
LEGAL REVIEW: Yes
AGENDA DATE:
April 6, 2011
ACTION: X INFORMATION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS: Yes
REVIEWED BY:
BACKGROUND:
The Charlottesville KOA campground has existed at its current location on Tax Map Parcel 10100-00-00-052A1 since
1966. Currently, 47 RV sites, 20 tent sites and six cabins are located on the property as well as a store, shower and
bathroom facility, a pool pavilion with a bath, a game room, and a laundry facility.
The applicant is concurrently seeking a special use permit (SP201000028) to allow construction of six small cabins on
existing tent sites and to bring the existing campsite into compliance with the Zoning Ordinance. As part of the Zoning
review, it was discovered that there were existing central water and sewer systems on the campground site which had
not been previously approved by the Board. In addition, the application for the proposed cabins includes six new
sewer connections and a new septic tank for the septic system currently servi ng the bath house.
DISCUSSION:
County Code § 16-101 defines central sewerage systems and central water supply as follows:
(1) “Central sewerage system. The term "central sewerage system" means a sewerage system consisting of
pipelines or conduits, pumping stations, force mains or sewerage treatment plants, including but not
limited to septic tanks and/or drain fields, or any of them, designed to serve three (3) or more
connections, used for conducting or treating sewage.
(2) Central water supply. The term "central water supply" means a water supply consisting of a well, springs
or other source and the necessary pipes, conduits, mains pumping stations, and other facilities in
connection therewith, designed to serve three (3) or more connections.”
County Code § 16-102 requires landowners to notify the Board of Supervisors as follows:
“Each person who proposes to establish or extend a central sewerage system or a central water supply shall
notify the board of supervisors of the proposal at least sixty (60) days prior to commencing construction
thereof. The notice shall be filed with the clerk of the board of supervisors. In addition to the foregoing
information, the notice shall include the following:
1. The location of the proposed central sewerage system or central water supply;
2. The number of connections proposed to be served by the central sewerage system or central water
supply;
3. A statement describing the type of the proposed central sewerage system or central water supply
and explaining the reasons the system or supply is needed; and
4. Three (3) copies of the preliminary plans for the central sewerage system or central water supply.”
In this case, to address County Code sections 16-102 (1, 2 and 4), staff worked with the applicant to develop
descriptive plans based upon the applicant’s information. These plans (Attachment A) detail the water and sewer
connections, tanks, pumps, lines, drain fields, and wells. To summarize, there is currently one central water supply on
the site, serving all of the buildings and camp sites, with a total of 77 connections. The second well, specifically
dedicated to the pool, is not included. There are six separate se wer systems, only one of which has multiple
connections that meet the
AGENDA TITLE: Charlottesville KOA campground central water and sewer systems
April 6, 2011
Page 2
definition of a central sewer system and serves the 47 RV sites. The proposed addition of the cabins would include
the addition of multiple connections to the sewer system serving the bath house, making it a central sewer system
also with 7 connections, 2 septic tanks, and 2 drain fields.
To address County Code § 16-102.3, the systems are needed for the campground business as described in the
accompanying special use permit. The addition of the cabins with sewer connections, replacing six tent sites, reflects
a growth in the business.
County Code § 16-104 requires a recommendation by the County Engineer and a public hearing and action by the
Board. County Code § 16-105 authorizes the Board to act on an application. If the Board approves the proposal, it
must specify the number of connections that may be made to the central sewerage system or central water supply
(County Code § 16-105(A)). The Board may condition its approval of a central sewerage system upon the approval of
the applicant's final plans by the County Engineer, the Health Department, and the Virginia Department of
Environmental Quality, and either approval by or proof of notification to, any other applicable state or federal
department or agency (County Code § 16-105(B)). The Board may condition its approval of a central water supply
upon the approval of the applicant's final plans by the County Engineer, the Health Department, the Virginia
Department of Environmental Quality, and either approval by or proof of notification to, any other applicable state or
federal department or agency (County Code § 16-105(C)).
The County Engineer recommends approval of the existing systems to bring them into conformity with the County
Code. The Health Department has approved all of the systems and is in the process of approving the proposed
sewer additions. From the County perspective, there is no reason the Health Department approval should not be
sufficient, unless the County were to consider a comparison of how many septic systems or wells might reasonably be
on the site were it to develop in a traditional rural residential manner. The County limitations on this use are
established through the Special Use Permit that the Board is considering. Once that policy issue is addressed, the
site should be adequate for the proposed systems.
BUDGET IMPACT:
There is no budget impact associated with the approval of the applicant’s request. The applicant would bear the
cost of the improvements.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
At the conclusion of the public hearing on this matter, staff recommends that the Board approve the applicant’s
request for approval of the existing central water and sewer systems and the establishment of one additional sewer
system on the KOA Campground site on Tax Map Parcel 10100-00-00-052A1 as set forth in the attached plans for a
total of 47 connections to the RV central sewerage system and a total of 7 connections to the bath house / cabins
central sewerage system, and a total of 77 connections to the central water supply subject to the following conditions:
1. The applicant shall obtain the approval of its final plans for the central sewerage systems from the County
Engineer, the Virginia Department of Health, and the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality.
2. The applicant shall obtain the approval of its final plans for the central water supply from the County Engineer,
the Virginia Department of Health, and the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality.
ATTACHMENTS
Charlottesville KOA water and sewer maps
Return to regular agenda
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road, North Wing
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
Phone (434) 296-5832 Fax (434) 972-4126
March 25, 2011
Kevin C. Carson
c/o Charlottesville Power Equipment
1525 E. Rio Rd
Charlottesville, Va 22901
RE: SP20100058 Charlottesville Power Equipment
TAX MAP/PARCEL: 06100-00-00-124F0
Dear Mr. Carson:
The Albemarle County Planning Commission, at its meeting on March 1, 2011, by a vote of 7:0
recommended approval of the above -noted petition to the Board of Supervisors.
Please note that this approval is subject to the following conditions:
1. Equipment shall be displayed only in Areas A, B, C, D and E shown on sheets 1, 2 and 3 of the
plan entitled “Tax Map 61 Parcel 124F Amended Site Plan” prepared by Roudabush, Gale &
Associates, Inc., revised January 18, 2011.
2. The site shall be landscaped as follows:
a. Add one tree in the planting strip between Putt Putt Place and the parking row labeled “Area C”
and one tree in the planting area between the rows labeled “Area B” and “Area C”. These trees
shall be a species whose mature height is coordinated with the overhead electric lines and
shall be planted at a minimum of 3½” caliper (if reasonable for the species). Provide the height
of the overhead lines.
b. Add three small trees or large shrubs between the existing trees in the planting strip along
Display Area D.
c. Add shrubs in the planting strips between the parking lot and Putt Putt Place, including the
corner at the intersection with Rio Ro ad. The shrubs shall be a mix of species and shall
include evergreen shrubs, but may also include deciduous species. The shrubs shall be a
minimum of 30” high at planting.
d. Add this note to the plan: All site plantings of trees and shrubs shall be allowe d to reach, and
be maintained at, mature height; the topping of trees is prohibited. Shrubs and trees shall be
pruned minimally and only to support the overall health of the plant.
3. Display items in areas A, B and C shall not be taller than 7’, which corre sponds to the bottom of the
soffit on the existing building.
4. Display items shall not be elevated anywhere on site.
5. Balloons, banners, signs, and/or other similar items shall not be attached to equipment on display
or installed anywhere within the approved display areas.
6. Items stored in the fenced storage area shall not rise above the height of the fence.
Please be advised that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors will review this petition and receive
public comment at their meeting on April 6, 2011.
If you should have any questions or comments regarding the above noted action, please do not hesit ate to
contact me at (434) 296-5832.
Sincerely,
Margaret Maliszewski
Principal Planner
Planning Division
CC: Wood, L F Jr & Patricia E
724 Chapel Hill Rd
Charlottesville Va 22901
View staff report and attachments
View PC minutes
Return to Agenda
SP-2010-58
PC March 1, 2011
1
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
PLANNING STAFF REPORT SUMMARY
Project Name: SP-2010-58:
Charlottesville Power Equipment
Staff: Margaret Maliszewski
Planning Commission Public
Hearing: March 1, 2011
Board of Supervisors Public Hearing:
Not scheduled
Owner: Patricia E. and L.F. Wood, Jr. Applicant: Kevin Carson
Acreage: 1.08 Special Use Permit: To allow outdoor
storage, display and/or sales in the
Entrance Corridor (EC) Overlay
District (Section 30.6.3.2 (b) of the
Zoning Ordinance)
TMP: Tax Map 61, Parcel 124F
Location: 1510 Putt Putt Place, at the
northwest corner of the intersection of
Rio Road East (Rt. 631) with Putt Putt
Place
Existing Zoning and By-right
use:
HC – Highway Commercial:
commercial and service uses; and
residential use by special use permit (15
units/acre) in Urban Area Neighborhood
2; EC - Entrance Corridor: overlay to
protect properties of historic,
architectural or cultural significance
from visual impacts of development
along routes of tourist access
Magisterial District: Rio Conditions: Yes
DA (Development Area):
Neighborhood 2
Requested # of Dwelling Units: n/a
Proposal: To establish outdoor storage,
display and sale of power equipment in
the Entrance Corridor (EC) Overlay
District
Comprehensive Plan Designation:
Community Service – community-scale
retail, wholesale, business and medical
offices, mixed use core communities
and/or employment services, and
residential (6.01-34 units/acre) uses.
Character of Property: The
development of this site predates the
establishment of Rio Ro ad as an
Entrance Corridor. Consequently, the
architecture, site layout, and
landscaping do not meet current
guidelines. A barn style building with a
rear addition and loading dock stands in
the southwest corner of the site. Paved
parking areas and travelways are
located to the east and north of the
Use of Surrounding Properties: An
open field is situated to the west of the
subject parcel. A bank, mini-golf and
storage units are located to the east
across Putt Putt Place. The Fashion
Square Mall and Aldersgate Church are
located across Rio Road to the south.
The recently constructed Red Lobster
restaurant and Shops at Rio Road stand
across Rio Road to the southwest. The
Arden Place residential development is
SP-2010-58
PC March 1, 2011
2
building. A paved patio (originally
constructed for outdoor dining) and
landscape area are located between the
building and the Rio Road Entrance
Corridor. A rail fence is located along
Rio Road and Putt Putt Place. Five
trees are present in the planting strip
along Putt Putt Place.
under construction to the north and the
Albemarle Square shopping center is
located to the northwest.
Factors Favorable:
1. The ARB had no objection to the
proposed use and with the
recommended conditions of approval,
no detrimental impacts to the Entrance
Corridor are anticipated.
Factors Unfavorable:
1. St aff has identified no unfavorable
factors.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the Special Use Permit
with conditions.
SP-2010-58
PC March 1, 2011
3
STAFF PERSON: Margaret Maliszewski
PLANNING COMMISSION: March 1, 2011
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS: Not scheduled
SP-2010-58: Charlottesville Power Equipment – Outdoor Sales, Storage,
Display
Petition:
PROPOSAL: To establish outdoor sales, storage and/or display of power equipment
in the Entrance Corridor (EC) Overlay District
ZONING CATEGORY/GENERAL USAGE: Highway Commercial (HC) –
commercial and service uses; and residential use by special use permit (15 units/acre)
in Urban Area Neighborhood 2; Entrance Corridor (EC) - overlay to protect
properties of historic, architectural or cultural significance from visual impacts of
development along routes of tourist access
SECTION: 30.6.3.2(b) which allows outdoor storage, display and/or sales in the
Entrance Corridor (EC) Overlay District by special use permit.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE/DENSITY: Community Service –
community-scale retail, wholesale, business and medical offices, mixed use core
communities and/or employment services, and residential (6.01 -34 units/acre) uses.
ENTRANCE CORRIDOR: Yes
LOCATION: 1515 Putt Putt Place, at the northwest corner of the intersection of Rio
Road East (Rt. 631) with Putt Putt Place
TAX MAP/PARCEL: Tax Map 61, Parcel 124F
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Rio
Character of the Area: The subject parcel is located at the corner of East Rio Road
and Putt Putt Place. (See Attachment A for a location map.) The development of this
site, as with most in the immediate area, predates the establishment of Rio Road as an
Entrance Corridor. Consequently, much of the architecture, site layout and
landscaping in this section of the corridor do not meet current guidelines. The area
includes a mix of retail, office, service and residential uses.
Specifics of the Proposal:
Power equipment is proposed to be displayed in five areas on site for a total of 6,591
sf of display area. The majority of the display is proposed along the south side o f the
site adjacent to Rio Road and the east side of the site adjacent to Putt Putt Place. A
small display area is proposed adjacent to the rear building addition. The applicant
has identified the types of equipment to be displayed in each area. Details of the
SP-2010-58
PC March 1, 2011
4
proposal are outlined in the table below and are illustrated on the plan that is
Attachment B.
Proposed Display Areas
Area Items for Display Location
A 1329 sf Lawn mowers On the patio located between the
front of the building and Rio Road.
B 602 sf Golf carts, large
mowers
In the front 3-space parking row that
is adjacent to Rio Road,
approximately 5’ from the property
line and 12-15’ from the paved road.
C 1268 sf Golf carts In the 8-space parking row that runs
parallel to Putt Putt Place, between
Rio Road and the southern entrance
into the site.
D 3255 sf Golf carts, truck
trailers, miscellaneous
power equipment
In the 180’-long parking row that
runs parallel to Putt Putt Place,
between the two entrances into the
site.
E 137 sf Miscellaneous
equipment
Along the side of the building
addition.
Planning and Zoning History:
ARB-2010-132: ARB application for the proposed sales, storage and display use
reviewed by the ARB on February 7, 2011. The ARB recommended no objection to
the Special Use Permit with conditions. (See Attachment C for the ARB action letter.)
SDP-2010-92: Site plan amendment for the outdoor sales, storage and display use is
currently under review.
SP-1998-45: Boudreau’s special use permit request to establish a dance hall (denied
November 11, 1998).
SDP-1998-154: Boudreau’s minor site plan amendment and waiver for off-site
parking (signed June 17, 1999).
SDP-1997-40: Italian Gourmet (Ninfa’s Carretino Gourmet) Minor Amendment to
add indoor and outdoor seating (signed April 11, 1997).
SDP-1996-59: Italian Gourmet Shop Minor Amendment (signed July 29, 1996).
Conformity with the Comprehensive Plan: The Comprehensive Plan designates the
subject property as Community Service. The purpose of the community service
designation is to provide community-scale retail, wholesale, business and medical
offices, mixed use core communities and/or employment services, and residential
(6.01-34 units/acre) uses. The proposed use as power equipment sales and display
may be deemed compatible with the community service designation with appropriate
considerations for location, visibility, scale, and screening.
SP-2010-58
PC March 1, 2011
5
Neighborhood Model
The proposed use advances the Neighborhood Model principle of Redevelopment
because the Charlottesville Power Equipment business will occupy an existing
building.
STAFF COMMENT:
Staff addresses each provision of Section 31.6 of the Zoning Ordinance:
31.6.1 Special Use Permits provided for in this ordinance may be issued upon a
finding by the Board of Supervisors that such use will not be of substantial
detriment to adjacent property, that the character of the district will not be changed
thereby and
The subject parcel is already developed with a building and paved parking areas and
travelways. The equipment display areas are proposed to be located within the
existing paved parking lot. The use of the existing parking area for equipment display
is not expected to be detrimental to adjacent property, and the character of the
Entrance Corridor district will be maintained, if certain standards are met regarding
the landscaping and the method of display. The ARB has reviewed the proposal and
has addressed these issues with recommended conditions of approval. (See
Attachment C for the ARB’s action.)
that such use will be in harmony with the purpose and intent of this ordinance,
The special use permit requirement for outdoor storage, display and/or sales is to
allow for review of the potential impacts of this activity on the Entrance Corridor. As
outlined in section 30.6 of the Zoning Ordinance, the intent of the EC Overlay
District is, in part, to ensure a quality of development that is compatible with the
County’s important scenic, architectural and cultural resources through the
architectural control of development. The ARB has applied the County’s adopted
guidelines for development within the EC to the review of this request and had no
objection to the request for the Special U se Permit with conditions related to
landscaping and method of display. (See Attachment C.)
with uses permitted by right in the district,
The proposed display of equipment is not expected to adversely affect any permitted
by-right uses in the district.
with the additional regulations provided in section 5.0 of this ordinance,
There are no additional regulations for outdoor storage, display and/or sales in the
Entrance Corridor.
and with the public health, safety and general welfare.
The ARB has addressed these considerations as they relate to this type of special
permit with recommended conditions of approval.
SP-2010-58
PC March 1, 2011
6
SUMMARY:
Staff has identified the following factors favorable to this application:
1. The ARB had no objection to the proposed use and with the recommended
conditions of approval, no detrimental impacts to the Entrance Corridor are
anticipated.
Staff has identified no factors unfavorable to this application.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Staff recommends approval of this special use permit, subject to the following
conditions:
1. Equipment shall be displayed only in Areas A, B, C, D and E shown on sheets 1,
2 and 3 of the plan entitled “Tax Map 61 Parcel 124F Amended Site Plan”
prepared by Roudabush, Gale & Associates, Inc., revised January 18, 2011.
2. The sit e shall be landscaped as follows:
a. Add one tree in the planting strip between Putt Putt Place and the parking row
labeled “Area C” and one tree in the planting area between the rows labeled
“Area B” and “Area C”. These trees shall be a species whose mature height is
coordinated with the overhead electric lines and shall be planted at a minimum
of 3½” caliper (if reasonable for the species). Provide the height of the
overhead lines.
b. Add three small trees or large shrubs between the existing trees in the plant ing
strip along Display Area D.
c. Add shrubs in the planting strips between the parking lot and Putt Putt Place,
including the corner at the intersection with Rio Road. The shrubs shall be a
mix of species and shall include evergreen shrubs, but may also include
deciduous species. The shrubs shall be a minimum of 30” high at planting
and shall be spaced to form a hedge at maturity.
d. Add this note to the plan: All site plantings of trees and shrubs shall be
allowed to reach, and be maintained at, mature height; the topping of trees is
prohibited. Shrubs and trees shall be pruned minimally and only to support
the overall health of the plant.
3. Display items in areas A, B and C shall not be taller than 7’, which corresponds to
the bottom of the soffit on the existing building.
4. Display items shall not be elevated anywhere on site.
5. Balloons, banners, signs, and/or other similar items shall not be attached to
equipment on display or installed anywhere within the approved display areas.
6. Items stored in the fenced storage area shall not rise above the height of the fence.
SP-2010-58
PC March 1, 2011
7
PLANNING COMMISSION MOTION:
A. Should a Planning Commissioner choose to recommend approval of this special
use permit:
Move to recommend approval of SP-2010-58 subject to the conditions as
recommended by staff.
B. Should a Planning Commissioner choose to recommend denial of this special use
permit:
Move to recommend denial of SP-2010-58. Should a commissioner motion to
recommend denial, he or she should state the reason(s) for recommending denial.
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A – Location Plan
Attachment B – Special Use Permit Plan
Attachment C – ARB Action Letter
GIS-Web
Geographic Data Services
www.albemarle.org
(434) 296-5832
Road Centerlines - City
Overview Roads - City
Roads - City
Scottsville Boundary
Charlottesville Boundary
Albemarle Boundary
Buildings
Buildings - City
Driveways
Lakes and Reservoirs
Major Streams
Other Streams
Overview Roads
Primary Roads
Secondary Roads
Parcels
Ponds
Railroad Bridges
Railroads
Road Bridges
Road Centerlines
Roads
Tax Map Grid
Charlottesville Power Equipment Tax Map 61 Parcel 124F Legend
(Note: Some items on map may not appear in legend)
Map is for Display Purposes Only • Aerial Imagery from the Commonwealth of Virginia and Other Sources February 10, 2011
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road, North Wing
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
Phone (434) 296-5832 Fax (434) 972-4126
February 10, 2011
Charlottesville Power Equipment
c/ o Kevin C. Carson
1525 E. Rio Rd
Charlottesville, VA 22901
RE: ARB-2010-132: Charlottesville Power Equipment – Outdoor Sales/Storage/Display
ARB-2011-03: Charlottesville Power Equipment Signs
Tax Map 61, Parcel 124F
Dear Mr. Carson:
The Albemarle County Architectural Review Board, at its meeting on February 7, 2011, reviewed the
above-noted requests to establish outdoor sales, storage, and display of equipment in the Entrance
Corridor, and to install a wall sign and to reface an internally illuminated freestanding sign.
Regarding the request for the Special Use Permit:
The Board by a vote of 5:0 voted to forward the following recommendation to the Planning Commission
regarding the proposed special use permit for ARB-2010-132:
The ARB has no objection to the request for the special use permit subject to the following conditions:
1. Equipment shall be displayed only in Areas A, B, C, D and E shown on the plan entitled “Proposed
Conditions Tax Map 61 Parcel 124F” prepared by Roudabush, Gale & Associates, Inc., revised
January 18, 2011.
2. The site shall be landscaped as follows:
a. Add one tree in the planting strip between Putt Putt Place and the parking row labeled “Area C”
and one tree in the planting area between the rows labeled “Area B” and “Area C”. These trees
should be a species whose mature height is coordinated with the overhead electric lines and
should be planted at a minimum of 3½” caliper (if reasonable for the species). Provide the height
of the overhead lines.
b. Add three small trees or large shrubs between the existing trees in the planting strip along Display
Area D.
c. Add shrubs in the planting strips between the parking lot and Putt Putt Place, including the corner
at the intersection with Rio Road. The shrubs should be a mix of species and should include
evergreen shrubs, but may also include deciduous species. The shrubs should be a minimum of
30” high at planting and should be spaced to form a hedge at maturity.
d. Add this note to the plan: All site plantings of trees and shrubs shall be allowed to reach, and be
maintained at, mature height; the topping of trees is prohibited. Shrubs and trees shall be pruned
minimally and only to support the overall health of the plant.
3. Display items in areas A, B and C shall not be taller than 7’, which corresponds to the bottom of the
soffit on the existing building.
4. Display items shall not be elevated anywhere on site.
5. Balloons, banners, signs, and/or other similar items shall not be placed on, around or near equipment
on display.
6. Items stored in the fenced storage area shall not rise above the height of the fence.
Please note that this recommendation will be forwarded to the Planning Commission for their
consideration of SP-2010-58.
Regarding the request for a Certificate of Appropriateness for signs:
The Board by a vote of 5:0 voted to approve a Certificate of Appropriateness for ARB-2011-03, subject to the
following condition:
1. In the freestanding sign, the ratio of the “Power Equipment” vertical field to the yellow field shall
not exceed the ratio established for the Clover Lawn wall signs. The applicant may return to the
ARB if the result is not acceptable.
Please note that revised drawings addressing this condition are required.
If you have any questions concerning either of the above actions, please feel free to contact me.
Sincerely,
Margaret Maliszewski
Principal Planner
cc: Wood, L F Jr & Patricia E
724 Chapel Hill Rd
Charlottesville VA 22901
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – MARCH 1, 2011 1
DRAFT PARTIAL MINUTES – SP-2010-00058 CHARLOTTESVILLE POWER EQUIPMENT
Albemarle County Planning Commission
March 1, 2011
The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a meeting and public hearing on Tuesday,
March 1, 2011, at 6:00 p.m., at the County Office Building, Lane Auditorium, Second Floor, 401
McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia.
Members attending were Russell (Mac) Lafferty, Duane Zobrist, Chairman; Ed Smith, Thomas
Loach; Linda Porterfield, Don Franco and Calvin Morris, Vice Chair. Julia Monteith, AICP,
Senior Land Use Planner for the University of Vir ginia, was absent.
Other officials present were Gerald Gatobu, Principal Planner; Margaret Maliszewski, Senior
Planner; Judith Wiegand, Senior Planner; Amelia McCulley, Director of Zoning/Zoning
Administrator; Eryn Brennan, Senior Planner; J.T. Newberry, Code Enforcement Officer; Ron
Higgins, Chief of Zoning; Stephanie Mallory, Zoning Assistant; Mark Graham, Director of
Community Development; Glenn Brooks, County Engineer, David Benish, Chief of Planning;
and Greg Kamptner, Deputy County Attorney.
Call to Order and Establish Quorum:
Mr. Zobrist , Chairman, called the regular meeting to order at 6:0 2 p.m. and established a
quorum.
SP-2010-00058 Charlottesville Power Equipment
PROPOSAL: To establish outdoor storage, display, and/or sales of power equipment in the
Entrance Corridor (EC) Overlay District
ZONING CATEGORY/GENERAL USAGE: Highway Commercial (HC) - commercial and
service uses; and residential use by special use permit (15 units/acre) in Urban Area
Neighborhood 2; Entrance Corridor (EC) - overlay to protect properties of historic, architectural,
or cultural significance from visual impacts of development along routes of tourist access
SECTION: 30.6.3 (a)(2) which allows outdoor storage, display and/or sales in the E ntrance
Corridor (EC) Overlay District by special use permit. No residential units are proposed.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE/DENSITY: Community Service - community-scale
retail, wholesale, business and medical offices, mixed use core communities and/or emp loyment
services, and residential (6.01-34 units/acre).
ENTRANCE CORRIDOR: Yes
LOCATION: At the northwest corner of the intersection of Rio Road East (Rt. 631) with Putt
Putt Place
TAX MAP/PARCEL: 06100-00-00-124F0
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Rio
(Margaret Maliszewski)
Ms. Maliszewski addressed the Board, stating that this is an application from the Charlottesville
Power Equipment Company to establish outdoor storage, sale, and display of power equipment
in the Rio Road East Entrance Corridor.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – MARCH 1, 2011 2
DRAFT PARTIAL MINUTES – SP-2010-00058 CHARLOTTESVILLE POWER EQUIPMENT
The site is located at the corner of Rio Road East and Putt Putt Place. This building
previously housed the Rivals and Boudreau’s restaurants. There are various types of
power equipment proposed to be displayed in the areas highlighted in the plan. It
includes the patio area in front of the building, three areas along the perimeter of the
parking lot, and one small area along the addition at the back of the building. The
applicant has outlined the types of equipment to be displayed, such as lawnmowers, golf
carts, trailers, etc. in the five different display areas. It is a total of 6,591 square feet of
display area.
A special use permit is required for this use specifically because it is proposed in the
Entrance Corridor. The intent of the requirement for the special use permit is to review
the visual impacts of the outdoor storage, sale, and display activity on the Entrance
Corridor street. The ARB reviewed this proposal and had no objection to the use with
recommended conditions. With those recommended conditions of approval, no
detrimental impacts to the corridor are anticipated.
The ARB’s recommended conditions pertained to the location and method of display,
landscaping, and the height of items for display. Those are typical conditions for this type
of use in the Entrance Corridor. Because the ARB had no objection to the use with those
conditions, staff is recommending approval with the conditions as presented in the staff
report.
Mr. Morris asked if they had begun to move into that location.
Ms. Maliszewski responded that the business is in the building.
Mr. Lafferty commented that this is a “well thought out plan” that includes a lot of detail.
Mr. Zobrist opened the public hearing and invited the applicant to address t he Commission.
L.F. Wood, t he property owner and landlord for Charlottesville Power Equipment, represented
the applicant. He made the following comments.
Charlottesville Power Equipment are moving their location due to the loss of lease on
Route 29 next to the new Hibachi Inn. Their lease was up on January 30 and they have
rented some storage space across the street to move in part of their items. They are
operating within the building and have stored a few small lawnmowers and equipment on
the property. This is a small equipment operation. There are no big tractor-trailers or
items that have significant height. They have worked closely with staff and the ARB.
On February 17, 2011 the ARB recommended approval based on several
recommendations as presented to the Commission. They have no problem with that.
Most of the shrubbery and growth is mature. Most of it was planted in 1975 with Snow’s
Nursery. The shrubbery has matured since that time. He likes the idea of adding some
other small greenery and two more trees. One of the trees has been knocked down twice
by automobiles running off Rio Road. That is very reasonable.
The conditions were discussed at the ARB meeting. They made a request in condition 2c
in the last sentence where it says, “. . . and shall be spaced in a form to form a hedge at
maturity.” That hedge is in front of Area D, which is on Putt Putt Lane between Putt Putt
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – MARCH 1, 2011 3
DRAFT PARTIAL MINUTES – SP-2010-00058 CHARLOTTESVILLE POWER EQUIPMENT
Lane and the parking lot. Putt Putt Lane is a private road that they built to state standard
years ago in 1975. It is not on the Corridor itself. It is partially visible from the Corridor.
However, they worked very closely with the Albemarle County Police Department. As
most know behind this locat ion at the very end of the road there is Rio Hill subsidized
housing units. Although it is very nicely operated, they have some problem with
security, vandalism, and trespassing. They would ask that the condition be changed to
take out, “to plant a hedge.” They would like to plant some separate smaller 30” height
shrubbery type of things between the existing mature trees. They would hate to see a
hedge that would be a hiding area so when police are making ca lls to Rio Hill or some
vandalism on this property that police officers would be able to have a sight distance into
the property for their safety in performing their duties.
They would accept all of the other conditions and agreed to do that. They plan to go
before the Board of Supervisors on April 1. He asked for a favorable recommendation
with these conditions.
Mr. Zobrist asked how the last sentence in paragraph C would be modified to meet the security
need.
Mr. Wood suggested eliminating it from the word “and” on. They did not want to be cited in
violation. Therefore, it would be made clear and simple. Charlottesville Power Equ ipment
would keep the area well maintained.
Mr. Zobrist invited public comment.
Bruce Draper, Chairman of Trustees for Aldersgate United Methodist Church, noted that the
church was right across the street from the proposed location. T hey are proud and happy to have
this fine company to come in their area because it would be a whole lot better than what they
have had given the history of the bars that were in the area. The applicant maintains their
property in excellent shape. He thought this business would be a big asset to the neighborhood.
There being no further public comment, Mr. Zobrist closed the public hearing to bring the matter
before the Commission.
Mr. Lafferty asked if the hedge was 30”.
Ms. Porterfield explained that Mr. Wood doesn’t want it to grow into a hedge, and asked if he
could just put in bushes and space them.
Mr. Wood responded that he has no problem with that.
Ms. Maliszewski said that the recommendation came from the ARB, based on staff’s
recommendation. Individual, spaced shrubs was not what she recommended.
Mr. Morris asked if she sees any problem w ith leaving space for the safety and so on.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – MARCH 1, 2011 4
DRAFT PARTIAL MINUTES – SP-2010-00058 CHARLOTTESVILLE POWER EQUIPMENT
Ms. Maliszewsk i responded that she doesn’t review for safety, but only for Entrance Corridor
guidelines.
Mr. Lafferty commented that he doesn’t want the applicant to get in trouble with the ARB and
have to go back through the ARB process.
Motion: Mr. Lafferty moved to approve SP-2010-00058 Charlottesville Power Equipment
subject to the conditions as recommended by staff with the part of the sentence in 2c pertaining
to the hedge growing to maturity removed. Mr. Morris seconded the motion, which passed
unanimously (7-0).
Mr. Zobrist noted that SP-2010-00058, Charlottesville Power Equipment would go to the Board
on a date to be determined with a recommendat ion for approval with the following conditions, as
amended:
1. Equipment shall be displayed only in Areas A, B, C, D and E shown on sheets 1, 2 and 3
of the plan entitled “Tax Map 61 Parcel 124F Amended Site Plan” prepared by
Roudabush, Gale & Associates, Inc., revised January 18, 2011.
2. The site shall be landscaped as follows:
a. Add one tree in the planting strip between Putt Putt Place and the parking row labeled
“Area C” and one tree in the planting area between the rows labeled “Area B” and
“Area C”. These trees shall be a species whose mature height is coordinated with the
overhead electric lines and shall be planted at a minimum of 3½” caliper (if
reasonable for the species). Provide the height of the overhead lines.
b. Add three small trees or large shrubs between the existing trees in the planting strip
along Display Area D.
c. Add shrubs in the planting strips between the parking lot and Putt Putt Place,
including the corner at the intersection with Rio Road. The shrubs shall be a mix of
species and shall include evergreen shrubs, but may also include deciduous species.
The shrubs shall be a minimum of 30” high at planting.
d. Add this note to the plan: All site plantings of trees and shrubs shall be allowed to
reach, and be maintained at, mature height; the t opping of trees is prohibited. Shrubs
and trees shall be pruned minimally and only to support the overall health of the
plant.
3. Display items in areas A, B and C shall not be taller than 7’, which corresponds to the
bottom of the soffit on the existing building.
4. Display items shall not be elevated anywhere on site.
5. Balloons, banners, signs, and/or other similar items shall not be attached to equipment on
display or installed anywhere within the approved display areas.
6. Items stored in the fenced storage area shall not rise above the height of the fence.
(Recorded and transcribed by Sharon C. Taylor, Clerk to Planning Commission & Planning
Boards)
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road, Room 227
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
Phone (434) 296-5832 Fax (434) 972-4126
MEMORANDUM
TO: File
FROM: Joan McDowell, Principal Planner
DATE: March 16, 2011
RE: ZTA200900016 Monticello Historic District
The Albemarle County Planning Commission, at its meeting on February 22, 2011, by a vote of 7:0,
recommended approval of the above-noted Zoning Text Amendment to the Board of Supervisors.
The Board is scheduled to hold a public hearing on this item at its April 6th meeting.
• The intent and purpose of the Monticello Historic District (hereinafter referred to as “MHD”) is to
create a planned historic district:
• - To permit restoration, preservation, conservation, education, programs, research, and
business and support activities, including fundraising activities for the public and/or contributors,
all of which are related to the operation of a historic house museum and historic site at Monticello;
• - To promote the preservation, interpretation and enhancement of a unique historical site;
• Sec. 11.3.1 By right uses
The following uses shall be permitted by right in t he MHD:
• Uses relating to the operation of Monticello as a historic house museum and historic site as
follows:
• 2. Fundraising activities and cultivation and stewardship events for the public and/or contributors,
subject to section 11.5.
• Temporary events related to or supportive of the historic, educational or civic significance of
Monticello, such as, but not limited to the Naturalization Ceremony on the Fourth of July, Thomas
Jefferson’s Birthday celebration, summer speakers series, presidential inaugu ral events, the
Heritage Harvest Festival, wine festivals, community hiking and racing events, musical
performances and concerts, and commemorative events similar to the Lewis and
Clark bicentennial, subject to section 11.5.
• 17. Tourist lodging (reference 5.1.17).
• 19. Farm winery uses, events and activities authorized by section 5.1.25(a) and (b) (reference
5.1.25).
• 24. Monticello scholar residences, which shall be private lodging accommodations in multiple-
family dwellings for educators, academic fellows or scholars working on Jefferson related
research and/or programs, Montalto Thomas Jefferson Foundation program and event
participants, persons directly engaged in the programming, research, or operation of Monticello
as a historic museum and historic site, and for a sole caretaker, provided that not more than
three dwelling units shall be occupied at any one time by persons directly engaged in the
programming, research, or operation of Monticello as a historic museum and historic site
except during the semi-annual meetings of the owner’s governing board
• Events that are typically conducted on a single day, but which may be conducted for up to three
(3) consecutive days, for which attendance is permitted only by invitation or reservation including,
but not limited to, meetings, conferences, banquets, dinners, weddings, wedding receptions, and
private parties, subject to section 11.5.
• 11.3.2 BY SPECIAL USE PERMIT
• The following uses shall be permitted by special use permit in the MHD:
• 1. Farmers’ markets (reference 5.1.47). (Amended 5-5-10)
• 5. Concerts (such as performances by the Charlottesville Symphony Orchestra and the
Charlottesville Municipal Band), theater, and outdoor drama events open to the general public,
not otherwise permitted by right under section 11.3.1(2).
• 8. Farm winery uses, events and activities authorized by section 5.1.25(c).
•
• Sec. 11.5 Standards of operation
• All uses authorized by section 11.3.1(1)(e), 11.3.1(2), or 11.3.1(27), shall be conducted in
accordance with the requirements of an approved traffic management plan on file with the
Community Development Department, which may be reviewed on an annual basis at the
discretion of the zoning administrator or county engineer, or the request of the owner. In addition,
all public access must meet minimum VDOT safety standards. Private road and travelway
access must meet standards as approved by the Planning Commission at the recommendation of
the County Engineer.
Staff Recommended Changes:
• 1. In section 11.5, Standards of Operation: delete the sentence "In addition, all public access
must meet the minimum safety standards of the Virginia Department of Transportation."
• Staff believes that the last sentence in that section ("Private road and travelway access must
meet standards approved by the planning commission upon the recommendation of the county
engineer.") will also cover any standards approved by the PC regarding the closure of the exit
where the sight distance is not met, since that ramp (the area to be closed off) is a private road.
• Sec. 11.5 Standards of operation
• All uses authorized by section 11.3.1(1)(e), 11.3.1(2), or 11.3.1(27), shall be conducted in
accordance with the requirements of an approved traffic management plan on file with the
Community Development Department, which may be reviewed on an annual basis at the
discretion of the zoning administrator or county engineer, or the request of the owner. Private
road and travelway access must meet standards as approved by the Planning Commission at the
recommendation of the County Engineer.
• 2. In section 11.3.2.8 By Special Use Permit: Add (for clarification):
• "...provided, however, that no special use permit shall be required for any use that is
otherwise permitted pursuant to section 11.3.1." (the by-right uses).
• 8. Farm winery uses, events and activities authorized by section 5.1.25(c) provided,
however, that no special use permit shall be required for any use that is otherwise
permitted pursuant to section 11.3.1.
Include change to multiple family in dwelling for the scholar residence
View staff report and attachments
View PC minutes: January 19, 2010, February 8, and February 22, 2011
Return to agenda
ZTA200900016 Monticello Historic District
PC 2/22/2011
Staff Report Page 1
STAFF PERSON: Joan McDowell, Principal Planner Rural Areas
PLANNING COMMISSION: February 22, 2011
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS: TBD
ZTA 200900016 Monticello Historic District
Petition:
ZTA 2009-00016 Monticello Historic District (MHD): ZTA 2009-00016 Monticello
Historic District (MHD). Amend Secs. 11.1, Intent and purpose, where permitted, 11.3.1, By
right uses, 11.3.2, By special use permit, and add Sec. 11.5, Standards of operation, of
Chapter 18, Zoning, of the Albemarle County Code. This ordinance would amend Sec. 11.1
to add support activities such as fundraising as a use consistent with the purpose and intent of
the district; amend Sec. 11.3.1 by add fundraising activities, festivals, community events,
concerts and farm winery uses allowed under County Code § 18-5.1.25(a) and (b) as by right
uses, delete tourist lodging as a by-right use, and delete the restriction on the number of
persons who may be temporarily lodged in the district; amend Sec. 11.3.2 to delete farmers’
markets and concerts and similar outdoor events and add farm winery uses allowed under
County Code § 18-5.1.25(c) as special uses; and add Sec. 11.5, which would impose
standards of operation that would apply to any by right use added by this ordinance. 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.
ORIGIN:
An application for a zoning text amendment was submitted by TJF Realty, Ltd. in
September 2009. The Resolution of Intent was approved by the Planning
Commission on February 8, 2011.
PROPOSAL:
Amend Chapter 11 Monticello Historic District to allow expanded uses including
fundraising activities, special events such as parties, weddings, conferences, as well
as allowing the lodging at Montalto to be open for public use; update references to
Farm Wineries to be consistent with the ordinance; add potential for annual review of
traffic management plan at the discretion of the Zoning Administrator, County
Engineer, or at the request of the owner. The proposed text amendment is included as
Attachment A.
PUBLIC PURPOSE TO BE SERVED:
Comprehensive Plan designates the subject properties as Rural Areas
emphasizing the preservation and protection of agricultural, forestal, open
space, and natural, historic, and scenic resources as land use options. The
additional public uses within the MHD would support the Foundation’s
historic preservation and educational goals.
ZTA200900016 Monticello Historic District
PC 2/22/2011
Staff Report Page 2
BACKGROUND:
ZTA 04-03 created the Monticello Historic District (MHD) (Section 11 of
the zoning ordinance) as a Planned Development District (Section 8 of the
zoning ordinance)
ZMA 04-05 rezoned approximately 868 acres from RA to MHD
ZMA 2007-23 rezoned 329.68 acres (Montalto) from RA to MHD
ZTA 2007-06 – zoning text amendment to amend the MHD regulations by
adding Section 11.3.1(24) to allow “Monticello Scholar Residence” as a
use permitted by right.
ZTA 2010-16 – Current application: On January 19, 2010, the Planning Commission
held a work session to discuss the proposed zoning ordinance amendment to the
Monticello Historic District. A copy of the Commission minutes and action letter is
included, as reference (Attachment B). A copy of the Resolution of Intent is included
as Attachment C.
STAFF COMMENT:
The Monticello Historic District (MHD) (map of District Attachment D) was
expanded two years after its creation in 2005 to include Montalto. The uses on
Montalto were specifically directed to support the Foundation’s mission to protect
and support the preservation and education of Thomas Jefferson and the Jefferson era
and the uses approved with the 2007inclusion of Montalto into the District allowed
seminars, conferences, and lectures that supported the mission. In addition, Montalto
would be the location for meetings by the Monticello Cabinet and the Thomas
Jefferson Foundation Board of Trustees. Montalto would also contain eight to ten
residences for scholars and for visiting Board or Cabinet members. The proposed
amendment would allow these approved uses to continue. However, the Intent of the
MHD would be modified to include public use of the facilities.
With the proposed zoning text amendment, uses within the Monticello Historic
District would allow the following:
Rental of the facilities for private events, such as parties, weddings, conferences,
meetings (unlimited number of events and unlimited attendance)
Public events, such as the Heritage Harvest Festival (unlimited number of events
and unlimited attendance)
Monticello scholar residences would be open to the public for lodging.
Monticello has hosted large and small events over decades, including the
Independence Day Celebration and Naturalization Ceremony. However, the
expansion of uses to include the additional use of the facilities by the public for
private parties, gatherings, conferences and meetings, concerned staff because of the
potential to substantially increase traffic impacts on Route 53. Staff supports the
expansion of uses, as long as public safety impacts have been addressed. A list of on-
going and anticipated events in the District is included as Attachment E.
ZTA200900016 Monticello Historic District
PC 2/22/2011
Staff Report Page 3
During the review of the applications that added Montalto into the MHD, the
concerns regarding the access road were mitigated by the following measures:
Fire Department determined that the road would handle emergency vehicles
The number of events and participants on Montalto would be exclusive to
Jefferson and Jefferson era activities, and shuttle bus transportation could be
provided from Monticello or from other suitable locations. The use of the
facilities was believed to be self-limiting, due to the requirement that all events
were required to be directly related to Thomas Jefferson and to the Jefferson era.
The following proffer was approved with the rezoning: “Vehicular access to the
Property shall be controlled during peak events that require off-site parking.”
Because of concerns regarding the potential for both parking and traffic impacts,
during their work session, the Planning Commission discussed thresholds that could
be established to determine traffic impacts at specific levels of attendance. These
thresholds could allow the management of traffic impacts. The Commission also
suggested that staff explore requiring a special use permit for uses over a certain
amount of attendees in a season or per year.
Since the Planning Commission work session, a Traffic Impact Analysis was prepared
for the applicant and reviewed by the County Engineer and VDOT in order to
evaluate potential impacts of the additional traffic. The Analysis contained
recommendations for geometric and traffic control improvements to be implemented
by the applicant. The complete Traffic Impact Analysis can be made available upon
request.
The Analysis recommended that A Traffic Management Plan be implemented to
address both hard and soft start events (defined below in bullet sections) in order to
“mitigate development impacts”. The Traffic Impact Analysis contained three
recommendations:
Implement traffic management plans for “soft-start” events (events that would
have people arriving and departing at different times, such as the Heritage Harvest
Festival) corresponding to 1,811 visitors. Traffic management plans will be valid
for soft start events that generate less than 2,500 total trips (1,250 entering and
1,250 exiting), corresponding to 2,875 visitors.
Implement traffic management plans for hard start events (events that all
participants arrive and depart at roughly the same time for events such as
receptions, conferences, meetings) for 388 total trips (194 entering and 194
exiting) corresponding to 477 visitors. Traffic management plans will be valid
for soft start events that generate less than 592 total trips (296 entering and 296
exiting), corresponding to 681 visitors.
Based on the sight distance study to be provided as part of the site plan approval
process, implement the required modifications to the site frontage that would
comply with the site triangles required for the roadway geometry of Route 53.
ZTA200900016 Monticello Historic District
PC 2/22/2011
Staff Report Page 4
The approximate location for the improvements have been drawn on a plan as
reference (Attachment G).
As the exit from Montalto onto Route 53 does not have adequate sight distance, the
applicant submitted a plan to redirect Montalto traffic through the Monticello parking
lot in the area used for bus parking (see Attachment E) and to temporarily close the
exit until improvements could be made. The alternative route would direct all
vehicles exiting Montalto across the bridge over Route 53, through the Monticello
parking lot (in the bus parking area) to the main Monticello exit onto Route 53. The
entrance into Montalto would be barricaded to prevent vehicles from exiting; vehicles
entering the property at that location would not be affected.
VDOT has advised that funding may be available to improve two unsafe sections of
Route 53 in this area, which includes the location of the exit from Montalto.
Although the improvements to take place in two years, the timing and the certainty
that those improvements will be made cannot be given by VDOT. The applicant
intends to begin the events allowed under this ZTA as soon as possible.
The proposed rerouting of vehicles through the Monticello parking lot for an
indefinite period has not recommended by the County Engineer, due to public safety
concerns. In addition, the County Engineer has raised concerns regarding the
Montalto Loop Road, as the road contains several tight curves. The applicant has
provided a plan that would to some extent straighten the curves and construct
approximately 60’ long, 12’ wide gravel ramps for vehicles unable to make the curves
or, if needed, to let other vehicles pass.
Conditions that would assure that impacts from uses are mitigated cannot be
processed through a zoning text amendment and it is not customary to include
performance conditions meant to be of a temporary nature, such as road
improvements, into the text of the zoning ordinance. In addition, the County
Attorney has advised that applicant’s notes on plans to assure compliance could not
provide the absolute certainty required to guarantee that these improvements would
be completed in a timely manner. Staff’s opinion is that these improvements are
critical to public safety. However, instead of using a special use permit or a zoning
map amendment to allow conditions or proffers to ensure that these public safety
improvements would be constructed and completed in a timely manner, an alternative
is proposed to include the road / entrance improvements in the zoning text
amendment:
Sec. 11.5 Standards of operation
All uses authorized by section 11.3.1(1)(e), 11.3.1(2), or 11.3.1(27), shall be conducted in
accordance with the requirements of an approved traffic management plan on file with
the Community Development Department, which may be reviewed on an annual basis at
the discretion of the zoning administrator or county engineer, or the request of the owner.
In addition, all public access must meet minimum VDOT safety standards. Private road
ZTA200900016 Monticello Historic District
PC 2/22/2011
Staff Report Page 5
and travelway access must meet standards as approved by the Planning Commission at
the recommendation of the County Engineer.
The County Engineer and a representative from VDOT plan to attend the meeting and
answer questions.
Administration / Review Process:
Approval of a revision to the site plan will result from the changes to the road.
The Planning Commission would decide on the private road and travelway access.
Housing Affordability: N/A
Implications to Staffing / Staffing Costs:
None anticipated.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends adoption of the draft ordinance found in Attachment A.
PLANNING COMMISSION MOTION
A. Should a Planning Commissioner choose to recommend approval of this Zoning
Text Amendment
Move to recommend approval of ZTA200900016 Monticello Historic District.
B. Should a Planning Commissioner choose to recommend denial of this Zoning
Text Amendment:
Move to recommend denial of ZTA200900016 Monticello Historic District.
Should a commissioner motion to recommend denial, he or she should state the
reason(s) for recommending denial.
Attachments:
Attachment A: Draft Monticello Historic District Ordinance Amendment
Attachment B: January 19, 2010, the Planning Commission work session minutes
Attachment C: Resolution of Intent
Attachment D: Map of District
Attachment E: Potential Montalto Programming
Attachment F: Traffic Rerouting Plan
Attachment G: Approximate location of VDOT improvement work
Attachment H: Traffic Management Plan for Certain Events at Montalto
Attachment I: Montalto Loop Improvements
Return to PC actions memo
ZTA200900016 Monticello Historic District
PC 2/22/2011
Staff Report Page 6
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – FEBRUARY 8, 2011
DRAFT PARTIAL MINUTES – ZTA-2009-16 MONTICELLO HISTORIC DISTRICT
1
Albemarle County Planning Commission
January 19, 2010
Monticello Historic District Work Session
Proposed amendments to the Section 11 Monticello Historic District of the Albemarle Zoning Ordinance
A work session was held on ZTA-2009-16 Montalto regarding the proposed addition to the
Monticello Historic District, which relates to ZMA-2007-23 Montalto and ZTA-2007-06 Monticello
Historic District (MHD) Text Amendment.
Ms. McDowell presented a PowerPoint Presentation and explained the proposed amendments to Section
11 Monticello Historic District.
Staff Recommendation:
– Concerned with the large scale and frequent events and that there should be an in depth review
and a special use permit for events over a certain number of attendees.
– Traffic studies recommended by VDOT
Mr. Loach invited the applicant to address the Commission.
Valerie Long, representative for the applicant, presented the background of the site for those who were
not on the Planning Commission during the previous review in a PowerPoint presentation. She noted that
in 2000 the Foundation commissioned a study to look at the future of Monticello in a master planning
initiative. She explained the purpose and intent of the MHD and what was currently permitted.
Mike Mathews, consultant for the Foundation on this project, was present to answer questions.
The Planning Commission held a discussion with staff and the applicant.
The Planning Commission provided guidance for the applicant’s next submittal and responded to the
questions posed in the staff report, as follows:
1. Issue / Question: Conformity with the Comprehensive Plan.
Are the proposed amendments to allow the facilities to be used for public and private events and the
removal of restrictions regarding the number of units to b e occupied by people that are not Jefferson
scholars in the lodging consistent with the Comprehensive Plan?
Discussion: The establishment of the MHD and subsequent addition of Montalto to the District was
determined to be consistent with the Guiding Principles of the Comprehensive Plan. Additionally, the
preservation of the historically significant structures met the Historic Preservation Plan’s objective to
pursue additional protective measures and incentives to preserve Albemarle’s historic and
archaeological resources or to foster pride in the County and maintain the County’s character. The
Natural Resources and Cultural Assets Component of the Comprehensive Plan identified both
Monticello and Montalto as mountain resources in the Mountain Protection Plan. With the approval of
a proffer to arrange or shield lighting away from abutting properties, the MHD became consistent with
the goal of the Dark Sky component to protect the dark sky of Albemarle County.
The proposed application, ZTA 2009-00016, has been reviewed to determine its consistency with the
Comprehensive Plan:
Rural Areas Section –
The Guiding Principles for the Rural Areas includes a goal to preserve and manage the County’s rural
scenic resources as being essential to the County’s character, economic vitality and quality of life.
Further the Guiding Principles include a goal to protect the Rural Areas’ historic archaeological and
cultural resources.
Staff’s concern is that there would be no limit on the number of events or the num ber of attendees
and repeated, large-scale events could negatively impact the historic property – both the buildings
and the grounds. Accommodations for events could include large tents or multiple tents that would
be visible to surrounding areas.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – FEBRUARY 8, 2011
DRAFT PARTIAL MINUTES – ZTA-2009-16 MONTICELLO HISTORIC DISTRICT
2
Natural Resources and Cultural Assets Section –
The Open Space Plan and the Mountain Protection Plan have identified both Monticello and Montalto
as mountain resources. In addition, the Historic Resources section identifies Monticello as a resource
from the Early National Period (1789-1830). Provisions to protect Monticello’s viewshed are goals of
the Historic Resources section.
Staff’s concern is that parking for events exceeding the paved spaces provided would be
accommodated on grassy areas. Access over unpaved areas to Carter’s Mountain in order to create
one-way egress for large events, as was the case for the Heritage Harvest Festival’s estimated 1,100
vehicles at Montalto in September 2009, could also cause land disturbances.
The Scenic Resources section has designated Route 53 as an Entrance Corridor. The proposed
uses should not require additional permanent structures to accommodate attendees.
Staff’s concern is that temporary structures and additional parking areas, as well as additional lighting
for parking and events, may be visible from the Entrance Corridor.
The Land Use Plan –
The Transportation component Land Use Plan designates Route 53 as a primary road, designed for
the purpose of moving traffic and not necessarily designed to provide access to properties.
Staff’s concern is that an unlimited number of events and the unlimited number of attendees have the
potential of adding an undetermined amount of traffic to rural roads.
Economic Development Policy –
Objective 1, Strategy 3 of the policy says, “Increase the promotion of tourism focused on the rural,
agrarian and historical resources of the County, and which does not threaten or compromise those
resources and to be consistent with the goals of the Comprehensive Plan.”
Staff believes that the proposed broadening of allowed activities in the MHD can be supportive of this
strategy if other Comprehensive Plan concerns are properly addressed.
Staff Recommendation: The potential for impacts from large-scale and frequent events and the
number of events should have in-depth review. A requirement for a special use permit for events
over a certain number of attendees and more than what is allowed for other uses in the Rural Areas,
such as wineries, may be appropriate.
Staff recommends that a more in-depth review of potential traffic issues is necessary and that it be
examined through a traffic study as recommended by VDOT.
The Planning Commission agreed with staff that the proposal does not meet the Comprehensive
Plan or the Intent and Purpose of the Monticello Historic District and these need to be changed.
VDOT’s request for the traffic study is appropriate to help determine thresholds. At the very least,
a special use permit should be required for events over a certain amount of attendees in a season
or per year. The Planning Commission asked staff to go back and evaluate the thresholds from all
aspects, due their concern with the overall cumulative impact to public roads.
The Commission would like for staff, along with the applicant, to evaluate some thresholds by
which there could be an acceptance of by-right activity and when there is a threshold of
discretion, be it through supplementary regulations or standards or a special use permit. There
are some thresholds that they would like a little bit more discretion of evaluating whether the
threshold is appropriate or not. They need to continue to work with that and evaluate the
implications of the traffic study as it relates to determining those thresholds.
2. Issue / Question: Usual and customary
Are the proposed uses typical for this type of unique property? This approach has been used in
Virginia with farm wineries. An appropriate test would be whether or not the uses they propose are
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – FEBRUARY 8, 2011
DRAFT PARTIAL MINUTES – ZTA-2009-16 MONTICELLO HISTORIC DISTRICT
3
usual and customary for such unique properties either as primary uses or subordinate and
incidental uses. Reasoning for this might be based on those uses that have been typical to other
like and unique properties in other places.
Discussion: The applicant has provided examples of other properties that permit both private and
public events that supplement the primary purpose of the property (Staff Report Attachment A).
Some of the examples, such as Mount Vernon and Montpelier, provide more equal comparisons than
others, such as the Library of Congress. In reviewing these examples as well as other examples
found through additional research, many sites have supplemented their income by renting the
facilities for events not related to the primary purpose of the site.
As Monticello has been designated a World Heritage site, staff reviewed other World Heritage sites in
the United States (Staff Report Attachment D). Many of the World Heritage sites are open for visitors
and have accommodations for special events, such as weddings, meetings and parties.
Staff Recommendation: Staff believes that many other sites similar to Monticello and Montalto have
events that supplement their primary purpose. However, since Monticello and Montalto are located in
the Rural Areas, size and number of events should remain important considerations as to their
impacts.
The Planning Commission agreed with staff that the proposal does not meet the Comprehensive
Plan or the Intent and Purpose of the Monticello Historic District and needs to be changed. The
Planning Commission agreed with staff’s concerns about the number and size of events. The list
of uses needs to be flushed out. A suggestion was made to review the uses requested with those
uses allowed for a farm winery.
3. Issue / Questions: Impacts on the area
VDOT indicates that a 529 study is needed for this amendment (Staff Report Attachment C). Should
part of the determination of what uses should be added to the district and their size, number and/or
frequency be based on the results of such a study? Are there other analyses that are needed?
Discussion: As discussed above, staff is concerned that the frequency and number of attendees at
the events warrants further consideration. Impacts based on the results of the traffic study would aid
in determining the type of review that should be required.
Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends that a 529 study be required, in order to determine the
appropriate size, number and frequency of events. Other impacts may be determined as a result of
the traffic study.
The Planning Commission asked staff to go back and evaluate the threshold from all aspects due
to their concern with the overall cumulative impact to public roads. At the very least, a special
use permit should be required for events over a certain amount of attendees in a season or per
year.
4. Issue / Questions: Consistency with the Intent and Purpose of the Monticello Historic District
As was the case with the ZTA-2007-00006, the zoning text amendment that allowed Montalto to be
added into the MHD, is this proposal consistent with the adopted intent and purpose of the District? If
the additional uses are appropriate to add to the District, should the purpose and intent be expanded
to address the proposal?
Discussion. The intent of the District (copied in the staff report) linked all uses allowed in the District
to the preservation of the historic house, preservation of Jefferson’s lands, and furthering the
education of Jefferson and Jefferson era history.
The Planning Commission agreed with staff that the proposal does not meet the Comprehensive
Plan or the Intent and Purpose of the Monticello Historic District and needs to be changed.
Public comment was received from the following person:
Neil Williamson, of Free Enterprise Forum, suggested that they come up with a nexus regarding the
frequency of events.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – FEBRUARY 8, 2011
DRAFT PARTIAL MINUTES – ZTA-2009-16 MONTICELLO HISTORIC DISTRICT
4
No formal action was taken. Staff to work with the applicant to address the concerns and questions
Ms. McDowell asked the Commissioners to keep all of the distributed information for future meetings.
The Planning Commission took a five minute break at 9:03 p.m.
The meeting reconvened at 9:09 p.m.
Light Industrial Land Assessment (Informational)
Staff presented the survey research of the County’s current and future inventory of industrial land
inventory for informational purposes. The presentation will be presented to the Board of Supervisors on
February 3, 2010. (Susan Stimart)
Ms. Stimart, Business Development Facilitator, made a presentation on the Industrial Land Survey. (See
Power-Point Presentation)
The Economic Development Policy was updated in March, 2009. Some of that data indicated a shortage
of land that was zoned and designated for future use for industrial uses. To meet the policy’s goal of
providing a sustainable economy, diversified economic opportunities and meeting the intent of the Growth
Management Goal to encourage non-rural related activities to locate in designated growth areas the
Board directed staff to inventory industrial zoned lands in the County and assess the extent of the
shortage. The purpose of the report is to review those findings and gain some direction from the Planning
Commission for the Board’s February 3 work session.
The research methods used for this study were GIS Analysis of the Real Estate Records of what was
occupied versus vacant, Analysis of the VEDP (Virginia Economic Development Partnership Data Base of
Vacant Sites and Buildings) as well as an employment forecast based on Bureau of Labor Statistics,
employment activity by industry, and interviews with the commercial Real Estate professionals in our
community and commercial and industrial building users.
Staff discussed the results, staff’s recommendations, and supporting examples.
Results:
• PDIP Inventory is adequate (335 acres)
• Land Use Plan (future inventory) is more than adequate (900 acres)
• All measures (GIS, qualitative, user interviews, employment forecast) indicate a shortage in
“ready-to-go” product -- HI (44 acres), LI (bet. 100 & 85 acres), ave. LI size = 3.5 ac.
• Qualitative analysis shows poor disbursement
• Limited inventory near road networks, primarily interchanges
• User interviews indicate zoning code issues, Zoning Code leaves out some uses typical of
industrial zoning; Code allows office, forcing com petition
• History to convert Industrial Service In the Land Use Plan to other non-industrial use
Staff reviewed maps that showed the four quadrants that had vacant resources and the industrial service
map that shows land designated for future use.
Recommendations:
• Increase the Zoned Land Inventory
– With property owner support, convert IS to LI
– Update the Comp Plan to better distribute near existing road networks (This primarily
affects the Southern Urban Area)
• Maintain and Allow easier use of existing Zoned Property
– Designation to match current industrial zoning
– Amend the zoning code for improved utility
• Allow HI uses by SP in LI districts
• Allow more industrial services (landscaping & cleaning)
• Allow agriculture-related industry (farmers’ markets)
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – FEBRUARY 8, 2011
DRAFT PARTIAL MINUTES – ZTA-2009-16 MONTICELLO HISTORIC DISTRICT
5
• Expand the thresholds for home-occupations in the rural areas, esp for small
contractors
• Eliminate stand-alone office uses
– To maintain Growth Management Policy’s protection of Water Supply/Natural Resources,
discourage expansion of industry outside Growth Are as, except
• At key highway interchanges, consider allowing low-impact industrial uses (low-
employment, no water or sewer) such as small-scale contractor storage yards,
agriculture-forestry resources businesses. (Candidate interchange areas for this
concept would be at Shadwell and Yancey Mills.)
After the conclusion of the presentation Ms. Stimart invited questions and comments.
The Planning Commission held the following discussion prior to taking public comment.
Mr. Loach pointed out that it is important to notice what can happen under a good Master Plan. Two out
of four of the adapted uses are Crozet, Music City Today and Star Hill in Crozet. For as small as they are
it represents 13 percent of the occupied industrial space in the County. Under the Ma ster Plan they are
actually looking at expanding their LI space with the lumber yard being up for sale and considering some
additional LI uses in the area by Con Agra. There was an article in Sunday’s paper from Mr. Scott
Watkins who was having a problem finding LI land. It was the community of Crozet that supported him.
Mr. Watkins has his LI land which was rezoned from residential. As far as what a good master plan can
do as far as development done he thought that they have done very well with the Crozet Master Plan. He
invited other comments.
Ms. Porterfield pointed out that with regard to the article about Watkins, she did not think it cost him half a
million dollars to get through the County rezoning hoops. She felt that amount has to include some other
things such as buying the land and doing other things. She did not want anyone to think it cost half a
million dollars to get the land rezoned.
Mr. Lafferty noted that in the last six years there has been 219 acres rezoned from LI to something e lse
while only 46 acres have been rezoned to LI. He questioned if that indicated that they need to look at the
zoning itself. One of the comments was that people find it much more lucrative to build office space on
Light Industrial than to use it for what they normally think of as Light Industrial being.
Mr. Benish replied that staff is suggesting several approaches to address that issue in the Zoning
Ordinance in terms of looking at the location of the zoning or the district itself.
Mr. Morris asked what an acre of land currently zoned LI goes for. He recalled that the Commission was
told at one time when they shifted some land to residential that it was almost $500,000 for an acre.
Ms. Stimart replied that she was not sure.
Mr. Benish suggested that someone in the audience could probably address that question. It usually
ends up being a square footage cost.
Ms. Porterfield noted under #2 on page 9; it talks about the Southern Urban Area Master Plan. With the
loss of Biscuit Run, is that Master Plan going to be anywhere high on the County’s “to do” hit list.
Mr. Benish replied that the Board will be looking at the work program in February. In terms of this
recommendation staff would approach looking at land uses in one or two ways. They are not sure if they
have the staffing to do the next master plan. But that will be a discussion that Mr. Graham will have with
the Board. They will be under taking a comprehensive update of the Comprehensive Plan. They would
go back under the Land Use Section and look at it there. This particular issue, if that is something that
the Commission and Board agree is worth further pursuing, would be taken up under those two venues.
Either they will do it under the Master Plan or they will just take it up under th e general update of the
Comp Plan.
Ms. Porterfield suggested uncoupling it from specifically the Southern Urban Area Master Plan so they
could look at the whole interchange section of the Comprehensive Plan and consider all interchanges.
Mr. Benish replied that the three interchanges that are in the urban area are in that area. By looking at
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – FEBRUARY 8, 2011
DRAFT PARTIAL MINUTES – ZTA-2009-16 MONTICELLO HISTORIC DISTRICT
6
that area either way they would be looking at those interchanges. That is why the Southern Urban Area
is kind of the focus.
Ms. Porterfield noted she would prefer all the County’s interchanges be included.
Ms. Monteith asked when the Comp Plan Update would occur.
Mr. Benish replied that Mr. Graham is working on our ability to take that on under the current work plan. It
is scheduled to begin in the spring. It is a two-year process.
Mr. Graham agreed that is correct. Staff will propose to the Board in a couple of weeks to start the review
of the entire Comp Plan by staff working in cooperation with the Planning Commission. It will be a two
year effort. It will start sometime in the middle of this year. It will be about a two-year effort to have a draft
ready for consideration.
Ms. Porterfield noted that was for the entire Comp Plan. She asked if they could just take a section of it.
Mr. Graham replied absolutely, which is part of what they are going to be looking to the Board for
direction to see if they are interested. Recognizing that the Board passed the action plan to take a look at
the Industrial Service land staff will ask if they are interested in breaking it out and accelerating that.
Ms. Porterfield noted that she had been a big proponent of looking at the interchange section of the Comp
Plan. She felt that this study has gotten even more important because of the current transportation
problems. Since the interchanges to I-64 are paid for by somebody other than Albemarle County, they
should look at the interchanges for all different possibilities including the Light and Heavy Industrial.
Mr. Loach noted that the Yancey interchange already has Heavy Industrial. There is a 30 acre lumber
yard already there.
Ms. Porterfield pointed out that the water line already runs by The Shadwell interchange. The H unter’s
Mill area is old zoning, and there is some other old zoning in the area. Although the water line is present,
only a few entities are on it.
Public comment was taken from the following persons:
Morgan Butler, with the Southern Environmental Law Center, made the following comments:
There are three key findings:
1. There is more than enough land set aside for Industrial Service in the County’s Comprehensive
Plan;
2. Too little of that 900 acres is getting rezoned to Light Industrial;
3. A variety of factors are preventing the land zoned for LI from being used for small scale industrial
businesses.
The focus needs to be on getting some portion of the 900 acres already set aside for Industrial Service
zoned for LI and then making sure that the LI land stays available and affordable for the right type of use.
Some of staff’s recommendations are very sensitive approaches for doing this. They recommend focusing
on a few of them to get to the heart of the problem, as follows:
The County must address the forces that are preventing the land that is already zoned LI from being used
for Light Industrial businesses. It does not make sense to increase the supply of LI land if they have not
yet addressed what is driving up its cost and causing it to leak to other uses.
1. Staff has pointed out that it is the ability to build office buildings by-right on LI land that is at the
root of these problems. The very first step has to be fixing the Zoning Ordinance by limiting office
buildings as a by-right use under LI zoning.
2. Once they have plugged the leak they can turn their attention to getting some of the 90 0 acres
zoned to LI. Staff’s survey suggests that the carrying cost of a rezoning is a real deterrent for
small industrial businesses. A sensitive approach is that the County plays a proactive role in
rezoning some portion of those 900 acres to LI.
3. They need to look at ways to distribute those 900 acres more evenly among our various growth
areas. The Master Plan process and the Comprehensive Plan update provide the perfect tools to
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – FEBRUARY 8, 2011
DRAFT PARTIAL MINUTES – ZTA-2009-16 MONTICELLO HISTORIC DISTRICT
7
do that.
4. Staff’s suggestion to look outside the boundaries of the growth area is premature. This approach
undermines the County’s long standing efforts to focus its growth in core areas. It would increase
the cost of County taxpayers in providing services; create new traffic hotspots; damage valuable
natural resources; and impair our local water supply among a host of other problems. He
suggested that this only be considered as a last resort.
Gardy Bloemers, on behalf of the Scenic 250 Steering Committee, made the following comments in
regards to how staff’s recommendations affects the Route 250/I-64 Interchange. The Scenic 250
Steering Committee strongly opposes any expansion or additional development of the Crozet growth area
in and around 250 for the following reasons:
1. The proposal undermines the designation of 250 West and I-64 as County Entrance Corridors
and Route 250 as a Virginia Byway. To date both the County and the citizens of Crozet have
stated a policy of restricting development along the Scenic 250 West Corridor as much as
possible preserving its character as a Scenic Roadway. This interchange was specifically
identified in the County’s development policy for no development.
2. This area was identified by both the State and Federal government as an area of great historical
and cultural significant and will by the end of 2010 comprise part of the Greenwood Historic
District. Due to this they feel that the suggested location of Yancey Mills is unacceptable.
The Scenic 250 Steering Committee supports the efforts of the CCAC and Crozet citizens to
identify suitable parcels for Light Industrial development within the confines of the ongoing Crozet
Master Plan review process.
Mike Marshall, Chairman of the Crozet Advisory Council, noted that his opinion is personal since the
Council will take up the issue next week. He made the following comments:
He agreed with Morgan Butler’s points particularly that the expansion of LI outside of the growth
areas should not be encouraged. The report shows there is plenty of LI land. There are other
factors involved in why it is not being turned out the way it is supposed to. He commended the
report for acknowledging the last four years of conversion of LI into non -industrial uses. He
wondered what it would be if they went back 10 or 15 years to see longer trends.
Crozet citizens have been very alarmed about the existence of this report because Mr. Yancey
made a report to the CCAC. CCAC was opposed to the concept and did not want to entertain the
idea that that the growth area boundary could be enlarged or that water shed issues could be
raised by the proposal. The proposal went to the Planning Commission who voted 7:0 against it.
The proposal went to the Board where it seemed to have met its end. One Supervisor
resurrected it and put it into the Crozet Master Plan review process. Shortly thereafter they
learned that the County was going to do a report on whether Light Industrial land was available,
which lead them to believe that staff was directed to produce a report to provide justification for
Yancey to be passed. He questioned where the numbers come from. There are labor trend
forecasting formulas which if applied show that in the year 2018 they will be 184 acres short of LI
land. The Yancey proposal is proposing to put in 184 acres. It proves that they don’t need it,
but yet the insertion that they need it. Consideration should be given to locate additional
industrial land in other areas of the County other than Crozet if the interchange concept goes
forward. He suggested that the report is not particularly helpful and asked that they not take it
seriously.
Sue Albrecht, owner of land already zoned LI at 340 Greenbrier Drive, noted that it was the former ice
skating ring skating ring and later brought by Sperry. She acquired the property in 2000 and it became a
multi- tenant building. She asked to support the recommendation to broaden some of the language. She
had a tenant that was very interested in coming in, but because it had a retail component it does not fit
because of the way the zoning language reads for Light Industrial. There were other folks that had feed
products and so forth that could be good tenants, but they were predominantly retail in the way their
business is defined. These folks are somewhat specialty retail, but there is not a specialty retail category
and are thrown into strictly retail which does not fit Light Industrial. Her two acre site’s land is very
expensive and somewhere between one-half a million per acre up to $750,000 per acre. The land is very
close to 29. The value of the site and trying to match uses is very complex. She suggested that the
County continue to look at expanding that.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – FEBRUARY 8, 2011
DRAFT PARTIAL MINUTES – ZTA-2009-16 MONTICELLO HISTORIC DISTRICT
8
Mary Rice, a member of the Crozet Advisory Committee, made the following comments personally as a
citizen of Crozet.
She did not support staff’s recommendation to expand the growth area outside of Crozet for
industrial use. The increase in traffic created by the industrial use was a concern.
The Board of Supervisors has instructed staff and the Crozet community to study the issue of
Light Industrial in the context of the master plan update process, which they are right in the
middle of. They are actively working on identifying more industrial areas within the development
area. They have between 9 and 12 acres that they will be recomm ending for possible industrial
uses along the Route 240 Corridor. Currently there are about 20 acres of land currently being
used as Heavy Industrial in the center of town. If that land owner should sell that property, which
has been brought up as possible in the next several years, the community has indicated a strong
preference that land be rezoned as commercial, but primarily Light Industrial.
The proposal to look outside the growth area in the fringe areas for additional industrial land
undermines the very premise of the Crozet Downtown Plan and negates the planning done during
the last ten years.
The community has been told that the remediation period for Acme is much less than six years.
She suggested that the County look into this issue.
Will Yancey, said that 16 months ago they submitted a CPA amendment to create a Light Industrial
Business Park in Yancey Mills. They thought was that the location was ideal due to the road
infrastructure available. In addition, it is located behind the largest Heavy Industrially zoned property in
the County. It is R A Yancey Lumber Company comprised of 36 acres that has been in business for 60
years. The result of the ownership of contiguous property behind it and the long frontage on I-64 would
be that very few neighbors would be affected. In his discussions with other businesses, he acknowledged
that there is a need for industrial land in the County. It has been displayed in the past by the Watkins
request in Crozet and on Morgantown Road where the zoning was correct but the road insufficient. He
suggested that the problem could be solved by locating a Heavy Industrial Park in an area where the
roads are already there. It might generate significant revenues for the County in the near future. He
agreed with the staff’s findings in the report.
Neil Williamson, with the Free Enterprise Forum, noted that it is not often that this body gets to consider
something that is so closely tied to jobs as this designation. Light Industrial land is very valuable. He
made the following comments:
There was a shrinking of Albemarle County’s development area at the first of the year with Biscuit
Run. Many have said that they have been robbed of 3.5 percent of the development area. He
wondered what the ramifications would have been if they had been robbed of 3.5 percent of rural
area.
The Free Enterprise Forum takes issue with the concept that Albemarle County has moved
forward with reviewing Light Industrial land. They raised the issue previously without endorsin g
any project. They believe that the Light Industrial inventory is a county-wide issue. As such
bodies that are set up to review county-wide issues and correctly position Light Industrial in the
County are better situated than master planning groups. By settling this through master planning
groups they build the opportunity for nimbyism dealing with the concepts of “don’t build in my
back yard” or “not to build anything near me.”
Tonight they call for the Commission to move forward towards a restoration of the development
areas and bring back the 5 percent of the land mass of Albemarle County as the area designated
for development all these years since 1980. This is about jobs and creating jobs that cover the
quilt of Albemarle County’s economic condition.
Jeff Werner, with Piedmont Environmental Council, noted the following:
There are 3,100 homes that were proposed in Biscuit Run that have been taken out of the
inventory in the County. They are now down to 14,000 units in the growth area, which was not a
reason to increase the growth area as suggested by Mr. Williamson.
The three issues are: growth area expansion, policy change that ultimately leads to Comp Plan
changes and subsequent rezoning and regulatory changes. He felt that Morgan Butler addresse d
it well. They all agree that something needs to change so the Light Industrial land can be used
for Light Industrial purposes.
Before the County revises policy based on antidotal information they need to go back and look
through previous projects to see what works or does not work. He asked the GIS person to do
some mapping in what is vacant in the growth area. In taking out the open space they came up
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – FEBRUARY 8, 2011
DRAFT PARTIAL MINUTES – ZTA-2009-16 MONTICELLO HISTORIC DISTRICT
9
with 8,800 vacant acres in the growth area with about one-half in residential and one-half in
commercial with some in the rural area. He suggested that they look at it in whole to see if any of
the vacant space in other uses can be used for Light Industrial before they start destroying Route
250 East and the view shed of Monticello. He was not opposed in supporting Light Industrial, but
encouraged good planning.
There being no further public comment, Mr. Loach closed the public comment to bring the matter before
the Commission.
Mr. Loach asked to respond to Mr. Williamson as far as master planning and Light Industrial with regards
to his comment about nimbyism. It is very hard to take it with a grain of salt in the Crozet growth area
since two of the four adapted reuses of industrial land were in Crozet. Mr. Watkins found his industrial
land in Crozet with the support of the community As Ms. Rice said, Crozet is looking into expanding its
industrial land in the designated growth area. It is not a case of nimbyism. In the last three years Crozet
has had three new commercial centers built. An adult care facility has been approved in Old Trail.
Therefore, he thought that the opposite is true in that master planning can bring about the things that this
community needs with the population. With the master planning and Comp Plan they should have the
ability to plan for their communities.
Ms. Porterfield clarified that when the proposal was before the Commission for Yancey it did not fail by a
vote of 7:0 since she voted for it. In Ms. Stimart’s report about a year ago, Ms. Stimart was very clear tha t
she felt that at least the interchanges that are in Albemarle County should be studied because they
provided transportation access. It was hard to get easy access in some areas like Places29 that was
already overcrowded. She agreed that the interchange situation should be looked at; and if they want to
add to the growth area, it should be attached due to the existing infrastructure. She felt strongly that Mr.
Yancey’s proposal should have been studied further than the work session. She agreed with staff ’s
report that all interchanges should be studied in the County due to the current transportation issues and
the economic downturn including loss of jobs.
No formal action was taken.
Go to next set of minutes
Return to PC actions memo
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – FEBRUARY 8, 2011
DRAFT PARTIAL MINUTES – ZTA-2009-16 MONTICELLO HISTORIC DISTRICT
1
Albemarle County Planning Commission
February 8, 2011
The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public hearing and meeting on Tuesday, February 8,
2011, at 6:00 p.m., at the County Office Building, Room #241, Second Floor, 401 McIntire Road,
Charlottesville, Virginia.
Members attending were Duane Zobrist, Chair; Ed Smith, Thomas Loach, Linda Porterfield, Don Franco,
Russell (Mac) Lafferty and Calvin Morris, Vice Chair. Julia Monteith, AICP, Senior Land Use Planner for
the University of Virginia was absent.
Other officials present were Gerald Gatobu, Principal Planner; Elaine Echols, Principal Planner; Judy
Wiegand, Senior Planner; Eryn Brennan, Senior Planner; Claudette Grant, Senior Planner; Glenn Brooks,
County Engineer; Ron Higgins, Chief of Zoning; Sarah Baldwin, Senior Planner; Amelia McCulley,
Director of Zoning/Zoning Administrator; Wayne Cilimberg, Director of Planning; and Greg Kamptner,
Deputy County Attorney.
Call to Order and Establish Quorum:
Mr. Zobrist, Chair, called the regular meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. and established a quorum.
Consent Agenda:
ZTA-2009-00016 Monticello – Resolution of Intent (Joan McDowell)
Personal Wireless Service Facilities – Resolution of Intent (Bill Fritz)
Mr. Zobrist asked if any Commissioner would like to pull an item from the consent agenda for further
review.
Ms. Porterfield questioned what an unlicensed provider meant on the second item. Under the current
ordinance unlicensed providers must submit a special use permit for every site . . .”
Mr. Fritz replied the FCC has a category of use as “unlicensed providers .” If they want to provide wireless
broadband internet service they can do it as an unlicensed provider and not have to go get a FCC
license. It is just a different category and treated differently. It is staff’s opinion that they ought to be
treated the same with similar technology. That was the basis for the change.
Motion: Mr. Franco moved and Mr. Lafferty seconded for approval of the consent agenda.
The motion carried by a vote of (7:0).
Mr. Zobrist noted the consent agenda was approved to adopt the following two resolutions.
ZTA-2009-000016 Monticello Historic District
RESOLUTION OF INTENT
WHEREAS, Monticello is one of the preeminent historic sites in the world, as evidenced by its
listings as a National Historic Landmark by the National Park Service’s National Historic Landmarks
Survey and as a World Heritage Site by the World Heritage Committee of the United Nations Educational,
Scientific and Cultural Organization; and
WHEREAS, the Thomas Jefferson Memorial Foundation (the “Foundation”) is engaged in uses
and activities within the Monticello Historic District under County Code § 18-11 that are related to
research, preservation, restoration, public education and the interpretation of Monticello; and
WHEREAS, it is desired to expand the uses and activities within the Monticello Historic District to
allow certain types of festivals and events, either by right or by special use permit.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – FEBRUARY 8, 2011
DRAFT PARTIAL MINUTES – ZTA-2009-16 MONTICELLO HISTORIC DISTRICT
2
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 amend County Code § 18-11 and any other regulations of Chapter 18, Zoning, of
the County Code deemed appropriate to achieve the purposes described herein; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT the Planning Commission shall hold a public hearing on this
resolution of intent, and make its recommendations to the Board of Supervisors, at the earliest possible
date.
* * * * *
Personal Wireless Service Facilities
RESOLUTION OF INTENT
WHEREAS, County Code § 18-3.1 defines “personal wireless service facilities” and the definition
does not include facilities that provide wireless internet broadband access; and
WHEREAS, by declaratory ruling of the Federal Communications Commission, wireless
broadband internet access facilities that are commingled with a provider’s personal wireless service
facilities would be “personal wireless serv ice facilities” under relevant provisions of federal law and
County Code § 18-3.1; and
WHEREAS, under current zoning regulations, facilities that provide wireless internet broadband
access that are not commingled with a provider’s personal wireless service facilities require a special use
permit as “radio-wave transmission towers”; and
WHEREAS, County Code § 18-5.1.40 establishes the regulations for reviewing applications for
personal wireless facilities, and these regulations impose standards designed to protect the public health,
safety and general welfare but also provide for an efficient and economical review of such applications;
and
WHEREAS, the regulations and standards in County Code § 18-5.1.40 were developed from
research and practical experience, and it would be reasonable for those regulations and standards to be
applied to all facilities that provide wireless internet broadband access; and
WHEREAS, it is desired to amend the definition of “personal wireless service facilities” to include
facilities that provide wireless internet broadband access in order to allow applications for those facilities
to be reviewed and acted upon under County Code § 18-5.1.40.
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 amend County Code § 18-3.1 and any other regulations of Chapter 18, Zoning, of
the County Code deemed appropriate to achieve the purposes described herein; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT the Planning Commission shall hold a public hearing on the
zoning text amendment proposed by this resolution of intent, and make its recommendation to the Board
of Supervisors, at the earliest possible date.
* * * * *
Go to next set of PC minutes
Return to PC actions memo
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – FEBRUARY 22, 2011
DRAFT PARTIAL MINUTES – ZTA-2009-00016 MONTICELLO HISTORIC DISTRICT
1
Albemarle County Planning Commission
February 22, 2011
The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public hearing on Tuesday, February 22, 2011, at
6:00 p.m., at the County Office Building, Room #241, Second Floor, 401 McIntire Road, Charlottesville,
Virginia.
Members attending were Duane Zobrist, Chair; Ed Smith, Thomas Loach, Linda Porterfield, Don Franco,
Russell (Mac) Lafferty and Calvin Morris, Vice Chair. Julia Monteith, AICP, Senior Land Use Planner for
the University of Virginia was present.
Other officials present were Joan McDowell, Senior Planner; Ron Higgins, Chief of Zoning; Eryn Brennan,
Senior Planner; Summer Frederick, Senior Planner; Amelia McCulley, Zoning Administrator/Director of
Zoning; Bill Fritz, Director of Current Developm ent; Glenn Brooks, County Engineer; Wayne Cilimberg,
Director of Planning; and Greg Kamptner, Deputy County Attorney.
Call to Order and Establish Quorum:
Mr. Zobrist, Chair, called the regular meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. and established a quorum.
ZTA-2009-00016 Monticello Historic District
Amend Secs. 11.1, Intent and purpose, where permitted, 11.3.1, By right uses, 11.3.2, By special use
permit, and add Sec. 11.5, Standards of operation, of Chapter 18, Zoning, of the Albemarle County Code.
This ordinance would amend Sec. 11.1 to add support activities such as fundraising as a use consistent
with the purpose and intent of the district; amend Sec. 11.3.1 by add fundraising activities, festivals,
community events, concerts and farm winery uses allowed under County Code § 18-5.1.25(a) and (b) as
by right uses, delete tourist lodging as a by right use, and delete the restriction on the number of persons
who may be temporarily lodged in the district; amend Sec. 11.3.2 to delete farmers’ markets and conce rts
and similar outdoor events and add farm winery uses allowed under County Code § 18 -5.1.25(c) as
special uses; and add Sec. 11.5, which would impose standards of operation that would apply to any by
right use added by this ordinance. 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.
(Joan McDowell)
Joan McDowell presented a PowerPoint presentation and summarized the staff report for ZTA-2009-16,
Monticello Historic District.
ZTA-2009-16 Monticello Historic District (MHD)
Monticello Historic District created in 2005
Montalto added to District in 2007
Proposal
Amend MHD to expand the allowed uses including fundraising activities, special events, such as
weddings, parties, and meetings. The number of events and the attendance would not be regulated.
These changes are related to the Planning Commission work session last year and th e recommendations
for these changes that are related to the operation of the historic house. Further amendments would be
changes within the ordinances. Staff reviewed the proposed changes, as noted below.
Proposed Changes to the Ordinance:
• Sec. 11.1 Intent and purpose, where permitted
• The intent and purpose of the Monticello Historic District (hereinafter referred to as “MHD”) is to
create a planned historic district:
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – FEBRUARY 22, 2011
DRAFT PARTIAL MINUTES – ZTA-2009-00016 MONTICELLO HISTORIC DISTRICT
2
• - To permit restoration, preservation, conservation, education, programs, resear ch, and
business and support activities, including fundraising activities for the public and/or contributors,
all of which are related to the operation of a historic house museum and historic site at Monticello;
• - To promote the preservation, interpretation and enhancement of a unique historical site;
• Sec. 11.3.1 By right uses
The following uses shall be permitted by right in the MHD:
• Uses relating to the operation of Monticello as a historic house museum and historic site as
follows:
• 2. Fundraising activities and cultivation and stewardship events for the public and/or contributors,
subject to section 11.5.
• Temporary events related to or supportive of the historic, educational or civic significance of
Monticello, such as, but not limited to the Naturalization Ceremony on the Fourth of July, Thomas
Jefferson’s Birthday celebration, summer speakers series, presidential inaugural events, the
Heritage Harvest Festival, wine festivals, community hiking and racing events, musical
performances and concerts, and commemorative events similar to the Lewis and
Clark bicentennial, subject to section 11.5.
• 17. Tourist lodging (reference 5.1.17).
• 19. Farm winery uses, events and activities authorized by section 5.1.25(a) and (b) (reference
5.1.25).
• 24. Monticello scholar residences, which shall be private lodging accommodations in
multiple-family dwellings for educators, academic fellows or scholars working on Jefferson
related research and/or programs, Montalto Thomas Jefferson Foundation program and event
participants, persons directly engaged in the programming, research, or operation of Monticello
as a historic museum and historic site, and for a sole caretaker, provided that not more than
three dwelling units shall be occupied at any one time by persons directly engaged in the
programming, research, or operation of Monticello as a historic museum and historic site
except during the semi-annual meetings of the owner’s governing board
• Events that are typically conducted on a single day, but which may be conducted for up to three
(3) consecutive days, for which attendance is permitted only by invitation or reservation including,
but not limited to, meetings, conferences, banquets, dinners, weddings, wedding receptions, and
private parties, subject to section 11.5.
• 11.3.2 BY SPECIAL USE PERMIT
• The following uses shall be permitted by special use permit in the MHD:
• 1. Farmers’ markets (reference 5.1.47). (Amended 5-5-10)
• 5. Concerts (such as performances by the Charlottesville Symphony Orchestra and the
Charlottesville Municipal Band), theater, and outdoor drama events open to the general public,
not otherwise permitted by right under section 11.3.1(2).
• 8. Farm winery uses, events and activities authorized by section 5.1.25(c).
•
• Sec. 11.5 Standards of operation
• All uses authorized by section 11.3.1(1)(e), 11.3.1(2), or 11.3.1(27), shall be conducted in
accordance with the requirements of an approved traffic management plan on file with the
Community Development Department, which may be reviewed on an annual basis at the
discretion of the zoning administrator or county engineer, or at the request of the owner. In
addition, all public access must meet minimum VDOT safety standards. Private road and
travelway access must meet standards as approved by the Planning Commission at the
recommendation of the County Engineer.
Staff Recommended Changes that were not in the staff report:
• 1. In section 11.5, Standards of Operation: delete the sentence "In addition, all public access
must meet the minim um safety standards of the Virginia Department of Transportation."
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – FEBRUARY 22, 2011
DRAFT PARTIAL MINUTES – ZTA-2009-00016 MONTICELLO HISTORIC DISTRICT
3
• Staff believes that the last sentence in that section ("Private road and travelway access must
meet standards approved by the planning commission upon the recommendation of the county
engineer.") will also cover any standards approved by the PC regarding the closure of the exit
where the sight distance is not met, since that ramp (the area to be closed off) is a private road.
Staff noted that the changes would be made on the bottom por tion of this page. In addition, staff is
recommending that no special use permits shall be required for any use that is otherwise permitted to
Section 3.1.1. as shown in #8.
When staff reviewed this application and the Planning Commission reviewed the a pplication in January,
2010 some of the issues were a potential that the additional use adding public/private events would cause
additional traffic. Some changes to the Monticello road may be considered. There was a traffic plan that
was done. Glen Brooks will address that.
There was a concern mainly for the additional traffic regarding the uses. Because Monticello and
Montalto were fairly isolated and don’t have the neighbors they were less concerned about the events
and the number of people. However, they were certainly concerned about traffic impacts and safety
impacts. The applicant was given a temporary access plan through the Monticello parking lot. The
ingress and egress would be changed at Route 53 and curb improvements on the loop road. A copy was
included in the plans.
• Sec. 11.5 Standards of operation
• All uses authorized by section 11.3.1(1)(e), 11.3.1(2), or 11.3.1(27), shall be conducted in
accordance with the requirements of an approved traffic management plan on file with th e
Community Development Department, which may be reviewed on an annual basis at the
discretion of the zoning administrator or county engineer, or the request of the owner. Private
road and travelway access must meet standards as approved by the Planning Co mmission at the
recommendation of the County Engineer.
• 2. In section 11.3.2.8 By Special Use Permit: Add (for clarification):
• "...provided, however, that no special use permit shall be required for any use that is
otherwise permitted pursuant to section 11.3.1." (the by-right uses).
• 8. Farm winery uses, events and activities authorized by section 5.1.25(c) provided,
however, that no special use permit shall be required for any use that is otherwise
permitted pursuant to section 11.3.1.
Issues
• Potential for additional use (adding public/private events) (Attachment E)
• Compatible with neighboring uses
• Additional traffic (public safety)
• Montalto Loop Road (curve improvements)
• Ingress and Egress (Route 53)
• Temporary access through Monticello parking lot
Staff recommends approval of ZTA200900016, as amended.
Glenn Brooks, County Engineer, presented a PowerPoint presentation.
Clearing and grading for sight distance at the main entrance.
interim solution of blocking this access and routing vehicles through the visitor’s center
can be part of the condition, as a temporary arrangement.
It is also possible VDOT may undertake spot improvements on Rt. 53, which would help
the situation, but not necessarily fix it.
• Proposed safety improvements to the road
• a range of options with competing interests of cost, and the visual impact on the
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – FEBRUARY 22, 2011
DRAFT PARTIAL MINUTES – ZTA-2009-00016 MONTICELLO HISTORIC DISTRICT
4
mountainside, especially from Monticello. (Options; realignment and grading, guardrail or
walls, limited geometric improvements in curves, warnings signs, and markings.)
• Traffic management plan for events.
He displayed a picture of the spot improvements that the applicant has proposed to address the safety
impacts that were identified in the loop road and at the entrance. The plan the Commission received
shows basically the curb improvements that he has highlighted in yellow with some signage highlighted in
green. These are to improve the safety of the access road that goes up to the existing site on Montalto
that recently has been improved.
A bizarre finding with this application was that the new entrance to the new bridge on Route 53 seemed to
be overlooked in VDOT’s design a few years ago. Most Commissioners will recall when this was built.
They don’t have adequate sight distance coming out of th at entrance. They will have to grade down that
hill to achieve sight distance in that direction. The applicant has proposed to limit that movement, which
has been shown in yellow at the entrance itself. Basically, they could only come into that access point
and can’t come out of it. That would solve that safety concern. They would have to block off the road up
at the green signs at the bridge top for Montalto’s entrance road meets the ramp there. The proposal is to
send the traffic into Monticello itself at the Visitor’s Center parking area and then out Monticello’s exit,
which is on the opposite side of Route 53 at the curb. That has been deemed a safe entrance.
Right now, that does not have a specific timeline on it. VDOT has indicated that they are actually on their
own accord going to fix these curbs in the road. That is supposed to happen soon. However, they don’t
have a specific time. That is not apparently happening with County funding, but with State funding as a
spot safety improvement. That may solve Monticello’s problem or it may partially solve their problem.
The applicant has volunteered to give right-of-way to make that happen.
This is odd in that it is not a special use permit. It is still a legislative act being a zoning tex t amendment.
Therefore, staff had difficulties in coming up with ways to address this. The applicant has volunteered to
do almost everything, but procedurally it has been very difficult. If there were any questions, he would be
happy to answer them.
Ms. Monteith said she had a quick question about what they are actually looking at in this drawing. She
asked on the tight turns what is the extended piece there.
Mr. Brooks replied that they are widening the curves actually and fixing the grades. They will come in,
make the grade easier, and widen the curve out so that two vehicles can pass in the curve. It will not be
so steep on the inside of the curve. Then the little tails seen on the curve are actually gravel extensions
so that one could pull a car over there if they were out of control.
Ms. Monteith asked if it was not a runaway car ramp.
Mr. Brooks replied that he did not think it was meant to be like an interstate truck stop, but something
similar that allows someone to get off the curve if they need to. The one shown at the bottom of the
screen actually accesses a well site. However, the applicant can speak to that more specifically.
Ms. Porterfield asked if there could be two-way traffic on that road including buses.
Mr. Brooks replied yes. In the drawing in the presentation, he noted that the diagonal as shown across
the screen is the road itself. The picture is down towards the entrance ramp. Therefore, they are seeing
the first leg of the road with the center stripe. Two vehicles can pass, but it is very narrow. They talked
about this a lot because if this were a standard residential development or a commercial development
with a private access road, they would impose a standard that would be something comparable to either
the three to five lot standard or the VDOT standard. They don’t want to do that. It can be argued either
way. Some say improvements are necessary and others aren’t. That is why he put it up to the Planning
Commission’s discretion in the ZTA. He feels there is some negotiating room not just for the usual
concerns of cost, but their concerns for the historic and scenic view from Monticello itself and keeping that
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – FEBRUARY 22, 2011
DRAFT PARTIAL MINUTES – ZTA-2009-00016 MONTICELLO HISTORIC DISTRICT
5
area pristine. If they were to do the blind engineering group force road renovation, they would put up
guard rails and widen the road. They would adjust the alignment to get rid of the switchbacks. He
thought everybody could see that would be extreme. Therefore, they are trying to meet somewhere in the
middle and do some spot improvements in keeping it scenic.
Ms. Porterfield asked if two buses could pass at the curve.
Mr. Brooks replied probably not.
Ms. Porterfield questioned what is going to happen.
Mr. Brooks pointed out they have run fire engines up and down that road and have approved it for
their use.
Ms. Porterfield noted that they have sirens and someone knows they are coming.
Mr. Brooks said he thought that two shuttle buses, like the ones used at Monticello, could probably do it.
He suggested the applicant could speak to that more specifically since he was sure they have tried it.
Ms. Porterfield noted it would be the smaller buses that he was talking about.
Mr. Brooks replied that was correct.
Ms. Porterfield asked if there was a proffer for the right-of-way that is going to be needed for the VDOT
improvements.
Mr. Brooks replied that this is the procedural difficulty he was talking about. They would often fall back
into that sort of language. However, they can’t make proffers with zoning text amendments, as he
understands it.
Mr. Kamptner pointed out this was not a zoning map amendment. Therefore, Section 11.5 is essentially a
performance standard that tries to deal with the issue.
Mr. Brooks noted the way staff set it up is that this would come back to the Commission for approval of
the private road section.
Ms. Porterfield asked how do they know that.
Mr. Brooks noted the paragraph at the bottom is what gets us there. It is the last sentence that says
private road and travel way access to meet standards as appr oved by the Planning Commission. That
would be their opportunity to either ask for more safety improvements or tell them they have done a great
job.
Ms. Porterfield pointed out she was talking specifically about the road up to Montalto.
Mr. Brooks replied that this would also encompass the ramp and the entrance onto Route 53.
Ms. Porterfield asked if it would encompass the land that is needed for the VDOT improvement.
Mr. Brooks replied that he thought that it could. Since it is all part of the private property, they could ask
for an improvement.
Mr. Zobrist asked if there were any questions for staff.
Mr. Loach said in the report it says on the first page in the middle of the first paragraph where it says b.
for as by right uses delete tourist lodging as a by-right use and delete the restriction on the number of
persons who may be temporary lodged in the district. Then under the proposal it says allow expanded
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – FEBRUARY 22, 2011
DRAFT PARTIAL MINUTES – ZTA-2009-00016 MONTICELLO HISTORIC DISTRICT
6
uses for fund raising activities, and then goes on as well to allow lodging at Montalto to be open to the
public. Those seem to be contradictory. He asked what they are asking for.
Ms. McDowell replied that they are asking specifically for the lodging to be open to participants. That
means it would be open for the public.
Mr. Loach asked why do they have to delete tourist lodging as a by-right use.
Ms. McDowell replied that was clean up language suggested by the zoning administrator.
Ms. McCulley pointed out that tourist lodging is a different use and one they agreed that they would not
need. It is the typical Bread and Breakfast, where there is a home being used as a single family home
and then rooms are used for transient lodging. They decided that their needs could be met with the
scholar residences, which was a section being am ended with this zoning text amendment. They did not
need the general tourist lodging provision.
Mr. Lafferty said he was curious in the traffic management plan for the soft start events. It looked like it
was calculated on 2.3 people per car. The hard start events is 2.46. He asked are those characteristic
numbers that they would get. He got those form the figures that were given.
Mr. Brooks replied that he understood that their traffic engineer took those form numbers s upplied by the
Monticello folks on the events they have had in the past. Those are all part of traffic studies regarding the
soft start and hard start events. They did not actually make it into the text amendment. The language
regarding the soft start and hard soft terminology is not included. It would be a very hard thing to enforce
or keep track of.
Mr. Lafferty noted that it had a lot to do with the design of the road. If it is a hard start, then they were
going to have much more traffic condensed in a shorter period of tim e.
Mr. Brooks said certainly they would have a more intense peak, but the daily traffic would be similar. He
was not sure that had much to do with the design of the road. The safety improvements are fairly
independent in that geometrically per vehicle they would need to do safety improvements any way.
Ms. Monteith said she was also just a little bit confused. On page 4 in the staff report in the sentence
that says the proposed rerouting of vehicles would be through the Monticello parking lot for an indefinite
period. She thought it was supposed to say has not been recommended by the County Engineer due to
public safety concerns. So if that is the way they are going to solve the problem until VDOT is able to
solve it in a more mechanical manner, is it that people are going to be entering onto the road where a
larger volume of cars are going to be entering on the road where they do not now. What is his concern
with that.
Mr. Brooks replied that he did not believe currently they have any volume restrictions on Monticello. It
was more of the temporary nature. There is the possibility that there will be an event and an active use
of the parking area at Monticello Visitor Center at the same time. He thought that there is a lot of
pedestrian activity in that parking lot. It might be a problem to have those two things coinciding. That is
something that can be addressed in the traffic management plan, especially if there are problems with it.
They have an annual review of that set in the text amendment. He did not feel it would be good for a
permanent solution just because it is also an enforcement issue for us if there is a change in
management and they decide why aren’t they using this ramp and they don’t know the history. There are
some possibilities that make it wiser from his perspective to make sure there is a permanent solution . He
thought that the applicant wants to also. They want to make sure there is a permanent solution to use
that new ramp like it is intended so there is no confusion for people traveling there saying they use to use
the ramp and why can’t they use it now.
Ms. Porterfield asked what is the timeline on the permanent solution.
Mr. Brooks replied that he has not specified a timeline. VDOT when they told staff they were goi ng to fix
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – FEBRUARY 22, 2011
DRAFT PARTIAL MINUTES – ZTA-2009-00016 MONTICELLO HISTORIC DISTRICT
7
these curves gave a quick timeline of a year or two. He understands their funding difficulties may set that
back. He would expect at least in the next four to five years.
Mr. Zobrist opened the public hearing and invited the applicant to address the Planning Commission.
Valerie Long, representative for the applicant The Thomas Jefferson Foundation, said others present this
evening are a number of representatives of the Foundation. She briefly introduced Ann Taylor, Executor
Vice President of the Foundation; Tania Nedsky, Associate Director of Planning and Facilities; Ken
Mitchell, Director of Buildings; and Mike Mathews, with Mathews Development Company. Mr. Mathews
has been the project manager for the Montalto restoration and the Visitor’s Center. She presented a
PowerPoint presentation and summarized the request, as follows:
- She thanked staff because there are many unique issues with this application. They have all
been challenged by some of the unique nature of the request. She thanked Ms. McDowell and
Mr. Brooks and all the staff that has been working with them over the many months they have
been working on this. They appreciate the opportunity to be here.
- As a reminder, the Foundation is a private nonprofit foundation. Monticello itself is the only
privately owned residence on the United Nations World Heritage list. The Foundation is very
proud of that. The Foundation itself receives no ongoing local, state, or federal funds. Its mission
is simple, but it is broad. Their mission is preservation and education. They further that mission
through their vision, which is to engage a global audience and a dialogue with Jefferson’s ideals.
This mission and vision involves carrying out a variety of educational and community
programming bringing the community both local and beyond together with Jefferson’s ideals. A
few examples were displayed in the presentation, which includes bringing in school children from
all around the country at discounted rates and having classrooms in the Visitor’s Center, etc. The
Visitor Center attracts noted historians. They also carry out a number of lectures and
conferences at Monticello as well as the International Center for Jefferson Studies. Their mission
also includes engaging the community in their mission and reaching out to new audiences. They
are working to engage new audiences in Jefferson, his ideals, properties and their mission.
These are just a few examples.
- The Heritage Harvest Festival is a wonderful example of engaging new audiences with
Jefferson’s legacy of gardening, healthy lifestyles, and sustainable living. The Foundation has
unparalleled experience in managing large complex events. She displayed a slide of when
President Bush was here on July 4th in 2008. For that event, the Foundation managed a crowd of
over 4,000 guests. The event was opened to the public and involved significant security issues.
In furtherance of their mission, the Foundation also carries out a number of s tewardship and
preservation projects. They have been recognized internationally for their stewardship of the
world heritage site. In just the last 15 years alone, they have invested over $70 million dollars in
publicly accessible amenities, recreational amenities, and infrastructure. They also have put
conservation easements on over 1,400 acres of the 2,500 acre they own. So again, the mission
is preservation and education. Again, they are furthering that vision by reaching out to new
audiences all of the time and engaging the community in new ways. They wanted to make sure
that all of these new uses are permitted by the zoning regulation.
- As a reminder, they established they created a special zoning district for Monticello back in 2005,
the Monticello Historic District. It is unique. It recognizes the unique uses that take place at
Monticello, the unique history of Monticello and the importance of Monticello to both the history
and the economy of Albemarle County as well as the State.
- They worked with staff on the new text to expand the purpose and intent section of the ordinance
to make it clear that things such as fundraising activities, whether they are for the public or for
contributors, are in fact related to the operation of an historic house museum. She pointed out
the many parcels that are subject to the Monticello Historic Zoning District. Again, the MHD is a
special zoning district and was not the rural area or commercial zoning. It is a special zoning
district just for Monticello properties that will allow the Foundation to carry out their unique events,
but not have the commercial uses that are typical in a commercial district.
- As was discussed, they did conduct a traffic study after the January 2010 work session. There
were three recommendations. The first two involve creating a tra ffic management plan for
various events, either soft start or hard start events. To answer Mr. Lafferty’s question, it was her
understanding that those calculations are estimates for numbers of vehicle trips are based on
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – FEBRUARY 22, 2011
DRAFT PARTIAL MINUTES – ZTA-2009-00016 MONTICELLO HISTORIC DISTRICT
8
traffic engineering standards. They did not come up with those numbers, but their engineer did.
- The third recommendation was correcting the sight distance problem. Mr. Brooks helped her with
his excellent visual graphics. Therefore, she did not need to explain too much. In an aerial
photograph, she noted the current ingress where cars come in to Monticello in two different ways.
The only vehicles that currently use the entrance where the sight distance is located are vehicles
that come off Montalto. Right now, there are very few because there is not much going on up
there since it is under construction. In the past staff has used this exit. Once they were made
aware of the problem with the sight distance staff no longer uses that exit, but exit through the
Monticello Visitor Center. She noted the same intersection from a different angle.
- She pointed out the location of the earth that they need to have pulled back to create the sight
distance. She noted the view that is blocked. Instead of cars coming out of Montalto and exiting
in that location, this ramp would be converted to only an ingress ramp. Any cars there would be
stopped by a stop sign and routed across the bridge through Monticello Visitor’s Center through
the edge of the parking lot. The cars would come out at the existing exit where all the other
vehicles from Monticello exit. The Foundation improved that exit fairly substantially a few years
ago. They did prepare the traffic management plan. They have committed to improving the sight
distance. VDOT estimates they might be able to get it completed within two years. The
Foundation has committed that if they have not done it within that time for whatever reason they
will complete it within five years.
- The driveway improvements plan have been submitted. Mr. Brooks has already gone over that.
This was to show that the improvements to modify the entrance were included on that site plan
application. This is a site plan application they actually submitted today. Ms. McDowell already
covered the Commission the technical changes. They agreed with staff on the removal of the
one sentence. There is one issue staff did not discuss that was more of a technicality. The
definition of a scholar residence refers to a multiple family dwelling. There are a handful perhaps
of existing single family dwellings on the Foundation property. Most of them are used for staff
offices or storage. The Foundation are permitted pursuant to the existing zoning to build an
administrative office building. The plan is that once the office building is built in conformance with
the approved zoning plan they would like to convert some of those single family residences to
additional scholar residences. They are asking to remove the limitation on multiple family so that
any dwellings could be used there. Her understanding was that Ms. McDowell did not have a
concern with that.
- On the final slide, she displayed a copy of the approved application plan for Montalto. It shows
the existing structures that are permitted under the application plan. The main house is called
Repose, which is about 11,000 square feet. The barns are just about 15,000 square feet total.
There are three buildings here and the plan shows how those areas would be renovated. Right
now, they don’t look nearly this nice. The Foundation is focusing on Repose right now. This is
just about complete. The barn areas are the next stage of the project. That is where the where
scholar residences would be located. Those are not complete now. The old barns are
essentially just shell buildings.
- All of these proposed uses are just the Foundation’s efforts to further their mission and their
vision of engaging their global audience with Jefferson’s ideals. All of the proposed uses are
ultimately for the public’s benefits. They are to engage the community in education and
preservation activities. They very much appreciate the staff’s recommendation of support. They
would be happy to address any questions from the Commission.
Mr. Zobrist invited questions for the applicant from the Commission. There being none, he invited public
comment. There being no public comment, the public hearing was closed and the matter before the
Planning Commission.
Mr. Morris said this was consistent with what they have been pushing towards for quite some time. It is
one more step in the right direction. He liked the plan and thanked them for the clarifications.
Ms. Porterfield asked staff to clarify that there was no caps on the number of events and attendance.
Ms. McDowell replied that was correct.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – FEBRUARY 22, 2011
DRAFT PARTIAL MINUTES – ZTA-2009-00016 MONTICELLO HISTORIC DISTRICT
9
Ms. Porterfield noted that is different than what they are doing with the wineries.
Ms. McDowell replied yes.
Mr. Zobrist noted that this was a historic district and had its own zoning.
Ms. Porterfield said that it does have its own zoning, but until now everything they were planning on doing
was education or preservation activities with relationship to Mr. Jefferson. At least that was her
understanding. If they don’t have a cap on the number of events or the attendance and they start having
what are not educational or preservation activities in her mind, such as weddings that they have had
those discussions with the wineries, they are now moving into an area that was not what the original
application was for.
Mr. Zobrist asked if they are planning to do weddings.
Ms. Long replied that it is one of the uses that is under consideration. There has been interest in hosting
a number of private events and donor events at their facilities . Ever since the Visitor’s Center was
constructed in 2009, there has been interest. Originally, they did not have those facilities. They had no
place to host events. Once the Visitor’s Center was completed, there was some interest there. As
stated, they conducted the traffic study to address whether the proposed uses based on vehicle trips at
peak hours and so forth would create any adverse impacts. The traffic study said as long as they comply
with the three recommendations there would be no adverse impact. Therefore, that is how they have
lead to the traffic management plan. Therefore, they are comfortable that they can carry out the
proposed events without limitations without having any adverse impacts on the traffic.
Ms. Porterfield said she did not realize that they were looking to convert other buildings within the district
into areas where they could have housing.
Ms. Long replied that she thought there were only three . She would given an example. Where the
Kenwood Library is between there and Montalto is a slim strip of land that the Foundation acquired about
seven years ago from the Mark Wisk family. Before they bought Montalto, there was an application plan
that covered essentially the top of the mountain, which included the main house and also the Mark Wisk
property. That is where the approved application plan shows the administrative office building being able
to be built at some point in the future. Right now, the old Mark W isk family home is there. It is being used
for storage or office space right now. They don’t have office space, which is the whole reason they will
eventually have an office building there. Until then they would like to be able to use that residence as a
scholar residence for the Kenwood scholars. It is right next door to Kenwood. They only have three
scholar residences right now. The ones at Montalto proposed are not yet under construction. They don’t
have the funding for those yet. They would like to be able to use the Mark Wisk house for a scholar
residence in the interim. Another example, is there are two single family dwellings on the Monticello
property. They would not know they are there because the residences are tucked away in the woods
near the parking lot. They use them for offices right now. Eventually when the office building is
completed, they would like to be able to convert those existing dwelling units to a scholar residence as
well if they need them at the time. The thinking is that they just don’t want to be limited. Those are the
things that are driving the request.
Ms. Porterfield asked if they would be the scholar residences as proposed about three years ago when
this came in, or are they also going to be used for housing of other ancillary events such as people from a
wedding party
Ms. Long replied that the primary purpose of the scholar residences is the scholars. That is where they
have the need. There is a great desire on the part of the Foundation to accommodate all of the visiting
scholars that come to the Jefferson Center and Jefferson Library every year to study. It is also about the
mission of preservation and education of Jefferson’s ideas of an academic village and having people
study and do research together just like they have it at the University on the lawn. That is the concept. It
is to get all those people together congregating and sharing of ideas in the whole educational experience.
The definition they are proposing for Monticello scholars is broader than it was originally in response to
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – FEBRUARY 22, 2011
DRAFT PARTIAL MINUTES – ZTA-2009-00016 MONTICELLO HISTORIC DISTRICT
10
some of the inquiries they have had. It is really about the prudent uses of t he Foundation’s resources. If
and when these scholar residences are built, the primary purpose will be for scholars. However, if there
is one that is not being used at the time and they have a visiting lecturer in town they would like to be able
to use the space for the visiting lecturer.
Ms. Porterfield noted that the answer is that they will be used for housing people who might be involved in
events that are not educational and preservation in nature.
Ms. Long said they actually think that all of the uses are educational and preservation in nature.
Ms. Porterfield noted she was having trouble with weddings.
Ms. Long said they are all about bringing more people to Monticello who might not otherwise come to
Monticello. The two other ones, excluding the Mark Wisk one, are tucked away at the edge of the parking
lot. Whether they would be suited for uses like that, she was not sure. They would probably be much
better suited for a scholar since they are old, rustic, and pretty simple.
Mr. Franco said she was talking about reusing existing structures as opposed to building additional
structures.
Ms. Long replied absolutely, which would all be limited by the application plan. She did not bring the
application plan that covers Monticello.
Ms. Porterfield noted that it would not be limited anymore to what they talked about approximately three
years ago, which were the scholars. They had to have something to do with coming to study in the
buildings.
Ms. Long said that it was also members of the board of directors, the cabinet, and things like that.
Ms. Porterfield said that they were hooked into it because they were part of what was going on.
Ms. Long said again it gets to the idea if they have a group of scholars come or people coming to have
an event. People want to come and have their events at Monticello because of the educational
environment and the experience involved. If they want to go have a corporate meeting somewhere, that
is really nice there are plenty of places they can go and do that. The groups that want to come to
Monticello want to come here because of the educational experience that it provides and the historical
setting with the ability to immerse themselves in Jefferson’s ideas and environment.
Mr. Lafferty realized that there is a lot of land. He asked if there is any sound ordinance that covers this.
The second largest event is a school band competition. He would have an easier time with the wedding
than that. He realized the neighbors were a long ways away. He assumed that the competition means
they would play their instruments.
Ms. Long agreed that he was right that the neighbors were quite far away. The closest residence is at
least ½ mile away. The most important thing is that Monticello has a 87 year history of being a very good
neighbor. They conduct meetings and in fact may have convened a group they call the 53/20 Group,
which is all the neighbors in the area. They get together periodically and talk about issues of common
interest. They communicate very well. They have handled very large events over the years with no
incidents
Mr. Lafferty asked if there were an incident with unlimited use of the land how would they correct that.
Ms. Long replied that certainly the first thing they would do is p robably work with whoever was being
impacted. That is what they do whenever issues come up. There have been very few of them over the
years. They work directly with their neighbors if there is an issue and communicate well with them.
Therefore, that is the first thing they would do. The second thing they would do is get together with
County staff and figure out a way to end the problem and work out a solution that would be workable for
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – FEBRUARY 22, 2011
DRAFT PARTIAL MINUTES – ZTA-2009-00016 MONTICELLO HISTORIC DISTRICT
11
everyone. Certainly, they will continue to comply with all the noise ordinances and continue to be the
good neighbor.
Ms. Porterfield asked to follow up on the traffic situation. If she understands correctly, Monticello is willing
and it could be part of a motion, that if VDOT is unable to complete the sight area and f ix that area within
five years of adoption of this Monticello will step in and do it.
Ms. Long replied that was correct.
Mr. Franco agreed that is what they said. He noted what they are approving is a zoning text amendment.
Their motion does not have any of the weight she was trying to put to it. What staff has tried to create via
the traffic managem ent plan is to give them the ability to bring some of those other things in to place so it
is something they can review yearly. That is going to be their hook in case it does not happen.
Ms. Porterfield asked if that can be put into this motion.
Mr. Franco replied that it was in the proposal.
Ms. Porterfield said she understands it is in there, but it was hard for her to accept just trust me because it
was not okay for Mr. Smith or Mr. Jones or whoever else stands in front of the Commission. It is a
problem. She drove around the property and went through the plan. She was concerned about a great
amount of traffic coming out of the current exit out of the parking lot. She believed it was said there would
not be any events going up Montalto at night. People would travel by their small buses. Therefore, they
don’t have that problem with the night time traffic going up and down the mountain, which was a big
concern three years ago.
In addition, Ms. Porterfield said she was concerned about the people on Route 53 because she drives
Route 53 regularly and it is not an easy drive. For example, if they were unloading 500 cars from a
wedding it would be tough. It is even hard to see to exist or get out at the current entrance. It is certainly
hard for people turning left out of that. She did not want to have a situation five years from now that they
have not solved the problems. There would be more traffic with the possibility of substantial accidents.
Everyone is aware of the past dump truck accident, which was not caused by anyone coming out of their
area. She understands why they can’t put it in there, but she wanted everyone to understand what is
being presented and what the obligations are to do it.
In addition, Ms. Porterfield voiced concern about the larger activities that other in the County are required
to get a special use permit or at least a zoning clearance for when they go over a certa in number of
attendees. She was talking about Montalto and not Monticello. She wondered if they were being fair to
everybody else if they don’t require at least something like that of them at a certain level of attendance. If
a winery can do 200 at this point for a wedding, they could possibly do 1,000. It is reasonable to think
that they might. If someone can afford it, they may be there. That was a concern she heard when she
first came on this board about the situation about what was going to be created there. They were
assured they were not going to do any of those things. She just wondered how they could solve the
problem and make it work and be fair to everybody else in the community who has to deal with the county
for similar kinds of events. She did not have a problem with when they are connected to Mr. Jefferson,
but she did not think that everybody coming for a wedding is connected to Mr. Jefferson. She did not
have a problem with them doing weddings, but just wanted to put them on the same basic plane that she
was asking the wineries to do or some other entity coming into town that wanted to do something like that
on 100 acres.
Ms. Long asked to respond, and Mr. Zobrist replied that the public hearing had been closed.
Ms. Porterfield asked the other Commissioners if they are okay that this is the number of events and the
attendance will never be regulated under this.
Mr. Zobrist said he was 100 percent okay with it.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – FEBRUARY 22, 2011
DRAFT PARTIAL MINUTES – ZTA-2009-00016 MONTICELLO HISTORIC DISTRICT
12
Mr. Loach said that he heard what she was saying, but felt the difference is that it does not matter to him
if it is Jefferson related or wedding related. The X number of cars and X number of people are the same.
They can also look back at the history of Monticello for all of the events they have been running. He
thought there is a degree of confidence that he has over the years with them running these large events
and doing it well versus a new winery coming on and doing something like that who does not have that
experience. He thought if they did not have the experience or the staffing to do these events he would be
much more hesitant. With that said, they do have the ability to do that, which was the reason.
Ms. Porterfield asked if they had a large event that would have to exit and it was going to be a hard exit
with 500 cars leaving at basically the same time. Would he expect them to provide off duty Albemarle or
Charlottesville Police on Route 53 and not come through their parking lot.
Mr. Loach said he would assume they would make that decision based on their experience.
Ms. Porterfield questioned if that should not be in their management plan.
Mr. Zobrist said the traffic management plan, which was reviewed yearly, was very different from what
they are discussing. They are on the zoning text amendment.
Ms. Porterfield said the traffic plan is part of it.
Mr. Zobrist replied no, they have that traffic plan and update it every year.
Mr. Brooks noted the traffic plan would be part of it and it is something staff could send to the police
department, for instance, to review. If they felt it might be good to have an off duty police officer, they
could negotiate with Monticello.
Ms. Porterfield noted she would be very happy with that.
Mr. Morris assumed based upon their plan that they presented that the shuttle buses would be taking
these people down in waves so they would not be having 500 at a time, but they might have 20 people at
a time.
Mr. Zobrist noted that he had been up there when there has been 500 people there and he has never
seen a problem getting out of there. They handle large crowds all the time. They are a rural heritage
site. He thought they were far more responsible in managing their affairs than they are.
Ms. Porterfield replied that she never said that they were not. She asked if someone could follow up with
Mr. Morris’ comment if they are using shuttle buses at night for something like a wedding , or are they
honestly having the cars up above.
Mr. Long replied that most likely they would. The traffic management plan specifically delineates for
instance “soft” start events between daytime and nighttime activities. For a large event , literally it is
limited by the practicalities of the number of parking spaces. They don’t want to have more than 70 or so
spaces on Montalto. Only about 14 parking spaces are paved. The rest are reinforced turf. Therefore,
they could not accommodate all of those cars. They would most likely shuffle bus those folks up.
However, the traffic management plan would govern that.
Ms. Porterfield asked if she was speaking about night time events, and Ms. Long replied yes.
Ms. Porterfield asked if for day time events they anticipate using the back area to the south potentially like
they did two years ago for the Heritage Festival.
Ms. Long replied that the Heritage Harvest Festival is really the one example where that would likely
occur. That was a daytime event. They had substantial management and support staff in place. They
hired a professional parking company to assist them with those logistics, limited the ingress just to one-
way, and worked with the orchard owners to use their roads. Those are just examples of the types of
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – FEBRUARY 22, 2011
DRAFT PARTIAL MINUTES – ZTA-2009-00016 MONTICELLO HISTORIC DISTRICT
13
logistical issues and decisions that they make depending on the event and when it is held. That is a “soft”
start and “soft” end event so they did not have everybody ending at one time. It all just depends on the
nature and size of the event, the time, and the location. Those are factors that they weigh and consider
when they are planning their events. They have amazingly deta iled operational plans certainly for the
large events and probably for all of them they take those factors into consideration.
Ms. Monteith asked to make one quick comment. At least in the meantime with all of the cars egressing
from the Monticello exit that her experience a lot of times up there is that there is a large pedestrian group
of people, whether they are people who have hiked up the trails and are in that area or whether they are
people just visiting the site itself. The one concern she has is that this traffic management plan is very
vehicular oriented and that they have their folks think about it from a pedestrian safety perspective also.
Ms. Long noted it was a very good point, and Mr. Zobrist agreed.
Ms. Porterfield asked if staff and VDOT was satisfied with removing the reference to the VDOT standard.
Mr. Brooks replied yes, that was specifically done because staff realized that ramp is actually private. It is
not a VDOT ramp.
Ms. Porterfield asked if by removing that does that also r emove it from potentially where they are exiting
the parking lot at this point.
Mr. Brooks replied that those would be subject to the site plan provisions of the ordinance anyway. They
all have to meet safety provisions.
Ms. Porterfield noted from having driven it a lot she would love to see them make a left turn and a right
turn at that particular thing so they can get cars into the lanes and not have them sit in the middle. It is
not really big, but she was sure it met all of the standards. If they have a lot of people going out, it is
going to back up.
Motion: Mr. Morris moved and Mr. Smith seconded to recommend approval of ZTA-2009-00016,
Monticello Historic District with conditions as amended by staff.
Ms. Long noted that staff did not raise the issue of the change to the multiple family in dwellings for the
scholar residence. She wanted to make sure that was included in the intent of the motion.
Mr. Morris replied that was absolutely included.
The motion was passed by a vote of 7:0.
Mr. Zobrist noted ZTA-2009-00016 Monticello would go to the Board of Supervisors on a date to be
determined with a recommendation for approval with staff’s recommendation, as amended.
ZTA-2009-00016 Monticello - Proposed Changes to the Ordinance:
• Sec. 11.1 Intent and purpose, where permitted
• The intent and purpose of the Monticello Historic District (hereinafter referred to as “MHD”) is to
create a planned historic district:
• - To permit restoration, preservation, conservation, education, programs, research, and
business and support activities, including fundraising activities for the public and/or contributors,
all of which are related to the operation of a historic house museum and historic site at Monticello;
• - To promote the preservation, interpretation and enhancement of a unique historical site;
• Sec. 11.3.1 By right uses
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – FEBRUARY 22, 2011
DRAFT PARTIAL MINUTES – ZTA-2009-00016 MONTICELLO HISTORIC DISTRICT
14
The following uses shall be permitted by right in the MHD:
• Uses relating to the operation of Monticello as a historic house museum and historic site as
follows:
• 2. Fundraising activities and cultivation and stewardship events for the public and/or contributors,
subject to section 11.5.
• Temporary events related to or supportive of the historic, educational or civic significance of
Monticello, such as, but not limited to the Naturalization Ceremony on the Fourth of July, Thomas
Jefferson’s Birthday celebration, summer speakers series, presidential inaugural events, the
Heritage Harvest Festival, wine festivals, community hiking and racing events, musical
performances and concerts, and commemorative events similar to the Lewis and
Clark bicentennial, subject to section 11.5.
• 17. Tourist lodging (reference 5.1.17).
• 19. Farm winery uses, events and activities authorized by section 5.1.25(a) and (b) (reference
5.1.25).
• 24. Monticello scholar residences, which shall be private lodging accommodations in multiple-
family dwellings for educators, academic fellows or scholars working on Jefferson related
research and/or programs, Montalto Thomas Jefferson Foundation program and event
participants, persons directly engaged in the programming, research, or operation of Monticello
as a historic museum and historic site, and for a sole caretaker, provided that not more than
three dwelling units shall be occupied at any one time by persons directly engaged in the
programming, research, or operation of Monticello as a historic museum and historic site
except during the semi-annual meetings of the owner’s governing board
• Events that are typically conducted on a single day, but which may be conducted for up to three
(3) consecutive days, for which attendance is permitted only by invitation or reservation including,
but not limited to, meetings, conferences, banquets, dinners, weddings, wedding receptions, and
private parties, subject to section 11.5.
• 11.3.2 BY SPECIAL USE PERMIT
• The following uses shall be permitted by special use permit in the MHD:
• 1. Farmers’ markets (reference 5.1.47). (Amended 5-5-10)
• 5. Concerts (such as performances by the Charlottesville Symphony Orchestra and the
Charlottesville Municipal Band), theater, and outdoor drama events open to the general public,
not otherwise permitted by right under section 11.3.1(2).
• 8. Farm winery uses, events and activities authorized by section 5.1.25(c).
•
• Sec. 11.5 Standards of operation
• All uses authorized by section 11.3.1(1)(e), 11.3.1(2), or 11.3.1(27), shall be conducted in
accordance with the requirements of an approved traffic management plan on file with the
Community Development Department, which may be reviewed on an annual basis at the
discretion of the zoning administrator or county engineer, or the request of the owner. In addition,
all public access must meet minimum VDOT safety standards. Private road and travelway
access must meet standards as approved by the Planning Commission at the recommendation of
the County Engineer.
Staff Recommended Changes:
• 1. In section 11.5, Standards of Operation: delete the sentence "In addition, all public access
must meet the minimum safety standards of the Virginia Department of Transportation."
• Staff believes that the last sentence in that section ("Private road and travelway access must
meet standards approved by the planning commission upon the recommendation of the county
engineer.") will also cover any standards approved by the PC regarding the closure of the exit
where the sight distance is not met, since that ramp (the area to be closed off) is a private road.
• Sec. 11.5 Standards of operation
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – FEBRUARY 22, 2011
DRAFT PARTIAL MINUTES – ZTA-2009-00016 MONTICELLO HISTORIC DISTRICT
15
• All uses authorized by section 11.3.1(1)(e), 11.3.1(2), or 11.3.1(27), shall be conducted in
accordance with the requirements of an approved traffic management plan on file with the
Community Development Department, which may be reviewed on an annual basis at the
discretion of the zoning administrator or county engineer, or the request of the owner. Private
road and travelway access must meet standards as approved by the Planning Commission at the
recommendation of the County Engineer.
• 2. In section 11.3.2.8 By Special Use Permit: Add (for clarification):
• "...provided, however, that no special use permit shall be required for any use that is
otherwise permitted pursuant to section 11.3.1." (the by-right uses).
• 8. Farm winery uses, events and activities authorized by section 5.1.25(c) provided,
however, that no special use permit shall be required for any use that is otherwise
permitted pursuant to section 11.3.1.
Include change to multiple family in dwelling for the scholar residences.
(Recorded and transcribed by Sharon C. Taylor, Clerk to Planning Commission & Planning Boards)
Return to PC actions memo
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road, North Wing
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
Phone (434) 296-5832 Fax (434) 972-4126
March 16, 2011
Kelly Strickland
411 Cranberry Lane
Crozet, Va 22932
RE: SP201000035 Blue Ridge Swim Club - Day Boarding & SP201000041 Blue Ridge Swim Club
TAX MAP/PARCEL: 058000000075A0
Dear Mr. Strickland:
The Albemarle County Planning Commission, at its meeting on February 22, 2011, recommended approval
of the above-noted petitions to the Board of Supervisors.
Based on the findings contained in this staff report, the Planning Commission recommends approval, by a
vote of 7:0.
SP-2010-00035 Blue Ridge Swim Club – Day Camp, Boarding Camp, subject to the following conditions:
1. Development of the SP-2010-00035 uses use shall be in general accord with the conceptual plan titled
“Blue Ridge Swim Club “ prepared by Kelly Strickland and dated December 20, 2010 and revised
February 2, 2011 (Attachment A) (hereafter “Conceptual Plan”), as determined by the Director of
Planning and the Zoning Administrator. To be in accord with the Conceptual Plan, development shall
reflect the following major elements within the development essential to the design of the development:
• Limits of disturbance
• Location and size of pavilion building
• Location of parking areas
• Minimum clearing possible may be allowed to locate well, septic line and drainfields, parking
and pavilion
as shown on the Blue Ridge Swim Club concept plan.
Minor modifications to the plan which do not conflict with the elements above may be made to ensure
compliance with the Zoning Ordinance.
2. The hours of operation for SP-2010-00035 Blue Ridge Swim Club Camp: five days per week,
Memorial Day weekend through Labor Day weekend and shall not begin earlier than 8:30 AM and shall
not end later than 5:00 PM Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, and Friday. On Thursdays, 8:30 AM
through overnight stays shall be permitted. The nighttime maximum sound level of 55 decibels shall be
imposed from 9:30 PM to 8:30 AM.
3. All outdoor lighting shall be only full cut-off fixtures and shielded to reflect light away from all abutting
properties. A lighting plan limiting light levels at all property lines to no greater than 0.3 foot candles
shall be submitted to the Zoning Administrator or their designee for approval.
4. Food prepared off-site may be sold from a concession stand that is depicted on the Conceptual Plan.
5. Approval of the Health Department for the well, septic and food concession shall be required prior to
approval of a site plan.
6. Approval by the Virginia Department of Transportation for the entrance shall be required prior to
approval of site plan.
7. Prior approval by the Fire Department shall be required prior to all outdoor cooking and/or campfires.
8. No amplification of sound shall be permitted, with the exception of a megaphone used on Fridays
during each season (Memorial Day weekend through Labor Day weekend) during field games, radios,
and electronic sound producing or reproducing devices, provided that any such amplified sound shall
comply with the applicable noise regulations.
9. Parking on Owensville Road by attendees or staff of the Blue Ridge Swim Club or the Camp shall not
be permitted.
10. No more than 200 people shall be on the property for any purpose at any time.
11. SP-2010-00035 shall be valid until (date 10 years after Board approval).
Based on the findings contained in this staff report, the Planning Commission recommends approval, by a
vote of 7:1.
SP-2010-00041 Blue Ridge Swim Club subject to the following conditions:
1. Development of the SP-2010-00041 uses use shall be in general accord with the conceptual plan titled
“Blue Ridge Swim Club “ prepared by Kelly Strickland and dated December 20, 2010 and revised
February 2, 2011 (Attachment A) (he reafter “Conceptual Plan”), as determined by the Director of
Planning and the Zoning Administrator. To be in accord with the Conceptual Plan, development shall
reflect the following major elements within the development essential to the design of the
development:
• Limits of disturbance
• Location and size of pavilion building
• Location of parking areas
• Minimum clearing possible may be allowed to locate well, septic line and drainfields, parking
and pavilion
as shown on the Blue Ridge Swim Club concept plan.
Minor modifications to the plan which do not conflict with the elements above may be made to ensure
compliance with the Zoning Ordinance.
2. The hours of operation for SP-2010-00041 Blue Ridge Swim Club shall not begin earlier than 12:00
PM (noon) and shall end not later than 8:00 P.M., each day, seven days per week, Memorial Day
weekend through Labor Day weekend.
3. All outdoor lighting shall be only full cut-off fixtures and shielded to reflect light away from all abutting
properties. A lighting plan limiting light levels at all property lines to no greater than 0.3 foot candles
shall be submitted to the Zoning Administrator or their designee for approval.
4. Food prepared off-site may be sold from a concession stand that is depicted on the Conceptual Pl an.
5. Approval of the Health Department for the well, septic and food concession shall be required prior to
approval of a site plan.
6. Approval by the Virginia Department of Transportation for the entrance shall be required prior to
approval of site plan.
7. Prior approval by the Fire Department shall be required prior to all outdoor cooking and/or campfires.
8. No amplification of sound shall be permitted, with the exception of a megaphone used on Fridays
during each season (Memorial Day weekend through Labor Day weekend) during field games, radios,
and electronic sound producing or reproducing devices, provided that any such amplified sound shall
comply with the applicable noise regulations.
9. Parking on Owensville Road by attendees or staff of the Blue Ridge Swim C lub or the Camp shall not
be permitted.
10. No more than 200 people shall be on the property for any purpose at any time.
Please be advised that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors will review this petition and receive
public comment at their meeting on April 6, 2011.
If you should have any questions or comments regarding the above noted action, please do not hesit ate to
contact me at (434) 296-5832.
Sincerely,
Joan McDowell
Principal Planner
Planning Division
Cc: Todd Barnett
P.O. Box 4234
Charlottesville, Va 22905
Blue Ridge Swimming Pool Club Ltd C/O James F Hamlett & Associates
1111 Rose Hill Drive #2
Charlottesville, Va 22903
View staff report and attachments
View PC minutes
Return to agenda
SP201000035 and SP201000041 Blue Ridge Swim Club and Camp
PC February 22, 2011
Staff Report Page 1
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
PLANNING STAFF REPORT SUMMARY
Project Name: SP200900035 Blue Ridge
Swim Club Day Boarding Camp and
SP201000041 Blue Ridge Swim Club
Staff: Joan McDowell, Principal Planner
Planning Commission Public Hearing:
February 22, 2010
Board of Supervisors Public Hearing:
Owner: Blue Ridge Swimming Pool Club,
LTD
Applicant: Todd Barnett
Acreage: 13.206 acres Special Use Permit: 10.2.2 (20) Day camp,
boarding camp (reference 5.1.05) and Section
10.2.2(4) Swim, golf, tennis or similar athletic
facilities (reference 5.1.16).
TMP: 058000000075A0
Location: 1275 Owensville Road (Rt. 678),
north of Holkham Drive
Existing Zoning and By-right use:
RA -- Rural Areas: agricultural, forestal, and fishery
uses; residential density (0.5 unit/acre
Magisterial District: Samuel Miller Conditions: Yes
DA (Development Area):
RA (Rural Areas): X
Requested # of Dwelling Units: NA
Proposal: Special Use Permit for a summer
camp that would allow overnight stays;
continue existing swimming pool use for
members; and allow special events and
concession sales on 13.206 acres
Comprehensive Plan Designation: Rural Areas -
preserve and protect agricultural, forestal, open
space, and natural, historic and scenic resources/
density (0.5 unit/ acre)
Character of Property: Wooded, areas
containing wooded slopes, two existing
buildings and pool, open areas for play and
parking, stream
Use of Surrounding Properties: Residential and
portion of a trail system owned by neighboring
homeowners association
Factors Favorable:
1. The Swim Club has been operating as part
of the community for over a century.
2. Sight distance would be achieved at the
entrance prior to site plan approval.
3. The drainfields would be relocated out of
the stream buffer prior to site plan approval.
4. Impacts from the uses can be mitigated
through conditions of approval.
Factors Unfavorable:
1. The additional uses would increase traffic on
Owensville Road.
2. Additional noise generated from the Club and
Camp may be heard by adjacent neighbors
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of these Special Use Permits with conditions.
SP201000035 and SP201000041 Blue Ridge Swim Club and Camp
PC February 22, 2011
Staff Report Page 2
STAFF PERSON: Joan McDowell, Principal Planner Rural Areas
PLANNING COMMISSION: February 22, 2010
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS: TBD
SP 201000035 Blue Ridge Swim Club - Day Boarding and
SP201000041 Blue Ridge Swim Club
Petition:
PROJECTS: SP201000035 Blue Ridge Swim Club - Day Boarding and SP201000041 Blue Ridge Swim
Club
PROPOSED: Special Use Permit for a summer camp that would allow overnight stays; continue existing
swimming pool use for members; and allow special events and concession sales on 13.206 acres
ZONING CATEGORY/GENERAL USAGE: RA Rural Areas - agricultural, forestal, and fishery uses;
residential density (0.5 unit/acre in development lots)
SECTION: 10.2.2 (20) Day camp, boarding camp (reference 5.1.05); Section 10.2.2(4) Swim, golf, tennis or
similar athletic facilities (reference 5.1.16)
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE/DENSITY: Rural Areas - preserve and protect agricultural,
forestal, open space, and natural, historic and scenic resources/ density ( .5 unit/ acre in development lots)
ENTRANCE CORRIDOR: No
LOCATION: 1275 Owensville Rd. (Rt. 678), north of Holkham Dr.
TAX MAP/PARCEL: 058000000075A0
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Samuel Miller
Character of the Area: The area is characterized by wooded areas, sloping terrain, and the residential
subdivisions surrounding the Swim Club property. The site of the Swim Club is bordered on the south by a
wooded neighborhood trail system owned by the Lewis Hill Property Owners Association. A branch of Ivy
Creek transects the property.
Specifics of the Proposal: SP201000035 Blue Ridge Swim Club – Day Boarding Camp would allow a
summer children’s camp that would operate in conjunction with the Swim Club activities. The camp would
accommodate up to 100 campers who would stay overnight two times per week. The camp would replace the
existing Field Camp currently located at Camp Albemarle in Free Union. Transportation would be provided
by a shuttle bus, but parents would have the option to provide their own transportation. Currently, the Field
Camp has about 2/3 of the children being transported by bus. The shuttle bus stop is located at Rt. 29 and
Barracks Road. The applicant uses a megaphone on five Friday mornings for the field games. Amplified
music or speakers have not been requested. The hours for the camp would be from 8:30 AM to 5:00 PM
Monday through Wednesday and Friday. On Thursday, the campers would be there all day and stay
overnight. Lights out / quiet time would be from 9:30 PM until 8 AM. A pavilion would be constructed in a
cleared area outside the stream buffer and approximately 400 feet to the nearest residence. The pavilion
would provide cover for camper’s activities. Sleeping would be in tents or inside the pavilion. The camp
would have a 7:1 camper to counselor ratio. Currently, the Field Camp has an average of 60 campers with
nine staff. No food preparation would take place on-site. A 150 sq.ft. concession stand is located adjacent to
the pool.
SP201000041 Blue Ridge Swim Club – The approval of a special use permit would bring the existing Swim
Club into compliance with the Zoning Ordinance and allow the construction of a pavilion; the Swim Club
would continue to host special events, including Memorial Day, July 4th celebrations, and Labor Day, in
addition to pool parties and birthday parties for members, and would continue to have concession sales. The
Swim Club would be open daily from noon until 8:00 PM, Memorial Day through Labor Day weekend. The
existing grass parking area accommodates 18-20 vehicles. The parking area would be expanded to the
opposite side of the gravel driveway and would accommodate a total of 42 vehicles. For large events,
parking alongside the driveway would accommodate additional vehicles. Parking on Owensville Road
would not be permitted. Currently, the Swim Club membership is approximately 250 individual members
and the average daily attendance is approximat ely 20 people (approximately 5 cars). The concession service
SP201000035 and SP201000041 Blue Ridge Swim Club and Camp
PC February 22, 2011
Staff Report Page 3
would be retained. The Swim Club would continue to have the parties and events that they have held for
decades. Initially, an expansion of the bathhouse was proposed. After learning that the bathhouse is located
within the stream buffer and an expansion would not be permitted, the applicant determined that the
bathhouse would be remodeled without an expansion. The pool is fed from the adjacent spring and then
circulated into the pool until being discharged in the stream.
Planning and Zoning History: The Swim Club has been in existence since 1905, according to the
applicant. The Zoning Ordinance has allowed the Swim Club to continue operating as a non-conforming
use. However, the request for expansion of the uses requires approval of these special use permits. A 2010
article in the Crozet Gazette provides some insights into the unique history of the Swim Club
http://www.crozetgazette.com/2010/06/blue-ridge-swim-club-ivy%E2%80%99s-hidden-treasure/.
Conformity with the Comprehensive Plan: The Comprehensive Plan designates the subject properties as
Rural Areas emphasizing the preservation a nd protection of agricultural, forestal, open space, and natural,
historic, and scenic resources as land use options. While the Blue Ridge Swim Club does not directly
contribute to the preservation and protection goals of the Plan, the applicant does not propose to clear the
existing woodlands on the site, the drainfields would be relocated away from the stream buffer, and the
Swim Club would continue to serve the recreational needs of the community, as it has done for over a
century.
STAFF COMMENT:
The Swim Club property is accessed by a gated entry into a driveway that is approximately 23 feet wide 819
feet long before it widens out into the primary location. The driveway is a gravel pathway with grass
parking areas on both sides in an area overlooking the pool. Wooden curb stops within a portion of the
parking area identifies stalls within the parking areas. No additional clearing would be needed to
accommodate the proposed parking.
The Swim Club membership has declined over time, according to the applicant. If the special use permits
are approved, the applicant plans to purchase the property and immediately begin remodeling the bathhouse
and clean the pool, in order to open the facility by Memorial Day. As the Swim Club is an existing non-
conforming use, the use would be allowed to continue without expiration; however, the proposed expanded
uses require approval of a special use permit and the changes to parking and the entrance require approval of
a site plan. It should be noted that approval of the special use permit in no way grants approval or implies
approval of any waivers, modifications or variations of site plan submittal requirements or design standards .
The applicant has been advised that the existing septic system will be required to be moved out of the stream
buffer. A location for a primary and reserve drainfield outside the stream buffer has been identified by the
applicant’s engineer and will require verification by the Health Department. In addition, the Virginia
Department of Transportation has identified an area at the entrance that will require modification in order for
the entrance to achieve sight distance. A survey would be used to determine if an easement on an adjoining
property would be needed. These issues, as well as any waiver requests by the applicant for the unpaved
access road and parking areas, will be required to be addressed during the site plan process.
Staff addresses each provision of Section 31.6 Special Use Permits of the Zoning Ordinance:
31.2.4.1: Special Use Permits provided for in this ordinance may be issued upon a finding by the Board of
Supervisors that such use will not be of substantial detriment to adjacent property,
Staff has been contacted by one adjacent homeowner. The homeowner expressed concerns regarding the
potential for noise carrying from the pool and from the areas to be used for the summer camp to the adjacent
residential properties. In the past, noise was not an issue because of the low number of people using the
Swim Club, but addit ional use of the Swim Club and the addition of a children’s summer camp was cause for
concern. In winter conditions, staff was able to observe several homes in proximity of the Swim Club
property, but the expanse of trees between the pool area and the res idences would likely obscure the
visibility during the summer season when the facility would be open. Conditions of approval have been
SP201000035 and SP201000041 Blue Ridge Swim Club and Camp
PC February 22, 2011
Staff Report Page 4
offered to address potential noise impacts through limited hours of operation and a condition that would not
permit amplification of sound except with a megaphone for field games on Fridays.
that the character of the district will not be changed thereby and
The property has been used for a Swim Club of over a century. The location of the pool and accessory
buildings is deep into the parcel and not visible from Owensville Road. The only evidence of the Swim Club
from Owensville Road is a small identification sign.
that such use will be in harmony with the purpose and intent of this ordinance,
Section 18, Chapter 10 of the Zoning Ordinance outlines the purpose of Rural Areas zoning: “This district
(hereafter referred to as RA) is hereby created and may hereafter be established by amendment of the zoning
map for the following purposes:
-Preservation of agricultural and forestal lands and activities;
-Water supply protection;
-Limited service delivery to the rural areas; and
-Conservation of natural, scenic, and historic resources. (Amended 11-8-89)”
The property is located in the Ivy Creek Water Supply Watershed. The relocation of the septic drainfields
from the stream buff er would further the protection of the water supply. No disturbances within the stream
buffer would result from these uses and existing vegetation would be maintained along the stream banks.
with uses permitted by right in the district,
The Swim Club predates the surrounding residential development. Proposed conditions of approval would
limit the hours of operation mitigate potential noise impacts from the summer camp, the uses would be in
harmony with by right uses in the district.
with the additional regulations provided in section 5.0 of this ordinance,
5.1.05 DAY CAMP, BOARDING CAMP
a. Provisions for outdoor cooking, campfires, cooking pits, etc., shall be subject to Albemarle
County fire official approval whether or not a site development plan is required;
A condition of approval would require Fire Department approval for any outdoor cooking or campfire.
b. All such uses shall conform to the requirements of the Virginia Department of Health Bureau
of Tourist Establishment Sanitation and other applicable requirements.
A condition of approval has been offered to require Health Department approval of the concession stand and
the septic system.
5.1.16 SWIMMING, GOLF, TENNIS CLUBS
Each swimming, golf or tennis club shall be subject to the following:
a. The swimming pool, including the apron, filtering and pumping equipment, and any
buildings, shall be at least seventy-five (75) feet from the nearest property line and at least one
hundred twenty-five (125) feet from any existing dwelling on an adjoining property, except
that, where the lot upon which it is located abuts land in a commercial or industrial district,
the pool may be constructed no less than twenty-five (25) feet from the nearest property line
of such land in a commercial or industrial district;
The pool and existing buildings are in compliance with these regulations. The pavilion would be constructed in
compliance with these regulations.
b. When the lot on which any such pool is located abuts the rear or side line of, or is across the
street from, any residential district, a substantial, sightly wall, fence, or shrubbery shall be
erected or planted, so as to screen effectively said pool from view from the nearest property in
such residential district;
Existing landscape materials which screen the pool from adjacent residences would be maintained.
c. (Repealed 6-14-00)
d. The board of supervisors may, for the protection of the health, safety, morals, and general
welfare of the community, require such additional conditions as it deems necessary, including
SP201000035 and SP201000041 Blue Ridge Swim Club and Camp
PC February 22, 2011
Staff Report Page 5
but not limited to provisions for additional fencing and/or planting or other landscaping,
additional setback from property lines, additional parking space, location and arrangement of
lighting, and other reasonable requirements;
Conditions of approval have been offered to mitigate potential impacts related to sound. Existing trees and the
distance between the pool and playground area should provide sufficient buffer between the activiti es of the pool and
the camp and the residences.
e. Provision for concessions for the serving of food, refreshments, or entertainment for club
members and guests may be permitted under special use permit procedures .
The existing food concession operation would remain. No food preparation would take place at the
concession stand.
and with the public health, safety and general welfare.
Improvements to achieve sight distance at the entrance onto Owensville Road would be required. In
addition, the septic system drainfields would be relocated out of the stream buffer next to the bathhouse. The
relocation would require Health Department and County approvals.
Additional noise may result from the camp and noise and from a successful membership drive for the Swim
Club. However, the limited hours of operation and the prohibition of amplification systems are anticipated
to mitigate noise impacts to an acceptable level.
Originally, the applicant requested an expansion of the bath house. As the bath house is located in the
stream buffer and cannot be expanded beyond the existing footprint, the applicant has advised that bath
house will be remodeled instead.
SUMMARY:
Staff has identified the following factors favorable to this application:
1. The Swim Club has been operating as part of the community for over a century.
2. Sight distance would be achieved at the entrance prior to site plan approval.
3. The drainfields would be relocated out of the stream buffer prior to site plan approval.
4. Impacts from the uses can be mitigated through conditions of approval.
Staff has identified the following factors unfavorable to this application:
1. The additional uses would increase traffic on Owensville Road.
2. Additional noise generated from the Club and Camp may be heard by adjacent neighbors.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
I. Based on the findings contained in this staff report, staff recommends approval of
SP201000035 Blue Ridge Swim Club – Day Camp, Boarding Camp, subject to the following conditions:
1. Development of the SP201000035 uses use shall be in general accord with the conceptual plan titled “Blue Ridge
Swim Club “ prepared by Kelly Strickland and dated December 20, 2010 and revised February 2, 2011 (Attachment
A) (hereafter “Conceptual Plan”), as determined by the Director of Planning and the Zoning Administrator. To be in
accord with the Conceptual Plan, development shall reflect the following major elements within the development
essential to the design of the development:
Limits of disturbance
Location and size of pavilion building
Location of parking areas
Minimum clearing possible may be allowed to locate well, septic line and drainfields, parking and pavilion
as shown on the Blue Ridge Swim Club concept plan.
SP201000035 and SP201000041 Blue Ridge Swim Club and Camp
PC February 22, 2011
Staff Report Page 6
Minor modifications to the plan which do not conflict with the elements above may be made to ensure compliance
with the Zoning Ordinance.
1. The hours of operation for SP201000035 Blue Ridge Swim Club Camp five days per week, Memorial Day
through Labor Day and shall not begin earlier than 8:30 AM and shall not end later than 5:00 PM Monday,
Tuesday, Wednesday, and Friday. On Thursdays, 8:30 AM through overnight stays shall be permitted, but quiet
time shall be from 9:30 PM to 8:30 AM.
2. All outdoor lighting shall be only full cut-off fixtures and shielded to reflect light away from all abutting
properties. A lighting plan limiting light levels at all property lines to no greater than 0.3 foot candles shall be
submitted to the Zoning Administrator or their designee for approval.
3. Food prepared off-site may be sold from a concession stand that is depicted on the Conceptual Plan.
4. Approval of the Health Department for the well, septic and food concession shall be required prior to approval of
a site plan.
5. Approval by the Virginia Department of Transportation for the entrance shall be required prior to approval of site
plan.
6. Prior approval by the Fire Department shall be required prior to all outdoor cooking and/or campfires.
7. No amplification of sound shall be permitted, with the except ion of a megaphone used on Fridays during each
season (Memorial Day through Labor Day) during field games.
8. Parking on Owensville Road by attendees or staff of the Blue Ridge Swim Club or the Camp shall not be
permitted.
PLANNING COMMISSION MOTION
1. SP201000035 Blue Ridge Swim Club –Day Camp, Boarding Camp
A. Should a Planning Commissioner choose to recommend approval of this special use permit:
SP201000035 Blue Ridge Swim Club – Day Camp, Boarding Camp
Move to recommend approval of SP 201000035 subject to the conditions as recommended by staff.
B. Should a Planning Commissioner choose to recommend denial of this special use permit:
Move to recommend denial of SP201000035 Blue Ridge Swim Club – Day Camp, Boarding
Camp.
Should a commissioner motion to recommend denial, he or she should state the reason(s) for recommending
denial.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
II. Based on the findings contained in this staff report, staff recommends approval of
SP201000041 Blue Ridge Swim Club subject to the following conditions:
1. Development of the SP201000041 uses use shall be in general accord with the conceptual plan titled
“Blue Ridge Swim Club “ prepared by Kelly Strickland and dated December 20, 2010 and revised
February 2, 2011 (Attachment A) (hereafter “Conceptual Plan”), as determined by the Director of
Planning and the Zoning Administrator. To be in accord with the Conceptual Plan, development shall
reflect the following major elements within the development essential to the design of the development:
Limits of disturbance
Location and size of pavilion building
Location of parking areas
Minimum clearing possible may be allowed to locate well, septic line and drainfields, parking and pavilion
as shown on the Blue Ridge Swim Club concept plan.
SP201000035 and SP201000041 Blue Ridge Swim Club and Camp
PC February 22, 2011
Staff Report Page 7
Minor modifications to the plan which do not conflict with the elements above may be made to ensure compliance
with the Zoning Ordinance.
2. The hours of operation for SP201000041 Blue Ridge Swim Club shall not begin earlier than 12:00 PM (noon) and
shall end not later than 8:00 P.M., each day, seven days per week, Memorial Day through Labor Day.
3. All outdoor lighting shall be only full cut-off fixtures and shielded to reflect light away from all abutting
properties. A lighting plan limiting light levels at all property lines to no greater than 0.3 foot candles shall be
submitted to the Zoning Administrator or their designee for approval.
4. Food prepared off-site may be sold from a concession stand that is depicted on the Conceptual Plan.
5. Approval of the Health Department for the well, septic and food concession shall be required prior to approval of
a site plan.
6. Approval by the Virginia Department of Transportation for the entrance shall be required prior to approval of site
plan.
7. Prior approval by the Fire Department shall be required prior to all outdoor cooking and/or campfires.
8. No amplification of sound shall be permitted, with the exception of a megaphone used on Fridays during each
season (Memorial Day through Labor Day) during field games.
9. Parking on Owensville Road by attendees or staff of the Blue Ridge Swim Club or the Camp shall not be
permitted.
PLANNING COMMISSION MOTION
SP201000041 Blue Ridge Swim Club
A. Should a Planning Commissioner choose to recommend approval of this special use permit:
Move to recommend approval of SP 201000041 subject to the conditions as recommended by staff.
B. Should a Planning Commissioner choose to recommend denial of this special use permit:
Move to recommend denial of SP201000041 Blue Ridge Swim Club.
Should a commissioner motion to recommend denial, he or she should state the reason(s) for recommending
denial.
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A - Concept application plan
Attachment B – Aerial of site
Attachment C – Location Map
Attachment D – Site Photographs
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – FEBRUARY 22, 2011
DRAFT PARTIAL MINUTES – SP-2010-00035 Blue Ridge Swim Club – Day Camp, Boarding Camp &
SP-2010-41 BLUE RIDGE SWIM CLUB
1
Albemarle County Planning Commission
February 22, 2011
The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public hearing on Tuesday, February 22, 2011, at
6:00 p.m., at the County Office Building, Room #241, Second Floor, 401 McIntire Road, Charlottesville,
Virginia.
Members attending were Duane Zobrist, Chair; Ed Smith, Thomas Loach, Linda Porterfield, Don Franco,
Russell (Mac) Lafferty and Calvin Morris, Vice Chair. Julia Monteith, AICP, Senior Land Use Planner for
the University of Virginia was present.
Other officials present were Joan McDowell, Senior Planner; Ron Higgins, Chief of Zoning; Eryn Brennan,
Senior Planner; Summer Frederick, Senior Planner; Amelia McCulley, Zoning Administrator/Director of
Zoning; Bill Fritz, Director of Current Developm ent; Glenn Brooks, County Engineer; Wayne Cilimberg,
Director of Planning; and Greg Kamptner, Deputy County Attorney.
Call to Order and Establish Quorum:
Mr. Zobrist, Chair, called the regular meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. and established a quorum.
Public Hearing:
SP-2010-00035 Blue Ridge Swim Club – Day Camp, Boarding Camp
PROPOSED: Special Use Permit for a summer camp that would allow overnight stays; continue existing
swimming pool use for members; and allow special events and concession sales on 13.206 acres
ZONING CATEGORY/GENERAL USAGE: RA Rural Areas - agricultural, forestal, and fishery uses;
residential density (0.5 unit/acre in development lots)
SECTION: 10.2.2 (20) Day camp, boarding camp (reference 5.1.05); Section 10.2.2(4) Swim, golf, tennis
or similar athletic facilities (reference 5.1.16); Section 10.2.2(5) Special Events (reference 5.1.43)
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE/DENSITY: Rural Areas - preserve and protect agricultural,
forestal, open space, and natural, historic, and scenic resources/ density (.5 unit/ acre in development
lots)
ENTRANCE CORRIDOR: No
LOCATION: 1275 Owensville Rd. (Rt. 678), north of Holkham Dr.
TAX MAP/PARCEL: 058000000075A0
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Samuel Miller
(Joan McDowell)
AND
SP-2010-00041 Blue Ridge Swim Club
PROPOSED: Special Use Permit for a summer camp that would allow overnight stays; continue existing
swimming pool use for members; and allow special events and concession sales on 13.206 acres
ZONING CATEGORY/GENERAL USAGE: RA Rural Areas - agricultural, forestal, and fishery uses;
residential density (0.5 unit/acre in development lots)
SECTION: 10.2.2 (20) Day camp, boarding camp (reference 5.1.05); Section 10.2.2(4) Swim, golf, tennis
or similar athletic facilities (reference 5.1.16); Section 10.2.2(5) Special Events (reference 5.1.43)
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE/DENSITY: Rural Areas - preserve and protect agricultural,
forestal, open space, and natural, historic, and scenic resources/ density (.5 unit/ acre in development
lots)
ENTRANCE CORRIDOR: No
LOCATION: 1275 Owensville Rd. (Rt. 678), north of Holkham Dr.
TAX MAP/PARCEL: 058000000075A0
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Samuel Miller
(Joan McDowell)
Ms. McDowell presented a PowerPoint presentation and summarized the two staff reports for SP-2010-
00035 Blue Ridge Swim Club – Day Camp, Boarding Camp, and SP-2010-00041 Blue Ridge Swim Club.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – FEBRUARY 22, 2011
DRAFT PARTIAL MINUTES – SP-2010-00035 Blue Ridge Swim Club – Day Camp, Boarding Camp &
SP-2010-41 BLUE RIDGE SWIM CLUB
2
Proposals
• SP 201000035 - Camp (located at Blue Ridge Swim Club
• Currently located at Camp Albemarle
o Allow children’s camp 5 days per week
o 8:30 AM to 5:00 PM
o Would allow 60 campers, unless the Health Dept. approves septic system for 100
campers
o One overnight per week (Thursday)
o Construction of a 2,000 s.f. pavillion
o Transported by shuttle bus and individually
o Concession stand would be allowed to continue food sales
• SP-2010-00041 Blue Ridge Swim Club
o Existing since 1905
o Water drawn from adjacent stream
o Would bring swim club into compliance with current zoning ordinance
o Swim Club could continue as a non-conforming use
o Would limit to 250 members, unless Health Department approves septic system, and
then would max out at 350 members
o Open from Memorial Day weekend to Labor Day weekend
o Open from noon to 8:00 PM
o Health Department and VDOT approvals required
o Septic system would be improved to current standards
o Improvement of entrance/exit and sight distance
Based on the findings contained in this staff report, staff recommends approval of SP-2010-00035
Blue Ridge Swim Club – Day Camp, Boarding Camp, subject to the conditions listed in the staff
report. In condition 2 “quiet time” should be replaced to “be between 9:30 p.m. and 8:30 a.m. with
the night time maximum sound level of 55 decibels shall be imposed from 9:30 p.m. to 8:30 a.m.
In addition, add a condition that the maximum number of campers shall be limited to 60 unless
the Health Department approves the septic system for no more than 100 campers.
Based on the findings contained in this staff report, staff recommends approval of SP-2010-00041
Blue Ridge Swim Club subject to the conditions listed in the staff report with the changes listed in
red: Memorial Day Weekend and Labor Day Weekend in condition 2. In addition, add maximum
number of members to 250 unless the Health Department approves the septic system, but no
more than 350..
Mr. Zobrist invited questions for staff.
Ms. Porterfield asked when talking about members if members are individuals or a family.
Ms. McDowell replied that staff is basing this on what the septic system is being reviewed for currently.
Therefore, it was individuals.
Ms. Porterfield noted that in other words anybody who is joining has to say exactly how many. Is there
any possibility to bring guests.
Ms. McDowell replied that the septic was not reviewing for guests, but only for members. They were
given an average of folks that could come during the day. Therefore, they averaged it out as well.
Mr. Zobrist asked if the members hold certificates.
Ms. McDowell replied that she was not sure.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – FEBRUARY 22, 2011
DRAFT PARTIAL MINUTES – SP-2010-00035 Blue Ridge Swim Club – Day Camp, Boarding Camp &
SP-2010-41 BLUE RIDGE SWIM CLUB
3
Mr. Zobrist said that the Commission could ask the applicant.
Ms. Porterfield asked staff to go back to the changes to the conditions.
Ms. McDowell pointed out that the changes to #2 were really to clarify. It did not need to be exactly Labor
Day or Memorial Day, but just that weekend.
Ms. Porterfield asked if the special use permit was forever or if it would have to be reviewed after so many
years to see if there are any problems.
Ms. McDowell replied that there is no condition that would limit it for a return visit.
Mr. Lafferty asked if the bathrooms would be in the same place.
Ms. McDowell replied yes.
Mr. Lafferty asked if they would have to have a lift station for the sewage, and Ms. McDowell replied yes.
Mr. Loach asked if the road and bridge would be adequate for fire and rescue.
Ms. McDowell replied that fire/rescue has reviewed it and asked that they be notified before there are any
outdoor fires. They had no comments on the road. It would be a pedestrian bridge.
Ms. Porterfield noticed in the report that the applicant agreed to put up a fence along one property line.
She asked if there is a fencing regulation for the entire property.
Ms. McDowell replied as she remembered there is a fence out there, but the applicant can address any
agreements he may have made subsequent to his application.
Ms. Porterfield asked does the County have a fencing regulation around a pool.
Ms. McDowell replied that she did not know. She noted there was a fence around the property.
Mr. Kamptner noted that the Building Code requires fencing for any pool 4’ or deeper.
Ms. McDowell pointed out that this pool is deeper than 4’.
Mr. Kamptner noted that would be enforced by the Building Official.
Mr. Morris noted this was interesting because it has been in existence for 100 years. He would agree
because when they put up a pool 35 years ago in his neighborhood they had to put up a fence. This site
would be grandfathered.
Ms. Porterfield asked if any of this is grandfathered or with their site plan they were going to have to meet
all regulations.
Ms. McDowell noted that this brings it into conformance with whatever is in the Code now.
Ms. Porterfield said if there was a 6’ fence required to go around the pool, then they would have to do it
around the pool itself or the property.
Ms. McCulley noted that should be confirmed with the Building Official in terms of what the Building Code
would require. They are not modifying the pool itself. It is not a Zoning Ordinance specific requirement.
They can require fencing, screening, or something in terms of a visibility kind of buffer. They are not as
informed as the Building Official would be about the Building Code.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – FEBRUARY 22, 2011
DRAFT PARTIAL MINUTES – SP-2010-00035 Blue Ridge Swim Club – Day Camp, Boarding Camp &
SP-2010-41 BLUE RIDGE SWIM CLUB
4
Ms. Porterfield said she was more concerned since everywhere she lived there has always been a
regulation that a pool has to be fenced with a certain height fence because they are an attractive
nuisance. They don’t want some small child getting into them and that sort of thing. That is what she is
asking and why it came up. She noticed that it was only one property line. She questioned if staff was
saying they could not require fencing.
Ms. McCulley replied she was not saying that. There is language in the supplemental regulations, which
are zoning regulations that apply to this use. The reference to a fence talks about when a lot on which
any such pool is located and abuts a rear or side line of or is across the street from any residential district,
substantial sightly wall, fence or shrubbery shall be erected or planted so as to screen effectively said
pool from view from the nearest property and such residential district. This pool is not adjacent to a
residential district, but there is further language that allows the Board for the protection of health, safety,
morals and general welfare to require additional conditions as it deem s necessary, including but not
limited to provisions for additional fencing and/or planting.
Mr. Zobrist opened the public hearing and invited the applicant to address the Commission.
Todd Barnett, applicant, said he started Field Camp with Jay Fennel in 2000. They have never owned a
camp facility. In 11 years they have used facilities at Tandem School, Free Union Country School, the
Sugar Hollow Girl Scout Camp and Camp Albemarle. They have increasingly used Camp Albemarle, but
their Board always giv es the first choice to their own groups and camps. They get what is left. He made
the following comments.
- They teach about outdoors and nature, safety and nature, read loud stories, play capture the flag,
and go swimming. Every Tuesday and Thursday they take hikes up in the mountains for the day.
On Thursday nights they do overnights, make Samoas, play games, and sing songs. Then they
go off to bed where sometimes scary stories are told. Blue Ridge Swim Club came to him this
past summer and asked him to consider buying the property. Because he had an appreciation for
its history and most importantly because he would keep the pool open for the members who had
gone there for a long time. He knows that paying a twelve month mortgage on a three month
business is not financially sound. There is a reason that there is not a single commercial stand
alone pool operation. However, he thinks he can make it work by having his camp there and
running the pool. It comes down to whether this pool can survive. He thought this is the third
oldest operating pool in the country. There are two in Colorado, which are older. However, you
can imagine the reasons why they die. There are places where there have been a great deal of
cultural attention as well.
- Unless something happens, he was under the impression that this pool might not survive. Before
this deal, the club was close to a deal with a local commercial fitness club. It seems that pool
memberships alone cannot pay for the renovation, maintenance, and operation needed to sustain
the pool. If it is important to keep this pool in operation, then he hopes they would give him the
opportunity to continue to pursue the project. He would pursue state and national historic
designations for the pool if he owns it. There is a great deal of concern from neighbors in the
room. Honestly, as he told neighbor, Peter Thompson, when he first told him there were those
that opposed it. He said he thought it was going to be fine because he would be the only person
who was complaining. However, he was wrong about that. He has tried to talk with all of the
adjacent property owners. He had been very forth coming in trying to address their concerns if
they would talk to him. He committed to building a fence around the pavilion. They cannot build
the pavilion too close to the stream because of the 100’ barrier. It would be outside the fence that
is there now. At first he thought that would be fine, but then it occurred to him it was an attractive
nuisance during the season they were not there. He would like to build the fence around the field
that they intend to use. The pool would still be closed in. He was committed to doing that.
- He also told Mr. Thompson that he would commit to having no pool after dark events. He agreed
that could go on the conditions of approval. He agreed to cap the number of visitors to any event
at 250. He has never ran a pool before, but that seems like an awful lot of people. There would
be one overnight per week. All his neighbors had his phone number. He would be there Monday
through Friday running the camp. He would be happy to address their concerns as soon as they
arise. He thought these compromises were fair. It is important to recognize that this deal does
establish conditions for improvements for the pool that won’t be there otherwise. The things he
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – FEBRUARY 22, 2011
DRAFT PARTIAL MINUTES – SP-2010-00035 Blue Ridge Swim Club – Day Camp, Boarding Camp &
SP-2010-41 BLUE RIDGE SWIM CLUB
5
has to do is like the septic system, the noise from a PA, parking, and so forth. He thought that
pools are good places for communities to thrive. He believed very passionately about getting kids
outside in the summer in a healthy and safe program filled with adventures in outdoors and
nature awareness. He thought all of these things were a good thing. He hoped to continue to
have that opportunity in Albemarle County.
Mr. Zobrist invited questions for the applicant.
Ms. Porterfield asked that he go back to his hours of operation.
Mr. Barnett replied that it starts at 8:45 a.m. on Monday morning. Almost everybody is out before 4:45
p.m. when the bus takes off to take the children into town. About two-thirds of the children historically
have taken the bus. On Thursday they stay there overnight. Sometimes there is a child there as late as
5:00 p.m. Those are pretty much the hours. There are not weekend hours for the camp. The pool is
opened noon to 8 p.m. every day from the Saturday of Memorial Day to the Saturday of Labor Day. That
is for club members only on those days.
Mr. Morris asked if he agreed that a club member is an individual rather than a family.
Mr. Barnett replied that he understood that it was a membership. Last year there were 116 members,
which made up 211 people. It is a little less than twice the number.
Mr. Morris noted from what he had seen generally a membership was a family membership, which could
be one or six people. He would just like to know.
Mr. Barnett noted that the average was about 1.8 people per membership.
Mr. Lafferty asked if he could describe the fence being proposed.
Mr. Barnett replied that the existing fence was just over the hei ght of his waist. He was thinking of
extending that same fence. He was not sure what the regulation was, but he was assuming since it was
there that was done in some way that complied with insurance regulations. If it were not, then he would
put be a taller fence in. During the summer, he found that the foliage is dense. It is not a matter of sight
issues. Someone might say they can see the pool, but it was very dense in that area. He understands
the children noise issue, but felt they were a very under control camp. He had never sensed that they
were a noise problem. He noted that he could be biased in that. He did not think that sight was much of
a problem. If it is a problem of people climbing over the fence, he understand that is a liability issue as
well and something that he has to think about.
Mr. Lafferty noted that he had mentioned the P.A. system and the use of a mega phone.
Mr. Barnett replied that was a condition granted there. On three Fridays per year, they have a mega
phone and a tiny P.A. It was just a little box like used on the downtown mall. They have used either of
those. The regulations would be fine. The decibel levels was new, but it sounds fine. He thought that
was a good way to monitor the noise. They are going to run a lawnmower, which might go over 55
decibels.
Mr. Zobrist noted that the noise regulations were in the ordinance. There being no further questions for
the applicant, Mr. Zobrist invited public comment. He noted that the Commission had received many
letters and emails with most being in favor.
J.H. Verkerke, resident of 2592 Holkham Lane, spoke in support of the request.
- He was a long time member and former President of the Blue Ridge Swim Club and an adjacent
property owner who had lived approximately 300 feet from the pool property for the past 20 years.
He spoke first on behalf of the Blue Ridge Swim Club members who voted 58:1 in favor of selling
the property to Todd Barnett and the Field Camp. The Blue Ridge Swim Club property is an
historic treasure and one of the very oldest in the country. As noted in the staff report, it was
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – FEBRUARY 22, 2011
DRAFT PARTIAL MINUTES – SP-2010-00035 Blue Ridge Swim Club – Day Camp, Boarding Camp &
SP-2010-41 BLUE RIDGE SWIM CLUB
6
originally built as a boy’s camp operated on the same site. Many of the proposed uses in the
application continue the swim club operation that have been uninterrupted for more than one-half
a century. The other parts of the application return the property to its historic roots as a nature
camp.
- The certificate member owners of the pool property could have reaped a significant financial
windfall by selling two lots for residential development. However, they voted overwhelmingly in
favor of the deal with the Field Camp, which give most members only continued access to the
pool. They made this sacrifice because they care much more about preserving the open space
and special historic character of the pool than the monetary gain.
- As a long time resident of Ivy, he urges them to consider the unique contribution that a revitalized
swim club and nature camp will make to their community. In contrast to the predictable clearing
and natural devastation, that accompanies new residential development, the proposed uses give
the Field Camp every incentive to maintain the natural beauty of the site and to protect the
environment from degradation.
- The opportunity for neighbors to walk to any recreational facility is all too rare in our largely car
based suburban setting. Preserving the pool and permitting a nature camp to operate during the
nine weeks of the summer will protect the rural character of our community and create an
invaluable recreational option for local children and adults alike. Despite the objections that
several neighbors have raised to this application, as a close adjoining property owner the only
truly plausible concern is that the proposed uses will create too much noise for the area. His own
experience as a owner and resident of an adjoining parcel cause these concerns into question.
His family spends most of the summer on a screened porch that faces the pool property. Even
on the busiest days of the season with more than 100 members and guests in and around the
pool, they have never heard noise from the swim club property. He thinks the greatest threats to
their peace and tranquility come from roaring lawn tractors throughout the mowing season,
unattended dogs confined and barking in the yards of neighbors, and from loud music played by
teenagers when their parents are away. They often hear the sounds of young children playing
and having fun in their neighborhood, but that has never been a significant threat to their serenity.
- On behalf of the pool members and the many neighbors who support the proposal along with the
people in the surrounding community who will benefit for decades to come, he respectfully asked
the Commission to recommend approval of this application.
Keith Geerhart, as an adjoining property in Lewis Hills, he asked the Commission to approve this as well .
His children attended Field Camp in years past. He felt Field Camp was an asset to the neighborhood.
There are a many children in the neighborhood who would be able to walk to this camp during the
summer. It will be an asset to Albemarle County as a whole to enable children to get unplugged from
video games, get outside, and enjoy the outdoors. The noise being discussed comes f rom the children
playing. It is not boom boxes or parties. That was a sound that he welcomed in his neighborhood. He
asked that the request be approved.
Judge Cheryl Higgins, an adjoining property owner, asked the Commission not to approve the request
due to her two primary concerns of traffic and noise.
- The first was the traffic. She apologized if she did not understand what they were requesting.
From the information she received they wanted to allow a summer camp for up to 100 campers
and then in addition to allow an existing swimming pool use for up to 350 memberships. From
today, she understood that memberships would mean as family entities and not as individuals.
Then on top of that it sounded that there could then be visitors. She was very concerned about
what that will do to the traffic on Owensville Road.
- As she read the report, it stated that the swim club membership, while it is 250 individual
members, the average daily attendance is 20 people or approximately five cars. However, it
sounds now that this will be much more of a business and much more aggressively marketed as
a business. She was concerned about what is going to happen when there are potentially 300
people or families that are members and have teenagers that are driving and all of that traffic is
on Owensville Road.
- She recognizes that according to the report two-thirds of the people come in through buses.
However, there are also going to be camp counselors of a ratio of one counselor for every seven
children. Therefore, that is going to be at least ten additional cars assuming those people are not
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – FEBRUARY 22, 2011
DRAFT PARTIAL MINUTES – SP-2010-00035 Blue Ridge Swim Club – Day Camp, Boarding Camp &
SP-2010-41 BLUE RIDGE SWIM CLUB
7
going to car pool. There are going to have to be administrators. Therefore, at 8:15 to 8:30 a.m.
they are going to have those additional cars, approximately 50, on Owensville Road. That does
not sound like a large number of cars, but for that road, she would say that it is. It is especially
true considering what traffic can be like between Owensville Road and Route 250 when trying to
turn left, which she does every morning. She thought those were important considerations that
are not being taken into account. Owensville Road is just simply not built or prepared for having
an additional 100 campers plus 350 plus potential attendees.
- With all of those people comes a great potential for noise. That is her second concern. She
thought that other people have addressed that. That is why she was asking the Commission to
decline this request.
John E. Early, resident 2416 Holkham Drive for 25 years, spoke in opposition to the request due to
several concerns.
- Ms. Higgins voiced the noise concern quite elegantly. The other problems he has with the short
term concerns are the number of people that will actually be on site if the project is approved as
Ms. Higgins alluded to. He was also concerned about the hiking and trails. They already have
kids cutting through their neighborhood from West Leigh going to Blue Ridge or other areas. He
wondered how many more folks would be wondering through the backyards of their neighborhood
and disturbing things.
- His larger concerns are based on long term considerations. He truly believed that a commercial
enterprise next to a residential development would have a negative impact on his house value,
which was something that had been steadily declining over the past three years during the
recession and according to his latest appraisal. He recognized Mr. Barnett’s honorable intentions
and his love of nature are certainly nice and appropriate, but he was more worried about what will
happen when Mr. Barnett loses interest or realizes that this enterprise is no successful and they
have already granted a special use permit for these types of activities.
- This is a land use permit and not an activity for Mr. Barnett to run a day camp. So the land use
activity must be carefully monitored to make sure that is done appropriately. He would
recommend should the Board and Planning Commission approve it, which he hopes they do not,
that it be limited to this special use permit and there will be no grandfathering should a
subsequent owner come in and try to accomplish the same process.
Chris Georges, resident 2408 Holkham Drive, said the last two speakers stole all of his thunder. He
asked to reiterate his opposition to these permits. He has faxed and emailed letters to the Planning
Commission. Since writing to them, he had heard it mentioned that approving this proposed request
might keep this property safe from undesirable development. He asked does that mean this is the best of
the worse. To many here tonight this would be undesirable development. The applicant states that the
current by right use of this property could accommodate two home sites. There is nothing undesirable
about that since all nearby and surrounding properties are single family residential and not commercial.
He suggested that perhaps the best measure for deciding is not fear of something worse, but what is
consistent with sensible principles of community development. He urged the Planning Commission to
deny this request.
Patrick Kearns, resident of 1400 West Pines Drive, noted that his residence actually backs up to the
property and he asked the Planning Commission to not vote in favor of the proposal. He opposed the
special use permit for the overnight camping especially. The idea of having up to 60 people camping in
basically his back yard is not a great idea for him as a homeowner. They say that 60 people would be the
smallest amount with the possibility of going up to 100 people. Over a course of nine weeks that could
mean up to 900 to 1,000 people actually camping in his backyard. The thought of that is a little
disturbing. Especially with all of the activity, being talked about it was just going to add more people into
that area. As a homeowner that fronts the property, he felt this was a detrimental impact to the
surrounding area and to the homeowners. He hoped the Planning Commission voted no on the proposal.
John Chaplin was present, but chose not to speak.
Pat Kearns, wife of Patrick Kearns, agreed with what her husband said.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – FEBRUARY 22, 2011
DRAFT PARTIAL MINUTES – SP-2010-00035 Blue Ridge Swim Club – Day Camp, Boarding Camp &
SP-2010-41 BLUE RIDGE SWIM CLUB
8
Cathie O’Doagghue, of 1410 West Pines Drive, said that for the past 25 years her family has lived with
the Blue Ridge Swim Club in their back yard. They were very active members for several years.
Historically even on the popular days, such as July 4th, there were not more than 50 people present at
one time. On a normal day at the pool, one could expect less than ten sporadic visitors the majority of
which are well beyond their teenage years. The proposed 2,000 square foot pavilion that will shelter 65
to 100 kids ages 8 to 15 is directly behind her back deck. As is the case with many families, they use
their deck to relax and enjoy the peace and quiet of the rural residential area in which they live. There will
be bull horns used for field day, game day, swim day, family day any day they chose. The proposed
hours of operation are from 8 a.m. to 8 p.m. Any rational person can expect significant amounts of noise
to be generated by a camp of this scale and will cause an unreasonable level of disruption. She feels
their quality of life will undoubtedly suffer. The Nature Center Field Camp has operated for the past 11
years out of Camp Albemarle, which has cabins for overnights, fields, outdoor shelters, with woods and
streams for exploring. Hardly can 13 acres in the middle of several established neighborhoods replace
such a near perfect setting. How is this historic and quaint swim club going to remain untouched and
preserved when construction activities are proposed such as clearing of trees, paving, graveling,
upgrading of drainage and runoff for a 50 car parking lot, the construction of a large septic field to
accommodate waste from over 100 plus people. She questioned if this property would lay dormant
during the fall and winter. There are several issues that she is concerned with fire and safety being a
major one. She asked the Planning commission to deny the request.
Frank Fountain, a parent of a current camper, spoke in favor of the permit. He could not speak to many
of the neighborhood issues. However, he could speak to a couple of things. With respect to traffic, he
could say that during the entire time of going with his son at the Field Camp he never once brought his
son physically to the location nor picked him up. His son has taken the bus that the day camp currently
offers in which approximately two-thirds of the campers do. That in itself limits the activity of traffic. With
respect to the sound, he only knows what he has heard tonight. That also incl udes some of the things in
the previous sessions. He was unsure of the current decibel levels. He was not aware of any noise
complaints from Camp Albemarle. He can speak to the fact that Mr. Barnett has been excellent partner in
his son’s summer education. He had no reason that he would not be an effective partner in this endeavor
with his neighbors.
Peter Thompson noted that Mr. Barnett had expressed his comments in favor of the request.
Deane Begiebing asked the Planning Commission to please vote in favor of the proposal. She speaks as
a certificate member of the Blue Ridge Swim Club and as a land owner across the street on Owensville
Road. The entrance to the swim club is diagonally across from her driveway. Her property was family
land that was purchased from Mr. Baker who started the Blue Ridge Swim Club. This is a treasure as Mr.
Barnett said, which was one of the few in the country. It is a treasure for Albemarle County . This is a
rescue proposal that does happen to benefit the children of Field Camp as well of those who would love
to see this unique pool preserved. She agreed that the noise level should be the kind of noise one would
want to hear in the summer of children congregating and enjoying the outdoors. She grew up going to
that pool. Her son lifeguards at the pool. It is a family legacy. Her parents were charter certificate
members. She would be emotionally crushed if they could not preserve this pool. It really is a community
asset. She believed that Mr. Barnett’s plan has been one of the best she has seen. It was better than the
proposal with the Fitness Center. This plan benefits a far wider audience.
Sherry Early noted that her husband had already spoken. They live on Holkham at the very back. They
certainly would be affected by this in a negative way. They have community trails there that are
supposed to be only for the community. If other people come in since it is a private road it would be their
insurance that would have to cover it should someone have an accident or whatever going on the trails.
The camp is a wonderful idea, but it is a commercial idea. Therefore, it was not wonderful in their
community. It was a long time heritage sort of place, but it only had ten people a day because the word
did not get out. In order for him to put money into it, it is going to be advertised. He is going to try to get
more families to come. The children will want to bring their best friend. In the end, it will become
commercial property. She asked where do the residents stand on that. No one has talked about the
events requested, but there is nothing saying what the actual events would be. She asked if there would
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – FEBRUARY 22, 2011
DRAFT PARTIAL MINUTES – SP-2010-00035 Blue Ridge Swim Club – Day Camp, Boarding Camp &
SP-2010-41 BLUE RIDGE SWIM CLUB
9
be weddings, game days, or events with other camps. Events is a broad word that spans many things. It
would take them away from being a quiet residential area where they bought an amount of land on dead
end streets. They want a quiet community.
Neil Williamson, with The Free Enterprise Forum, asked to be clear that they have no opinion of this
application. This is the second application tonight that the Planning Commission has seen fit to question
the septic ability of the site. In his understanding, the Department of Health has jurisdiction over that. A
condition that suggests that the Department of Health has to issue a permit before the site plan is
approved is perfectly responsible and understandable. The idea that the Department of Health has not
done a calculation with regard to the septic use for guests of members, his guess is as a state agency
monitoring this across the state they have the ability to handle that. It is important to recognize mission
creep when it occurs even in these small areas and this is clearly an area where the Planning
Commission should be leaning on the Department of Health and frankly stay out of that part of the
argument.
Murray W hitehill started that he lives over at the shallow end of the pool. He started swimming there in
1946. He has seen this transformed from one thing to the next. The residents all around have actually
intruded upon a commercial operation rather than the other way around. As fair as noise, he has heard it
go both ways. He thought it would be wonderful to hear children out actually playing versus playing on
computers. It is only going to last a few weeks in the summer. His wife and he have to listen to 12 weeks
of permanent lawn mowing every weekend 10 hours a day. He used to own the back portion of the
women’s bathhouse because the property survey was wrong.
Veronica Waters, property owner on Holkham Drive, said her property did not adjoin the swim club.
There are two separate issues here. It disappoints her that the two issues are being put together. There
is the issue of the swim club and the issue of the field camp. She spoke in opposition of the request.
There are many great things to be said about it. However, her major issues are traffic. Trying to turn left
off Owensville Road onto 250 is impossible. Adding 200 cars to the mix does not help matters. Getting
out of Holkham onto Owensville Road is taking her life into her hand every single morning. Cars come
racing through. If there are more cars trying to leave out of there, then there will be more issues that will
cause traffic accidents. There are many issues involved such as fire/rescue access, the increased
environmental impact. It is great that there might be a camp, but she was not sure that there is a lot that
is great there as opposed to Camp Albemarle. The increase of trespassing would be a problem because
there are many trails that go through this neighborhood. Having more people wanting to use those trails
is not actually a positive thing. She asked what other groups or events would use the pavilion. What
other special events will happen once a special use permit is allowed. Who will have the ability to
approve and deny the events. If noise becomes a nuisance who will make that decision. Who will make
that determination. Will the tree line be upgraded to create a so und barrier. What guarantees are there
to protect their quality of life beyond one individual’s word to limit disruption. Mr. Barnett is a great guy .
She has no reason to doubt his word. However, the special use permit would apply to the whole parcel
from now to the end of time.
Shirley Cunningham said she lived over at the deep end of the pool. Her property goes down to the
woods. The sight line to the pool is a non-event unless standing at the concession cooler. She could not
image anything this day and time where kids can walk to a structured event five days a week. This is a
blessing. She can’t imagine a better noise to listen to than a bunch of children having a good time for the
one night a week. These kids will be tired without their boom boxes. They would be listening to sc ary
stories. The alternative she was not sure of for what the certificate holders of the swim club might be.
Surely, this is a wonderful thing to hand off a swim club to. She was in favor of the request and hopes
that is what will happen.
Mr. Zobrist invited rebuttal from the applicant.
Kelly Strickland, present with Todd Barnett, said he had been helping him with the plan and application.
He thought what is really unique about this property is this facility will only be opened 13 weeks during the
year just during the summer months when school is out. He made the following comments.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – FEBRUARY 22, 2011
DRAFT PARTIAL MINUTES – SP-2010-00035 Blue Ridge Swim Club – Day Camp, Boarding Camp &
SP-2010-41 BLUE RIDGE SWIM CLUB
10
- One of the things that came up was traffic on Owensville Road. Just around the corner is
Meriwether Lewis School. Of course, the school is out the entire time the pool is open.
Therefore, it kind of works in favor of less traffic even with this use in place. Because it is only 13
weeks out of the year that it is open they have requested waivers of the site plan so they won’t
have to pave the parking lot, pave the entrance road, put in curb, gutter, storm channels, drop
inlets and everything else, which would typically be required for a site plan. They are trying to
leave it exactly the way it is. They want to put in a pavilion for the camp.
- They want to put in infiltration trenches instead of the storm drainage system. They would like to
leave grass for the parking and delineate the parking spaces with 6’ X 6’ pressure treated wheel
stops. The travel way would be graveled coming through. It would be very like what i s there
already. There would be very little disturbance and improvement. However, it would make it a
little more convenient and easier for people to park.
- Along the same lines as limiting the disturbance, they wanted to accommodate the Fourth of July,
Memorial Day, and Labor Day events with the septic field. They did not want to design a septic
field that would only be functioning in full use three days out of the year. It is a pump system that
is going to a field of 850 gallons per day as estimated f or a typical day. That is how the septic
system was designed. In order to have the extra capacity they proposed a storage tank.
Because it is a pump system, this would allow them to be able to store the effluent and pump it up
on the not busy days. That was another thing for this type of use. It did not make sense to go
through all the bells and whistles.
Todd Barnett asked to talk about a couple of things that came up.
- He does limit the number of children in the camp. The camp almost always fills up every week
before the summer begins. He could have made it bigger. It is a quality of life thing. He does not
want a large camp. Sixty children is a small amount. He has 60 children in his school, which
some feel is against the economic model. He has done that because having a quality of
experience with those children is really important to him. He does want to limit the number.
Frankly, if he has a sense there are too many pool numbers, then he will knock the number down
there as well. He is less certain about that since he has not been out there before. As one
person said, there are typically not more than 50 people there on a big day. It was bigger before,
but no everybody shows up. He was not actually concerned at this point. If he gets concerned,
he will knock down the number of members that they have. They have intention of hiking on
private property. He has never done and won’t do it in the future.
- When he writes about his camp, he writes about the fact they go hiking. However, they go hiking
on public property only. They do that two days a week . They are actually off campus two days a
week from about 9 a.m. to 4 p.m., which will also limit their impact in the area. Lastly, he does
not own Camp Albemarle. He does not have any authority over it and can’t get it when he wants.
They get it whenever they can. They will continue to go there on a regular basis because the
children like to go over there. It is a neat things to go and will break things up. He wants to have
the opportunity to have the overnights there. He thinks the neighbors will find they are an
excellent neighbor. Camp Albemarle has its problems, too. His safety will be much better in this
place. Camp Albemarle is a very tight situation in getting in and out. He worried about that
entrance every summer. It is one that does not comply and really needs work. There are not a
lot of places to run camps for children in the summer. It has its other safety issues, which he
thinks he can address better in this proposed location.
Mr. Zobrist invited questions.
Mr. Loach noted that the camp hours are from 8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. It says the pool hours are noon to 8
p.m. Does that mean that after the camp is closed there will be other people coming in for the duration.
Mr. Barnett replied that his understanding is that most of the crowd for the pool during the weekdays
comes in after work and then on the weekends. There will be some overlap. This is something they
talked about a lot when he was making the deal with the members. The sense was that both of the
groups could interact happily and without getting on one another’s nerves. He did not think there would
be much of the same population there at the same time.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – FEBRUARY 22, 2011
DRAFT PARTIAL MINUTES – SP-2010-00035 Blue Ridge Swim Club – Day Camp, Boarding Camp &
SP-2010-41 BLUE RIDGE SWIM CLUB
11
Ms. Porterfield noted staff has added condition #10. She asked if he was willing to limit the number to 60.
Mr. Barnett replied no. Last year they had 540 campers over the course of 9 weeks.
Ms. Porterfield noted it was 60 at only one time.
Mr. Barnett replied no, because it says unless and until the Health Department approves the septic field
for no more than 100. He was will willing to limit up to 100. He has never gone up to 100 in a week in the
past. For four weeks in the summer, there is a leadership school. During leadership school, the kids are
there for two weeks in two week sessions. The first week they are in camp for two days. They are not
there much, but it is another 15 kids. Last year the most they had was 72 kids. He would not get to 100,
but would have an average of 60 kids there a day. Again, that is not a lot of kids.
Ms. Porterfield noted that it sounded like he was limiting it to 60, but he really was not. He would really
like per session to have the ability to go to 100.
Mr. Zobrist pointed out it would be provided the health department approved the septic system. There
being no further questions, he closed the public hearing to bring the matter before the Planning
Commission for discussion and action.
Mr. Smith noted that the applicant was talking about it staying open 13 weeks, which was no different
than it has been. It was conceivable that there could have been 200 people a day there for the last 60
years. As Mr. Whitehill said, the pool was there before the residential houses. One lady said she had
trouble getting on 250. He goes out every morning and he has no trouble, but leaves at 6:30 a.m.
Regarding the trails and trespassing, the school already has trails that people are using. He did not know
where these trails are going. He thought the camp would be a good thing for the area.
Ms. Monteith noted that they had heard from a couple of people a concern about the intersection of 250
and Ivy Road. She wondered what would trigger a warrant for signalization at that location.
Mr. Cilimberg noted that warrants are determined by VDOT. Therefore, there would be the need to
request VDOT to do a warrant study.
Ms. Monteith pointed out that it sounds like it is needed.
Mr. Zobrist questioned if they have to do a formal.
Mr. Cilimberg suggested they ask Joel DeNunzio of VDOT to address the question.
Joel DeNunzio, representative for VDOT, said they do need to meet warrants for a traffic signal. The
request would probably come from one of the Board members at their meeting to the VDOT
representative. The VDOT representative would take the request to the traffic division to look at if it
meets the warrants. If it did meet the warrants and a signal was needed, then they need to identify
funding for it. That could be the tricky issue there at this time. That would be the correct process to do.
Mr. Smith pointed out that traffic would be different in the summer because they don’t have school buses
or kids driving to school
Mr. Franco asked if there were any limitations on what it could be right now since it is a grandfathered
use. If they decided to have 500 members, is that regulated.
Ms. McCulley replied that was a very difficult question and not black and white. It is very much debated
throughout court cases as to what is the tipping point for a non conforming use. She could not really tell
him . It is not just an increase in volume that takes it out of its nonconforming protection under the State
Code. In other words, there could be some increase in membership. However, if it were significant such
that the character or the nature of the use changes, that is the tipping point. She could not tell him what
that number is.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – FEBRUARY 22, 2011
DRAFT PARTIAL MINUTES – SP-2010-00035 Blue Ridge Swim Club – Day Camp, Boarding Camp &
SP-2010-41 BLUE RIDGE SWIM CLUB
12
Mr. Kamptner noted that the law for nonconforming uses for commercial use, they will assume that the
swim club is a commercial use, allows some gradual changes in intensity. It is a little different than
residential uses under the law. Ms. McCulley is right in that they would have to look at a snapshot of the
use at a particular time and determine whether or not the character is changed. Certainly if there were
structural changes to the pool or additions to buildings the nonconforming status could even be lost.
Mr. Zobrist asked Ms. McDowell if she was putting these limits on with the special use permit and the
limits that don’t exist today will be on this in terms of limiting the membership. He asked if staff was
limiting it to 200.
Ms. McDowell said that she used a report received by Gooch Engineering that was based on their
analysis of what the size of the new septic system woul d be. It is 250 total members and not family
members but people using the septic system.
Mr. Zobrist asked if it was a limitation being put on the special use permit that currently does not exist.
Ms. McDowell replied that was exactly right.
Mr. Loach asked if that would change if the septic system changed. Would it have to come back for
another special permit.
Ms. McDowell replied that she talked with a representative from the Health Department and he said stick
with Gooch Engineering data, but they can resize it later and then up the membership. Therefore, that is
the condition.
Mr. Zobrist noted that they would have to come back for an amendment.
Ms. McDowell noted that there was an upper limit.
Mr. Zobrist noted it was 250 unless they upsize it, then they could go to 350.
Ms. McDowell said that was what the applicant asked for.
Mr. Zobrist asked if that means people in attendance at any one time or that holds a certificate. It is fuzzy
on what a member is. He noted as a member of Farmington he holds a certificate. He was the only
member in his family, but could take his family. He asked Mr. Barnett if he had looked at the rules and
regulations of this swim club he was going to inheriting and running.
Mr. Barnett said that his understanding was the same as his. A member is either a family or an
individual. Right now, the ratio is that the typical member represents 1.8 people.
Mr. Zobrist asked to understand what is the maximum number of members.
Mr. Barnett said he would be happy to accept 350 total members, which means about 200 memberships
and 350 total members in any family.
Mr. Zobrist suggested that some work needs to be done on this.
Ms. Porterfield said it was how many people on site that the septic field can handle while they are on site.
Ms. McDowell noted that Gooch Engineering goes on to say it is design a septic system that would
accommodate a daily flow of approximately 875 gallons per day. Then it say 109 people per day and 8
gallons per person per day and then storage capacity goes on to talk about 3,000 gallons to
accommodate peak uses of the three summer holiday weekends would be provided by installing one
large 3,000 gallon septic tank or two 1,500 gallon septic tanks.
Mr. Zobrist asked if they should be looking at a use limitation as opposed to a member limitation.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – FEBRUARY 22, 2011
DRAFT PARTIAL MINUTES – SP-2010-00035 Blue Ridge Swim Club – Day Camp, Boarding Camp &
SP-2010-41 BLUE RIDGE SWIM CLUB
13
Ms. Porterfield said the question is with the storage tank they are considering what is the number that if
they were going pump it out on a daily basis or use this system how many can it accommodate. They
can do 109 people with the septic system without using the storage tank, then what can they do when
they put the storage tank into effect.
Mr. Franco questioned if that is really the Commission’s problem. He thought they should have a number
out there, but his point is that the health department regulates that and they don’t need to.
Ms. Porterfield pointed out that there is probably a number that it can’t function adequately past that
number. Are they simply going to be asking the owner to be counting the number of people who are
coming in.
Mr. Zobrist felt the use factor was far more important than the sewage. The sewage was going to be
worked out by the health department. The Commission needs to determine how many people they want
to allow on the premises at any given time. It is only 13 acres.
Ms. Monteith agreed that the health department issue is not their purview.
Mr. Franco said he was not proposing that they go to a bigger number. He would look at condition #10
and if 350 is the number they were comfortable with, then they should say 350 is the maximum and let
the health department figure out where they would be in the middle.
Mr. Zobrist noted he could care less how many members they have. They have to limit the number being
present on the premises at any given time. That is where he thought the Commission ought to be going.
Mr. Kamptner said the health department number is not completely irrelevant because as part of the
special use permit they can impose conditions that protect the health, safety, and welfare. Even though
there is some overlap with the health department number, which is going to put the maximum load on the
septic, a condition can be imposed as part of the special use permit to hopefully make sure that threshold
is never exceeded
Mr. Zobrist noted they could have a condition that says there will never be more people on the premises
than would be permitted under the health department regulations. They could have a second condition
that said there would be no more than X number of people on the premises at any given time.
Mr. Kamptner said if the number of people on site is only to address the issue of the septic system, then
something like that is fine.
Mr. Zobrist noted that there were broader issues. There are issues of noise and cars. One way to
mitigate the objections is to limit the number of people that are allowed on the premises.
Mr. Kamptner agreed.
Mr. Loach noted that one of the neighbors noted that they were not talking about one but two commercial
entities. That makes it more problematic to determine the number of people on site.
Mr. Cilimberg noted the camp number the applicant indicated they wanted was 100 campers. Therefore,
that is a starting point that essentially had been addressed as a maximum. Whether the Commission is
comfortable with that, he did not know. They have indicated 100 campers. The question really becomes
how many non-campers they feel is appropriate to be at the pool on any given day.
Mr. Zobrist questioned at any given time how many people can they have on site during the hours of
operation. He asked what that number would be. He asked what was going to mitigate the impact on the
neighbors.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – FEBRUARY 22, 2011
DRAFT PARTIAL MINUTES – SP-2010-00035 Blue Ridge Swim Club – Day Camp, Boarding Camp &
SP-2010-41 BLUE RIDGE SWIM CLUB
14
Mr. Franco noted that it sounds like both uses are good uses. It is just how to mitigate the impacts to the
traffic and to the neighborhood.
Mr. Zobrist noted that he would like to limit the number of bodies on the property at any given time. That
can be controlled very easily by Mr. Barnett.
Mr. Kamptner suggested as an enforcement issue that a condition that is just tied to the number of people
on site at any given time could be difficult to enforce. That is one problem. There are special use permits
that have those conditions. Zoning will say those kinds of conditions are difficult to enforce.
Mr. Morris asked if the wineries are capped at 200 at any one time.
Ms. Monteith asked Mr. Kamptner how he would advise that they go about it.
Mr. Kamptner corrected that the problem has been with the number of peopl e per day. If the inspector
shows up at any given time, there is a problem. He suggested that if they say at any given time, then that
can be enforced.
Mr. Zobrist asked Mr. Barnett if he had a recommendation of a given number of people at any one time.
Mr. Barnett noted that he confirmed to Peter Thompson to a maximum number of 250 people on site at
any one time.
Mr. Zobrist questioned if that would be handled by his current septic system.
Mr. Barnett replied that he was happy with 250 people on site at any one time. He wanted to make sure
that all of the commitments he made to the neighbors gets into the conditions.
Mr. Zobrist suggested that he do that later. He asked if the neighbors opposing this have any suggestion
in this regard.
Mr. Morris noted that at any one time it would be 250 people that includes campers, staffers, swimmers,
those walking on the property, etc. or whatever it is.
One adjacent property owner suggested the number of 125 people.
Chris Georges said that he speaks for many neighbors that the number attends the pool now is the
number that they would like to see there. If for some reason this camp enterprise or pool does not
succeed, they are placing a broad approval of uses on the property that the next owner of the land or
camp business could expand on.
Mr. Zobrist noted that they might limit it to Mr. Barnett if they decide that is an issue for the Commission.
They have not gotten to that question yet.
Mr. Cilimberg suggested they speak to Mr. Kamptner about that issue.
Mr. Zobrist noted that they could put a time limit on the permit. He noted that Mr. George was not in
agreement with any increased use over what currently exists.
Mr. Georges agreed that was exactly right.
Ms Porterfield suggested they ask Mr. Barnett how many people are there to camp overnight.
Mr. Barnett replied that on an overnight about two-thirds of the children stay. On an average night, there
would be 40 kids there and 6 or 7 counselors. It would be something like that.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – FEBRUARY 22, 2011
DRAFT PARTIAL MINUTES – SP-2010-00035 Blue Ridge Swim Club – Day Camp, Boarding Camp &
SP-2010-41 BLUE RIDGE SWIM CLUB
15
Ms. Porterfield noted if they were allowed to go up to 100, then it would be about two-thirds of that
number. It would be two-thirds of the number in the camp for that week.
Mr. Barnett replied that was correct.
Ms. McCulley noted that it is also important to consider the total number of members and not just the total
number at any one time that are on site. There is more to the equation in terms of land use impact and
traffic impact than the peak number of people who may be on site for just a few minutes. Whereas
throughout the day there may be many people that are there. The higher the numbers in the membership
if there is no limit the more impractical it becomes for them to limit the number of people on site at any
given time. She would ask if they were going that way to do both – a total number of members and
campers plus a number on site at any one time. It needs to be a total number of members and not
memberships because there is not a direct relationship between numbers of people and members.
Mr. Franco noted that it could be members on site and not members within the club.
Ms. McCulley felt that membership in the club is still relevant since it is relevant to the land use impact
and to how practical it is for them to keep the limits of numbers of people on site at any given time.
Members would be individual people who have a membership either as a group or as an individual to the
pool.
Mr. Kamptner suggested for the purposes of counting numbers here of the 60 and 250, that they just think
of individual people and not memberships.
Ms. McCulley agreed.
Mr. Cilimberg noted that they have two figures being given that have been based on septic of 60 with the
possibility of going to 100 for the camp and 250 with a possibility of going to 350 for members at the club.
If they have a daily maximum number at any one time that they also want to condition, the Commission
needs to let staff know what that number is and put it in a condition.
Ms. Porterfield asked if they should go back and consider a condition to set a time limit that the special
use permit has to come back in for future review that the conditions have been met.
Mr. Cilimberg noted that they just had a type of special use permit like that for the music festival at Misty
Mountain. The Commission can have a condition to have it come back for reapproval within so many
years or by a certain date.
Mr. Zobrist noted that was a good idea to measure what is happening out there. They are treading on
something they have not dealt with.
Ms. Porterfield asked to follow up on that. She believed they had one in the past where they also did
condition that if there is a change in ownership the new owner has to come back in again.
Mr. Kamptner strongly discouraged that. One is because the special use permits run with the land. One
case involved a religious organization and all they did was change their entity structure from a corporation
to something else with no other changes, and they had to go through the process. There was a short
period about 20 some years ago where they had special use permits approved that were tied to the
particular owner, but he strongly discourage against that.
Mr. Zobrist recapped that everyone has some degree of comfort with moving forward with the two special
use permits provided that certain conditions are met. He asked if that was correct.
Mr. Loach agreed. He noted he was more on the side of the neighbors in opposition because when they
were going from approximately 5 cars and 20 people a day to this number.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – FEBRUARY 22, 2011
DRAFT PARTIAL MINUTES – SP-2010-00035 Blue Ridge Swim Club – Day Camp, Boarding Camp &
SP-2010-41 BLUE RIDGE SWIM CLUB
16
Mr. Zobrist noted that Mr. Loach was opposed. He asked if everybody else agreed. Secondly, the
applicant has asked to be permitted to have 100 campers. He asked if they were okay with up to 100
campers.
Ms. Porterfield supported setting a lower number and then be able to come back and have a revisiting
time and ask to go up. She made that suggestion because the Commission had done that before. It
gives them an idea to see if it was really working and whether there were any complaints.
Mr. Zobrist and Mr. Smith supported allowing 100 campers. He noted that might be something they might
be able to do.
Mr. Smith asked how they would police something like that.
Mr. Zobrist replied that the neighbors would complain to zoning that he has more than 100 campers there
and he will have to show his records.
Mr. Franco noted that at the winery zoning goes out and counts the number of people.
Mr. Zobrist noted he would not raise the number of members from 250 to 350. He suggested that only
250 be allowed on site at any given time.
Mr. Morris agreed to 250 at this time. The applicant could come back and ask for an increase.
Mr. Zobrist noted that they would limit it to 250 people on site at any one time. He asked if that was the
consensus.
Mr. Franco asked what was the current membership.
Mr. Barnett replied it was 211 people and 116 members.
Ms. Monteith pointed out Mr. Barnett said 116 members and 211 people.
Mr. Franco said for the purposes of what they said a minute ago they would call them members as
people. So 211 people or members.
Mr. Zobrist noted total membership would not exceed the number of individuals that are entitled to use
the facilities as members.
Mr. Franco said he was on the side of being comfortable to allow it to go to another number if they have a
cap on site that is reasonable. Personally, he did not care about the number of how many members of
the club so long as there is no more than X number of people on site. If 350 is what they are asking for
he is okay, but he is going to stick with what is going to happen on site at any one period of time.
Mr. Zobrist asked if he was comfortable with the staff recommendation of 250 going to 350, but they put
an additional condition that there not be more than 250 persons on the premises at any given time.
Mr. Franco agreed because that was what he was hearing the applicant say he was willing to do. That
seems to be the maximum that could be. It is higher than what could be on site right now with members
except he did not know if they have employees for lifeguarding and other things. He was willing to give
them 250 as a maximum.
Mr. Cilimberg noted that 250 would be inclusive of both the campers and the pool members.
Ms. Porterfield was concerned they need to get their terminology under control. Most swimming pools
have memberships and memberships are families or an individual.
Mr. Lafferty suggested they say just individual members.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – FEBRUARY 22, 2011
DRAFT PARTIAL MINUTES – SP-2010-00035 Blue Ridge Swim Club – Day Camp, Boarding Camp &
SP-2010-41 BLUE RIDGE SWIM CLUB
17
Ms. Porterfield suggested not saying members, but individuals with the right of membership or something
like that so it is clear they are counting individuals.
Mr. Zobrist said it would never be clear because they have their own by-laws of what constitutes
memberships. They are telling the Commission they don’t even know.
Ms. Porterfield noted her point was that somebody has to read this five years f rom now and needs to
know what they are counting. She was really concerned that they are not going to understand and think it
is 250 families. She agreed that the biggest problem is how many are on site at any one time.
Mr. Morris agreed it would be any individual, which was what he had heard said.
Mr. Kamptner said that would include campers, employees, and anyone else.
Mr. Zobrist said it would be no more than 250 human bodies on the premises at any one time.
Mr. Morris agreed that was correct. That would get them away from the confusion of members.
Mr. Zobrist asked what was used at the wineries.
Mr. Kamptner replied it was 200.
Mr. Zobrist suggested they have to stick to the 200 to match what is allowed at the wineries.
Mr. Cilimberg noted that 200 is the point of which a special use permit is required of the wineries.
Mr. Zobrist agreed that was a good idea and asked if everyone was comfortable putting a time limit on
this. If so, what would they want it to be.
Mr. Smith suggested ten years.
Mr. Franco noted they have two different special use permits they are reacting to. From his personal
perspective, he was comfortable as zoning suggested to break it up as areas and keeping the pool area
to 200 people and to sort of vest the swim club, since it has been there 105 or 106 years. He was
comfortable with it continuing. He did not need a 5 year limit on that. He would suggest placing the limit
on the camp itself. He would be in favor of a 200 person cap at the pool area with no time limit and the
conditions listed in the staff report. There is one condition he wanted to talk about. He would also be
comfortable setting a 250 total limit on site so that covers the campers and making that special use permit
time limited.
Mr. Loach asked what are the noise regulations as far as the levels at the property line for the neighbors
for an operation like this.
Ms. McCulley replied 60 decibels daytime and 55 decibels during the night time, which 10 p.m. to 7 a.m.
at the property line.
Mr. Kamptner said the camp condition modifies the night time standard to expand the hours to 9:30 p.m.
to 8:30 a.m.
Mr. Zobrist asked that the Commission consider SP-2010-00035 first.
Mr. Franco asked to go back to condition 8 regarding the amplification and the mega phone. He asked if
there is already regulation in place why do they want to reiterate it.
Mr. Kamptner said this sound would be associated with the camp use and it is more restrictive than the
4.18 standard.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – FEBRUARY 22, 2011
DRAFT PARTIAL MINUTES – SP-2010-00035 Blue Ridge Swim Club – Day Camp, Boarding Camp &
SP-2010-41 BLUE RIDGE SWIM CLUB
18
Ms. McCulley pointed out they could use a mega phone and meet the sound regulation. However, this
limits the number of occasions on which they can use a mega phone.
Mr. Zobrist noted the limitation was Memorial Day through Labor Day.
Mr. Franco said he was comfortable with no amplification because what happens if there is a radio in the
concession stand area that is turned on so the workers in the concession can listen to music. That is
amplified music. That seems ridiculous that zoning could come in and give a zoning ticket.
Ms. McCulley noted that was a good point. She suggested there might be a way to rewrite that to be
more limiting and not intended to apply to that.
Mr. Franco said he would like to see that. He thought they were all in agreement on the intent being that
they were not disturbing the neighborhood with the noise. He thought there ought to be a better way to
write the condition. He was happy to let staff amend that condition before the special use permit goes to
the Board for approval. He asked if staff had enough direction if everybody else was comfortable with
that.
Ms. Porterfield suggested that the Commission do the swimming pool request first.
Mr. Zobrist agreed that the Commission consider SP-2010-00041 Blue Ridge Swim Club first for the
swimming pool. He asked if there was a motion.
Motion: Mr. Morris moved and Mr. Franco seconded to recommend approval of SP-2010-00041 Blue
Ridge Swim Club with conditions and taking a look at modifying one condition.
Mr. Kamptner asked if he was referring to the conditions on the monitor screen right now.
Mr. Morris agreed it was the conditions on the monitor screen with the future modification of condition 8 to
be tweaked to eliminate radio that is in the snack shack for personal radio use prior to going to the Board
of Supervisors.
Mr. Franco asked if he would also accept a condition limiting that area to no more than 200 people.
Mr. Morris amended the motion to add the condition limiting that area to no more than 200 people.
Mr. Zobrist suggesting adding the word individual members.
Mr. Morris amended the motion to add the word “individuals” and not members.
Mr. Kamptner noted this would be the condition that puts the cap on the number of people allowed on site
at any time.
Mr. Zobrist noted that was condition 11.
Mr. Franco pointed out that condition 11 would be 200 people in the pool area.
Mr. Zobrist noted that it said 200 members, but members was a fuzzy term here, which was what the
Commission was concerned about. He suggested that they just limit the maximum number of members
to the people that are members today and if they want to increase that, then they have to come back. He
asked if they would be able to grow since they have 211 people that could go there right now.
Mr. Morris noted it was 116 memberships.
Mr. Franco said if the family that is already a member has with a child does that mean they have to come
back for a provision of the special use permit.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – FEBRUARY 22, 2011
DRAFT PARTIAL MINUTES – SP-2010-00035 Blue Ridge Swim Club – Day Camp, Boarding Camp &
SP-2010-41 BLUE RIDGE SWIM CLUB
19
Mr. Zobrist noted that was the problem they had with the word member here.
Mr. Franco pointed out he was trying to say individuals by saying not more than 200 people in this space
and stay out of the membership thing.
Mr. Zobrist said Ms. McCulley was suggesting that they would need to have the limitation on the members
also or it creates a problem for them.
Mr. Franco asked Ms. McCulley to tell the Commission how she wanted to do the membership.
Ms. McCulley noted as mentioned she would prefer for the Commission to include a limit to membership
for several reasons. One is that it is very common for staff to do that to limit a use in terms of
membership. The other is that if there is no limit on membership and they have 500 or 600 memberships
it becomes more impractical to meet the condition that limits the number of people on the site at any
given time. The third reason is that part of the impact of the use is the traffic, noise and all of that. It
relates to more than just the peak, which is the maximum number of people on site at any one time. It
relates to the daily use, which is directly tied to membership.
Mr. Zobrist noted a suggestion that might work, which at least would get them closer to what they were
trying to say. The maximum number of individuals entitled to use of the facility, as members shall be
limited to 250 unless or until the health department approves a septic system that allows that to go to 350.
He assumed that is how they would count members. He asked if people are entitled to come there
without being a guest.
Mr. Franco invited the applicant to respond to the question.
Todd Barnett, applicant, replied that there seemed to be a good deal of concern in the room that he would
be able to run this business and not go under. When he did the business model, he did want to sell more
memberships. As a matter of fact, he had reached out to many people saying he would like for them to
be a part of this pool. If he could only sell another 20 new memberships. First of all, he was going to be
telling many people no. He was not crazy about raising the price a great deal. It is a pretty cheap pool
membership. He did not like the idea of creating an exclusive club where it is so expensive that it is not
going to be reasonable for families. For many families he works with it will already be a big commitment
on their part to do this. He heard that there were no more than 50 members on a typical days out there.
He was guessing that was on July 4th, which was probably the biggest day of the summer. He was
guessing that there would be three days in the summer where there are many people there. He would be
willing to say no more than 350 people adding up all of the kids in every family. He would be okay with
that.
Mr. Zobrist noted that they were not going to 350. They were talking about the number of members and
not about how many people were on site. The Commission had concluded that they were going to limit
the number of people on site to 200.
Mr. Barnett said that memberships were going to pay the bills and he had to make a new septic system.
Mr. Zobrist replied that he understood that, which was why he was trying to understand what his plan is
so that the Commission can deal with it. He was not bothered by the number of members. He was only
bothered by the number of people. He understood Ms. McCulley’s position that he needs to limit the
number of memberships also.
Mr. Barnett noted he heard 250 on site and no more than 200 at the pool. That sound fine. There would
be no more than 100 campers.
Mr. Zobrist noted the problem they have is they have only been approving these types of events at the
winery for 200 at any one time. He asked if any Commissioners were inclined to change the 200 limit at
any one time. That means he would have a lot of different people there all day long.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – FEBRUARY 22, 2011
DRAFT PARTIAL MINUTES – SP-2010-00035 Blue Ridge Swim Club – Day Camp, Boarding Camp &
SP-2010-41 BLUE RIDGE SWIM CLUB
20
Mr. Barnett noted he would commit to 200 at one time. He was worried about standing out there at the
end of the driveway and turning people away. He did not think that was going to happen. If there are 50
people coming to events right now and there are 211 members and if there were 350 members total it
seems like it would be unrealistic that they would get to that point. He supposed 200 would be fine.
Mr. Zobrist said he was trying to listen to what staff has to say and alter it. Personally, he has no problem
with the number of members. He was more concerned about the number of people. It is only 13.2 acres.
Ms. Porterfield felt part of their problem was they were talking about apples and oranges. They need to
talk about memberships in the pool, which can be an individual or family membership. It is X number of
memberships. She suggested they allow him 250 memberships so he does not have to count the
number of people in the family or worry if they have another baby or moves away. It will be that number
of memberships period. Then it is how many individuals can be on site at any one time. She believed
that a winery can have an event up to 200, but they can still have people coming and going for their
tastings and things like that. Therefore, to be consistent if he is going to have an event, and she would
assume campers would be an event, they already have 100 people accounted for there, and if he wants
to have some big swim meet with the campers he would be limited to the 200. Otherwise, he can have
more than the 200 coming and going because that will be his business each day of people coming to the
pool and leaving.
Ms. Zobrist thanked Mr. Barnett for his comments. The Commission does not know his business as well
as he did. Right now, he had 116 memberships. He questioned if the Commission limits it to 250
memberships with no more than 250 people on the premises at any time if that would be sufficient,.
Mr. Barnett said that 250 memberships would be fine the way they define it.
Mr. Franco noted he was saying 200 at the pool. He was comfortable with 250 over the whole site. He
understands that is the threshold for needing a special use permit for a winery. However, this is a special
use permit process. If this were a winery, they would be talking more about the 200, too, because of the
special use permit process. The 200 is the threshold by right.
Mr. Zobrist noted if he wanted to have a big event the applicant could come back and ask for it if they limit
it to 200. He really thought they have to give the neighbors some limitations here on the use since 200
people on 13.2 acres is many people.
Ms. Porterfield said the logical part of it is that some of those people are going to leave at 5:00 p.m. and
some will come. If they are sitting with 200 it is probably going to work out pretty well. She suggested
they start with 200. She understands the applicant’s request for ten years, but would really like it to be
shorter. She suggested making it two or five years for something reasonable where he comes back.
Then they can ask whether they need to moderate these things.
Ms. Monteith suggested including conditions 1 through 10 as noted, except that the maximum of number
of members (that would be membership rather than members) and add condition 11 that limits it to the
200 people on site at one time. She thought that addresses everything. The last thing is whether they
are putting a time limit on it. If they were putting a time limit on it, she would suggest going towards the
10 year limitation.
Mr. Morris agreed.
Ms. Porterfield asked if the septic system have anything to do with the memberships.
Mr. Zobrist replied no.
Mr. Lafferty noted the health department would determine that.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – FEBRUARY 22, 2011
DRAFT PARTIAL MINUTES – SP-2010-00035 Blue Ridge Swim Club – Day Camp, Boarding Camp &
SP-2010-41 BLUE RIDGE SWIM CLUB
21
Mr. Zobrist suggested they drop the last sentence that starts with unless. The maximum number of
memberships shall be limited to 250. Then drop the rest of the sentence. There are two votes on ten
years.
Ms. Porterfield suggested five years.
Mr. Franco noted this is the swim club, which is currently a grandfathered use. His proposal was to limit
the daycare, but not limit the swim club.
Mr. Zobrist said they were going to determine what goes on there since they are both together.
Mr. Franco pointed out he did not know what happened to a grandfathered use that then has a special
use permit.
Mr. Zobrist replied that the grandfathered use was gone. He asked Mr. Kamptner that once they grant a
special use permit that the grandfathered use was gone.
Mr. Kamptner replied yes, that once it becomes a legal use it does not revert back to nonconforming
status if the special use permit goes away.
Mr. Zobrist noted that this would be the permit now and the grandfathered use would be irrelevant at this
point, if it were approved by the Board of Supervisors.
Mr. Franco said his point is that at the end of five years should they chose not to renew, then the
grandfathered use is gone forever. He asked why after 105 years would they create the scenario that the
use could go away. He did not agree with that.
Ms. Monteith agreed with that. The time limit she was talking about was the new use that they don’t know
yet. Therefore, that would be the second item.
Mr. Zobrist restated that Mr. Morris had amended the motion for approv al subject to the conditions with
the exception that they change condition 10 to put a period after the word 250 and they add condition 11
that says there will be no more than 200 persons on the premises at any given period of time.
Ms. Porterfield noted that it was memberships and not members in condition 10.
Mr. Zobrist noted the word “members” becomes “membership” and there will be no more than 200 people
on the property at any given time.
Mr. Franco asked to simply that by inserting the words “individual and family memberships” to clarify.
Mr. Zobrist felt it was clarified just by “memberships.” It would be how they define them. If they want to
have 80 people on the membership, he would guess that would be what they would put on there. They
still have to comply with the health provisions.
Ms. Porterfield noted he was talking about there could be a membership that has one person or a family
of two people or 12 people.
Mr. Morris noted it was covered under “memberships.”
Ms. Porterfield said she did not disagree.
Mr. Franco said it was clearer for the future intend because of the 30 minutes or 2 hours they have had a
discussion tonight on what a membership is to say individual or family memberships.
Mr. Zobrist noted that at Farmington they have about five classes of members. He was not sure how
many different type of family memberships they have. At Farmington, they issue one certificate, and then
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – FEBRUARY 22, 2011
DRAFT PARTIAL MINUTES – SP-2010-00035 Blue Ridge Swim Club – Day Camp, Boarding Camp &
SP-2010-41 BLUE RIDGE SWIM CLUB
22
they have the right to bring a bunch of people in. He asked Mr. Barnett if he was going to sell
memberships and would get money for them. He asked if he was happy with 250 memberships.
Mr. Barnett replied that was fine.
Mr. Zobrist said his expectations is that there is a limit to how many he can sell because of the size of the
pool.
Mr. Franco agreed that was a fair statement. In the end, the size of the facility is going to limit it more
than anything else.
Mr. Smith asked if he had seen them kick someone out of the pool at Farmington because of too many
people there, and Mr. Zobrist replied no.
Mr. Smith said that he had seen it so crowded that one could not even walk.
Mr. Zobrist replied that he did not know the answer. He thought that the limitation of 200 people on the
premises is going to be self limiting because people won’t come if they can’t get i n.
Mr. Franco asked if the applicant is comfortable with 200 on site.
Mr. Barnett asked if they said 200 for the pool and 50 for the campers.
Mr. Franco noted that right now what was before them was 200 people total for both at any time.
Mr. Barnett agreed that was fine.
Mr. Zobrist asked Mr. Morris to restate the motion.
Motion: Mr. Morris moved to recommend approval of SP-2010-00041 Blue Ridge Swim Club with the
conditions as stated and amended. Conditions 1 through 9 remain as stated. Condition 10 will read, A
maximum number of memberships shall be limited to 250. Condition 11 will read that no more than 200
people will be on the property at any one time.
Mr. Kamptner noted one possible correction was to clean up the language in condition 8 regarding the
amplified sound.
Mr. Morris agreed to include in the motion that the language in condition 8 be cleaned up regarding
amplified sound..
Mr. Franco seconded the motion.
Mr. Zobrist invited discussion.
Mr. Smith invited the applicant to address the Commission.
Mr. Barnett asked that an item be added that there be no after dark pool events.
Mr. Zobrist noted there was a motion to amend the motion to add the words there will be no pool events
after dark.
Mr. Morris and Mr. Franco said Franco said they was comfortable with that.
Mr. Kamptner asked the Zoning Administrator if for after dark she would want a specific time such as 8:30
p.m.
Ms. McCulley replied that it would certainly be easier to enforce.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – FEBRUARY 22, 2011
DRAFT PARTIAL MINUTES – SP-2010-00035 Blue Ridge Swim Club – Day Camp, Boarding Camp &
SP-2010-41 BLUE RIDGE SWIM CLUB
23
Mr. Franco suggested using 8:00 p.m., which was in the hours of operation.
Mr. Kamptner questioned if this would be a camp condition.
Mr. Zobrist noted that they were not discussing the camp, but the swim club condition right now. Right
now the pool was only opened until 8:00 p.m . The pool hours are limited.
Mr. Cilimberg questioned whether that was a necessary condition since it was only open until 8:00 p.m.
Mr. Barnett noted that was just something he wanted to make sure got noted because he had agreed to
get that in..
Mr. Smith asked if the campers would have radios with them.
Mr. Barnett replied that the campers were not allowed to have any electronics.
Mr. Zobrist asked if there was further discussion.
Mr. Cilimberg noted that the motion does not include any after dark condition, and Mr. Morris replied no.
Mr. Zobrist asked that the roll be called first on SP-2010-00041 Blue Ridge Swim Club.
The motion passed by a vote of 6:1. (Mr. Loach voted nay)
Mr. Zobrist noted that SP-2001-00041 Blue Ridge Swim Club would be forwarded to the Board of
Supervisors on a date to be determined with a recommendation for approval with the following conditions:
1. Development of the SP-2010-00041 uses use shall be in general accord with the conceptual plan
titled “Blue Ridge Swim Club “ prepared by Kelly Strickland and dated December 20, 2010 and
revised February 2, 2011 (Attachment A) (hereafter “Conceptual Plan”), as determined by the
Director of Planning and the Zoning Administrator. To be in accord with the Conceptual Plan,
development shall reflect the following major elements within the development essential to the
design of the development:
• Limits of disturbance
• Location and size of pavilion building
• Location of parking areas
• Minimum clearing possible may be allowed to locate well, septic line and drainfields, parking
and pavilion
as shown on the Blue Ridge Swim Club concept plan.
Minor modifications to the plan which do not conflict with the elements above may be made to
ensure compliance with the Zoning Ordinance.
2. The hours of operation for SP-2010-00041 Blue Ridge Swim Club shall not begin earlier than
12:00 PM (noon) and shall end not later than 8:00 P.M., each day, seven days per week,
Memorial Day weekend through Labor Day weekend.
3. All outdoor lighting shall be only full cut-off fixtures and shielded to reflect light away from all
abutting properties. A lighting plan limiting light levels at all property lines to no greater than 0.3
foot candles shall be submitted to the Zoning Administrator or their designee for approval .
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – FEBRUARY 22, 2011
DRAFT PARTIAL MINUTES – SP-2010-00035 Blue Ridge Swim Club – Day Camp, Boarding Camp &
SP-2010-41 BLUE RIDGE SWIM CLUB
24
4. Food prepared off -site may be sold from a concession stand that is depicted on the Conceptual
Plan.
5. Approval of the Health Department for the well, septic and food concession shall be required prior
to approval of a site plan.
6. Approval by the Virginia Department of Transportation for the entrance shall be required prior to
approval of site plan.
7. Prior approval by the Fire Department shall be required prior to all outdoor cooking and/or
campfires.
8. No amplification of sound shall be permitted, with the ex ception of a megaphone used on Fridays
during each season (Memorial Day weekend through Labor Day weekend) during field games,
radios, and electronic sound producing or reproducing devices, provided that any such amplified
sound shall comply with the applicable noise regulations.
9. Parking on Owensville Road by attendees or staff of the Blue Ridge Swim Club or the Camp shall
not be permitted.
10. No more than 200 people shall be on the property for any purpose at any time.
Mr. Zobrist asked that they go to SP-2010-00035 Blue Ridge Swim Club – Day Camp, Boarding Camp.
Motion: Mr. Morris moved and Mr. Smith seconded to recommend approval of SP-2010-00035 Blue
Ridge Swim Club – Day Camp, Boarding Camp subject to the conditions as recommended by staff as
modified to add the time limit shall be five years and that at no time any more than 200 people are on the
grounds to include the campers and swimmers.
Mr. Cilimberg noted that it would be the same condition used in the other special use permit.
Mr. Morris agreed.
Mr. Cilimberg noted that condition #8 would be modified as discussed, and Mr. Morris agreed.
Mr. Smith asked if five years was reasonable as a business model for this gentleman to be investing his
money.
Mr. Zobrist invited Mr. Barnett to come forward to address the Commission.
Mr. Barnett questioned if that was before the special use permit had to come back, and Mr. Zobrist replied
that was correct.
Mr. Barnett replied that he was intending to get a 15 year loan on this since he has to put a substantial
amount of money into it to do some of the things he has committed to. He suggested that ten years
would make him more comfortable about the commitment he was making.
Mr. Franco noted he would like to see ten years.
Mr. Smith suggested that fiv e years was unreasonable.
Mr. Morris amended the motion to change the time limit to ten years.
Mr. Zobrist noted that the motion was for 10 years and no more than 200 people on the premises.
Mr. Smith seconded the motion.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – FEBRUARY 22, 2011
DRAFT PARTIAL MINUTES – SP-2010-00035 Blue Ridge Swim Club – Day Camp, Boarding Camp &
SP-2010-41 BLUE RIDGE SWIM CLUB
25
The motion passed by a vote of 7:0, for a recommendation of approval with the following conditions:
1. Development of the SP-2010-00035 uses use shall be in general accord with the conceptual plan
titled “Blue Ridge Swim Club “ prepared by Kelly Strickland and dated December 20, 2010 and
revised February 2, 2011 (Attachment A) (hereafter “Conceptual Plan”), as determined by the
Director of Planning and the Zoning Administrator. To be in accord with the Conceptual Plan,
development shall reflect the following major elements within the development essential to the
design of the development:
• Limits of disturbance
• Location and size of pavilion building
• Location of parking areas
• Minimum clearing possible may be allowed to locate well, septic line and drainfields, parking
and pavilion
as shown on the Blue Ridge Swim Club concept plan.
Minor modifications to the plan which do not conflict with the elements above may be made to
ensure compliance with the Zoning Ordinance.
2. The hours of operation for SP-2010-00035 Blue Ridge Swim Club Camp: five days per week,
Memorial Day weekend through Labor Day weekend and shall not begin earlier than 8:30 AM and
shall not end later than 5:00 PM Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, and Friday. On Thursdays, 8:30
AM through overnight stays shall be permitted. The nighttime maximum sound level of 55
decibels shall be imposed from 9:30 PM to 8:30 AM.
3. All outdoor lighting shall be only full cut-off fixtures and shielded to reflect light away from all
abutting properties. A lighting plan limiting light levels at all property lines to no greater than 0.3
foot candles shall be submitted to the Zoning Administrator or their designee for approval.
4. Food prepared off -site may be sold from a concession stand that is depicted on the Conceptual
Plan.
5. Approval of the Health Department for the well, septic and food concession shall be required prior
to approval of a site plan.
6. Approval by the Virginia Department of Transportation for the entrance shall be required prior to
approval of site plan.
7. Prior approval by the Fire Department shall be required prior to all outdoor cooking and/or
campfires.
8. No amplification of sound shall be permitted, with the exception of a megaphone used on Fridays
during each season (Memorial Day weekend through Labor Day weekend) during field games,
radios, and electronic sound producing or reproducing devices, provided that any such amplified
sound shall comply with the applicable noise regulations.
9. Parking on Owensville Road by attendees or staff of the Blue Ridge Swim Club or the Camp shall
not be permitted.
10. No more than 200 people shall be on the property for any purpose at any time.
11. SP-2010-00035 shall be valid until (date 10 years after Board approval).
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – FEBRUARY 22, 2011
DRAFT PARTIAL MINUTES – SP-2010-00035 Blue Ridge Swim Club – Day Camp, Boarding Camp &
SP-2010-41 BLUE RIDGE SWIM CLUB
26
Mr. Zobrist noted SP-2010-00035 Blue Ridge Swim Club – Day Camp, Boarding Camp would go to the
Board of Supervisors on a date to be determined with a recommendation for approval. The Commission
hopes this would work out well and there would not be any enforcement issues.
(Recorded and transcribed by Sharon C. Taylor, Clerk to Planning Commission & Planning Boards)