HomeMy WebLinkAbout2011-6-01Tentative
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
T E N T A T I V E
JUNE 1, 2011
9:00 A.M., AUDITORIUM
COUNTY OFFICE BUILDING
1. Call to Order.
2. Pledge of Allegiance.
3. Moment of Silence.
4. Recognitions.
5. From the Board: Matters Not Listed on the Agenda.
6. From the Public: Matters Not Listed for Public Hearing on the Agenda.
7. Consent Agenda (on next sheet).
9:30 a.m. – Action Items:
8. Board Agenda Process.
9. Development of the County’s FY 12/13 – FY 17/18 Strategic Plan.
10:10 a.m. - Presentations:
10. 10:10 a.m. - Board-to-Board, Monthly Communications Report from School Board, School Board
Chairman.
11. 10:30 a.m. - Inmate Workforce Update, Sheriff Chip Harding.
12. 10:50 a.m. - Crozet Library Construction Documents update.
13. 11:10 a.m. - Transit Development Plan, Bill Watterson, Manager, Charlottesville Area Transit.
14. Closed Meeting.
15. Certify Closed Meeting.
16. Boards and Commissions:
a. Vacancies/Appointments.
2:00 p.m. – Public Hearings:
17. ZTA-2011-00001. Unlicensed Wireless Broadband Internet Access. Amend Sec.
3.1, Definitions, of Chapter 18, Zoning, of the Albemarle County Code. This ordinance would amend Sec. 3.1 by adding
facilities for unlicensed wireless broadband internet access to the definition of “personal wireless service facility.”
18. ZTA-2011-0003. Special Lots. Amend Sec. 3.1, Definitions, and Sec. 4.2.1, Building site required,
and add Secs. 2.1.7, Creation and use of special lots, and 4.3.02, Special lots, of Chapter 18, Zoning, of the Albemarle
County Code. This ordinance would add Sec. 2.1.7 to provide that the requirements for the creation of a lot shall not apply
to special lots but that the requirements for the use, and the location of a structure or improvements on, a lot shall apply to
special lots; amend Sec. 3.1 by adding a definition of “special lots,” which are lots created for uses serving specific
delineated public purposes; amend Sec. 4.2.1 to provide that special lots do not require a building site; and add Sec.
4.3.02 to provide that special lots of any size may be created in all zoning districts.
19. STA-2011-00001. Special Lots. Amend Sec. 14-106, Definitions, Sec. 14-203, Fees, Sec. 14-209,
Rural subdivisions; procedure; Sec. 14-302, Contents of preliminary plat, Sec. 14-303, Contents of final plat, Sec. 14-310,
Health director approval of individual private wells and/or septic systems, and add Sec. 14-208.3, Special lots, of Chapter
file:////coba-webapp01/BOSForms/Agenda/2011Files/Migration/20110601/00_Agenda.htm (1 of 3) [10/7/2020 3:56:07 PM]
Tentative
14, Subdivision of Land, of the Albemarle County Code. This ordinance would amend Sec. 14-106 by renaming the term
“non-building lot” to “special lot” and amending the definition, and changing the reference to non-building lots in the
definition of “remnant”; amend Sec. 14-203 to establish a fee of $88.00 for a plat creating a special lot; add Sec. 14-208.3
to identify the regulations applicable to a plat creating a special lot; amend Sec. 14-209 to provide that special lots will be
processed the same way rural subdivisions are processed; amend Sec. 14-302 to refer to special lots; amend Sec. 14-
303 to require a notation on a plat referring to the special lot; and amend Sec. 14-310 to provide a conditional exemption
for special lots from the requirements of that section. The proposed fee for special lots is necessary to assure that the
cost to the County to review applications for special lots is covered. The proposed fee is authorized by Virginia Code §
15.2-2241(9).
20. ZTA-2011-00004. Fees. Amend Sec. 35.1, Fees, of Chapter 18, Zoning, of the Albemarle County
Code. This ordinance would amend Sec. 35.1 by reducing the fee for special use permits for farmers’ markets from $2000
to $490 (without an existing approved commercial entrance) and $110 (with an existing approved commercial entrance);
by deleting the requirement to pay for postage in addition to the fee; by eliminating the fee for published notice for special
use permits for farmers’ markets; by reducing the fee for notices provided to abutting properties upon receipt of
applications for farm sales, farm stands, farmers’ markets and major or minor home occupations from $200 to a lesser
fee; by reducing the fee for minor site plan amendments known as letters of revision from $500 to $100; and by clarifying
that the fees for published notice shall be based on a cost quote from the publisher. The proposed fees are authorized by
Virginia Code §§ 15.2-2241(9) and 15.2-2286(A)(6).
21. 10-03( ) – Agricultural and Forestal Districts Ordinance to amend Division 2, Districts, of
Article II, Districts of Statewide Significance, of Chapter 3, Agricultural and Forestal Districts, of the Albemarle County
Code, to add lands to certain districts and to make corrections to certain district ordinances to identify all those tax map
parcels within the districts, as specified below:
a. AFD-2011-00001. Hatton AFD – District Review. The proposed ordinance would
amend Section 3-215, Hatton Agricultural and Forestal District, to continue the district for all parcels identified in
the ordinance, and set the next district review deadline date of June 1, 2021. It would also identify TMPs 135-
22C, 135-22C1, 135-22C2 and 136-9 as being in the district (these parcels were created from parcels already in
the district), and would remove any parcels for which a request for withdrawal is received before the Board acts
on the proposed ordinance.
b. AFD-2011-00002. Totier Creek AFD – District Review. The proposed ordinance
would amend Section 3-227, Totier Creek Agricultural and Forestal District, to continue the district for all parcels
identified in the ordinance, and set the next district review deadline date of June 1, 2021. It would also identify
TMPs 121-70A, 121-70B, 121-70D, 121-70E, 134-3A, 134-3B, 134-3C, 134-3D, 134-3E, 134-3F, 134-3G, 134-
3H, 134-3I, 134-3J, 134-3K and 134-3L as being in the district (these parcels were created from parcels already in
the district), would identify 129-9 as being in the district (this parcel is in the district but was inadvertently deleted
from Section 3-227 in a prior ordinance), would show TMPs 121-70 and 134-19 as no longer existing (land from
these parcels was distributed to other parcels in the district), and would remove TMP 135-11 from the district, and
any other parcels for which a request for withdrawal is received before the Board acts on the proposed
ordinance.
22. ZMA-2010-00009. Republic Capital Amendment (Sign #86). PROPOSAL:
Rezoning of a 20.54 acre site zoned LI Light Industry and HI Heavy Industry, which allows industrial, office, and limited
commercial uses (no residential use), to amend proffers. No residential units are proposed. PROFFERS: Yes.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE/DENSITY: Industrial Service - warehousing, light industry, heavy industry,
research, office uses, regional scale research, limited production and marketing activities, supporting commercial, lodging
and conference facilities, and residential (6.01-34 units/acre). ENTRANCE CORRIDOR: Yes. LOCATION: Located on
west side of Route 29N, at the intersection with Northside Drive. TAX MAP/PARCEL: 03200000002200. MAGISTERIAL
DISTRICT: Rio.
file:////coba-webapp01/BOSForms/Agenda/2011Files/Migration/20110601/00_Agenda.htm (2 of 3) [10/7/2020 3:56:07 PM]
Tentative
23. From the Board: Matters Not Listed on the Agenda.
24. Adjourn to June 2, 2011, 9:00 a.m., Monticello Fire Station.
C O N S E N T A G E N D A
FOR APPROVAL:
7.1 Approval of Minutes: November 3, 2010 and January 12, 2011.
7.2 DEQ Loan for Water Resources Projects - Resolution approving the structure and execution of various
funding agreements with the Virginia Resources Authority.
7.3 FY 2011 Budget Amendment and Appropriations.
7.4 Letter of Support for Rivanna River Basin Commission Grant to National Fish and Wildlife Foundation for project
to develop Rivanna Watershed Action Plan.
FOR INFORMATION:
7.5 2010 Planning Commission Annual Report.
7.6 2011 First Quarter Building Report as prepared by the Community Development Department.
7.7 2011 First Quarter Certificate of Occupancy Report as prepared by the Community Development Department.
7.8 2010 Annual Report of the Board of Zoning Appeals.
7.9 FY11 Third Quarter Financial Report.
7.10 Court Study - Documentation of Architectural/Engineering Selection Process.
Return to Top of Agenda
Return to Board of Supervisors Home Page
Return to County Home Page
file:////coba-webapp01/BOSForms/Agenda/2011Files/Migration/20110601/00_Agenda.htm (3 of 3) [10/7/2020 3:56:07 PM]
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
DEQ Loan for Water Resources Projects
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Adopt a Resolution approving the structure and execution
of various funding agreements with the Virginia Resources
Authority.
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Messrs. Foley, Letteri, Davis, Kamptner, Koonce,
Shadman, and Harper
LEGAL REVIEW: Yes
AGENDA DATE:
June 1, 2011
ACTION: INFORMATION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: X INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS: Yes
REVIEWED BY:
BACKGROUND:
The County’s Water Resources 5-Year Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) includes improvement projects for the
Downtown Crozet Stormwater Wetlands and the Parking Lot Biofilter at the County Office Building (COB) on McIntire
Road. As the County has advanced with the planning, design, and construction of these improvement projects, staff
has pursued various external supplemental funding. In February 2010, the County applied for financial assistance for
the two projects through the Virginia Clean Water Revolving Loan Fund (VCWRLF) Green Project Reserve, a
competitive program administered by the Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) Construction Assistance
Program. The significant feature of this loan program is that up to half the loan amount is forgiven; in this regard, it is
similar to a grant.
On June 22, 2010, the State Water Control Board authorized an $800,000 loan with 50% as principle forgiveness (See
Attachment A). Subsequently, the Virginia Resources Authority, acting as DEQ’s financial agent, offered to extend the
loan to the County by means of two parts: a $400,000 Principal Repayment Loan and a $400,000 Principle
Forgiveness Loan (See Attachment B).
DISCUSSION:
The acquisition of this loan supports Goal 1 of the Board’s Strategic Plan for Fiscal Years 11 and 12: By June 30,
2012, the County will explore and identify ways to address unfunded current and future capital needs.
The two capital projects that are to be partially funded through this loan have been listed in the Water Resources
5-year CIP for at least the past four years. Sufficient funds exist in the Stormwater Control Improvement Fund to fully
finance both projects without the need for external funding. However, staff pursued this loan, made available to local
governments exclusively for the construction of certain environmentally-beneficial projects, to expand the capacity of
the Water Resources CIP.
The loan would be disbursed to the County as reimbursements for qualifying project expenditures, including design
and construction costs, of up to $800,000. Although the loan mandates special requirements typically placed on
federally-funded procurements, there are no further constraints or obligations requiring significant staff time associated
with the loan. The loan is secured by a lease-lease back agreement which provides that a County fire truck is used as
collateral for the loan.
A Resolution is attached (Attachment C) approving the necessary financial documents and authorizing the County
Executive to execute the documents, subject to their approval as to form by the County Attorney. The documents are:
Prime Lease, in which a County fire truck is used as collateral for the loan (Attachment D)
Financing Lease, or Principal Repayment Loan (Attachment E)
Funding Agreement, or Principal Forgiveness Loan (Attachment F)
The County Attorney’s Office has reviewed the Resolution, Prime Lease, Financing Lease, and Funding Agreement.
AGENDA TITLE: DEQ Loan for Water Resources Projects
June 1, 2011
Page 2
BUDGET IMPACT:
The forgiven portion of the loan will effectively reduce the cost of completing the two water resources improvement
projects by approximately $400,000. However, as with all grants and loans of this nature, the County has incurred and
will incur additional minor costs associated with the administration of the loan, including staff time, and interest paid on
the loan. Also, staff anticipates there will be an additional cost for bond counsel of not more than $11,000.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends that the Board adopt the attached Resolution approving the necessary financial documents for the
loan (Prime Lease, Financing Lease, and Funding Agreement between the Virginia Resources Authority and the
County of Albemarle) and authorizing the County Executive to execute the documents, subject to their approval as to
form by the County Attorney.
ATTACHMENTS
A – June 22, 2010 Letter from DEQ Authorizing Loan
B – February 24, 2011 Commitment Letter from VRA
C – Resolution
D – Prime Lease
E – Financing Lease
F – Funding Agreement
Return to consent agenda
Return to regular agenda
RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A LEASE FINANCING WITH
THE VIRGINIA RESOURCES AUTHORITY,
TO APPROVE THE FORM OF CERTAIN DOCUMENTS PREPARED IN
CONNECTION THEREWITH AND TO AUTHORIZE THE
DISTRIBUTION, EXECUTION AND DELIVERY OF THE SAME
WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors (the “Board”) of the County of Albemarle, Virginia (the
“County”), desires to finance the costs of acquiring, designing and constructing stormwater management
projects in the County, together with related expenses (collectively, the “Project”);
WHEREAS, the County has applied to the Virginia Resources Authority (“VRA”), as
administrator of the Virginia Water Facilities Revolving Fund, to provide financing for the Project and
VRA has indicated its willingness to finance the Project for a principal amount not to exceed $400,000;
WHEREAS, there have been presented at this meeting (a) a draft of the Prime Lease (the “Prime
Lease”), pursuant to which the County desires to convey to VRA a leasehold interest in a fire truck owned
by the County (the “Equipment”) and (b) a draft of the Financing Lease (the “Financing Lease”), pursuant
to which VRA will lease the Equipment to the County, both of which the Board proposes to execute or
approve to carry out the purposes of the Project and copies of which shall be filed with the records of the
Board;
WHEREAS, VRA has also determined to provide the County with a principal forgiveness loan
in a principal amount not to exceed $400,000, in accordance with the terms of a Funding Agreement to be
dated as of a date specified by VRA, between VRA and the County (the “Funding Agreement”), the form
of which has been presented to this meeting; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF
ALBEMARLE COUNTY, VIRGINIA:
1. Essentiality of Project. The Board confirms that the Project is essential to the efficient
operation of the County and anticipates that the Project will continue to be essential to the operations of
the County during the terms of the Financing Lease.
2. Authorization of Financing Documents. The forms of the Prime Lease, the Financing
Lease and the Funding Agreement submitted to this meeting are hereby approved and the County
Executive is authorized to execute the Prime Lease, the Financing Lease and the Funding Agreement in
substantially such forms, with such completions, omissions, insertions and changes not inconsistent with
this Resolution as may be necessary to effectuate the purposes therein, subject to approval as to form by
the County Attorney. All capitalized terms used but not defined herein shall have the same meaning as
set forth in the Financing Lease.
3. Terms of Financing Lease. The following plan for financing the Project is approved.
The County will lease the Equipment to VRA pursuant to the terms of the Prime Lease. Thereafter, VRA
will lease the Equipment to the County pursuant to the terms of the Financing Lease. The County will
undertake to make rental payments (“Rental Payments”) and additional payments (“Additional
Payments”) to VRA under the terms of the Financing Lease in amounts sufficient to repay the Lease
Proceeds and to pay the fees and expenses of VRA. The final pricing terms contained in the Financing
Lease shall be determined by the County Executive; provided, however, that (i) the aggregate total of
principal components of the Rental Payments shall not exceed $400,000, (ii) the term of the Financing
Lease shall expire no later than December 31, 2022, (iii) the interest component of the Rental Payments
shall not exceed 2.93% per year, and (iv) the principal components of the Rental Payments shall be
subject to prepayment upon the terms set forth in the Financing Lease. The plan of financing for the
Project shall contain such additional requirements and provisions as the County Executive may approve
and determine to be in the best interest of the County.
2
4. Subject to Appropriation. The undertaking by the County under the Financing Lease to
make Rental Payments shall be a limited obligation of the County, payable solely from funds to be
appropriated by the Board from time to time for such purpose and shall not constitute a debt of the
County within the meaning of any constitutional or statutory limitation or a pledge of the faith and credit
of the County beyond any fiscal year for which the Board has lawfully appropriated f rom time to time.
Nothing herein or in the Financing Lease shall constitute a debt of the County within the meaning of any
constitutional or statutory limitation or a pledge of the faith and credit or taxing power of the County.
5. Annual Budget. The Board believes that funds sufficient to make payment of all
amounts payable under the Financing Lease can be obtained. While recognizing that it is not empowered
to make any binding commitment to make such payments beyond the current fiscal year, the Board
hereby states its intent to make annual appropriations for future fiscal years in amounts sufficient to make
all such payments and hereby recommends that future Boards do likewise during the terms of the
Financing Lease. The Board directs the County’s Director of Finance, or such other officer who may be
charged with the responsibility for preparing the County’s annual budget, to include in the budget request
for each fiscal year during the term of the Financing Lease an amount sufficient to pay all amounts
coming due under the Financing Lease during such fiscal year. As soon as practicable after the
submission of the County’s annual budget to the Board, the County Executive is authorized and directed
to deliver to VRA evidence that a request for an amount sufficient to make the payment of all amounts
payable under the applicable Financing Lease has been made. Throughout the terms of the Financing
Lease, the County Executive shall deliver to VRA within 30 days after the adoption of the budget for each
fiscal year, but not later than July 1, a certificate stating whether an amount equal to the Rental Payments
and any other amounts due under each such Financing Lease which will be due during the next fiscal year
has been appropriated by the Board in such budget. If at any time during any fiscal year of the County,
through the fiscal year ending June 30, 2022, the amount appropriated in the County’s annual budget in
any such fiscal year is insufficient to pay when due the amounts payable under either Financing Lease, the
Board directs the Director of Finance, or such other officer who may be charged with the responsibility
for preparing the County’s annual budget, to submit to the Board at the next scheduled meeting, or as
promptly as practicable but in any event within 45 days, a request for a supplemental appropriation
sufficient to cover the deficit.
6. Other Actions. All other actions of officers of the County in conformity with the
purposes and intent of this Resolution and in furtherance of the financing of the Project are ratified,
approved and confirmed. The officers of the County are authorized and directed to execute and deliver all
certificates and other instruments and to take all actions considered necessary or desirable in connection
with the execution and delivery of the Financing Lease and the financing of the Project. Any
authorization herein to execute a document shall include authorization to deliver it to the other parties
thereto and to record such document where appropriate.
7. Effective Date. This Resolution shall become effective immediately.
Return to exec summary
CB Draft: 5/16/11
PRIME LEASE
This Prime Lease (“Lease”), dated as of June 1, 2011, is a deed of lease made between
the COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA, a political subdivision of the Commonwealth of
Virginia (the “County” or the “Local Government”), as lessor, and the VIRGINIA RESOURCES
AUTHORITY, AS ADMINISTRATOR OF THE VIRGINIA WATER FACILITIES
REVOLVING FUND, a public body corporate and a political subdivision of the Commonwealth
of Virginia (“VRA”), as lessee.
RECITALS
VRA desires to acquire a leasehold interest in certain equipment described on Exhibit A
(the “Equipment”), in order to assist the Local Government with the financing of stormwater
management projects in the downtown area of Crozet, Virginia and a parking lot at County’s
offices, together with related expenses (the “Project”). The Local Government will lease the
Equipment to VRA, which the Local Government will do pursuant to this Prime Lease. VRA
will lease the Equipment back to the Local Government pursuant to a Financing Lease, dated as
of June 1, 2011 (the “Financing Lease”), between the Local Government and VRA.
AGREEMENT
In consideration of the premises and the mutual covenants hereinafter contained, the
parties hereto covenant and agree as follows:
1. Lease of Equipment. The Local Government hereby demises and leases to VRA,
and VRA hereby leases from the Local Government, the Equipment, together with all additions,
modifications or improvements now or hereafter made to the Equipment, upon the terms and
conditions hereinafter set forth.
2. Definitions. All terms defined in the Financing Lease shall have the same
meaning when used herein, unless the context requires otherwise.
3. Term. The term of this Lease shall commence upon execution and delivery of
this Lease and shall end on May 1, 2022 unless such term is sooner terminated or relinquished as
hereinafter provided.
4. Rental. VRA shall pay to the Local Government as rental hereunder the sum of
$5.00 representing rental of the Equipment in advance for the term of this Lease, receipt of
which is hereby acknowledged.
5. Purpose. VRA shall use the Equipment solely for the purpose of assisting the
Local Government with the financing of the Project as well as for such purposes as may be
incidental and necessary thereto. VRA will lease the Equipment back to the Local Government
pursuant to the Financing Lease; provided, however, that upon the occurrence of an Event of
Default (as defined in the Financing Lease) or event of non-appropriation (as described in Article
VI of the Financing Lease, an “Event of Non-Appropriation”) under the Financing Lease, VRA
may exercise the remedies provided in the Financing Lease.
6. Owner of Equipment. The Local Government represents and warrants that it is
the owner of the Equipment and that the Equipment is free and clear of any liens or other
encumbrances.
7. Security Interest. This Lease constitutes a security agreement from the Local
Government to the VRA, and as collateral for the payment and performance in full of all of the
Local Government’s obligations under this Lease and the Financing Lease, the Local Government
hereby absolutely, unconditionally and irrevocably assigns, pledges, hypothecates, transfers, sets
over and delivers unto the VRA, and hereby grants to the VRA a security interest in, the Equipment,
to the full extent permitted under the UCC and other applicable laws. The Local Government
hereby agrees to execute and deliver on demand, and hereby irrevocably constitutes and appoints
the VRA as the attorney-in-fact of the Local Government, to execute, deliver and, if appropriate, to
file with the appropriate filing office or offices, such financing statements or other instruments as
the VRA may request or require, including financing statements, assignments, continuations,
amendments, affidavits, notices and similar instruments which are reasonable under the
circumstances and in a form reasonably satisfactory to the VRA, and to take such other actions at
the expense of the Local Government, that the VRA reasonably deems necessary or appropriate in
order to establish, maintain and perfect the VRA’s security interest described herein or to continue
its effectiveness.
8. Assignment and Sublease; Encumbrances.
(a) VRA may sell, assign or encumber its rights under this Lease or sublet the
Equipment without the consent of the Local Government only (i) in connection with the
assignment of rights contemplated by and subject to the provisions of the Financing Lease, (ii) or
in connection with the exercise of remedies pursuant to Articles VI and X of the Financing
Lease.
(b) Except as otherwise provided herein or in the Financing Lease, until the
occurrence of an Event of Default or an Event of Non-Appropriation under the Financing Lease,
VRA shall not be entitled to mortgage, pledge, assign or encumber its interest in the Equipment
or this Lease. The Local Government agrees that, as long as any of the Rental Payments under
the Financing Lease remain unpaid, except as specifically provided for herein or in the Financing
Lease, the union of the interests of the Local Government and VRA shall not result in a merger
of this Lease and the ownership interest in the Equipment.
9. Termination. In the event the Local Government makes all of the Rental
Payments provided for in the Financing Lease, this Lease shall be considered assigned to the
Local Government and shall be terminated through merger of the leasehold interest with the
ownership interest in the Equipment. VRA agrees, upon such assignment and termination or
upon the expiration of the term hereunder to surrender the Equipment to the Local Government.
Any additions, modifications or improvements to the Equipment at the time of termination of
this Lease shall remain thereon, and VRA shall have no interest therein, and such additions,
modifications or improvements shall be free of any encumbrance imposed by VRA pursuant to
or in connection with this Lease or the Financing Lease at the time of such termination. Upon
request, VRA will execute and deliver to the Local Government an appropriate instrument
assigning, transferring and conveying to the Local Government all of VRA’s right, title and
interest in this Lease and the Equipment free from any lien encumbrance or security interest
except such as may be created or permitted by the Local Government, but without other
warranties, and shall enter into an appropriate instrument terminating this Lease.
10. Default. Upon the exercise of remedies pursuant to Articles VI and X of the
Financing Lease, VRA and its assignees shall have the right to possession of the Equipment for
the remainder of the term of this Lease and shall have the right to sublease the Equipment or sell
its leasehold interest in the Equipment and this Lease upon whatever terms and conditions it
deems prudent. Notwithstanding the foregoing, if VRA, its assigns or sublessees, shall receive a
payment for the sale of its interest or total rental payments for sublease that are, after payment of
their expenses in connection therewith, in excess of all amounts due under the Financing Lease
applicable at the time of the occurrence or Event of Default or Event of Non-Appropriation, such
excess shall be paid to the Local Government by VRA, its assigns or its sublessee.
The Local Government shall not have the right to exclude VRA from the Equipment, to
take possession of the Equipment (other than pursuant to the Financing Lease) or to terminate
this Lease prior to the expiration of its term upon any default by VRA hereunder.
Notwithstanding the foregoing, if, upon the exercise of the option to prepay VRA’s interest in
the Equipment granted to the Local Government in Section 5.2 of the Financing Lease and after
the payment of the amount specified therein and the other sums payable under the Financing
Lease, VRA fails to convey its interest in the Equipment to the Local Government pursuant to
such option, the Local Government shall have the right to terminate this Lease, such termination
to be effective thirty (30) days after delivery of written notice of such termination to VRA.
11. Quiet Enjoyment. Subject to Section 13 hereof, VRA at all times during the term
of this Lease peaceably and quietly shall have, hold and enjoy all of the Equipment.
12. Further Assurances. The Local Government shall to the fullest extent permitted
by law pass, make, do, execute, acknowledge and deliver such further re solutions, acts, deeds,
conveyances, assignments, transfers and assurances as may be necessary or desirable for the
better assuring, conveying, granting, assigning and confirming the rights of VRA under this
Lease, or as may be required to carry out the purposes of this Lease. The Local Government
shall at all times, to the fullest extent permitted by law, defend, preserve and protect all rights of
VRA under this Lease against all claims and demands of all persons.
13. Leaseback to Local Government. Contemporaneously with the execution of this
Lease, VRA and the Local Government shall execute the Financing Lease whereby VRA will
lease back to the Local Government, and the Local Government will lease from VRA, the
Equipment, in accordance with the terms of the Financing Lease. Title to the Equipment shall be
deemed to remain in the Local Government at all times, subject to the leasehold interest of VRA.
The Financing Lease contains provisions which govern maintenance, payment of taxes,
insurance, damage and destruction and includes the option of the Local Government, upon
payment of the purchase price or upon completion of all Rental Payments required thereunder, to
purchase VRA’s interest in the Equipment.
14. Severability. If any clause, provision or section of this Lease shall be held illegal
or invalid by any court, the illegality or invalidity of such clause, provision or section shall not
affect the remainder of this Lease which shall be construed and enforced as if such illegal or
invalid clause, provision or section had not been contained in this Lease. If any agreement or
obligation contained in this Lease is held to be in violation of law, then such agreement or
obligation shall be deemed to be the agreement or obligation of the Local Government or VRA,
as the case may be, only to the extent permitted by law.
15. Notices. All notices or other communications to be given under this Lease shall
be in writing and shall be deemed to have been given when delivered in person or when mailed
by first class registered or certified mail, postage prepaid, addressed (a) if to the County, at 401
McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 (Attention: Chief of Financial Management), or
(b) if to VRA, at 1111 East Main Street, Suite 1920, Richmond, Virginia 23219 (Attention:
Executive Director). The County and VRA may designate, by notice given hereunder, any
further or different addresses to which subsequent notices or other communications shall be sent.
16. Counterparts. This Lease may be executed in any number of counterparts, each of
which shall be deemed to be an original, and all of which together shall constitute but one and
the same instrument.
17. Successors. This Lease shall be binding upon, inure to the benefit of and be
enforceable by the parties and their respective successors and assigns.
18. Applicable Law. This Lease shall be governed by the applicable laws of the
Commonwealth of Virginia.
19. Headings. The headings of the several sections of this Lease are inserted for
convenience only and do not comprise a part of this Lease.
20. No Partnership. Nothing in this Lease shall be construed as making any party a
partner or joint venturer with any other party.
21. Amendments. This Lease may not be amended except by written instrument
signed by the parties hereto.
[SIGNATURE PAGES FOLLOW]
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Local Government, and VRA have caused this Lease to
be duly executed as of the day and year first above written.
VIRGINIA RESOURCES AUTHORITY, as
Administrator of the Virginia Water Facilities
Revolving Fund
By:_______________________________________
Stephanie L. Hamlett,
Executive Director
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA
By:___________________________________
_____________________________
_____________________________
EXHIBIT A
DESCRIPTION OF EQUIPMENT
Return to exec summary
CB Draft: 5/16/11
FINANCING LEASE
Between
VIRGINIA RESOURCES AUTHORITY,
as Administrator of the
Virginia Water Facilities Revolving Fund
as Lessor
And
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA
as Lessee
Dated as of June 1, 2011
Virginia Resources Authority
Virginia Water Facilities Revolving Fund
Loan No. C-515445G
-i-
TABLE OF CONTENTS
[To Be Updated]
Page
ARTICLE I DEFINITIONS ................................................................................................. 1
Section 1.1 Definitions............................................................................................ 1
Section 1.2 Rules of Construction .......................................................................... 3
ARTICLE II REPRESENTATIONS .................................................................................... 4
Section 2.1 Representations by Local Government ................................................ 4
ARTICLE III ACQUISITION AND LEASE OF EQUIPMENT .......................................... 6
Section 3.1 Lease to Local Government ................................................................. 6
Section 3.2 Lease Term........................................................................................... 7
Section 3.3 Conditions Precedent ........................................................................... 7
Section 3.4 Transfer Upon Termination ................................................................. 8
Section 3.5 Disclaimer of Warranty........................................................................ 8
Section 3.6 Obligations of the Local Government Unconditional .......................... 8
Section 3.7 Appropriation of Rental Payments by Local Government .................. 8
Section 3.8 No Assignment..................................................................................... 9
Section 3.9 Title to Equipment ............................................................................... 9
Section 3.10 Net Lease ............................................................................................. 9
Section 3.11 Personal Property ................................................................................. 9
ARTICLE IV USE OF LEASE PROCEEDS AND CONSTRUCTION OF
PROJECT ....................................................................................................... 10
Section 4.1 Application of Lease Proceeds........................................................... 10
Section 4.2 Agreement to Accomplish Project ..................................................... 10
Section 4.3 Permits ............................................................................................... 10
Section 4.4 Construction Contractors ................................................................... 11
Section 4.5 Engineering Services ......................................................................... 11
Section 4.6 Local Government Required to Complete Project ............................. 11
ARTICLE V PAYMENT OF RENTAL PAYMENTS AND PREPAYMENTS ............... 12
Section 5.1 Payment of Rental Payments and Related Amounts.......................... 12
Section 5.2 Prepayments ....................................................................................... 13
ARTICLE VI NON-APPROPRIATION .............................................................................. 14
Section 6.1 Non-appropriation; Termination of Financing Lease ........................ 14
Section 6.2 Remedies of VRA .............................................................................. 15
Section 6.3 Reinstatement ..................................................................................... 15
-ii-
ARTICLE VII OPERATION AND USE OF EQUIPMENT ................................................ 15
Section 7.1 Maintenance ....................................................................................... 15
Section 7.2 Additions and Modifications.............................................................. 15
Section 7.3 Use of Equipment .............................................................................. 15
Section 7.4 Inspection of Equipment and Local Government’s Books and
Records .............................................................................................. 16
Section 7.5 Ownership or Control of Equipment.................................................. 16
Section 7.6 Sale or Encumbrance ......................................................................... 16
Section 7.7 Lawful Charges .................................................................................. 16
ARTICLE VIII INSURANCE, DAMAGE AND DESTRUCTION ....................................... 17
Section 8.1 Insurance ............................................................................................ 17
Section 8.2 Requirements of Policies ................................................................... 17
Section 8.3 Notice of Damage, Destruction or Condemnation ............................. 18
Section 8.4 Damage and Destruction .................................................................... 18
Section 8.5 Condemnation and Loss of Title ........................................................ 18
ARTICLE IX SPECIAL COVENANTS .............................................................................. 19
Section 9.1 Maintenance of Existence .................................................................. 19
Section 9.2 Financial Records and Statements ..................................................... 19
Section 9.3 Certificate as to No Default ............................................................... 19
Section 9.4 Further Assurances............................................................................. 20
Section 9.5 Liability .............................................................................................. 20
Section 9.6 Assignment by Local Government .................................................... 20
Section 9.7 Continuing Disclosure ....................................................................... 20
ARTICLE X DEFAULTS AND REMEDIES .................................................................... 24
Section 10.1 Events of Default ............................................................................... 24
Section 10.2 Remedies ............................................................................................ 25
Section 10.3 Other Remedies .................................................................................. 26
Section 10.4 Delay and Waiver .............................................................................. 26
Section 10.5 Non-Substitution ................................................................................ 26
ARTICLE XI MISCELLANEOUS ...................................................................................... 26
Section 11.1 State Aid Intercept ............................................................................. 26
Section 11.2 Successors and Assigns...................................................................... 26
Section 11.3 Amendments ...................................................................................... 26
Section 11.4 Applicable Law .................................................................................. 27
Section 11.5 Severability ........................................................................................ 27
Section 11.6 Notices ............................................................................................... 27
Section 11.7 Right to Cure Default ......................................................................... 27
Section 11.8 Headings ............................................................................................ 27
Section 11.9 Term of Financing Lease ................................................................... 27
Section 11.10 Commitment Letter ............................................................................ 27
Section 11.11 Counterparts ....................................................................................... 28
-iii-
Exhibit A Lease Payment Schedule
Exhibit B Description of Equipment
Exhibit C Description of Project
Exhibit D Project Budget
Exhibit E Form of Requisition
Exhibit F Opinion of Counsel to the Local Government
Exhibit G Opinion of Bond Counsel to the Local Government
Exhibit H Operating Data
FINANCING LEASE
THIS FINANCING LEASE (this “Financing Lease”) is made as of June 1, 2011,
between the VIRGINIA RESOURCES AUTHORITY, a public body corporate and a political
subdivision of the Commonwealth of Virginia (“VRA”), as Administrator of the VIRGINIA
WATER FACILITIES REVOLVING FUND, as Lessor, and the COUNTY OF
ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA, a political subdivision of the Commonwealth of Virginia (the
“Local Government”), as Lessee.
A. Pursuant to Chapter 22, Title 62.1 of the Code of Virginia (1950), as amended
(the “Act”), the General Assembly created a permanent and perpetual fund known as the
“Virginia Water Facilities Revolving Fund” (the “Fund”). In conjunction with the State Water
Control Board (the “Board”), VRA administers and manages the Fund. From the Fund, VRA
from time to time makes loans to and acquires obligations of local governments in Virginia to
finance or refinance the costs of facilities for the reduction or prevention of storm water runoff
within the meaning of Section 62.1-229.4 of the Act.
B. VRA and the Local Government wish to set forth in this Financing Lease certain
terms, conditions and provisions related to the financing with the Local Government, the
application of the Lease Proceeds (as defined herein), the payment of Rental Payments (as
defined herein), security for the financing, and the use and maintenance of the Equipment (as
defined herein).
C. The Fund’s financing of the Project (as defined herein) constitutes a “loan” and
this Financing Lease constitutes an “obligation,” within the meaning of the Act.
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises and the mutual covenants and
agreements hereinafter contained, VRA and the Local Government covenant and agree as
follows:
ARTICLE I
DEFINITIONS
Section 1.1 Definitions. The capitalized terms contained in this Financing Lease shall
have the meanings set forth below unless the context otherwise requires:
“Additional Payments” means the payments required by Section 5.1
“Commitment Letter” shall mean the commitment letter from VRA to the Local
Government dated February 24, 2011, and all extensions and amendments thereto.
“Consulting Engineer” means the engineer or the firm of independent consulting
engineers of recognized standing and experienced in the field of sanitary engineering and
registered to do business in Virginia which is designated by the Local Government from time to
-2-
time as the Local Government’s consulting engineer in accordance with Section 4.5 in a written
notice to VRA. Such individual or firm shall be subject to the reasonable approval of VRA.
“Department” means the Department of Environmental Quality, created and acting
under Chapter 11.1, Title 10.1, of the Code of Virginia, as amended.
“Equipment” shall mean the personal property described in Exhibit B attached hereto
and any and all additions, modifications, attachments, replacements and parts thereof.
“Event of Default” shall have the meaning set forth in Section 10.1.
“Financing Lease” means this Financing Lease dated as of June 1, 2011, between VRA
and the Local Government, as modified, altered, amended or supplemented in accordance with
the terms hereof.
“Fiscal Year” means the twelve-month period beginning July 1 of one year and ending
on June 30 of the following year or such other twelve-month period established by the Local
Government as its annual accounting period.
“Funding Agreement” means the Funding Agreement, dated as of the date hereof,
between VRA and the Local Government.
“Insurance Consultant” means an independent insurance consultant who has a
favorable reputation for skill and experience in such work.
“Lease Proceeds” means $400,000, which represents the amount received by the Local
Government from VRA in connection with the execution and delivery of this Financing Lease.
“Leases” means, collectively, the Prime Lease and this Financing Lease.
“Local Representative” means any member, official or employee of the Local
Government authorized by resolution, ordinance or other official act of the governing body of
the Local Government to perform the act or sign the document in question.
“Local Resolution” means the resolution adopted on June 1, 2011, by a majority of the
members of the governing body of the Local Government approving the transactions
contemplated by and authorizing the execution and delivery of the Leases.
“Prime Lease” means the Prime Lease, dated as of June 1, 2011, between the Local
Government and VRA, as modified, altered, amended and supplemented in accordance with its
terms and those of this Financing Lease.
“Project” means the particular project described in Exhibit C, the costs of the
construction, acquisition and/or equipping of which are to be financed or refinanced in whole or
in part with the Lease Proceeds.
-3-
“Project Costs” means the costs of the construction, acquisition or equipping of the
Project, as further described in the project budget in Exhibit D, and such other costs as may be
approved in writing by VRA, provided such costs are permitted by the Act.
“Rental Payments” means the rental payments due to VRA from the Local Government
pursuant to Exhibit A.
“Vendor” means each manufacturer or supplier of the Equipment, and its successors or
assigns.
Section 1.2 Rules of Construction. The following rules shall apply to the
construction of this Financing Lease unless the context requires otherwise:
(a) Singular words shall connote the plural number as well as the singular and
vice versa.
(b) Words importing the redemption or calling for redemption of this
Financing Lease shall not be deemed to refer to or connote the payment of this Financing Lease
at its stated maturity.
(c) All references in this Financing Lease to particular Articles, Sections or
Exhibits are references to Articles, Sections or Exhibits of this Financing Lease unless otherwise
indicated.
(d) The headings and table of contents as used in this Financing Lease are
solely for convenience of reference and shall not constitute a part of this Financing Lease nor
shall they affect its meaning, construction or effect.
ARTICLE II
REPRESENTATIONS
Section 2.1 Representations by Local Government. The Local Government makes
the following representations as the basis for its undertakings under this Financing Lease:
(a) The Local Government is a duly created and validly existing Virginia
“local government” (as defined in Section 62.1-224 of the Act) and is vested with the rights and
powers conferred upon it by Virginia law.
(b) The Local Government has full right, power and authority to (i) adopt the
Local Resolution and execute and deliver the Leases and all related documents, (ii) lease the
Equipment to VRA pursuant to the Prime Lease and to lease the Equipment back from VRA
pursuant to this Financing Lease, (iii) undertake the Project, and (iv) carry out and consummate
all of the transactions contemplated by the Local Resolution and the Leases.
-4-
(c) This Financing Lease was duly authorized by the Local Resolution and is
in substantially the same form as presented to the Local Government’s governing body at its
meeting at which the Local Resolution was adopted.
(d) All governmental permits, licenses, registrations, certificates,
authorizations and approvals required to have been obtained as of the date of the delivery of the
Leases have been obtained for (i) the Local Government’s adoption of the Local Resolution,
(ii) the execution and delivery of the Leases, (iii) the Local Government’s performance of its
obligations under the Leases, (iv) the leasing of the Equipment and (v) the undertaking of the
Project. The Local Government knows of no reason why any such required governmental
permits, licenses, registrations, certificates, authorizations or approvals cannot be obtained as
required in the future.
(e) This Financing Lease has been executed and delivered by duly authorized
officials of the Local Government and constitutes the legal, valid and binding obligation of the
Local Government enforceable against the Local Government in accordance with its terms.
(f) The execution and delivery of the Leases and the performance by the
Local Government of its obligations hereunder are within the powers of the Local Government
and will not conflict with, or constitute a breach or result in a violation of, (i) to the best of the
Local Government’s knowledge, any Federal, or Virginia constitutional or statutory provision,
including the Local Government’s charter or articles of incorporation, if any, (ii) any agreement
or other instrument to which the Local Government is a party or by which it is bound or (iii) any
order, rule, regulation, decree or ordinance of any court, government or governmental authority
having jurisdiction over the Local Government or its property.
(g) The Local Government is not in default in the payment of the principal of
or interest on any of its indebtedness for borrowed money and is not in default under any
instrument under and subject to which any indebtedness for borrowed money has been incurred.
No event or condition has happened or existed, or is happening or existing, under the provisions
of any such instrument, including but not limited to this Financing Lease, which constitutes, or
which, with notice or lapse of time, or both, would constitute an event of default thereunder.
(h) The Local Government (i) to the best of the Local Government’s
knowledge, is not in violation of any existing law, rule or regulation applicable to it in any way
which would have a material adverse effect on its financial condition or its ability to perform its
obligations under the Leases and (ii) is not in default under any indenture, mortgage, deed of
trust, lien, lease, contract, note, order, judgment, decree or other agreement, instrument or
restriction of any kind to which the Local Government is a party or by which it is bound or to
which any of its assets is subject, which would have a material adverse effect on its financial
condition or its ability to perform its obligations under the Leases. The execution and delivery
by the Local Government of the Leases and the compliance with the terms and conditions hereof
will not conflict with or result in a breach of or constitute a default under any of the forgoing.
(i) Except as may otherwise be approved by VRA or permitted by the terms
of the Leases, the Equipment at all times is and will be operated or controlled by the Local
Government and will not be operated or controlled by any other entity or person.
-5-
(j) There are not pending nor, to the best of the Local Government’s
knowledge, threatened against the Local Government, any actions, suits, proceedings or
investigations of a legal, equitable, regulatory, administrative or legislative nature, (i) affecting
the creation, organization or existence of the Local Government or the title of its officers to their
respective offices, (ii) seeking to prohibit, restrain or enjoin the approval, execution, delivery
and/or performance of the Local Resolution and/or the Leases, (iii) in any way contesting or
affecting the validity or enforceability of the Local Resolution, the Leases or any agreement or
instrument relating to any of the foregoing, (iv) in which a judgment, order or resolution may
have a material adverse effect on the Local Government or its business, assets, condition
(financial or otherwise), operations or prospects or on its ability to perform its obligations under
the Local Resolution or the Leases, (v) related to the operation and use of the Equipment and (vi)
related to the Project or the undertaking thereof.
(k) No material adverse change has occurred in the Local Government’s
financial condition as indicated in the financial statements, applications and other information
furnished to VRA.
(l) The lease of the Equipment to the Local Government pursuant to this
Financing Lease will provide necessary improvements for essential governmental operations and
services of the Local Government and, therefore, will serve a function which is necessary and
essential to the proper, efficient and economic operation of the Local Government.
(m) No Event of Default has occurred and is continuing.
ARTICLE III
ACQUISITION AND LEASE OF EQUIPMENT
Section 3.1 Lease to Local Government. In order to effectuate the purposes of this
Financing Lease, the Local Government shall make, execute, acknowledge and deliver, or cause
to be made, executed, acknowledged and delivered, all contracts, deeds and other agreements in
the name of the Local Government and, in general, to do or cause to be done all such other things
as may be requisite or proper for the undertaking and completion of the Project, the lease of the
Equipment to VRA pursuant to the Prime Lease and the fulfillment of the obligations of the
Local Government under this Financing Lease.
VRA hereby leases to the Local Government and the Local Government hereby
rents from VRA, the Equipment on the terms and conditions set forth in this Financing Lease.
The Local Government shall be entitled to possession of the Equipment and the Local
Government may retain possession of the Equipment as long as there shall not have occurred an
Event of Default or an event of non-appropriation pursuant to Section 6.1 hereof.
During the term of this Financing Lease and so long as the Local Government is
not in default hereunder, title to the Equipment shall be deemed to be in the Local Government,
subject to the rights of VRA under this Financing Lease. To secure all obligations of the Local
Government hereunder, the Local Government hereby grants to VRA a security interest in and to
-6-
all of the Local Government’s right, title and interest in the Equipment including substitutions
and replacements therefor, and all proceeds (cash and otherwise) thereof, including the proceeds
of insurance. The Local Government agrees that with respect to such property VRA shall have
all the rights and remedies of a secured party under the Virginia Uniform Commercial Code.
The Local Government agrees to execute and deliver all documents, instruments
and financing statements including, but not limited to fixture filings necessary or appropriate to
perfect or maintain the security interest granted hereby.
Section 3.2 Lease Term. The term of this Financing Lease shall commence on the
date of the execution and delivery of this Financing Lease and, subject to the provisions of
Section 6.1, shall continue until the earlier of (i) May 1, 2022 (provided that all of the rental
payments specified in Exhibit A have been paid in full) or (ii) the date on which redemption,
prepayment or refunding is made pursuant to Section 5.2.
Section 3.3 Conditions Precedent. VRA shall not be required to deliver this
Financing Lease unless VRA has received the following, all in form and substance satisfactory to
VRA:
(a) Certified copies of the Local Resolution and all other ordinances and
resolutions of the Local Government relating to this Financing Lease.
(b) A certificate of appropriate officials of the Local Government as to the
matters set forth in Section 2.1 and such other matters as VRA may reasonably require.
(c) A certificate of the Consulting Engineer to the effect that the Lease
Proceeds and funds available from the other sources specified in the project budget in Exhibit D
will be sufficient to pay the estimated total Project Costs, and specifying the date the Local
Government is expected to complete the construction, acquisition and/or equipping of the
Project.
(d) Evidence satisfactory to VRA that all governmental permits or approvals
for the Project required to have been obtained as of the date of the delivery of this Financing
Lease have been obtained and a statement of the Consulting Engineer that he knows of no reason
why any future required governmental permits or approvals cannot be obtained as needed.
(e) Evidence satisfactory to VRA that the Local Government has obtained or
has made arrangements satisfactory to VRA to obtain any funds or other financing for the Project
as contemplated in the project budget in Exhibit D.
(f) Evidence that the Local Government has complied with the insurance
provisions set forth in Sections 8.1 and 8.2.
(g) Evidence that the Local Government has performed and satisfied all of the
terms and conditions contained in this Financing Lease to be performed and satisfied by it as of
such date.
-7-
(h) An opinion of counsel to the Local Government in substantially the form
attached as Exhibit F.
(i) An opinion of bond counsel to the Local Government, in substantially the
form attached as Exhibit G.
(j) Original executed counterparts of this Financing Lease, the Prime Lease
and the Funding Agreement.
(k) Such other documentation, certificates and opinions as VRA, the Board or
the Department may reasonably require.
Section 3.4 Transfer Upon Termination. After all payments have been made
pursuant to Section 5.1 or prepayment has been made pursuant to Section 5.2, the Local
Government shall be deemed to have acquired all of VRA’s right, title and interest in the
Equipment and the Prime Lease. In such event, and upon request, VRA will execute and deliver
to the Local Government an appropriate instrument assigning, transferring and conveying to the
Local Government all of VRA’s right, title and interest in the Prime Lease and the Equipment
free from any lien, encumbrance or security interest except such as may be created or permitted
by the Local Government or the Vendor, but without other warranties, and shall enter into an
appropriate instrument terminating this Financing Lease.
Section 3.5 Disclaimer of Warranty. (a) The Equipment is being acquired by VRA
at the Local Government’s request. VRA MAKES NO REPRESENTATION OR
WARRANTY, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, WITH RESPECT TO THE MERCHANTABILITY,
CONDITION OR FITNESS OF THE EQUIPMENT FOR THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT’S
PURPOSES.
(b) VRA hereby appoints the Local Government its agent and attorney-in-fact
during the term of this Financing Lease, so long as the Local Government shall not be in default
hereunder, to assert from time to time whatever claims and rights (including without limitation
warranties) relating to the Equipment that VRA may have against the Vendor. The Local
Government’s sole remedy for the breach of such warranty, indemnification or representation
shall be against the Vendor of the Equipment, and not against VRA. Any such matter shall not
have any effect whatsoever on the rights and obligations of VRA with respect to this Financing
Lease, including the right to receive full and timely payments hereunder. The Local Government
expressly acknowledges that VRA makes, and has made, no representations or warranties
whatsoever as to the existence or the availability of such warranties relating to the Equipment.
Section 3.6 Obligations of the Local Government Unconditional. Except as
otherwise provided in this Financing Lease, including without limitation Section 3.7, the
obligation of the Local Government to make all payments pursuant to this Financing Lease and
to observe and perform all other covenants, conditions and agreements under the Leases shall be
absolute and unconditional, irrespective of any rights of setoff, recoupment or counterclaim the
Local Government otherwise might have against VRA, and the Local Government shall not
suspend or discontinue any such payments or fail to observe and perform any of its other
covenants, conditions and agreements under the Leases.
-8-
Section 3.7 Appropriation of Rental Payments by Local Government. The Local
Government reasonably believes that sufficient funds can be obtained to make all pa yments
required under the term of this Financing Lease. While recognizing that it is not empowered to
make any binding commitment beyond the current Fiscal Year, the Local Government hereby
states that it is its current intention to make sufficient annual appropriations during the term of
this Financing Lease to make such payments. Notwithstanding anything in this Financing Lease
to the contrary, the Local Government’s obligations to pay the cost of performing its obligations
under this Financing Lease, including, without limitation, its obligations to make all payments
required under this Financing Lease, shall be subject to and dependent upon annual
appropriations being made from time to time by the governing body of the Local Government
and, subsequently, by the Local Government for such purpose. The Local Government hereby
directs the County Administrator or other officer charged with the responsibility for preparing
the Local Government’s budget to include in the budget for each Fiscal Year during which this
Financing Lease is in effect a request that the Local Government appropriate in the Fiscal Year
the amount of the rental payments and all amounts required to be paid under this Financing
Lease during such Fiscal Year.
Section 3.8 No Assignment. Except as permitted herein or contemplated by the
Leases, the Local Government covenants that it will not assign this Financing Lease or any
interest herein, without the prior written consent of VRA.
Section 3.9 Title to Equipment. This Financing Lease is intended for security. All
right, title and interest the Equipment will be deemed to be in the Local Government at all times,
subject to the rights of VRA hereunder. The Local Government shall at all times protect and
defend, at its own cost and expense, its interest in and to the Equipment from and against all
claims, liens and legal processes of its creditors, and keep all Equipment free and clear of all
such claims, liens and processes.
Section 3.10 Net Lease. This Financing Lease is intended to be a net lease to VRA.
The Local Government shall comply with and pay or cause to be paid the cost of all repairs,
replacements and renewals, the cost of insurance, all utility and other charges and all taxes (local,
state and federal) which may now or hereafter be imposed upon the ownership, leas ing, rental,
sale, purchase, possession or use of the Equipment. If the Local Government fails to pay or
cause to be paid such costs, charges or taxes when due, VRA, after giving the Local Government
notice and a reasonable opportunity to cure, shall have the right, but shall not be obligated, to pay
the same. If VRA pays any such costs, charges or taxes for which the Local Government is
responsible or liable under this Financing Lease, VRA shall be entitled to be reimbursed
promptly therefor by the Local Government in accordance with the provisions of Section 11.7
hereof.
Section 3.11 Personal Property. The Equipment is, and shall at all times be and
remain, personal property notwithstanding that the Equipment or any part thereof may now be, or
hereafter become, in any manner affixed or attached to, or imbedded in, or permanently resting
upon, real property or any building thereon or any fixtures, or attached in any manner to what is
permanent by any means of cement, plaster, nails, bolts, screws or otherwise. Upon request of
VRA, the Local Government shall obtain, as to any place where the Equipment is located, a
-9-
waiver from the landlord and mortgagee thereof with respect to any rights they may have in and
to the Equipment or the rights of levy or seizure thereon.
ARTICLE IV
USE OF LEASE PROCEEDS AND CONSTRUCTION OF PROJECT
Section 4.1 Application of Lease Proceeds. (a) The Local Government agrees to
apply the Lease Proceeds solely and exclusively to the payment, or to the reimbursement of the
Local Government for the payment, of Project Costs and further agrees to exhibit to the
Department or VRA receipts, vouchers, statements, bills of sale or other evidence of the actual
payment of such Project Costs. VRA shall disburse money from the Fund to or for the account
of the Local Government not more frequently than once each calendar month (unless otherwise
agreed by VRA and the Local Government) upon receipt by VRA (with a copy to be furnished to
the Department) of the following:
(1) A requisition (upon which VRA, the Board and the Department shall be
entitled to rely) signed by a Local Representative and containing all information called for by,
and otherwise being in the form of, Exhibit E to this Financing Lease;
(2) If any requisition includes an item for payment for labor or to contractors,
builders or materialmen,
(i) A certificate, signed by the Consulting Engineer, stating that such
work was actually performed or such materials, supplies or equipment were
actually furnished or installed in or about the construction, acquisition and/or
equipping of the Project; and
(ii) A certificate, signed by a Local Representative, stating either that
such materials, supplies or equipment are not subject to any lien or security
interest or that such lien or security interest will be released or discharged upon
payment of the requisition.
Upon receipt of each such requisition and accompanying certificate or certificates and
approval thereof by the Department, VRA shall disburse Lease Proceeds hereunder to or for the
account of the Local Government in accordance with such requisition in an amount and to the
extent approved by the Department and shall note the date and amount of each such
disbursement on a schedule of principal disbursements. VRA shall have no obligation to
disburse any such Lease Proceeds if the Local Government is in default hereunder nor shall the
Department have any obligation to approve any requisition if the Local Government is not in
compliance with the terms of this Financing Lease.
(b) The Local Government shall comply with all applicable laws of the
Commonwealth of Virginia, including but not limited to, the Virginia Public Procurement Act, as
amended, regarding the awarding and performance of public construction contracts. Except as
may otherwise be approved by the Department, disbursements shall be held at ninety-five
-10-
percent (95%) of the maximum authorized amount of the Lease Proceeds to ensure satisfactory
completion of the Project. Upon receipt from the Local Government of the certificate specified in
Section 4.2 and a final requisition detailing all retainages to which the Local Government is then
entitled, VRA, to the extent approved by the Board and subject to the provisions of this Section
and Section 4.2, will disburse to or for the account of the Local Government Lease Proceeds to
the extent of such approval.
VRA shall have no obligation to disburse Lease Proceeds in excess of the amount
necessary to pay for, or reimburse the Local Government for, approved Project Costs. If
principal disbursements up to the maximum authorized amount of the Lease Proceeds are not
made, Rental Payments shall be reduced in accordance with Section 5.1(a).
Section 4.2 Agreement to Accomplish Project. The Local Government agrees to
cause the Project to be acquired, constructed, expanded, renovated or equipped as described in
Exhibit C and in accordance with the project budget in Exhibit D and the plans, specifications
and designs prepared by the Consulting Engineer and approved by the Department. The Local
Government shall use its best efforts to complete the Project by the date set forth in the
certificate provided to VRA pursuant to Section 3.2(c). All plans, specifications and designs shall
be approved by all applicable regulatory agencies. The Local Government agrees to maintain
complete and accurate books and records of the Project Costs and permit VRA and the
Department through their duly authorized representatives to inspect such books and records at
any reasonable time. The Local Government and VRA, with the consent of t he Department, may
amend the description of the Project set forth in Exhibit C.
When the Project has been completed, the Local Government shall promptly
deliver to VRA and the Department a certificate signed by a Local Representative of the Local
Government and by the Consulting Engineer stating (i) that the Project has been completed
substantially in accordance with this Section, the plans and specifications as amended from time
to time, as approved by the Department, and in substantial compliance with all material
applicable laws, ordinances, rules and regulations, (ii) the date of such completion, (iii) that all
certificates of occupancy or other material permits necessary for the Project’s use, occupancy
and operation have been issued or obtained, and (iv) the amount, if any, to be reserved for
payment of the Project Costs.
Section 4.3 Permits. The Local Government, at its sole cost and expense, shall
comply with, and shall obtain all permits, consents and approvals required by local, state or
federal laws, ordinances, rules, regulations or requirements in connection with the acquisition,
construction, equipping, occupation, operation or use of the Project. The Local Government
shall, upon request, promptly furnish to VRA and the Department copies of all such permits,
consents and approvals. The Local Government shall also comply with all lawful program or
procedural guidelines or requirements duly promulgated and amended from time to time by the
Department in connection with the acquisition, construction, equipping, occupation, operation or
use of projects financed by the Fund under the Act. The Local Government shall also comply in
all respects with all applicable federal, state and local laws and regulations and other
requirements relating to or arising out of or in connection with the Project and the funding
thereof by the Fund. Where noncompliance with such requirements is determined by VRA or
-11-
the Board, the issue shall be referred to the proper governmental authority or agency for
consultation or enforcement action.
Section 4.4 Construction Contractors. Each construction contractor employed in the
accomplishment of the Project shall be required in the construction contract to furnish a
performance bond and a payment bond each in an amount equal to one hundred percent (100%)
of the particular contract price. Such bonds shall list the Local Government, the Fund, VRA, the
Department and the Board as beneficiaries. Each contractor shall be required to maintain during
the construction period covered by the particular construction contract builder’s risk insurance,
workers’ compensation insurance, public liability insurance, property damage insurance and
vehicle liability insurance in amounts and on terms satisfactory to the Consulting Engineer.
Upon request of VRA, the Department and the Board, the Local Government shall cause each
contractor to furnish evidence of such bonds and insurance to VRA, the Department or the
Board.
Section 4.5 Engineering Services. The Local Government shall retain a Consulting
Engineer to provide engineering services covering the operation of the System and the
supervision and inspection of the construction of the Project. The Consulting Engineer shall
certify to VRA and the Department as to the various stages of the completion of the Project as
disbursements of Lease Proceeds are requested and shall upon completion of the Project provide
to VRA and the Board the certificates required by Sections 4.1 and 4.2.
Section 4.6 Local Government Required to Complete Project. If the Lease
Proceeds are not sufficient to pay in full the cost of the Project, the Local Government will
complete the Project at its own expense and shall not be entitled to any reimbursement therefor
from the Fund, VRA, the Department or the Board or any abat ement, diminution or
postponement of the Local Government’s payments under this Financing Lease.
ARTICLE V
PAYMENT OF RENTAL PAYMENTS AND PREPAYMENTS
Section 5.1 Payment of Rental Payments and Related Amounts. (a) Until all
amounts payable pursuant to this Financing Lease have been paid in full, the Local Government
agrees to pay VRA, subject to Section 3.7 and Article VI, the following amounts as provided
below:
(1) All amounts specified in Exhibit A on such dates as provided in
Exhibit A.
(2) A late payment penalty in an amount equal to five percent (5.0%)
per annum of any Rental Payment not paid within 10 days after its due date.
If principal disbursements up to the maximum authorized amount under this
Financing Lease are not made, the Rental Payments shall not include such undisbursed amount.
-12-
However, unless the Local Government and VRA agree otherwise in writing, until all amounts
due hereunder shall have been paid in full, less than full disbursement of the maximum
authorized amount under this Financing Lease shall not postpone the due date of any Rental
Payment, or change the amount of such installment.
(b) In addition to the Rental Payments, the Local Government agrees to pay
on demand of VRA the following Additional Payments:
(1) The costs of the Fund, VRA, the Department or the Board in
connection with the enforcement of this Financing Lease, including the reasonable fees
and expenses of any attorneys used by any of them; and
(2) All expenses, including reasonable attorneys’ fees, relating to any
amendments, waivers, consents or collection or enforcement proceedings pursuant to the
provisions hereof.
The Local Government agrees to pay interest on any Additional Payments
enumerated in (1) or (2) above not received by VRA within ten (10) days after demand therefor
at a rate of five percent (5.0%) per annum of the overdue installment from its due date until the
date it is paid.
Section 5.2 Prepayments. At its option and after giving at least ten (10) days’ written
notice to VRA, the Local Government may prepay the Rental Payments at any time, in whole or
in part and without penalty. Such written notice shall specify the date on which the Local
Government will make such prepayment and whether the Rental Payments will be prepaid in full
or in part, and if in part, the principal amount to be prepaid. Any such partial prepayment shall be
applied against the principal amount outstanding under this Financing Lease but shall not
postpone the due date of any subsequent Rental Payment, or change the amount of such
installment, unless the Local Government and VRA agree otherwise in writing.
ARTICLE VI
NON-APPROPRIATION
Section 6.1 Non-appropriation; Termination of Financing Lease. If, as a result of
the failure of the Local Government to appropriate moneys for such purposes, the Local
Government is unable to pay when due the Rental Payments and other payments to be paid under
this Financing Lease, VRA shall have the right to terminate this Financing Lease upon giving
thirty (30) days’ written notice of the exercise of its rights pursuant to this Section, which notice
shall specify the effective date for such termination; provided that such termination shall be
effective not later than the date through which rent has been paid in accordance with the terms
hereof.
Section 6.2 Remedies of VRA. If, as a result of the failure of the Local Government
to appropriate moneys for such purposes, the Local Government is unable to pay when due the
-13-
Rental Payments and other payments to be paid under this Financing Lease, VRA, with or
without terminating this Financing Lease, may exclude the Local Government from possession
of the Equipment and may sell its interest in, or lease or sublease the Equipment in the manner
provided for by Section 10.2(b) hereof. The Local Government agrees to assist VRA in every
reasonable way in reletting or selling the Equipment pursuant to this Article VI.
Section 6.3 Reinstatement. Notwithstanding any termination of this Financing Lease
in accordance with the provisions of Section 6.2, unless (i) VRA shall have sold the Equipment,
or (ii) VRA shall have entered into a firm bilateral agreement providing for the lease of the
Equipment for a period of at least one year, if all overdue Rental Payments and all other sums
payable under this Financing Lease shall have been paid, this Financing Lease shall be fully
reinstated, and the Local Government shall be restored to the use and possession of the
Equipment.
ARTICLE VII
OPERATION AND USE OF EQUIPMENT
Section 7.1 Maintenance. At its own cost and expense the Local Government shall
operate or cause to be operated the Equipment in a proper, sound and economical manner in
compliance with all legal requirements and shall maintain the Equipment in good repair and
operating condition and from time to time shall make all necessary repairs, renewals and
replacements.
Section 7.2 Additions and Modifications. At its own expense the Local Government
from time to time may make any additions, modifications or improvements to the Equipment
which it deems desirable and which do not materially reduce the value of the Equipment or the
structural or operational integrity of any part of the Equipment, provided that all such additions,
modifications or improvements comply with all applicable federal, state and local laws, rules,
regulations, orders, permits, authorizations and requirements. All such renewals, replacements,
additions, modifications and improvements shall become part of the Equipment.
Section 7.3 Use of Equipment. The Local Government shall comply or cause to be
complied with all lawful requirements of any governmental authority regarding the Equipment,
whether now existing or subsequently enacted, whether foreseen or unforeseen or whether
involving any change in governmental policy or requiring structural, operational or other
changes to the Equipment, irrespective of the cost of making the same.
Section 7.4 Inspection of Equipment and Local Government’s Books and
Records. VRA and its duly authorized representatives and agents shall have such reasonable
rights of access to the Equipment as may be necessary to determine whether the Local
Government is in compliance with the requirements of this Financing Lease and shall have the
right at all reasonable times and upon reasonable prior notice to the Local Government to
examine and copy the Local Government’s books and records insofar as such books and records
relate to the Equipment.
-14-
Section 7.5 Ownership or Control of Equipment. The Local Government shall not
locate the Equipment on lands other than those which the Local Government owns or can acquire
title to or a perpetual easement over, in either case sufficient for the Local Government’s
purposes, unless such part of the Equipment is lawfully located in a public street or highway or is
a main, conduit, pipeline, main connection or facility located on land in which the Local
Government has acquired a right or interest less than a fee simple or perpetual easement and such
lesser right or interest has been approved by written opinion of counsel to the Local Government
as sufficient for the Local Government’s purposes or unless otherwise consented to in writing by
VRA.
Section 7.6 Sale or Encumbrance. No part of the Equipment shall be sold,
exchanged, leased, subleased, mortgaged, encumbered or otherwise disposed of except with the
written consent of VRA.
Section 7.7 Lawful Charges. The Local Government shall pay or cause to be paid
when due all taxes, fees, assessments, levies and other governmental charges of any kind
whatsoever (collectively, the “Governmental Charges”) which are (i) assessed, levied or imposed
against the Equipment or the Local Government’s interest in it, or (ii) incurred in the ownership,
operation, maintenance and use of the Equipment. The Local Government shall pay or cause to
be discharged, or shall make adequate provision to pay or discharge, all lawful claims and
demands for labor, materials, supplies or other objects which, if unpaid, might by law become a
lien upon all or any part of the Equipment (collectively, the “Mechanics’ Charges”). The Local
Government, however, after giving VRA ten (10) days’ notice of its intention to do so, at its own
expense and in its own name, may contest in good faith any Governmental Charges or
Mechanics’ Charges. If such a contest occurs, the Local Government may permit the same to
remain unpaid during the period of the contest and any subsequent appeal unless, in VRA’s
reasonable opinion, such action may impair the lien granted by this Financing Lease, in which
event, such Governmental Charges or Mechanics’ Charges promptly shall be satisfied or secured
by posting with VRA or an appropriate court a bond in form and amount satisfactory to VRA.
Upon request, the Local Government shall furnish to VRA proof of payment of all Governmental
Charges and Mechanics’ Charges the Local Government is required to pay under this Financing
Lease.
ARTICLE VIII
INSURANCE, DAMAGE AND DESTRUCTION
Section 8.1 Insurance. The Local Government continuously shall maintain or cause
to be maintained insurance against such risks as are customarily insured against by public bodies
operating property similar in size and character to the Equipment, including, without limitation:
(a) Insurance, at a minimum, in the amount of the outstanding principal
component of Rental Payment, against the risk of any direct physical loss of or damage to the
Equipment.
-15-
(b) Comprehensive general liability insurance with a combined single limit of
$1,000,000 per year against liability for bodily injury, including death resulting therefrom, and
for damage to property, including loss of its use, arising out of the ownership, maintenance,
operation or use of the Equipment.
(c) Unless the Local Government qualifies as a self-insurer under Virginia
law, worker’s compensation insurance.
VRA shall not have any responsibility or obligation with respect to (i) the procurement or
maintenance of insurance or the amounts or the provisions with respect to policies of insurance
or (ii) the application of the proceeds of insurance.
The Local Government shall provide, upon VRA’s written request, a certificate or
certificates of the respective insurers evidencing the fact that the insurance required by this
Section is in force and effect.
Section 8.2 Requirements of Policies. All insurance required by Section 8.1 shall be
maintained with generally recognized responsible insurance companies selected by the Local
Government and reasonably acceptable to VRA. Such insurance may be written with deductible
amounts comparable to those on similar policies carried with respect to other property of like
size and character to the Equipment. If any such insurance is not maintained with an insurer
licensed to do business in Virginia or placed under the requirements of the Virginia Surplus
Lines Insurance Law, Article 5, Chapter 7.1, Title 38.1, Code of Virginia of 1950, as amended,
or any successor statute, the Local Government shall provide evidence reasonably satisfactory to
VRA that such insurance is enforceable under Virginia law.
In lieu of obtaining any of the policies of insurance required by Section 8.1, the Local
Government may adopt alternative risk management programs which it determines to be
reasonable, including, without limitation, to self-insure in whole or in part, individually or in
connection with other units of local government or other institutions, to participate in programs
of captive insurance companies, to participate with other units of local government or other
institutions in mutual or other cooperative insurance or other risk management programs, to
participate in State or Federal insurance programs, to take advantage of State or Federal laws
now or hereafter in existing limiting liability, or to establish or participate in other alternative
risk management programs, all as may be reasonable and appropriate risk management by the
Local Government and that provide comparable coverages required by such sections. In
addition, any insurance coverage pursuant to this Article may be pursuant to a program whereby
the Local Government self-insures against certain losses up to a stated loss amount, and retains
excess coverage from an insurer meeting the requirements of this Article.
Any self-insurance plan or alternative risk management program maintained by the Local
Government with respect to the Project will be a Qualified Self-Insurance Plan. A “Qualified
Self-Insurance Plan” means any plan or program of self-insurance regarding which the Local
Government shall have received an opinion of an Insurance Consultant that the Local
Government has established an adequate, actuarially sound program for the funding of reserves
for such self-insurance. The Local Government agrees to comply with such program unless a
change therein is recommended by the Insurance Consultant. The Local Government agrees to
-16-
cause the Insurance Consultant to review any Qualified Self-Insurance Plan at least annually and
to make written recommendations as to what funding levels are adequate to protect against the
risks covered by the plan. The Local Government agrees to follow such recommendations.
Section 8.3 Notice of Damage, Destruction or Condemnation. In case of (i) any
damage to or destruction of any material part of the Equipment, (ii) a taking of all or any part of
the Equipment or any right in it under the exercise of the power of eminent domain, (iii) any loss
of the Equipment because of failure of title, or (iv) the commencement of any proceedings or
negotiations which might result in such a taking or loss, the Local Government shall give prom pt
notice to VRA describing generally the nature and extent of such damage, destruction, taking,
loss, proceedings or negotiations.
Section 8.4 Damage and Destruction. If all or any part of the Equipment is
destroyed or damaged by fire or other casualty, and the Local Government shall not have
exercised its option, if such option is available, to prepay the obligations under this Financing
Lease pursuant to Section 5.2, the Local Government shall restore promptly the property
damaged or destroyed to substantially the same condition as before such damage or destruction,
with such alterations and additions as the Local Government may determine and which will not
impair the capacity or character of the Equipment for the purpose for which it then is being used
or is intended to be used. The Local Government may apply so much as may be necessary of the
net proceeds of insurance received on account of any such damage or destruction to payment of
the cost of such restoration, either on completion or as the work progresses. If such net proceeds
are not sufficient to pay in full the cost of such restoration, the Local Government shall pay so
much of the cost as may be in excess of such net proceeds.
Section 8.5 Condemnation and Loss of Title. If title to or the temporary use of all or
any part of the Equipment shall be taken under the exercise of the power of eminent domain or
lost because of failure of title, and the Local Government shall not have exercised its option, if
such option is available, to prepay the obligations under this Financing Lease pursuant to Section
5.2, the Local Government shall cause the net proceeds from any such condemnation award or
from title insurance to be applied to the restoration of the Equipment to substantially its
condition before the exercise of such power of eminent domain or failure of title. If such net
proceeds are not sufficient to pay in full the cost of such restoration, the Local Government shall
pay so much of the cost as may be in excess of such net proceeds.
ARTICLE IX
SPECIAL COVENANTS
Section 9.1 Maintenance of Existence. The Local Government shall maintain its
existence as a political subdivision under Virginia law, and shall not dissolve or otherwise
dispose of all or substantially all of its assets or consolidate or merge with or into another entity
without VRA’s prior written consent, which consent will not be unreasonably withheld.
Section 9.2 Financial Records and Statements. The Local Government shall
maintain proper books of record and account in which proper entries shall be made in accordance
-17-
with generally accepted accounting principles, consistently applied, of all its business and affairs.
The Local Government shall have an annual audit of its financial condition made by an
independent certified public accountant within 180 days after the end of each Fiscal Year and
shall furnish to VRA copies of the report of such accountant immediately after such report is
submitted to the Local Government. Such report shall include statements in reasonable detail,
certified by such accountant, reflecting the Local Government’s financial position as of the end
of such Fiscal Year and the result of the Local Government’s operations and changes in the
financial position of the Local Government’s funds for the Fiscal Year. The Local Government
shall also furnish to VRA a certificate or report of such accountant to the effect that, during the
course of such accountant’s regular examination of the Local Government’s financial condition,
nothing came to such accountant’s attention which would constitute an Event of Default, or
which with the giving of notice or lapse of time, or both, would constitute such an Event of
Default.
Section 9.3 Certificate as to No Default. The Local Government shall deliver to
VRA, within 180 days after the close of each Fiscal Year, a certificate signed by a Local
Representative stating that, during such year and as of the date of such certificate, no event or
condition has happened or existed, or is happening or existing, which constitutes, or which, with
notice or lapse of time, or both, would constitute, an Event of Default, or if such an event or
condition has happened or existed, or is happening or existing, specifying the nature and period
of such event or condition and what action the Local Government has taken, is taking or
proposes to take to rectify it.
Section 9.4 Further Assurances. The Local Government shall to the fullest extent
permitted by law pass, make, do, execute, acknowledge and deliver such further resolutions, acts,
deeds, conveyances, assignments, transfers and assurances as may be necessary or desirable for
the better assuring, conveying, granting, assigning and confirming VRA’s security interest in the
Equipment and VRA’s rights and benefits under this Financing Lease. . The Local Government
shall at all times, to the fullest extent permitted by law, defend, preserve and protect VRA’s
security interest in the Equipment and all rights of VRA under this Financing Lease against all
claims and demands of all persons.
Section 9.5 Liability. (a) Subject to subsection (b) below, VRA shall not be liable for
any loss, damage, death or injury of any kind or character to persons or property, arising from
any use of the Equipment, or any part thereof, or caused by any defect in any building, structure
or other property upon which the Equipment is located, or caused by or arising from any act or
omission of the Local Government, or any of its agents, employees, sublessees, licensees or
invitees.
(b) Notwithstanding anything herein to the contrary, VRA shall be liable for
its own negligence, willful misconduct or for any breach of any covenant, representation or
warranty of VRA herein.
Section 9.6 Assignment by Local Government. The Local Government may not
assign its rights and obligations under this Financing Lease without the prior written consent of
VRA.
-18-
Section 9.7 Continuing Disclosure Obligations. (a) For purposes of this section, the
following terms and phrases shall have the following meaning:
“Annual Financial and Operating Information” with respect to any Fiscal Year for the
Local Government, means the following:
(i) the financial statements (consisting of at least a Statement of Net
Assets, Statements of Revenues, Expenses and Changes in Net Assets and a
Statement of Cash Flows) of the Local Government;
(ii) all financial statements must be (A) prepared annually in
accordance with applicable law and generally accepted accounting principles in
effect from time to time consistently applied and (B) audited by an independent
certified public accountant or firm of such accountants in accordance with
generally accepted auditing standards as in effect from time to time; or, if audited
financial statements are not available, financial statements will be filed as may be
required by the Rule (as defined herein); and
(iii) operating data of the type set forth in Exhibit H.
“Dissemination Agent” shall mean any person, reasonably acceptable to VRA, whom the
Local Government contracts in writing to perform its obligations as provided in subsection (b) of
this section.
“Leveraging Bonds” means the bonds and other evidences of indebtedness issu ed and
sold by VRA pursuant to the Virginia Resources Authority Act, Chapter 21, Title 62.1 of the
Code of Virginia (1950), as amended, the Act, and any successor provisions of law, including
without limitation the bonds and other evidences of indebtedness issued by VRA under the
Amended and Restated Master Indenture of Trust dated as of April 1, 2010, between VRA and
U.S. Bank National Association, as trustee, as supplemented and amended, and the Second
Supplemental Series Trust Indenture dated as of April 1, 2010, between VRA and U.S. Bank
National Association, as trustee, as supplemented and amended, or any successors thereto.
“Local Government” shall have the meaning set forth in Section 62.1 -199 of the Code of
Virginia of 1950, as amended.
“Local Obligations” shall mean any bonds, notes, debentures, interim certificates, bond,
grant or revenue anticipation notes, leases or any other evidences of indebtedness of a Local
Government evidencing a loan made by VRA to a Local Government from the Fund or the
proceeds of Leveraging Bonds.
“Make Public” or “Made Public” shall have the meaning set forth in subsection (c) of this
Section.
“Material Local Government” shall mean a Local Government that satisfies a set of
objective criteria established by VRA at the time of sale of each series of Leveraging Bonds and
based on the level of participation of each Local Government in the aggregate outstanding
-19-
principal amount of all Local Obligations. For all Leveraging Bonds currently outstanding as of
the date of this Financing Lease, a Material Local Government is any Local Government whose
aggregate outstanding principal amount of Local Obligations represents twenty percent (20%) or
more of the aggregate outstanding principal amount of all Local Obligations.
“Rule” means Rule 15c2-12, as it may be amended from time to time, under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and any similar rules of the SEC relating to disclosure
requirements in the offering and sale of municipal securities, all as in effect from time to time.
“SEC” means the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.
(b) The Local Government shall Make Public or cause to be Made Public:
(1) Within 270 days after the end of the Local Government’s Fiscal
Year (commencing with the Fiscal Year in which the Closing Date occurs), Annual
Financial and Operating Information for such Fiscal Year as of the end of which the
Local Government constitutes a Material Local Government. Annual Financial and
Operating Information may be set forth in the documents Made Public or may be
included by reference in a document Made Public to any document previously filed with
the SEC. If the document referred to is a final official statement within the meaning of
the Rule, then it must be available from the Municipal Securities Rulemak ing Board
(“MSRB”).
(2) In a timely manner, notice of any failure by the Local Government
to Make Public or cause to be Made Public Annual Financial and Operating Information
pursuant to the terms of part (1) of this subsection.
(c) For purposes of this Section, information and notices shall be deemed to
have been Made Public if transmitted to VRA and to the MSRB for publication on its Electronic
Municipal Market Access system (“EMMA”).
(d) The Local Government shall also notify VRA as promptly as possible
upon becoming aware of any of the following events that may from time to time occur with
respect to this Financing Lease:
(1) principal and interest payment delinquencies;
(2) non-payment related defaults;
(3) unscheduled draws on debt service reserves reflecting financial
difficulties;
(4) unscheduled draws on any credit enhancement maintained with
respect to this Financing Lease reflecting financial difficulties;
(5) substitution of credit or liquidity providers, or their failure to
perform;
-20-
(6) adverse tax opinions, the issuance by the Internal Revenue Service
of proposed or final determinations of taxability, Notices of Proposed Issue (IRS Form
5701-TEB) or other notices or determinations with respect to the tax status of this
Financing Lease, or other events affecting the tax status of this Financing Lease;
(7) modifications to rights of the holders of this Financing Lease;
(8) bond calls and tender offers;
(9) defeasances of all or any portion of this Financing Lease;
(10) release, substitution, or sale of property securing repayment of this
Financing Lease;
(11) rating changes;
(12) bankruptcy, insolvency, receivership or similar event of the
Borrower*;
(13) the consummation of a merger, consolidation or acquisition
involving the Borrower or the sale of all or substantially all of the assets of the Borrower,
other than in the ordinary course of business, the entry into a definitive agreement to
undertake such an action or the termination of a definitive agreement relating to any such
actions, other than pursuant to its terms; and
(14) appointment of a successor or additional trustee or the change in
the name of a trustee.
(e) Notwithstanding anything in this Financing Lease to the contrary, the
Local Government need not comply with the provisions of subsections (a) through (d) above
unless and until VRA has notified the Local Government that it satisfied the objective criteria for
a Material Local Government as of the end of VRA’s immediately preceding fiscal year.
(f) The obligations of the Local Government under this Section will terminate
upon the redemption, defeasance (within the meaning of the Rule) or payment in full of all of the
Leveraging Bonds.
(g) The Local Government may modify its continuing disclosure obligations
in this Section without the consent of holders of the Leveraging Bonds provided that this Section
as so modified complies with the Rule as it exists at the time of modification. The Local
Government shall within a reasonable time thereafter send to VRA and the MSRB through
EMMA a description of such modification(s).
* This event is considered to occur when any of the following occur: the appointment of a receiver, fiscal
agent or similar officer for the Borrower in a proceeding under the U.S. Bankruptcy Code or in any other
proceeding under state or federal law in which a court of governmental authority has assumed jurisdiction
over substantially all of the assets or business of the Borrower, or if such jurisdiction has been assumed
by leaving the existing governing body and officials or officers in possession but subject to the
supervision and orders of a court of governmental authority, or the entry of an order confirming a plan of
reorganization, arrangement or liquidation by a court or governmental authority having supervision or
jurisdiction over substantially all of the assets or business of the Borrower.
-21-
(h) (1) If the Local Government fails to comply with any covenant or
obligation set forth in this Section, any holder (within the meaning of the Rule) of Leveraging
Bonds then Outstanding may, by notice to the Local Government, proceed to protect and enforce
its rights and the rights of the holders by an action for specific performance of the Local
Government’s covenants or obligations set forth in this Section.
(2) Notwithstanding anything herein to the contrary, any failure of the
Local Government to comply with any obligation regarding Annual Financial and Operating
Information specified in this Section (i) shall not be deemed to constitute an Event of Default
under this Financing Lease and (ii) shall not give rise to any right or remedy other than that
described in part (h)(1) of this Section.
(i) The Local Government may from time to time disclose certain
information and data in addition to that required under this Section. Notwithstanding anything in
this Financing Lease to the contrary, the Local Government shall not incur any obligation to
continue to provide, or to update, such additional information or data.
(j) The Local Government may, from time to time, appoint or engage a
Dissemination Agent to assist it in carrying out its obligation to Make Public the Annual
Financial and Operating Information, and may discharge any such Agent, with or without
appointing a successor Dissemination Agent.
ARTICLE X
DEFAULTS AND REMEDIES
Section 10.1 Events of Default. Each of the following events shall be an “Event of
Default”:
(a) The failure to make any payment or deposit required by this Financing
Lease when due.
(b) The Local Government’s failure to perform or observe any of the other
covenants, agreements or conditions of this Financing Lease and the continuation of such failure
for a period of 60 days after written notice specifying such failure and requesting that it be cured
is given to the Local Government by VRA, or, in the case of any such failure which cannot with
diligence be cured within such 60 day period, the Local Government’s failure to proceed
promptly to commence to cure the failure and thereafter to prosecute the curing of the failure
with diligence.
(c) Any warranty, representation or other statement by or on behalf of the
Local Government contained in this Financing Lease or in any instrument furnished in
compliance with or in reference to this Financing Lease is false and misleading in any material
respect.
-22-
(d) The early termination of the Funding Agreement pursuant to Sections
5.3(b) or (c) thereof;
(e) An order or decree shall be entered, with the Local Government’s consent
or acquiescence, appointing a receiver or receivers of the Equipment or any part of it, or if such
order or decree, having been entered without the Local Government’s consent or acquiescence,
shall not be vacated or discharged or stayed on appeal within 60 days after its entry.
(f) Any proceeding shall be instituted, with the Local Government’s consent
or acquiescence, for the purpose of effecting a composition between the Local Government and
its creditors or for the purpose of adjusting such creditors’ claims under any federal or state
statute now or hereafter enacted.
(g) Any bankruptcy, insolvency or other similar proceeding shall be instituted
by or against the Local Government under any federal or state bankruptcy or insolvency law now
or hereinafter in effect and, if instituted against the Local Government is not dismissed within 60
days after filing.
Notwithstanding anything herein to the contrary, the Local Government’s failure to make
any payment to VRA due to nonappropriation is not an Event of Default, but is an event of
nonappropriation governed by Article VI hereof.
Section 10.2 Remedies. Upon the occurrence and continuation of an Event of Default,
VRA may exercise one or more of the following remedies:
(a) By notice in writing delivered to the Local Government declare all unpaid
Rental Payments due and payable. Upon any such declaration, the Local Government shall
immediately pay to VRA all unpaid Rental Payments. VRA may in its discretion waive an Event
of Default and its consequences and rescind any acceleration of payments hereunder; or
(b) Reenter and take possession of the Equipment, with or without terminating
this Financing Lease, require the Local Government at the Local Government’s expense to
promptly return any or all of such Equipment to the possession of VRA at such place within the
Commonwealth of Virginia as VRA shall specify, exclude the Local Government from
possession and sell the Equipment, or lease or sublease the Equipment for the account of the
Local Government, holding the Local Government liable for all Rental Payments and all other
payments due up to the effective date of such selling, leasing or subleasing and for the difference
between (i) the Lease Proceeds, rent or other amounts paid by the purchaser, lessee or sublessee
pursuant to such sale, lease or sublease and (ii) the Rental Payments and other amounts payable
by the Local Government hereunder; or
(c) Take whatever action at law or in equity may appear necessary or
desirable to collect the Rental Payments then due and thereafter to become due or to enforce
performance and observance of any obligation, agreement or covenant of the Local Government
under this Financing Lease.
Section 10.3 Other Remedies. Upon the occurrence and continuation of an Event of
Default, VRA may proceed to protect and enforce its rights by mandamus or other action, suit or
-23-
proceeding at law on in equity for specific performance of any agreement contained in this
Financing Lease. No remedy conferred by this Financing Lease is intended to be exclusive of
any other remedy, but each such remedy shall be cumulative and shall be in addition to any other
remedy given to VRA under this Financing Lease or now or hereafter existin g at law or in equity
or by statute.
Section 10.4 Delay and Waiver. No delay or omission to exercise any right or power
accruing upon any default or Event of Default shall impair any such right or power or shall be
construed to be a waiver of any such default or Event of Default or acquiescence in it, and every
such right and power may be exercised from time to time and as often as may be deemed
expedient. No waiver of any default or Event of Default under this Financing Lease shall extend
to or shall affect any subsequent default or Event of Default or shall impair any rights or
remedies consequent to it.
Section 10.5 Non-Substitution. The Local Government acknowledges and agrees that
the non-appropriation provisions of Section 3.7 and Article VI hereof are not intended to be used
for convenience termination or for the purpose of replacing the Equipment with other
substantially identical property. The Local Government, to the extent permitted by applicable
law, agrees not to utilize such provisions for such purposes.
ARTICLE XI
MISCELLANEOUS
Section 11.1 State Aid Intercept. The Local Government acknowledges that VRA
may take any and all actions available to it under the laws of the Commonwealth of Virginia ,
including the invocation of the “state-aid intercept” provisions of Section 62.1-216.1 of the Act,
to obtain any payment of the Rental Payments due under this Financing Lease if the Local
Government fails to pay when due.
Section 11.2 Successors and Assigns. This Financing Lease shall be binding upon,
inure to the benefit of and be enforceable by the parties and their respective successors and
assigns.
Section 11.3 Amendments. VRA and the Local Government shall have the right to
amend from time to time any of this Financing Lease’s terms and conditions, provided that all
amendments shall be in a writing and shall be signed by or on behalf of VRA and the Local
Government.
Section 11.4 Applicable Law. This Financing Lease shall be governed by Virginia
law.
Section 11.5 Severability. If any clause, provision or section of this Financing Lease
shall be held illegal or invalid by any court, the illegality or invalidity of such clause, provision
or section shall not affect the remainder of this Financing Lease which shall be construed and
enforced as if such illegal or invalid clause, provision or section had not been contained in this
Financing Lease. If any agreement or obligation contained in this Financing Lease is held to be
-24-
in violation of law, then such agreement or obligation shall be deemed to be the agreement or
obligation of VRA and the Local Government, as the case may be, only to the extent permitted
by law.
Section 11.6 Notices. Unless otherwise provided for herein, all demands, notices,
approvals, consents, requests, opinions and other communications under this Financing Lease
shall be in writing and shall be deemed to have been given when delivered in person or mailed
by first class registered or certified mail, postage prepaid, addressed as follows:
Fund: Virginia Water Facilities Revolving Fund
c/o Virginia Resources Authority
1111 East Main Street, Suite 1920
Richmond, VA 23219
Attention: Executive Director
VRA: Virginia Resources Authority
1111 East Main Street, Suite 1920
Richmond, VA 23219
Attention: Executive Director
Department State Water Control Board
and Board: Department of Environmental Quality
P. O. Box 1105 Richmond, VA 23218
Attention: Executive Director
Local
Government: County of Albemarle, Virginia
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, VA 22902
Attention: Chief of Financial Management
A duplicate copy of each demand, notice, approval, consent, request, opinion or
other communication given by any party named in this Section shall also be given to each of the
other parties named. VRA, the Department, the Board and the Local Government may designate,
by notice given hereunder, any further or different addresses to which subsequent demands,
notices, approvals, consents, requests, opinions or other communications shall be sent or persons
to whose attention the same shall be directed.
Section 11.7 Right to Cure Default. If the Local Government shall fail to make any
payment or to perform any act required by it under this Financing Lease, VRA without prior
notice to or demand upon the Local Government and without waiving or releasing any obligation
or default, may (but shall be under no obligation to) make such payment or perform such act. All
amounts so paid by VRA and all costs, fees and expenses so incurred shall be payable by the
Local Government as an additional obligation under this Financing Lease, together with interest
thereon at the rate of five percent (5.0%) per annum until paid.
-25-
Section 11.8 Headings. The headings of the several articles and sections of this
Financing Lease are inserted for convenience only and do not comprise a part of this Financing
Lease.
Section 11.9 Term of Financing Lease. This Financing Lease shall be effective upon
its execution and delivery. Except as otherwise specified, the Local Government’s obligations
under this Financing Lease shall expire upon payment in full of all amounts payable by the Local
Government under this Financing Lease.
Section 11.10 Commitment Letter. The Commitment Letter is an integral part of this
Financing Lease and shall survive closing hereunder.
Section 11.11 Counterparts. This Financing Lease may be executed in any number of
counterparts, each of which shall be an original and all of which together shall constitute but one
and the same instrument.
[Signature Pages Follow]
-26-
WITNESS the following signatures, all duly authorized.
VIRGINIA RESOURCES AUTHORITY, as
Administrator of the Virginia Water Facilities
Revolving Fund
By:_______________________________________
Stephanie L. Hamlett,
Executive Director
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA
By:___________________________________
_____________________________
_____________________________
[SIGNATURE PAGE OF FINANCING LEASE]
EXHIBIT A
LEASE PAYMENT SCHEDULE
(See Attached)
EXHIBIT B
DESCRIPTION OF EQUIPMENT
(See Attached)
EXHIBIT C
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT
The Project includes the financing of stormwater management projects in the downtown
area of Crozet, Virginia and a parking lot at the County offices, together with related expenses.
EXHIBIT D
PROJECT BUDGET
(See Attached)
EXHIBIT E
FORM OF REQUISITION
[LETTERHEAD OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT]
[Date]
Walter A. Gills, Program Manager
Construction Assistance Program
Water Division
Department of Environmental Quality
P. O. Box 1105
Richmond, Virginia 23218
Re: County of Albemarle, Virginia
Loan No. C-515445G
Dear Mr. Gills:
This requisition, Number ____, is submitted in connection with the Financing Lease
dated as of June 1, 2011 (the “Financing Lease”), between the Virginia Resources Authority, as
Administrator of the Virginia Water Facilities Revolving Fund (“VRA”), and the County of
Albemarle, Virginia (the “Local Government”). Unless otherwise defined in this requisition, all
capitalized terms used herein shall have the meaning set forth in Article I of the Financing Lease.
The undersigned Local Representative of the Local Government hereby requests disbursement of
proceeds under the Financing Lease in the amount of $_______ for the purposes of payment or
reimbursement of the Project Costs as set forth in Schedule 1 attached hereto.
Attached hereto are invoices relating to the items for which payment is requested.
The undersigned certifies that (a) the amounts requested by this requisition will be applied
solely and exclusively to the payment, or the reimbursement of the Local Government for the
payment, of Project Costs, and (b) any materials, supplies or equipment covered by this
requisition are not subject to any lien or security interest or such lien or security interest will be
released upon payment of the requisition.
This requisition includes an accompanying Certificate of the Consulting Engineer as to the
performance of the work.
Very truly yours,
By: _________________________
Its: __________________________
Attachments
cc: DEQ Regional Engineer (with all attachments)
CERTIFICATE OF THE CONSULTING ENGINEER
FORM TO ACCOMPANY REQUEST FOR DISBURSEMENT
This Certificate is being executed and delivered in connection with Requisition Number
_____, dated __________, 20__, submitted by the County of Albemarle, Virginia (the “Local
Government”), pursuant to the Financing Lease dated as of June 1, 2011 (the “Financing Lease”)
between the Virginia Resources Authority, as Administrator of the Virginia Water Facilities
Revolving Fund (“VRA”), and the Local Government. Capitalized terms used herein shall have the
same meanings set forth in Article I of the Financing Lease.
The undersigned Consulting Engineer for the Local Government hereby certifies to VRA that,
insofar as the amounts covered by this Requisition include payments for labor or to contractors,
builders or materialmen, such work was actually performed or such materials, supplies or equipment
were actually furnished to or installed in the construction portion of the Project.
______________________________
[Consulting Engineer]
By:____________________________
Date:___________________________
SCHEDULE 1
VIRGINIA WATER FACILITIES REVOLVING FUND
FORM TO ACCOMPANY REQUEST FOR DISBURSEMENT
REQUISITION #
LOCAL GOVERNMENT: COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA
LOAN NUMBER: C-515445G
CERTIFYING SIGNATURE:_____________________________
TITLE:______________________
Cost Category
Amount
Budgeted
Previous
Disbursements
Expenditures
This Period
Total
Expenditures
To Date
Net
Balance
Remaining
Total Loan Amount $____________
Previous Disbursement $____________
This Request $____________
Loan Proceeds Remaining $____________
EXHIBIT F
OPINION OF COUNSEL TO THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT
[To Be Provided]
EXHIBIT G
OPINION OF BOND COUNSEL TO THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT
[To Be Provided]
EXHIBIT H
OPERATING DATA
Description of Local Government. A description of the Local Government including a
summary description of the Equipment.
Debt. A description of the terms of the Local Government’s outstanding debt including a
historical summary of outstanding debt and a summary of annual debt service on outstanding
debt as of the end of the preceding fiscal year. The annual disclosure should also include (to the
extent not shown in the latest audited financial statements) a description of contingent
obligations as well as pension plans administered by the Local Government and any unfunded
pension liabilities.
Financial Information and Operating Data. Financial information and operating data
respecting the Local Government including a description of revenues and expenditures for its
major funds and a summary of its tax policy, structure and collections as of the end of the
preceding fiscal year.
Return to exec summary
1083732
CB DRAFT: 5/24/11
FUNDING AGREEMENT
dated as of June 1, 2011
BETWEEN
VIRGINIA RESOURCES AUTHORITY,
as Administrator of the
Virginia Water Facilities Revolving Fund
AND
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA
Virginia Resources Authority
Virginia Water Facilities Revolving Fund
Funding No. C-515445G
ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ARTICLE I
DEFINITIONS Page 1
ARTICLE II
SCOPE OF SERVICES Page 2
ARTICLE III
TIME OF PERFORMANCE Page 3
ARTICLE IV
FUNDING; NATURE OF TRANSACTION Page 3
Section 4.1. Application of Funding Page 3
Section 4.2. Agreement to Accomplish Project Page 4
Section 4.3. Repayment of Transaction Amount. Page 4
ARTICLE V
GENERAL PROVISIONS Page 4
Section 5.1. Liability Insurance Page 4
Section 5.2. Disclaimer Page 5
Section 5.3. Termination Page 5
Section 5.4. Integration and Modification Page 5
Section 5.5. Collateral Agreements Page 5
Section 5.6. Non-Discrimination Page 5
Section 5.7. Applicable Laws Page 6
Section 5.8. Severability Page 6
Section 5.9. Contingent Fee Warranty Page 6
Section 5.10. Conflict of Interest Page 6
Section 5.11. Records Availability Page 6
Section 5.12. Ownership of Documents Page 6
Section 5.13. Governmental Requirements Page 7
Section 5.14. Notices Page 7
ARTICLE VI
COUNTERPARTS Page 8
iii
EXHIBITS
Exhibit A. Project Description
Exhibit B. Project Budget
Exhibit C. Requisition for Disbursement
FUNDING AGREEMENT
THIS FUNDING AGREEMENT is dated the date of complete execution and delivery,
between the VIRGINIA RESOURCES AUTHORITY, as administrator of the Virginia Water
Facilities Revolving Fund, a public body corporate and a political subdivision of the
Commonwealth of Virginia (the “Authority”) and the COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE,
VIRGINIA, a political subdivision of the Commonwealth of Virginia (the “Locality”).
Pursuant to Chapter 22, Title 62.1, Code of Virginia of 1950, as amended (the “Act”), the
General Assembly created a fund known as the “Virginia Water Facilities Revolving Fund” (the
“Fund”). In conjunction with the State Water Control Board (the “Board”), the Authority
administers and manages the Fund. Following consultation with the Authority, the Board from
time to time directs the distribution of monies to local governments in Virginia to finance the
“costs” of “projects” within the meaning of Section 62.1-224 of the Act.
The Locality has requested funding from the Fund and has been approved by the Board to
receive monies from the Fund. The Locality will use the monies from the Fund to provide funds
for that portion of the Project Costs not being paid from other sources as set forth in the Project
Budget.
ARTICLE I
DEFINITIONS
The capitalized terms contained in this Agreement shall have the meanings set forth
below unless the context requires otherwise and any capitalized terms not otherwise defined
herein shall have the meaning assigned to such terms in the Act:
“Act” means Chapter 22, Title 62.1 of the Code of Virginia of 1950, as amended.
“Agreement” means this Funding Agreement between the Authority, as Administrator of
the Fund, and the Locality, together with any amendments or supplements hereto.
“Authority” means the Virginia Resources Authority, as Administrator of the Fund, a
political subdivision of the Commonwealth of Virginia.
“Authorized Representative” means any member, official or employee of the Locality
authorized by resolution, ordinance or other official act of the governing body of the Locality to
perform the act or sign the document in question.
“Board” means the State Water Control Board.
“Consulting Engineer” means the engineer or the firm of independent consulting
engineers of recognized standing and experienced in the field of sanitary engineering and
registered to do business in Virginia which is designated by the Locality from time to time as the
Locality’s consulting engineer for the Project in a written notice to the Authority. Such
2
individual or firm shall be subject to the reasonable approval of the Authority. Unless and until
the Authority notifies the Locality otherwise, any of the Locality’s employees that are licensed
and registered as professional engineers in the Commonwealth of Virginia may serve as
Consulting Engineer under this Agreement.
“Department” means the Department of Environmental Quality, created and acting under
Chapter 11.1, Title 10.1, of the Code of Virginia of 1950, as amended.
“Fund” means the Virginia Water Facilities Revolving Fund.
“Locality” means the County of Albemarle, Virginia, a public body politic of the
Commonwealth of Virginia.
“Project” means the particular project described in Exhibit A to be constructed, acquired
or improved by the Locality with, among other monies, the funds, with such changes thereto as
may be approved in writing by the Board and the Authority.
“Project Budget” means the budget for the Project, a copy of which is attached to this
Agreement as Exhibit B, with such changes therein as may be approved in writing by the Board
and the Authority.
“Project Costs” means the costs described in the Project Budget and such other costs
permitted by the Act as may be approved in writing by the Board.
“Project Description” means the description of the Project to be undertaken using the
funding made available under this Agreement, a copy of which is attached to this Agreement as
Exhibit A, with such changes therein as may be approved in writing by the Board and the
Authority.
“System” means all plants, systems, facilities, equipment or property, of which the
Project constitutes the whole or is a part, owned, operated or maintained by the Locality and used
in connection with the collection or treatment of wastewater.
“Transaction” means the funding of some or all of the Locality’s Project, as described in
Exhibit A, as provided in this Agreement.
ARTICLE II
SCOPE OF SERVICES
The Locality shall provide the services and work as set forth in the Project Description
(Exhibit A) of this Agreement. All work shall be performed according to sound construction,
engineering and architectural principles and commonly accepted safety standards.
3
ARTICLE III
TIME OF PERFORMANCE
The Locality’s work on the Project commenced on or before __________, 2011, and will
be completed on or before ___________, 2012.
ARTICLE IV
FUNDING; NATURE OF TRANSACTION
The Locality shall be reimbursed for the payment of Project Costs, in an amount not to
exceed $____________ for the purposes set forth in the Project Description and Project Budget.
Disbursement of funds will be in accordance with the payment provisions set forth in Section 4.1
and the Project Budget.
The Board has authorized the Transaction as a “principal forgiveness loan.”
Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in this Funding Agreement, the Transaction shall not
constitute a debt of the Locality, and the Locality is not required or obligated to repay the amount
of the Transaction, except as provided in Section 4.3 in the case of Locality’s failure to comply
with the terms and conditions of this Funding Agreement, where the Locality may be required to
return all or a portion of the amount funded hereunder.
Section 4.1. Application of Funding. The Locality agrees to apply the funds solely and
exclusively to the payment, or the reimbursement of the Locality for the payment of Project
Costs. After approval by the Department, the Authority shall disburse funds from the Fund to the
Locality not more frequently than once each calendar month (unless otherwise agreed by the
Authority, the Department and the Locality) upon receipt by the Authority of the following:
(a) A requisition approved by the Department (upon which the Authority shall
rely), signed by the Authorized Representative and containing all receipts, vouchers,
statements, invoices, reporting forms or other evidence of the actual payment of Project
Costs or that the Project Costs have been incurred, and all other information called for by,
and otherwise being in the form of, Exhibit C to this Agreement; and
(b) If any requisition includes an item for payment for labor or to
contractors, builders or materialmen, a certificate, signed by the Consulting Engineer,
stating that such work was actually performed or such materials, supplies or equipment
were actually furnished or installed in or about the construction of the Project.
Upon receipt of each such requisition and accompanying certificate(s), document(s) and
schedule(s), the Authority shall disburse the funds hereunder to the Locality in accordance with
such requisition to the extent approved by the Department. The Department shall have no
obligation to approve any requisition, and the Authority shall have no obligation to disburse any
such funds, if the Locality is not in compliance with any of the terms of this Agreement.
4
Except as may otherwise be approved by the Department, disbursements shall be held at
ninety-five percent (95%) of the total funding amount to ensure satisfactory completion of the
Project. Upon receipt from the Locality of the certificate specified in Section 4.2 and a final
requisition detailing all retainages to which the Locality is then entitled, the Authority, to the
extent approved by the Department, and subject to the provisions of this section and Section 4.2
will disburse to the Locality the remaining funds.
Section 4.2. Agreement to Accomplish Project. The Locality agrees to cause the
Project to be acquired, constructed, expanded, renovated or equipped as described in Exhibit A
and in accordance with plans and specifications prepared by the Consulting Engineer and
approved by the Department.
When the Project has been completed, the Locality shall promptly deliver to the Authority
and the Department a certificate signed by an Authorized Representative of the Locality and by
the Consulting Engineer stating (i) that the Project has been completed substantially in
accordance with the approved plans and specifications and addenda thereto, and in substantial
compliance with all material applicable laws, ordinances, rules and regulations, (ii) the date of
such completion, (iii) that all required certificates of occupancy and permits for operation of the
Project have been issued or obtained, and (iv) the amount, if any, to be reserved for payment of
the final Project Costs.
Section 4.3. Repayment of Transaction Amount. In the event of a material failure by
the Locality to comply with the terms of this Agreement, the Locality may be obligated, upon an
adverse determination by the Department, to repay all or a portion of any funding received
pursuant to this Agreement.
ARTICLE V
GENERAL PROVISIONS
Section 5.1. Liability Insurance. The Locality shall take out and maintain during the
life of this Agreement such general and bodily injury liability and property damage liability
insurance as shall protect it from claims for damages for personal injury, including death, as well
as from claims for property damage, which may arise from the Locality’s activities under this
Agreement.
To the extent authorized by law, the Locality shall indemnify and hold harmless the
Authority, the Board, the Department, the Fund, and when applicable, its employees and
designated representatives, from any and all claims, suits, actions, liabilities and costs of any
kind, caused by or arising out of the performance by the Locality of its obligations pursuant to
this Agreement. Nothing contained herein shall be deemed an express or implied waiver of the
sovereign immunity of the Commonwealth or any entity thereof.
5
Section 5.2. Disclaimer. Nothing in this Agreement shall be construed as authority for
either party to make commitments that will bind the other party beyond the covenants contained
herein.
Section 5.3. Termination. (a) The Board, the Department or the Authority, on behalf of
the Fund may terminate this Agreement for any reason upon 30 days written notice to the
Locality. The Locality shall be paid for no service rendered or expense incurred after receipt of
such notice except such fees and expenses incurred prior to the effective date of termination that
are necessary for curtailment of its work under this Agreement.
(b) If any written or oral representation, warranty or other statement furnished or
made by or on behalf of the Locality to the Board, the Department or the Authority in connection
with this Agreement or the Locality’s application for funding from the Fund is false or
misleading in any material respect, the Authority shall have the right immediately to terminate
this Agreement.
(c) In the event of a breach by the Locality of this Agreement, the Authority shall
have the right immediately to terminate this Agreement. In the alternative, the Authority, the
Board, or the Department may give written notice to the Locality specifying the manner in which
this Agreement has been breached and providing the Locality 30 days within which to cure the
breach. If such notice of breach is given and the Locality has not substantially corrected the
breach within 30 days of receipt of the written notice, the Authority shall have the right to
terminate this Agreement.
(d) In the event of a termination of this Agreement in accordance with paragraphs (b)
or (c) of this Section 5.3, all documents and other materials related to the performance of this
Agreement shall, at the option of the Authority, the Board, or the Department, become the
property of the Authority, as Administrator of the Fund, and the Locality shall repay to the
Authority, as Administrator of the Fund, all funding proceeds disbursed hereunder.
Section 5.4. Integration and Modification. This Agreement constitutes the entire
Agreement between the Locality and the Authority with respect to the funding. No alteration,
amendment or modification in the provisions of this Agreement shall be effective unless reduced
to writing, signed by both the parties and attached hereto.
Section 5.5. Collateral Agreements. Where there exists any inconsistency between this
Agreement and other provisions of collateral contractual agreements which are made a part of
this Agreement by reference or otherwise, the provisions of this Agreement shall control.
Section 5.6. Non-Discrimination. In the performance of this Agreement, the Locality
warrants that it will not discriminate against any employee, or other person, on account of race,
color, sex, religious creed, ancestry, age, national origin, other non-job related factors or any
basis prohibited by law. The Locality agrees to post in conspicuous places, available to
employees and applicants for employment, notices setting forth the provisions of this non-
discrimination clause.
6
The Locality shall, in all solicitations or advertisements for employees placed by or on
behalf of the Locality, state that such Locality is an equal opportunity employer; however notices,
advertisements and solicitations placed in accordance with federal law, rule or regulation shall be
deemed sufficient for the purpose of meeting the requirements of this Agreement.
The Locality shall include the provisions of the foregoing paragraphs of this section in
every contract, subcontract or purchase order of over ten thousand dollars, so that such provisions
will be binding upon each contractor, subcontractor or vendor.
Section 5.7. Applicable Laws. This Agreement shall be governed by the applicable laws
of the Commonwealth of Virginia.
Section 5.8. Severability. Each paragraph and provision of this Agreement is severable
from the entire Agreement; and if any provision is declared invalid, the remaining provisions
shall nevertheless remain in effect, at the option of the Authority.
Section 5.9. Contingent Fee Warranty. The Locality warrants that it has not paid or
agreed to pay any company or person any fee, commission, percentage, brokerage fee, gift, or any
other consideration, contingent upon the award or making of this Agreement. For breach of the
foregoing warranty, the Authority shall have the right to terminate this Agreement without
liability, or, in its discretion, to deduct from the agreed fee, payment or consideration, or
otherwise recover the full amount of such prohibited fee, commission, percentage, brokerage fee,
gift, or contingent fee.
Section 5.10. Conflict of Interest. The Locality warrants that it has fully complied with
the Virginia Conflict of Interest Act.
Section 5.11. Records Availability. The Locality agrees to maintain complete and
accurate books and records of the Project Costs, and further, to retain all books, records, and
other documents relative to this Agreement for five (5) years after final disbursement of funding
proceeds, or until audited by the Commonwealth of Virginia, whichever is later. The Authority,
the Board, the Department, the Fund, its authorized agents, and/or State auditors shall have full
access to and the right to examine any of said materials during said period. Additionally, the
Authority, the Fund, the Board, the Department and/or its representatives shall have the right to
access worksites for the purpose of ensuring that the provisions of this Agreement are properly
carried out and enforced.
Section 5.12. Ownership of Documents. Any reports, studies, photographs, negatives,
or other documents prepared by the Locality in the performance of its obligations under this
Agreement, at the option of the Authority, the Board, or the Department, shall be remitted to the
Fund by Locality upon completion, termination or cancellation of this Agreement. Locality shall
not use, willingly allow or cause to have such materials used for any purpose other than
performance of Locality’s obligations under this Agreement without the prior written consent of
the Authority.
7
Section 5.13. Governmental Requirements. (a) The Locality agrees to comply with all
applicable governmental requirements pertaining to the Project and the use and application of
funds provided hereunder, including but not limited to, the Virginia Sewage Collection and
Treatment Regulations, 9 VAC 25-790 et seq., as amended, and the requirements and provisions
identified in the Virginia Public Procurement Act, Va. Code §§ 2.2-4300 et seq., as amended,
when procuring professional or construction services for work identified in this Agreement.
(b) In accordance with the provisions of the Single Audit Act of 1984, 31 U.S.C.
§§ 7501 et seq., and the regulations promulgated thereunder, including OMB Circular No. A-
133, as amended, the Locality agrees to obtain an annual audit from an independent auditor if the
Locality expends $500,000 or more in federal funds in any fiscal year.
(c) The Locality agrees to comply with the Davis-Bacon Act and related acts, as
amended, with respect to the Project and require that all laborers and mechanics employed by
contractors and subcontractors for the Project shall be paid wages at rates not less than those
prevailing on projects of a similar character, as determined by the United States Secretary of
Labor in accordance with Section 513 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as amended.
Section 5.14. Notices. Unless otherwise provided for herein, all notices, approvals,
consents, correspondence and other communications under this Agreement shall be in writing
and shall be deemed delivered to the following:
Fund: Virginia Resources Authority
As Administrator of the Virginia
Water Facilities Revolving Fund
1111 East Main Street, Suite 1920
Richmond, Virginia 23219
Attention: Executive Director
Authority: Virginia Resources Authority
1111 East Main Street, Suite 1920
Richmond, Virginia 23219
Attention: Executive Director
8
Department
and Board: Virginia Department of Environmental Quality
State Water Control Board
Construction Assistance Program
P.O. Box 1105
Richmond, Virginia 23218
Attention: Executive Director
Locality: County of Albemarle, Virginia
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, VA 22902
Attention: Chief of Financial Management
A duplicate copy of each notice, approval, consent, correspondence or other communications
shall be given to each of the other parties named.
ARTICLE VI
COUNTERPARTS
This Agreement may be executed in any number of Counterparts, each of which shall be
an original and all of which together shall constitute but one and the same instrument.
[Remainder of this page intentionally left blank]
9
This Agreement was executed and delivered by the undersigned on the dates set forth
opposite their signatures, which are all duly authorized.
VIRGINIA RESOURCES AUTHORITY,
As Administrator of Virginia Water Facilities Revolving Fund
By:
Stephanie L. Hamlett
Executive Director
Date:
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA
By: ______________________________
Name:
Title:
Date:
Exhibit A
Project Description
County of Albemarle, Virginia
C-515445G
The Project includes the financing of stormwater management projects in the downtown
area of Crozet, Virginia and a parking lot at the County offices, together with related expenses.
Exhibit B
Project Budget
County of Albemarle, Virginia
C-515445G
Cost Category Amount
Exhibit C
FORM OF REQUISITION
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA
C-515445G
[LETTERHEAD OF LOCALITY]
[Date]
Walter A. Gills, Program Manager
Construction Assistance Program
Department of Environmental Quality
P. O. Box 1105
Richmond, Virginia 23218
Re: County of Albemarle, Virginia
Funding No. C-515445G
Dear Mr. Gills:
This requisition, Number ____, is submitted in connection with the Financing Lease
dated as of __________ 1, 2011 (the “Financing Lease”), between the Virginia Resources
Authority, as Administrator of the Virginia Water Facilities Revolving Fund (“VRA”), and the
County of Albemarle, Virginia (the “Local Government”). Unless otherwise defined in this
requisition, all capitalized terms used herein shall have the meaning set forth in Article I of the
Financing Lease. The undersigned Local Representative of the Local Government hereby
requests disbursement of proceeds under the Financing Lease in the amount of $_______ for the
purposes of payment or reimbursement of the Project Costs as set forth in Schedule 1 attached
hereto.
Attached hereto are invoices relating to the items for which payment is requested.
The undersigned certifies that (a) the amounts requested by this requisition will be applied
solely and exclusively to the payment, or the reimbursement of the Local Government for the
payment, of Project Costs, and (b) any materials, supplies or equipment covered by this
requisition are not subject to any lien or security interest or such lien or security interest will be
released upon payment of the requisition.
13
This requisition includes an accompanying Certificate of the Consulting Engineer as to the
performance of the work.
Very truly yours,
By: _________________________
Its: __________________________
Attachments
cc: DEQ Regional Engineer (with all attachments)
CERTIFICATE OF THE CONSULTING ENGINEER
FORM TO ACCOMPANY REQUEST FOR DISBURSEMENT
This Certificate is submitted in connection with Requisition Number ____, dated _____________, 20__,
submitted by the County of Albemarle, Virginia (the “Locality”) to the Virginia Resources Authority.
Capitalized terms used herein shall have the same meanings set forth in Article I of the Funding
Agreement referred to in the Requisition.
The undersigned Consulting Engineer for the Locality hereby certifies to the Virginia Resources
Authority that insofar as the amounts covered by this Requisition include payments for labor or to
contractors, builders or materialmen, such work was actually performed or such materials, supplies or
equipment were actually furnished to or installed in the Project.
_______________________________________
Consulting Engineer
______________________________________
Date
SCHEDULE 1
VIRGINIA WATER FACILITIES REVOLVING FUND
FORM TO ACCOMPANY REQUEST FOR DISBURSEMENT – FUNDING PROCEEDS
REQUISITION # ______
LOCALITY: County of Albemarle, Virginia
FUNDING NUMBER: C-515445G
CERTIFYING SIGNATURE: ________________________________
TITLE: ___________________________________
Cost Category Amount
Budgeted
Previous
Disbursements
Expenditures This
Period
Total Expenditures
to Date
Net Balance
Remaining
Total Funding Amount $ ____________________
Previous Disbursements $ ____________________
This Request $ ____________________
Funding Proceeds Remaining $ ____________________
Return to exec summary
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
FY 2011 Budget Amendment and Appropriations
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Approval of Budget Amendment and Appropriation
#2011077, #2011080, #2011081, #2011082, and
#2011083 for various school and general government
programs
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Messrs. Foley, Letteri, and Davis; and Ms. L. Allshouse
LEGAL REVIEW: Yes
AGENDA DATE:
June 1, 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 am endment
which exceeds one percent of the total expenditures shown in the currently adopted budget must be accomplished by
first publishing a notice of a meeting and holding a public hearing before amending the budget. The Code section
applies to all County funds, i.e., General Fund, Capital Funds, E911, School Self-Sustaining, etc.
The total of the requested FY 2011 appropriations itemized below is $2,225,657.83. 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:
One (1) appropriation (#2011077) totaling $2,000,000.00 for Capital Improvement Plan projects from the FY
2009/10 undesignated fund balance;
One (1) appropriation (#2011080) totaling $21,344.45 for the Crozet Streetscape Phase 2 project received
from the Albemarle County Service Authority for expenses incurred by the County for the waterline
construction component of the project;
One (1) appropriation (#2011081) totaling $117,800.00 for advance payment to the Central Shenandoah
Criminal Justice Training Academy for the Sheriff’s Office, Police Department and Emergency
Communications Center’s training costs to be incurred in FY 2012;
One (1) appropriation (#2011082) totaling $82,668.75 for the ACE program from the Farmland Preservation’s
Local Purchase of Development Rights (PDR) Program; and
One (1) appropriation (#2011083) totaling $3,844.63 for school division donations.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends approval of the budget amendment in the amount of $2,225,657.83 and the approval of
Appropriations #2011077, #2011080, #2011081, #2011082, and #2011083.
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A – Appropriation Descriptions
Return to consent agenda
Return to regular agenda
Attachment A
Appropriation #2011077 $ 2,000,000.00
Revenue Source: General Fund Balance: $2,000,000.00
This request is to appropriate $2,000,000.00 of the FY 2009/10 undesignated fund balance to the Capital
Improvement Plan Funds. This transfer was anticipated in the adopted FY12-FY16 Capital Improvement Plan and
is in compliance with the County’s Financial Management Policy: Funds in excess of the required undesignated
fund balance may be considered to supplement “pay as you go” capital expenditures or as additions to the fund
balance.
Appropriation #20110180 $21,344.45
Revenue Source: Local Revenue: $ 21,344.45
This request is to appropriate $21,344.45 to the Crozet Streetscape Phase 2 project in funds received from the
Albemarle County Service Authority for the expense incurred by the project. On February 3, 2010, the Board of
Supervisors authorized the County Executive to sign agreements with the Albemarle County Service Authority
(ACSA) whereby the ACSA agreed to reimburse the County for its c osts to construct public waterline extensions at
the Crozet Streetscape Phase 2 and Phase 2A projects. In accordance with the agreement for Phase 2A, the
County included the construction of water facilities (water main extension) in the construction contr act. The water
facilities construction has been completed for this phase.
Appropriation #2011081 $117,800.00
Revenue Source: General Fund Balance: $ 92,380.00
ECC Fund Balance $ 25,420.00
This request is to appropriate a total of $117,800.00 from the General Fund and the Emergency Communication
Center’s Fund balances for payment to the Central Shenandoah Criminal Justice Training Academy for the Sheriff’s
Office, Police Department and Emergency Communications Center’s (ECC’s) FY 11/12 training costs. These costs
are funded in the adopted FY 11/12 budget; however, the Training Academy has requested earlier payment from all
of its public safety agency members. Staff recommends providing this funding in FY 10/11 from available fund
balance and further recommends that the funding currently included in the FY 11/12 budget for this purpose be non-
appropriated for FY 11/12. While these actions will increase the FY 10/11 and decrease the FY 11/12 budgets, the
net budget impact of these actions will be $0.00.
Appropriation #2011082 $82,688.75
Revenue Source: State Revenue: $ 82,688.75
This request is to appropriate $82,688.75 in Local Purchase of Development Rights (PDR) Program Grant
Matching Funds that has been received from the Virginia Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, Office
of Farmland Preservation to reimburse fifty percent of the County's actual cost incurred for the purchase of an
agricultural conservation easement. The purchase, through the County’s Acquisition of Conservation Easements
(ACE) program, totals $165,337.50.
Appropriation #2011083 $3,844.63
Revenue Source: Local Revenue: $ 3,844.63
This request is to appropriate three donations made to the County’s School Division. Henley Middle School
received a donation in the amount of $1,344.63 from Henley’s Parent and Teacher Support Organization. The
donor has requested that their contribution be used to help fund the “Enrichment Time before 9” program for the
month of March at Henley Middle School.
Woodbrook Elementary School received a donation in the amount of $500.00 from the Woodbrook PTO. The
donor has requested that this contribution be used to help offset the cost of the fourth grade annual field trip to
Washington, D.C.
Brownsville Elementary School has received a donation in the amount of $2,000.00 from the Robert E. McConnell
Foundation. The foundation asked that this donation be used to purchase snacks for the students at Brownsville
Elementary School.
Return to exec summary
Albemarle County Albemarle County Fluvanna County Greene County Culpeper SWCD Thomas Jefferson SWCD
Lindsay G. Dorrier, Jr. David Brown, Chair Joe Chesser Jim Frydl Bob Runkle Rich Collins
Ann Mallek, Vice Chair Holly Edwards John Gooch, Treasurer Carl Schmitt
Liz Palmer Keith Lancaster Marvin Moss Roberta Savage
706G FOREST STREET
CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 22903
WWW.RIVANNARIVERBASIN.ORG
(434) 971-7722
May 10, 2011
MEMORANDUM
From: Rivanna River Basin Commission
To: Tom Foley, Albemarle County Executive
Ella Jordan, Clerk to the Board
Re: Requesting Letter of Support for RRBC Grant to NFWF for Rivanna Watershed Planning
1. The Rivanna River Basin Commission seeks a Letter of Support for a grant proposal to the
National Fish and Wildlife Foundation for a project to develop a Rivanna Watershed Action
Plan.
2. The Rivanna Watershed Action Plan will provide, through a technical review of existing
conditions and a facilitated development of desired future conditions, specific recommendations
for Albemarle County and the other Rivanna watershed localities to protect and preserve the
natural and water resources of the Rivanna watershed.
3. This Action Plan will complement and support the requirements of the Chesapeake Bay
TMDL, but will go beyond nutrient and sediment reduction goals to identify specific strategies
for meeting the County’s comprehensive plan goals with respect to contributing to Rivanna
watershed protection.
4. RRBC staff will implement the project, with input from the Commissioners and the RRBC
Technical Advisory Committee, which includes two staff persons from the City (Mr. Greg
Harper and Mr. Gregor Patsch). RRBC is not seeking cash match from the County, but rather
the continued commitment of County staff time on the RRBC Technical Advisory Committee.
Thus, project match being sought is “in-kind” (staff time).
5. RRBC will be submitting the grant proposal on June 2, 2011, and is pleased to work with
County staff in drafting the support letter being requested.
6. I hope that the County will be able to consider this request at its upcoming meeting on June 1,
2011.
Leslie Middleton, Executive Director
Albemarle County Letterhead
DRAFT (Sample)
Ms. Amanda Bassow
Director, Chesapeake Programs
National Fish and Wildlife Foundation
1133 15th Street NW, Suite 1100
Washington, D.C. 20005
Re: Healthy Watersheds: Action Plan for the Rivanna
Rivanna River Basin Commission, Small Watershed Grant Proposal
Dear Ms. Bassow,
Albemarle County is pleased to affirm our support for the grant proposal, Healthy
Watersheds: Action Plan for the Rivanna, submitted by the Rivanna River Basin Commission
for the Small Watershed Grants program. Since the inception of the River Basin Commission
(RRBC) in 2007, Albemarle County has participated as a member locality of the Commission,
and several members of our staff are also designated as members of the RRBC’s Technical
Advisory Committee (TAC).
The Commission's proposal, "Healthy Watersheds: Action Plan for the Rivanna," will support
Albemarle County in a number of ways. The Rivanna Watershed Action Plan will provide,
through a technical review of existing conditions and a facilitated development of desired
future conditions, specific recommendations for Albemarle County to protect and preserve the
abundant natural resources of the Rivanna watershed.
The Action Plan for the Rivanna will complement and support the requirements of the
Chesapeake Bay TMDL, especially the Phase II WIP, but will go beyond nutrient and
sediment reduction goals to identify strategies for meeting the County’s goals with respect to
watershed protection in our comprehensive plan update. We are just commencing on a joint
process with Albemarle County to update our plans with a regional focus and will welcome
input from RRBC in this process.
The proposal provides funding for RRBC staff, which will provide welcome support for our
hard-working Albemarle County staff through the watershed action planning process. In turn,
Albemarle County commits to continue to participate on both the Rivanna River Basin
Commission and its TAC. Commissioner and TAC member participation at these meetings
will provide the bulk of our in-kind match for this proposal.
We look forward to continuing our work the Rivanna River Basin Commission and are
hopeful for a successful application for funding.
Sincerely,
Signature
Kindly mail the letter to RRBC (706 Forest Street, Suite G, Charlottesville, VA 22903] by
Friday, May 27, 2011. You do not need to send the letter to NFWF. RRBC will retain the
original at our office. [All proposal documents are submitted by RRBC online to NFWF.]
Albemarle County Letterhead
DRAFT (Sample)
Ms. Amanda Bassow
Director, Chesapeake Programs
National Fish and Wildlife Foundation
1133 15th Street NW, Suite 1100
Washington, D.C. 20005
Re: Healthy Watersheds: Action Plan for the Rivanna
Rivanna River Basin Commission, Small Watershed Grant Proposal
Dear Ms. Bassow,
Albemarle County is pleased to affirm our support for the grant proposal, Healthy
Watersheds: Action Plan for the Rivanna, submitted by the Rivanna River Basin Commission
for the Small Watershed Grants program. Since the inception of the River Basin Commission
(RRBC) in 2007, Albemarle County has participated as a member locality of the Commission,
and several members of our staff are also designated as members of the RRBC’s Technical
Advisory Committee (TAC).
The Commission's proposal, "Healthy Watersheds: Action Plan for the Rivanna," will support
Albemarle County in a number of ways. The Rivanna Watershed Action Plan will provide,
through a technical review of existing conditions and a facilitated development of desired
future conditions, specific recommendations for Albemarle County to protect and preserve the
abundant natural resources of the Rivanna watershed.
The Action Plan for the Rivanna will complement and support the requirements of the
Chesapeake Bay TMDL, especially the Phase II WIP, but will go beyond nutrient and
sediment reduction goals to identify strategies for meeting the County’s goals with respect to
watershed protection in our comprehensive plan update. We are just commencing on a joint
process with Albemarle County to update our plans with a regional focus and will welcome
input from RRBC in this process.
The proposal provides funding for RRBC staff, which will provide welcome support for our
hard-working Albemarle County staff through the watershed action planning process. In turn,
Albemarle County commits to continue to participate on both the Rivanna River Basin
Commission and its TAC. Commissioner and TAC member participation at these meetings
will provide the bulk of our in-kind match for this proposal.
We look forward to continuing our work the Rivanna River Basin Commission and are
hopeful for a successful application for funding.
Sincerely,
Signature
Kindly mail the letter to RRBC (706 Forest Street, Suite G, Charlottesville, VA 22903] by
Friday, May 27, 2011. You do not need to send the letter to NFWF. RRBC will retain the
original at our office. [All proposal documents are submitted by RRBC online to NFWF.]
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road, North Wing
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
Phone (434) 296-5832 Fax (434) 972-4126
MEMORANDUM
To: Planning Commission
From: V. Wayne Cilimberg, Secretary to Planning Commission
Date: April 19, 2011
Re: 2010 Planning Commission Annual Report
Section 15.2-2221 of the Code of Virginia says that, among its duties, the Planning Commission
shall, “5. Make . . . an annual report to the governing body concerning the operation of the
commission and the status of planning within its jurisdiction.” Attached you will find a report
summarizing the activities of the commission in 2010. I am providing this report for your
information and acceptance before forwarding the report to the Board of Supervisors as specified
in the Code of Virginia. Hopefully you will find this information of interest and I am more than
happy to answer any particular questions you might have.
2010 ANNUAL REPORT
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
Section 15.2-2221 of the Code of Virginia stipulates that the local Planning Commission shall “make . . .
an annual report to the governing body concerning the operation of the Commission and the status of
planning within the jurisdiction”. This report is a brief summary of the Albemarle County Planning
Commission’s membership and activity during 2010.
COMMISSION MEMBERSHIP
COMMISSIONER DISTRICT SERVED
Russell (Mac) Lafferty Jack Jouett 1/10 - 12/31/10
Don Franco Rio 3/4/09 - 12/31/10
Cal Morris Rivanna 1/04 - 12/31/10
Ed Smith Samuel Miller 1/10 - 12/31/10
Linda Porterfield Scottsville 1/08 - 12/31/10
Thomas Loach, Chairman White Hall 1/08 - 12/31/10
Duane Zobrist, Vice-Chairman At-Large 1/10 - 12/31/10
Julia Monteith University of Va. (Non-voting) 1/06 - 12/31/10
2010 MEETING AGENDA SUMMARY
# Meetings = ___24___
PUBLIC
HEARINGS/REGULAR
ITEMS # Considered # Approved # Denied # Deferred
Comp Plan
Amendment (Includes
5 Year Review and
Master Plans) (CPA)
2 2 0 0
Zoning Text
Amendment (ZTA) 7 7 0 0
Subdivision Text
Amendment (STA) 1 1 0 0
Comp Plan Compliance
Review (CCP) 0 0 0 0
Zoning Map
Amendment (ZMA) 7 6 0 1
Special Use Permit
(SP) 41 35 1 5
Preliminary Site Plan
(SDP) 2 1 0 1
Final Site Plan (SDP) 0 0 0 0
Preliminary Sub Plat
(SUB) 1 1 0 0
Final Sub Plat (SUB) 0 0 0 0
Site Plan Amendment
(SDP) 0 0 0 0
Site Plan Waiver (SDP) 4 3 1 0
Subdivision Waiver
(SUB) 0 0 0 0
Agricultural/Forestal
District (AFD) 9 9 0 0
CONSENT AGENDA
Preliminary Site Plan
(SDP) 1 1 N/A N/A
Final Site Plan (SDP) 0 0 N/A N/A
Preliminary Sub Plat
(SUB) 0 0 N/A N/A
Final Sub Plat (SUB) 1 1 N/A N/A
Site Plan Amendment
(SDP) 0 0 N/A N/A
Site Plan Waiver (SDP) 3 3 N/A N/A
Subdivision Waiver
(SUB) 0 0 N/A N/A
Agricultural/Forestal
District (AFD) 13 13 N/A N/A
PC Minutes 35 35 N/A N/A
Other 8 8 N/A N/A
WORK SESSION
Comp Plan
Amendment (Includes
5 Year Review and
Master Plans) (CPA)
2 N/A N/A N/A
Zoning Text
Amendment (ZTA) 7 N/A N/A N/A
Subdivision Text
Amendment (STA) 0 N/A N/A N/A
Comp Plan Compliance
Review (CCP) 1 N/A N/A N/A
Zoning Map
Amendment (ZMA) 0 N/A N/A N/A
Special Use Permit
(SP) 0 N/A N/A N/A
Other 5 N/A N/A N/A
2010 HIGHLIGHTS
CPAs considered included the Crozet Master Plan Update and Redfields Expansion
ZTAs considered included Construction of Multiple Dwellings on a Single Parcel, Industrial Uses, Farm
Wineries, Farm/Wayside Stands, Monticello Historic District, Definition of Family, Home Occupations and
Body Shops
STAs considered included the Division of Land with Existing Dwellings
CCPs considered included Peter Jefferson Overlook
ZMAs considered included North Hill, UVa Research Park – North Fork Expansion, National College,
Fontaine Research Park Expansion and Hollymead Town Center Area A-2
SPs considered included Rockfish Wildlife Sanctuary, Grayson Farm Air Strip, Augusta Lumber, St.
Anne’s Playing Field, Charlottesville Kingdom Hall, Re-Store N Station, Faith Christian Center, Baugh
Auto Body, Coleman Morris Development Right, Matheny Development Right, Afton Farmer’s Market,
Forest Lakes Farmer’s Market, Unity Church, Pink Rib bon Polo and the Hungarian Bakery
SDPs considered included Riverfront Townhomes, Wilson Ready Mix Silo Replacement, Hollymead Town
Center Apartments and Personal Wireless Facilities
SUBs considered included Rio Station and Fontana
Special Project Work Sessions held included the CIP, Light Industrial Land Assessment, Subdivision/Site
Plan Process Improvements, Economic Vitality Action Plan, Stream Watch’s Stream Conditions Report
and Joint Meeting of the City and County Planning Commissions
Return to consent agenda
Return to regular agenda
I. Comparison of New Residential Dwelling Units (Table I & Chart A)
II. Comparison of Residential Dwelling Units by Type (Tables II, III, & IV)
III. Comparison of All Building Permits (Table V)
KEY TO TYPES OF HOUSING REFERRED TO IN REPORT
SF Single-Family (includes modular)
SFA Single-Family Attached
SF/TH Single-Family Townhouse
SFC Single-Family Condominium
DUP Duplex
MF Multi-Family
MHC Mobile Home in the County (not in an existing park)
AA Accessory Apartment
INDEX
Community Development Department
2011
FIRST QUARTER
BUILDING REPORT
County of Albemarle
Office of Geographic Data Services
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
(434) 296-5832
- 2 -
I. Comparison of Residential Dwelling Units
Table I. Nine Year Comparison of New Residential Dwelling Units by Comprehensive Plan Development Area and Rural Area
2011
Dev Rural Dev Rural Dev Rural Dev Rural Dev Rural Dev Rural Dev Rural Dev Rural Dev Rural Totals
1st Quarter 184 52 51 26 157 123 81 64 267 57 78 49 38 20 91 24 372 26 398
2nd Quarter 133 90 105 107 121 66 101 80 232 38 86 53 71 26 65 27 0
3rd Quarter 103 72 72 82 188 46 65 67 73 67 47 47 50 30 358 23 0
4th Quarter 361 84 90 66 68 61 68 49 57 40 28 30 91 13 29 33 0
781 298 318 281 534 296 315 260 629 202 239 179 250 89 543 107 372 26
Chart A. Nine Year Comparison of New Residential Dwelling Units by Comprehensive Plan Development Area and Rural Area
2008 2011
398418 339 650
During the first quarter of 2011, 121 building permits were issued for 398 dwelling units. There were two permits issued for mobile homes in an existing park, at
an exchange rate of $2,500, for a total of $5,000. There were no permits issued for the conversion of an apartment to a condominium.
COMP PLAN
AREA
TOTALS
Quarter
YEAR TO
DATE
TOTALS
831830 575
20102009
1079 599
2003 2004 2005 2006 2007
Nine Year Comparison of New Residential Dwelling Units
Prepared by the Albemarle County Office of Geographic Data Services
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
Dev AreaRural AreaDev AreaRural AreaDev AreaRural AreaDev AreaRural AreaDev AreaRural AreaDev AreaRural AreaDev AreaRural AreaDev AreaRural AreaDev AreaRural Area2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011*Dwelling UnitsNine Year Comparison of New Residential Dwelling Units
Other Units SF Unit*Through First Quarter
Prepared by the Albemarle County Office of Geographic Data Services
- 3 -
1st Quarter 2011
II. COMPARISON OF RESIDENTIAL DWELLING UNITS BY TYPE
Table II. Breakdown of New Residential Dwelling Units by Magisterial District and Dwelling Unit Type
MAGISTERIAL DWELLING UNIT TYPE TOTAL % TOTAL
DISTRICT SF SFA SF/TH SFC DUP MF MHC AA UNITS UNITS
RIO 21 0 6 0 0 288 0 0 315 79%
JACK JOUETT 3 0 8 0 0 0 0 0 11 3%
RIVANNA 4 0 16 0 0 0 0 0 20 5%
SAMUEL MILLER 7 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 2%
SCOTTSVILLE 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 2%
WHITE HALL 23 3 9 0 0 0 2 0 37 9%
TOTAL 65 4 39 0 0 288 2 0 398 100%
Table III. Breakdown of New Residential Dwelling Units by Comprehensive Plan Area and Dwelling Unit Type
DWELLING UNIT TYPE TOTAL % TOTAL
SF SFA SF/TH SFC DUP MF MHC AA UNITS UNITS
URBAN NEIGHBORHOOD 1 0 0 8 0 0 0 0 0 8 2%
URBAN NEIGHBORHOOD 2 20 0 6 0 0 288 0 0 314 79%
URBAN NEIGHBORHOOD 3 0 0 16 0 0 0 0 0 16 4%
URBAN NEIGHBORHOOD 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0%
URBAN NEIGHBORHOOD 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0%
URBAN NEIGHBORHOOD 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0%
URBAN NEIGHBORHOOD 7 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 1%
22 0 30 0 0 288 0 0 340 85%
CROZET COMMUNITY 20 3 9 0 0 0 0 0 32 8%
HOLLYMEAD COMMUNITY 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0%
PINEY MOUNTAIN COMMUNITY 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0%
20 3 9 0 0 0 0 0 32 8%
RIVANNA VILLAGE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0%
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0%
42 3 39 0 0 288 0 0 372 93%
RURAL AREA 1 5 1 0 0 0 0 2 0 8 2%
RURAL AREA 2 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 1%
RURAL AREA 3 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 1%
RURAL AREA 4 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 3%
23 1 0 0 0 0 2 0 26 7%
65 4 39 0 0 288 2 0 398 100%
TOTAL
DEVELOPMENT AREA SUBTOTAL
RURAL AREA SUBTOTAL
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AREA
URBAN AREAS SUBTOTAL
COMMUNITIES SUBTOTAL
VILLAGE SUBTOTAL
Prepared by the Albemarle County Office of Geographic Data Services
- 4 -
1st Quarter 2011
II. COMPARISON OF RESIDENTIAL DWELLING UNITS BY TYPE (continued)
Table IV. Breakdown of Residential Dwelling Units by Elementary School District and Dwelling Unit Type
% TOTAL
SF SF/TH DUP MHC UNITS
Agnor-Hurt 21 6 0 0 79%
Baker Butler 2 0 0 0 1%
Broadus Wood 2 0 0 1 1%
Brownsville 22 9 0 0 9%
Cale 0 0 0 0 0%
Crozet 0 0 0 0 0%
Greer 2 8 0 0 3%
Hollymead 0 0 0 0 0%
Meriwether Lewis 2 0 0 1 1%
Murray 1 0 0 0 1%
Red Hill 4 0 0 0 1%
Scottsville 6 0 0 0 2%
Stone Robinson 1 16 0 0 4%
Stony Point 1 0 0 0 0%
Woodbrook 0 0 0 0 0%
Yancey 1 0 0 0 0%
TOTAL
III. COMPARISON OF ALL BUILDING PERMITS
Table V. Estimated Cost of Construction by Magisterial District and Construction Type
MAGISTERIAL NEW *NEW NON-RES. **NEW COMMERCIAL FARM BUILDING
DISTRICT RESIDENTIAL & ALTER. RES. & NEW INSTITUT. & ALTER. COMM.
No. No. No. No. No.
RIO 38 16 11 64 129
JOUETT 11 11 1 1 24
RIVANNA 20 38 1 25 84
S. MILLER 8 26 0 7 41
SCOTTSVILLE 7 14 1 8 30
WHITE HALL 37 34 0 6 77
* Additional value of mobile homes placed in existing parks is included in the Alteration Residential category.
* Additional value of Single-Family Condominium Conversions is included in the Alteration Residential category.
0 0
0
39 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
3 0
0 0
0 0
SCHOOL
DISTRICT SFA SFC
DWELLING UNIT TYPE
MF AA
0
0
0 0
0
0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0
0
1
0
1,325,800$
10,469,500$
121
382,835$
1,459,000$
139
28,119,079$
3,446,135$
7,199,461$
4,027,000$
2,111,307$
12,026,120$ 97,620$
263,500$
256,000$ 23,069,093$
175,000$
Amount-$
1,079,911$
1,626,594$
2,030,000$
4,306,000$
2,136,906$
1,395,543$
0
0
20,000$
120,000$
-$
3,229,086$
288
Amount-$
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
315
2
3
34
6
0
0
288
0
10
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
TOTAL
UNITS
17
1
0
1
3
4
1,693,550$
0
0
0
2
398
0
0
0
0
* Additional value of condominium shell buildings is included in the New Non-Residential category. Additional permitting associated with the
residential component of condominium shell buildings will be necessary and reported in other tables of the Building Report as permitting occurs.
** Additional value of mixed use buildings is included in the New Commercial category. Mixed use buildings are comprised of residential and
commercial uses. Additional permitting associated with the residential component of mixed use buildings will be necessary and reported in other
tables of the Building Report as permitting occurs.
TOTAL
100%
111 3853,847,834$ 56,929,102$
Amount-$
227,672$
1,564,900$
2
592$
Amount-$
65 4
TOTAL 43,337,299$ 6,199,883$ 14 3,544,086$
-$
Amount-$
Prepared by the Albemarle County Office of Geographic Data Services
I. Comparison of New Residential Dwelling Units (Table I & Chart A)
II. Comparison of Residential Dwelling Units by Type (Tables II, III, & IV)
III. Comparison of All Building Permits (Table V)
KEY TO TYPES OF HOUSING REFERRED TO IN REPORT
SF Single-Family (includes modular)
SFA Single-Family Attached
SF/TH Single-Family Townhouse
SFC Single-Family Condominium
DUP Duplex
MF Multi-Family
MHC Mobile Home in the County (not in an existing park)
AA Accessory Apartment
INDEX
Office of Geographic Data Services
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
(434) 296-5832
Community Development Department
2011
FIRST QUARTER
CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY REPORT
County of Albemarle
- 2 -
I. Comparison of Residential Dwelling Units
Table I. Comparison of New Residential Dwelling Units by Comprehensive Plan Development Area and Rural Area
Dev Rural Dev Rural Dev Rural Dev Rural Dev Rural
1st Quarter 91 36 166 36 57 47 92 89 32 22
2nd Quarter 132 75 52 48 52 32 111 22
3rd Quarter 104 47 57 45 168 30 76 18
4th Quarter 66 62 65 42 69 63 52 24
393 220 340 171 346 172 331 153 32 22
Chart A. Comparison of New Residential Dwelling Units by Comprehensive Plan Development Area and Rural Area
0
0
54
2011 2011
Totals
54
0
107
518
2009
Totals
104
84
2009
132
YEAR TO
DATE
TOTALS
511613
COMP PLAN
AREA
TOTALS
128
151
Quarter
198
127
Totals
202
Totals
102
207 100
200820082007 2007
During the first quarter of 2011, 54 certificates of occupancy were issued for 54 dwelling units. There was one certificate of
occupancy issued for a mobile home in an existing park, at an exchange rate of $2,500, for a total of $2,500. There were no
certificates of occupancy issued for the conversion of an apartment to a condominium.
484
2010 2010
Totals
181
133
94
76
Annual Comparison of New Residential Dwelling Units
*Through First Quarter
Annual Comparison of New Residential Dwelling Units
Prepared by the Albemarle County Office of Geographic Data Services
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
Dev Area Rural
Area
Dev Area Rural
Area
Dev Area Rural
Area
Dev Area Rural
Area
Dev Area Rural
Area
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011*Dwelling UnitsAnnual Comparison of New Residential Dwelling Units
SF Unit Other Units
*Through First Quarter
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
Dev Area Rural
Area
Dev Area Rural
Area
Dev Area Rural
Area
Dev Area Rural
Area
Dev Area Rural
Area
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011*Dwelling UnitsAnnual Comparison of New Residential Dwelling Units
SF Unit Other Units*Through First Quarter
Prepared by the Albemarle County Office of Geographic Data Services
- 3 -
1st Quarter 2011
II. COMPARISON OF RESIDENTIAL DWELLING UNITS BY TYPE
Table II. Breakdown of New Residential Dwelling Units by Magisterial District and Dwelling Unit Type
MAGISTERIAL DWELLING UNIT TYPE TOTAL % TOTAL
DISTRICT SF SFA SF/TH SFC DUP MF MHC AA UNITS UNITS
RIO 4 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 5 9%
JACK JOUETT 1 0 8 0 0 0 0 0 9 17%
RIVANNA 5 0 2 0 0 0 0 1 8 15%
SAMUEL MILLER 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 9%
SCOTTSVILLE 7 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 8 15%
WHITE HALL 15 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 19 35%
TOTAL 37 0 15 0 0 0 1 1 54 100%
Table III. Breakdown of New Residential Dwelling Units by Comprehensive Plan Area and Dwelling Unit Type
DWELLING UNIT TYPE TOTAL % TOTAL
SF SFA SF/TH SFC DUP MF MHC AA UNITS UNITS
URBAN NEIGHBORHOOD 1 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 6 11%
URBAN NEIGHBORHOOD 2 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 7%
URBAN NEIGHBORHOOD 3 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 4%
URBAN NEIGHBORHOOD 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0%
URBAN NEIGHBORHOOD 5 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2%
URBAN NEIGHBORHOOD 6 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 4%
URBAN NEIGHBORHOOD 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0%
5 0 10 0 0 0 0 0 15 28%
CROZET COMMUNITY 9 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 13 24%
HOLLYMEAD COMMUNITY 3 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 4 7%
PINEY MOUNTAIN COMMUNITY 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0%
12 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 17 31%
RIVANNA VILLAGE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0%
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0%
17 0 15 0 0 0 0 0 32 59%
RURAL AREA 1 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 7%
RURAL AREA 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 3 6%
RURAL AREA 3 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 11%
RURAL AREA 4 8 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 9 17%
20 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 22 41%
37 0 15 0 0 0 1 1 54 100%
TOTAL
DEVELOPMENT AREA SUBTOTAL
RURAL AREA SUBTOTAL
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AREA
URBAN AREAS SUBTOTAL
COMMUNITIES SUBTOTAL
VILLAGE SUBTOTAL
Prepared by the Albemarle County Office of Geographic Data Services
- 4 -
1st Quarter 2011
II. COMPARISON OF RESIDENTIAL DWELLING UNITS BY TYPE (continued)
Table IV. Breakdown of Residential Dwelling Units by Elementary School District and Dwelling Unit Type
% TOTAL
SF SF/TH DUP MHC UNITS
Agnor-Hurt 3 0 0 0 6%
Baker Butler 0 0 0 0 0%
Broadus Wood 2 0 0 0 4%
Brownsville 12 4 0 0 30%
Cale 1 0 0 0 2%
Crozet 1 0 0 0 2%
Greer 0 8 0 0 15%
Hollymead 3 1 0 0 7%
Meriwether Lewis 1 0 0 0 2%
Murray 2 0 0 0 4%
Red Hill 2 0 0 0 4%
Scottsville 5 0 0 0 9%
Stone Robinson 1 2 0 0 7%
Stony Point 2 0 0 0 4%
Woodbrook 1 0 0 0 2%
Yancey 1 0 0 1 4%
TOTAL
III. COMPARISON OF ALL BUILDING PERMITS
Table V. Estimated Cost of Construction by Magisterial District and Construction Type
MAGISTERIAL #NEW *NEW NON-RES. **NEW COMMERCIAL FARM BUILDING
DISTRICT RESIDENTIAL & ALTER. RES. & NEW INSTITUT. & ALTER. COMM.
No. No. No. No. No.
RIO 5 5 1 4 15
JOUETT 9 5 1 1 16
RIVANNA 8 13 1 5 27
S. MILLER 5 6 0 0 11
SCOTTSVILLE 8 11 0 0 19
WHITE HALL 19 10 0 2 31
* Additional value of mobile homes placed in existing parks is included in the Alteration Residential category.
* Additional value of Single-Family Condominium Conversions is included in the Alteration Residential category.
* Additional value of condominium shell buildings is included in the New Non-Residential category. Additional permitting associated with the residential
component of condominium shell buildings will be necessary and reported in other tables of the Building Report as permitting occurs.
** Additional value of mixed use buildings is included in the New Commercial category. Mixed use buildings are comprised of residential and commercial
uses. Additional permitting associated with the residential component of mixed use buildings will be necessary and reported in other tables of the
Building Report as permitting occurs.
0 0
0 0
0
37 0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Amount-$
68,873$ 1,095,000$
0
SCHOOL
DISTRICT SFA SFC
DWELLING UNIT TYPE
MF
0 0
15 0
0
0
0 0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0 0
0
0 0
0
6,243,800$
0
-$
1,982,985$
0
TOTAL
Amount-$
1
0
Amount-$
540
3,041,460$
2,208,800$
352,000$
-$
2,000,000$
1,865,000$
0 0
1
1
TOTAL
UNITS
3
0
2
16
0
0
0
00
AA
0
0
0
0 0
0 0
0
..
100%
12 1192,082,840$ 25,088,858$
4
2
1
2
11
408,940$
Amount-$ Amount-$
644,460$
343,800$
0
5,000,000$
3,280,618$ 3 5,065,000$
2,621,000$
00
0
0
71,900$
2
2
5
0
0
0
0
6,572,813$
5,039,000$ 20,000$
0
0
8
4
1
-$
45,000$
TOTAL
5,676,400$ -$
5014,660,400$
0 0
-$
1,250,000$
54
579,985$
495,500$
1,148,000$
1,403,000$
Prepared by the Albemarle County Office of Geographic Data Services
County of Albemarle
Department of Community Development
Memorandum
TO: Members, Albemarle County Board of Supervisors
FROM: Amelia G. McCulley, Zoning Administrator
DATE: May 4, 2011
RE: 2010 Annual Report of the Board of Zoning Appeals
State Code Section 15.2-2308 requires the Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA) to keep a full public record of
its proceedings and to submit a report of its activities to the governing body. The full 2010 annual report is
attached for your information.
The Board of Zoning Appeals hears variances from the Zoning Ordinance, special use permits for certain
sign types, and appeals from decisions of the Zoning Administrator or her designee. These appeals can
include determinations of zoning violation.
The number of appeals in 2010 decreased by 7, from 11 received in 2009 to 4 in 2010. Two were
affirmed, one was withdrawn, and one was deferred indefinitely by the applicant.
The number of variances in 2010 decreased by 3, from 9 received in 2009 to 6 in 2010. Of the six, four
variances were approved and two were withdrawn.
The number of special use permits for off-site signs increased by 5, from 2 in 2009 to 7 in 2010. All seven
were approved with conditions, but one case was later withdrawn by the applicant and rescinded by the
BZA.
The following Circuit Court cases are still pending:
1. Paul Begin, et al. v. Board of Zoning Appeals and Planned Parenthood: Appeal of use
determination.
2. Scott W. and Caroline F. Watkins v. Board of Zoning Appeals: Appeal of determination of zoning
violation.
3. Ellen Hawkins v Board of Zoning Appeals: Appeal of determination of zoning violation.
I:\DEPT\Community Development\Zoning & Current Development Division\BZA\Annual Reports\2010 bza annual report.docx
ALBEMARLE COUNTY BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
2010 ANNUAL REPORT
I. INTRODUCTION
The Code of Virginia states that the Board of Zoning Appeals shall submit a report of its
activities to the governing body at least once each year {Sec. 15.2 -2308}. This report is
a brief outline of their activities.
II. PERSONNEL
The Board of Zoning Appeals consists of five members. They are appointed by the
Circuit Court for a term not to exceed five years. The Bo ard members during the year
2010 were:
Member _____________Term Expiration
David Bass, Chairman Reappointed May 23, 2007 for a five year term –
to expire May 23, 2012
Lloyd (L.F.) Wood, Vice Chairman Reappointed February 29, 2010 for a five year
term – to expire May 23, 2015
Randy Rinehart, Secretary Reappointed May 23, 2006 for a five year term –
to expire May 23, 2011
David Bowerman Appointed April 22, 2009 for a four year term (to
replace Mr. Kennedy for the unexpired portion of
his term) – to expire May 23, 2013
M. Clifton McClure Appointed May 15, 2009 for a five year term (to
replace Mr. Cogan for the unexpired portion of his
term) – to expire May 23, 2014
III. OPERATING PROCEDURES
Regular meetings of the Board are held the first Tuesday of each month starting at 2:00
p.m. Special meetings may be called in cases of a high number of submittals when the
regular schedule does not provide sufficient hearing time. These special meetings may
begin at 1:00 p.m.
The Board operates with Rules of Procedure which were adopted November 15, 2002.
Board of Zoning Appeals 2010 Annual Report Page 2
I:\DEPT\Community Development\Zoning & Current Development Division\BZA\Annual Reports\2010 bza annual report.docx
IV. EXPENSES
The Board of Zoning Appeals does not have a separate budget. Compensation and
mileage are included within the budget of the Department of Community Development.
Funding for Board salaries in the fiscal year 2009-2010 was consistent with prior years
and expenses were a total of $2467.00. Board members are paid $45 per meeting and
are reimbursed for mileage traveled to the meetings.
Staff to the Board includes the Director of Zoning (Zoning Administrator), Chief of
Zoning (Deputy Zoning Administrator), Permit Planners, and Code Enforcement
Officers. Support staff includes the Recording Secretary.
V. ACTION SUMMARY
The Board of Zoning Appeals held 9 meetings in 2010. The number of submittals and
actions considered by the Board in 2010 are shown in the following tables:
Variances
Six (6) variance applications were received in 2010. Four (4) variances were approved
and two were withdrawn.
Application # Project Name Type of request Approved Denied With
Conditions
VA10-02 Farrar Woltz
Antique Store
Relief from Code
Sec. 18-4.1.3 to
reduce the area
requirements for two
uses (antique store).
(5-0) X
VA10-03 Hollymead Town
Center Sign
Height
Increase in the
maximum sign height
from 12 feet to 16
feet.
(4-0; McClure
recused
himself)
X
VA10-04 Lot 1, Blue Hills
Subdivision
Relief from Code
Sec. 18-10.4 to
reduce front setback
from 75 ft. to 70.5 ft.
(5-0) X
VA10-05 Dave’s Auto
Detailing and
Repair
Relief from Code
Sec. 18-4.1.3 to
reduce the area
requirements for two
uses (garage).
(5-0) X
Withdrawn
Application # Project Name Withdrawn
VA10-01 Mattress Discounters X
VA10-06 Parr Project X
Board of Zoning Appeals 2010 Annual Report Page 3
I:\DEPT\Community Development\Zoning & Current Development Division\BZA\Annual Reports\2010 bza annual report.docx
Appeals
Four (4) appeals were heard by the BZA in 2010. Two (2) were affirmed, one (1) was
withdrawn, and one (1) was deferred indefinitely by the applicant.
Application # Appellant or Project Name Affirmed, Modified, Reversed
ZA (Zoning Administrator) or
DZA (Deputy Zoning
Administrator)
Type
AP10-01 Kent Sinclair Denied Appeal as Untimely
(4-1) and Affirmed (5-0):
The applicants for
SDP20090004 were eligible
to request a critical slopes
waiver from the Planning
Commission.
Determination that the
applicants were
eligible as
“developers” or
“subdividers” under
Sec. 18-4.2.5
AP10-02 Re-Store’N Station Affirmed DZA (4-0; McClure
recused himself):
The proposed use is a by-
right use in the Highway
Commercial zoning district
and the anticipated discharge
falls within the limits of
“domestic waste” as defined
by Chapter 16 of the
Albemarle County Code and
the Virginia Department of
Health.
Determination the
proposed use was
allowed by-right
Withdrawn and Deferred
Application # Project Name Withdrawn / Dismissed / Moot Deferred Definitely /
Indefinitely
AP10-04 Robert A. Kusyk Deferred Indefinitely
AP10-05 Keswick Vineyards Withdrawn
Special Use Permits
Seven (7) special use permits for off-site signs were heard in 2010. One (1) case was
approved, but later was withdrawn by the applicant and rescinded by the BZA.
Application # Project Name Type of request Approved Denied With
Conditions
SP10-04 Mill Creek
Business Park
Monument Sign
Erect a freestanding
monument sign to
serve the Mill Creek
Business Park.
(5-0) X
SP08-34 Church of the
Incarnation Sign
Erect a freestanding
sign to serve the
Church of the
Incarnation.
(5-0) X
SP10-07 Hollymead Town
Center Sign
Erect a freestanding
sign to serve
Hollymead Town
Center.
(4-0;
McClure
recused
himself)
X
Board of Zoning Appeals 2010 Annual Report Page 4
I:\DEPT\Community Development\Zoning & Current Development Division\BZA\Annual Reports\2010 bza annual report.docx
Application # Project Name Type of request Approved Denied With
Conditions
SP10-12 Gardens
Shopping Center
Rt. 29 Sign
Erect a freestanding
monument sign to
serve the Gardens
Shopping Center.
(5-0) X
SP10-13 Gardens
Shopping Center
Carmike Sign
Erect a freestanding
monument sign to
serve the Gardens
Shopping Center.
(5-0) X
SP10-15 UVa. Research
Park Sign
Erect two
freestanding
monument signs to
serve the Town
Center District within
the North Fork
Research Park.
(5-0) X
SP10-24 Liberty Hall Sign Erect a freestanding
sign to serve Liberty
Hall subdivision.
(3-2)
See later
action
(withdrawn
& rescinded)
X
Withdrawn and Rescinded
Application # Project Name Approved
SP10-24 Liberty Hall Sign (4-0; Rinehart absent)
V. COURT ACTIONS
The following are pending or recently resolved court actions involving the Board of
Zoning Appeals:
1. Paul Begin, et al. v. Board of Zoning Appeals and Planned Parenthood: Petition
for writ of certiorari filed in Albemarle County Circuit Court challenging the 2004
decision of the Board of Zoning Appeals that Planned Parenthood's use of the
property is a professional office use. The court has issued a writ of certiorari
directing the Board of Zoning Appeals to file the record of its proceedings. A trial
date has not been set.
2. Scott W. and Caroline F. Watkins v. Board of Zoning Appeals: Petition for writ of
certiorari filed in Albemarle County Circuit Court challenging the 2005 decision of
the Board of Zoning Appeals that the use of the property by Watkins & Co.
Landscape Contracting constitutes a contractor's storage yard which is not a
permitted use in the Rural Areas District. The applicants have pursued a
different location. The applicants have obtained rezoning and final site plan
approval from the County. The appeal has neither been actively pursued nor
withdrawn.
Board of Zoning Appeals 2010 Annual Report Page 5
I:\DEPT\Community Development\Zoning & Current Development Division\BZA\Annual Reports\2010 bza annual report.docx
3. Ellen Hawkins v Board of Zoning Appeals: Petition for writ of certiorari filed in
Albemarle County Circuit Court challenging the 2007 decision of the Board of
Zoning Appeals that keeping 27 adult dogs and seven puppies, portable cages,
portable kennels, fixed kennels, bulk amounts of dog food and related material
on site is not a permitted use in the R2, Residential District. The County and the
BZA have not been served with the petition.
4. T.E. Wood and Mahmood Pashazadeh v Board of Zoning Appeals: Petition for
writ of certiorari filed in Albemarle County Circuit Court challenging the decision
of the Board of Zoning Appeals that the business use established at tax map 46,
parcel 28A1 is not a permitted use in the R-1 Residential District. On February
24, 2011, the Circuit Court affirmed the BZA’s decision.
5. HE&J, Inc. v Board of Zoning Appeals: Petition for writ of certiorari filed in
Albemarle County Circuit Court challenging the decision of the Board of Zoning
Appeals that the proposed use on tax map 55B, parcel 1 is a by-right use in the
HC Highway Commercial zoning district as a “convenience store” and
“automobile service station” and the anticipated discharge from this use falls
within the limits of “domestic waste” as defined by Chapter 16 of the Albemarle
County Code and the Virginia Department of Health. The plaintiffs withdrew their
appeal on January 20, 2011.
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
FY11 Third Quarter Financial Report
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Third Quarter Financial Report for the nine months
ending March 31, 2011
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Messrs. Foley, Letteri, Davis, Koonce and Walters;
and Ms. Vinzant
LEGAL REVIEW:
AGENDA DATE:
June 01, 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
March 31, 2011. The financial report includes a bar chart that compares current fiscal year revenue and expenditure
data with data from the previous fiscal year.
Recent national economic data points toward reduced growth for 2011. GDP increased 1.5% for the 1st quarter and is
estimated to increase 2.0% for the 2nd quarter and 2.4% for the full year compared to 2.8% in the 4th quarter of 2010.
This growth is well below the consensus estimates of economists. Overall growth continues to be restrained by
cutbacks in government spending as well as struggles in the housing market. Economists are raising concer ns over
rising commodity prices, regulatory gridlock, and anemic domestic and global economies. Any drop in commodity
prices will need to be sustainable, something not guaranteed, to ease anxiety. Wholesale prices continue to rise,
particularly in the food and energy sectors. On the positive side, manufacturing is thriving and should continue to grow
over the next 12 months. Non-farm private employment continues to strengthen but the national unemployment rate
rose to 9.0% in April due to unemployed workers re-entering the job market as well as increased government layoffs.
DISCUSSION:
A. Attachment A: General Fund Financial Report:
a. Revenues:
Revenues, excluding Transfers and Fund Balance Appropriations, are estimated to total $213.506 million,
$2.922 million (1.4%) more than appropriations of $210.584 million. Combined with the use of $2.425
million in transfers from other funds and $0.806 million in fund balance, Revenues, Transfers, and Use of
Fund Balance will total $216.738 million, $2.435 million (1.1%) more than Budget.
Revenue estimates included in this report are based on 9 months of actual receipts in the fiscal year.
With nine months of actual data, the estimate should approximate final collections. However, property
taxes and business licenses have June due dates and could still impact projections.
Following is a brief revenue analysis for the FY 10/11 fiscal year:
Real Estate Tax revenues are projected to be $0.661 million (0.6%) less than Budget, an
increase of $0.140 million over 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 $0.241 million (1.3%), an
increase of $0.193 million over the previous Financial Report. The impact of the Cash for
Clunkers program has faded over time but new sales have just started to improve due to
postponed demand and improved economic conditions.
AGENDA TITLE: FY11 Third Quarter Financial Report
June 1, 2011
Page 2
Delinquent Property Taxes & Fees are estimated to exceed Budget by $1.197 million (51.4%),
an increase of $0.775 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. Revalidation rollback revenues are
reserved and not included in General Fund projections.
Sales Tax revenues are estimated to exceed Budget by $1.680 million (15.2%), an increase of
$0.750 million over the previous Financial Report. The overall impact is due to both increased
consumer purchases as well as 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 $0.304 million (3.3%), a
$0.190 million increase over 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 $0.204 million (2.3%), a $0.042 million
decrease from the previous Financial Report. The overall increase is due to anticipated
additional revenues resulting from weather and improved economic conditions.
Food and Beverage Tax revenues are estimated to be $0.250 million (4.4%) less than Budget,
a $0.100 million increase over the previous Financial Report.
Federal Revenues are estimated to exceed Budget by $0.2 14 million (4.8%), an increase of
$0.019 million over the previous Financial Report. The increase is primarily due to increased
reimbursements for DSS services.
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 $211.891 million, a 1.1% savings of
$2.411 million from Budget. The savings include reduced health care expense, VRS Life Insurance
savings, additional Police salary lapse, and the anticipated release of the revenue shortfall contingency.
i. Departmental expenditures are expected to total $79.041 million, a 1.6% savings of $1.326
million from Budget: The savings are allocated by functional area as follows:
Administration expenditures are expected to total $10.307 million, a 1.8% savings of
$0.188 million from Budget.
Judicial expenditures are expected to total $3.792 million, a 3.5% savings of $0.138
million from Budget
Public Safety expenditures are expected to total $29.066 million, a 1.2% savings of
$0.366 million from Budget.
Public Works expenditures are expected to total $4.363 million, a 3.7% savings of $0.167
million from Budget.
Human Services expenditures are expected to total $18.929 million, a 1.6% savings of
$0.308 million from Budget.
Parks and Culture expenditures are expected to total $6.211 million, a 0.6% savings of
$0.039 million from Budget.
Community Development expenditures are expected to total $6.373 million, a 1.9%
savings of $0.120 million from Budget.
AGENDA TITLE: FY11 Third Quarter Financial Report
June 1, 2011
Page 3
ii. Non-Department expenditures consisting of the revenue sharing payment, reserves, and
refunds are expected to total $19.813 million, a 5.2% 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 expected to be $16.979 million.
c. Revenues less Expenditures:
This report projects that FY 10/11 will end with $4.846 million of revenues in excess of expenditures.
Revenues and related transfers are projected to exceed Budget by $2.435 million. Expenditures and
related transfers are expected to produce $2.411 million in savings.
An estimated $2.613 million of this FY 10/11 projection is anticipated to be used to establish the County’s
Stabilization Fund per the Board’s approved FY 11/12 Budget. A portion of the FY 10/11 remaining
“Revenues less Expenditures” will be required for various end-of-year reappropriations. Per County
policy, any funds remaining thereafter would be available to be transferred to Capital.
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, Business License Tax, Utility Tax, Food and Beverage Tax,
Other Local Taxes, Other Local Revenue, and Federal Revenue show positive growth over
FY09/10 Actuals.
Real Estate Tax, 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, and
Non-Departmental expenditures show anticipated increases over FY10.
Community Development, 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 $24.566 million,
Appropriated $0.807 million for Budgeted FY11 Initiatives and Reappropriations,
Has a remaining June 30, 2010 Fund Balance of $23.759 million,
Has Policy required Undesignated Fund Balance of $20.905 million*, and
Has Policy June 30, 2010 available funds of $2.854 million.
Proposed FY11 commitments: If the Board approves the Budget Amendment/Reappropriation
request that is also included in the Board of Supervisor’s June 1, 2011 Consent Agenda, $2.0
million will be transferred to the adopted FY 12-FY 16 Capital Improvement Plan from the FY
09/10 Fund Balance consistent with the adopted CIP for FY 2011. If the request is approved by
the Board, the FY 09/10 undesignated year end Fund Balance would still exceed the 8% target
by $0.854 million and be available for transfer to the Capital Fund if all other reserve targets are
met at the end of the current fiscal year.
*The $20.905 million Policy reserve consists of the 8.0% net General Government and School Operating Budget
requirement.
D. Budget Impact:
This Financial Report is based on audited FY10 financial data and nine months of financial data for FY11.
AGENDA TITLE: FY11 Third Quarter Financial Report
June 1, 2011
Page 4
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
Full Year
Actual (1)
03/31/10
YTD Actual
YTD Actual
as % of
Full Year
07/01/10
Adopted (2)
03/31/11
Appropriations
03/31/11
YTD Actual
YTD Actual
as % of
Appropriations
Revenue
Estimate (3)
$
Variances
Est-Approp
Variances
as % of
Appropriations
Revenues:
Real Estate Taxes, Current $112.462 $58.064 51.6%$111.973 $111.973 $56.229 50.2%$111.312 ($0.661)-0.6%
Personal Property Taxes, Current 19.020 10.108 53.1%19.184 19.184 10.231 53.3%19.425 0.241 1.3%
Delinquent Property Taxes & Fees 3.105 2.247 72.4%2.331 2.331 2.836 121.6%3.529 1.197 51.4%
Sales Taxes 11.623 6.776 58.3%11.070 11.070 7.548 68.2%12.750 1.680 15.2%
Business Licenses 9.508 4.448 46.8%9.325 9.325 5.376 57.7%9.629 0.304 3.3%
Utility Taxes 8.965 2.938 32.8%9.008 9.008 5.658 62.8%9.213 0.204 2.3%
Food and Beverage Taxes 5.390 3.438 63.8%5.650 5.650 3.726 65.9%5.400 (0.250)-4.4%
Other Local Taxes 9.817 6.332 64.5%9.761 9.761 3.721 38.1%9.665 (0.096)-1.0%
Other Local Revenue 4.792 2.974 62.1%5.157 5.184 3.524 68.0%5.231 0.048 0.9%
State Revenue 23.134 14.000 60.5%22.687 22.687 13.579 59.9%22.727 0.041 0.2%
Federal Revenue 4.407 2.824 64.1%4.337 4.413 3.009 68.2%4.626 0.214 4.8%
Total Revenues 212.221 114.147 53.8%210.482 210.584 115.437 54.8%213.506 2.922 1.4%
Use of Other Funds 2.477 0.137 5.5%2.692 2.912 0.068 2.4%2.425 (0.486)-16.7%
Use of Fund Balance 1.552 0.802 51.7%0.092 0.806 0.605 75.0%0.806 0.000 0.0%
Total $216.249 $115.086 53.2%$213.266 $214.302 $116.110 54.2%$216.738 $2.435 1.1%
FY 09/10
Full Year
Actual (1)
03/31/10
YTD Actual
YTD Actual
as % of
Full Year
07/01/10
Adopted (2)
03/31/11
Appropriations
03/31/11
YTD Actual
YTD Actual
as % of
Appropriations
Expenditure
Estimate (3)
$
Variances
Est-Approp
Variances
as % of
Appropriations
Expenditures:
Administration $10.291 $7.405 72.0%$10.356 $10.495 $7.670 73.1%$10.307 -$0.188 -1.8%
Judicial 3.647 2.744 75.2%3.894 3.930 2.856 72.7%3.792 -$0.138 -3.5%
Public Safety 28.546 21.355 74.8%29.228 29.431 21.130 71.8%29.066 -$0.366 -1.2%
Public Works 4.242 3.340 78.7%4.506 4.530 3.249 71.7%4.363 -$0.167 -3.7%
Human Services 17.561 11.408 65.0%19.209 19.238 10.916 56.7%18.929 -$0.308 -1.6%
Parks, Rec. & Culture 6.188 5.641 91.1%6.239 6.250 4.534 72.5%6.211 -$0.039 -0.6%
Community Development 6.926 5.628 81.3%6.222 6.493 4.542 70.0%6.373 -$0.120 -1.9%
Subtotal Operations 77.401 57.521 74.3%79.655 80.367 54.898 68.3%79.041 -$1.326 -1.6%
Non-Dept (revenue share; reserves; refunds)18.112 18.095 99.9%20.574 20.898 18.557 88.8%19.813 -$1.085 -5.2%
Transfers:
Transfer to School Division 97.042 48.773 50.3%96.058 96.058 72.043 75.0%96.058 $0.000 0.0%
Transfers to Capital, Debt, and Other Funds 18.280 6.848 37.5%16.979 16.979 14.685 86.5%16.979 $0.000 0.0%
Subtotal transfers 115.322 55.621 48.2%113.037 113.037 86.728 76.7%113.037 $0.000 0.0%
Total $210.836 $131.237 62.2%$213.266 $214.302 $160.183 74.7%$211.891 -$2.411 -1.1%
7/1/10 > 03/31/11 = 75% of year Projected FY11 Revenues in Excess of Expenditures $4.846
(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 May 11, 2011
Projected June 30, 2011 Available Funds $7.700
Current FY 10/11
Current FY 10/11
County of Albemarle
General Fund Financial Report
Year-To-Date for the Nine Months Ended March 31, 2011
($ 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 Nine Months Ended March 31, 2011
($ 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 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 $2.854
Audited General Fund Balance Report
Year-to-Date for the Nine Months Ended March 31, 2011
County of Albemarle
($ in millions)
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
Courts Study
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Documentation of Architectural/Engineering Selection
Process
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Messrs. Elliott, Letteri, Davis, Henry, and Breeden
LEGAL REVIEW: Yes
AGENDA DATE:
June 1, 2011
ACTION: INFORMATION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: INFORMATION: X
ATTACHMENTS: No
REVIEWED BY:
BACKGROUND:
At its January 5, 2011 meeting, the Board authorized staff to proceed with issuance of a Request for Proposal (RFP) to
engage an Architectural/Engineering firm to perform a limited, Phase I study to assist the County in determining its next
step in addressing the space needs for the courts. An RFP was issued on February 2, 2011 seeking qualified firms or
individuals to conduct a needs assessment and develop renovation and/or new building options for the provision of court
facilities, to include the Circuit, General District and Juvenile and Domestic Relations Courts. The work of the consultant
is expected to include, but not necessarily be limited to:
Review of previous court studies, including the “Charlottesville-Albemarle Courts Study, Phase I” dated March 2001,
and the “County of Albemarle/City of Charlottesville Feasibility Study for Use of the Levy Building as a General District
Court Facility”, dated April 29, 2010 ;
Review of all previous facilities condition assessment reports on the County Courthouse;
Review of existing conditions and capacities at each of the County’s three courts;
Evaluation of County caseload trends and expected space needs for each of the three County courts, to include
related clerk, sheriff and commonwealth’s attorney operations;
Interviews with judges, clerks, commonwealth’s attorney, sheriff, and other staff involved in court operations;
Identification and evaluation of alternative sites to accommodate limited court functions or a combined court complex;
Development of conceptual plans for renovations or new construction;
Development of “order of magnitude” cost estimates for each of the options;
Formal presentation of study results, in the form of a written report and oral presentation to the Board and staff.
The deadline for submittal of responses to the RFP was March 1, 2011, and the County received eleven (11) responses.
DISCUSSION:
A selection committee was established to review the proposals and develop a short-list of firms to be interviewed. The
committee consisted of George Shadman, Director of General Services; Trevor Henry, Manager of Office of Facilities
Development; Hugh Gravitt, Purchasing Agent; Montie Breeden, Senior Project Manager; and Steven Allshouse,
Coordinator of Research and Analysis. After a comprehens ive analysis of the eleven submittals, the committee selected
four firms to interview – HDR Architecture, Inc.; Dalgliesh Gilpin Paxton Architects; Moseley Architects; and PSA-
Dewberry, Inc.
Due to the nature and importance of this study, additional committee members were included at the firm interview process
phase. The additional members were: Bill Letteri, Assistant County Executive and Denise Lunsford, Commonwealth’s
Attorney. Interviews with the four firms were held on April 22, 2011. Although all four firms appeared to be highly
qualified to perform the study, the committee ranked PSA-Dewberry, Inc., as its number one choice due to their expertise
and experience in leading a thorough and detailed analysis process, consisting of data collection and review, physical
assessment, data analysis and forecasting, user interviews, and development of an architectural space program
summarizing future space needs for each functional component of the court system.
A Notice of Intent to Award was sent to PSA-Dewberry and negotiations are underway.
BUDGET IMPACT:
Available funds to support this study total $35,800. Preliminary fee negotiations with PSA-Dewberry suggest that
additional funds may be needed to complete the study in accordance with the outlined scope. If the proposed fee
exceeds available funds, staff will recommend funding options for the board’s consideration at a future meeting.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
This report is for information only. No Board action is required.
Return to consent agenda
Return to regular agenda
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
Board Meeting Agenda Procedures
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Considerations for improvement to the Board Meeting
Agenda Procedures
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Messrs. Foley and Davis, and Ms. Catlin and Ms. Jordan
LEGAL REVIEW: Yes
AGENDA DATE:
June 1, 2011
ACTION: X INFORMATION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS: No
REVIEWED BY:
BACKGROUND:
The Board of Supervisors has always been very focused on transparency and the public‟s ability to be actively
engaged with issues of concern as they are presented to and discussed by the Board. Board meetings are the
primary opportunity for Board members, staff and citizens to come together to hear about and participate in critical
governmental matters, and it is important for these meetings to provide ample time and opportunity for necessary
Board dialogue and discourse to take place while being respectful of the needs and schedules of the public and staff.
Board members need adequate time and structure to discuss issues of complexity and to receive public input.
Because Board agendas contain numerous items that are significant to members of the public , it is important for
citizens to be able to schedule their time to participate in particular agenda items and have those items occur as
closely as possible to the advertised or scheduled times. A predictable schedule also helps staff to make the most
efficient and productive use of their time.
There have been recent comments by Board members and the general public regarding the flow of Board meetings
and potential opportunities to improve the efficiency of those meetings for the benefit of Board members, staff and
citizens. Based on those comments, Board Chair Ann Mallek recently met with staff to discuss options that are
presented below for the consideration of the entire Board.
DISCUSSION:
Following discussion with the Board chair, County staff contacted a number of other localities to research best
practices regarding Board meeting procedures and protocols that have been effective in keeping meetings on time
while also permitting the necessary time and flexibility for Board members to conduct their business. In addition,
these best practices are followed by the majority of regional Boards in our community. Through research and
discussions several opportunities for improvement were identified for consideration as outlined below:
Adopting the agenda as the first order of business – Many jurisdictions begin their meeting with a “proposed”
agenda, but establish the final issues to be considered as the first order of business by adopting the “final” agenda at
the beginning of the meeting. This practice assures that the Board agrees, through approval of a final agenda, on all
items to be voted on or considered that day. Any additional items of substance approved by Board to be considered
that day are not discussed at that time, but are added to the end of the agenda to avoid disrupting the flow of the
meeting and the already scheduled and advertised items. This assures that citizens and staff are aware at the
beginning of the meeting whether there will be any changes or impacts to the items that involve them.
Board Comments – „Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda by Board Members‟ is an agenda item that can get
lengthy and push other items behind on the schedule. To allow for Board communication while respecting the
schedule, Board comments at the beginning of the meeting could be limited to not more than two to three minutes on
topics that are not substantial enough to be considered as additional agenda items during the agenda adoption
process. However if more substantial discussion becomes necessary, the Chair will move that item to the end of the
AGENDA TITLE: Board Meeting Agenda Procedures
June 1, 2011
Page 2
agenda. Routine committee reports and information updates could be moved to the end of the meeting so that the
Board can discuss those items without the agenda schedule being put behind at the very beginning of the day.
Consent Agenda – The purpose of the consent agenda is to provide a method for the expeditious handling of items
that do not require discussion or comment and are anticipated to have the unanimous approval of Board members.
To help the consent agenda meet this objective, items for brief comment should be removed from the consent agenda
and taken up immediately after approval of the remaining consent agenda items. Items removed from the consent
agenda that will require more significant discussion should be scheduled for consideration later in the meeting, either
immediately before lunch or as the last item on the agenda. Staff would encourage Board members to ask clarifying
questions regarding Consent Agenda items in advance of the meeting to avoid potential delays in the meeting.
Handling the consent agenda in this way helps staff and the public by quickly approving items that do not require
further discussion, freeing them to leave the meeting, and by setting a specific time during which any pulled items will
be considered so they can come back to the meeting as necessary.
In summary, the above options are being recommended to achieve several important goals as stated earlier:
to allow the public to plan in advance to participate in the agenda items that are important to them, with
confidence that the scheduled times will be reliable and accurate to the greatest extent possible, and to
eliminate the need for citizens to unnecessarily wait for items that have fallen behind schedule
to allow Board members adequate time to fully discuss issues in a manner that does not significantly disrupt
the meeting schedule
to allow staff resources to be used most productively and efficiently by knowing when they should be available
to the Board during the meeting for potential questions on agenda items
BUDGET IMPACT:
There is no budget impact.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends that the Board adopt the procedural changes outlined above effective immediately.
Return to agenda
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
The Development of the County’s FY 12/13 – FY 17/18
Strategic Plan
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Approve the proposed process for the development of the
FY 12/13 – FY 17/18 Strategic Plan, including the
proposed schedule and citizen feedback process.
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Messrs. Foley, Letteri, Elliott, Davis; Ms. L. Allshouse and
Ms. Catlin
LEGAL REVIEW: Yes
AGENDA DATE:
June 1, 2011
ACTION: X INFORMATION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS: Yes
REVIEWED BY:
BACKGROUND:
Since 2001, the County of Albemarle has been actively engaged in an ongoing and robust strategic planning process.
Over the past ten years, the Board has utilized feedback obtained from the County’s Citizen Surveys, its Vision
Statement/Values and relevant national, state and regional data to devise strategies and develop corresponding goals
and objectives to achieve positive outcomes for the County and its citizens.
During the County’s last full iteration of its strategic plan (FY 06/07– FY 09/10), the Board focused on enhancing the
County’s quality of life, protecting its natural resources, managing growth, developing infrastructure and creating a
long-range, comprehensive funding strategy for County operations. This plan was formally closed on June 30, 2010 at
which time the Board engaged in a more short-term effort to address immediate economic challenges the County was
facing at that time. As a result of the Board’s effort, a Strategic Action Plan was developed for the County which
focuses on five (5) critical issues, including the Board’s Economic Vitality Action Plan. The goals and objectives for this
plan are envisioned to be completed by June 30, 2012 and can be found in Attachment A.
As staff works toward completing the goals and objectives contained in the current short-term Strategic Action Plan, it
also recognizes that the County’s financial situation appears to be showing signs of stabilizing; therefore, it is
appropriate to undertake efforts at this time to embark on the development of a more comprehensive and long-term
Strategic Plan for the time period of FY 12/13 – FY 17/18.
DISCUSSION:
It is envisioned that the County’s FY 12/13 -- FY 16/17 Strategic Plan will be more comprehensive than past efforts.
While it will continue to focus on understanding and setting broad community priorities as informed/directed by the
Board (“external component”) an opportunity will be provided to allow all County staff to offer feedback and direction
on the organization’s internal high performance efforts (“internal component”). In addition, deliberate efforts are
proposed to obtain citizen feedback on elements of the plan at critical milestones. The schedule for the development
of the Plan is as follows:
Summer
o Board conducts its Strategic Planning Retreat on June 30, 2011 to discuss the County’s vision for the
future and identify the County’s top strategic priorities
o Staff elicits citizen review and feedback
o Staff provides their review and feedback
Fall
o Board approves the County’s Vision, Mission, Values, and top strategic priorities for FY 12/13 -- FY
17/18. The priorities will include the organization’s internal high performance priorities.
o Staff elicits citizen review and feedback to the Board’s approved items
o Staff drafts goals and objectives
o The Board and staff strategic planning work product helps guide the Five Year financial planning
process
AGENDA TITLE: The Development of the County’s FY 12/13 – FY 17/18 Strategic Plan
June 1, 2011
Page 2
Winter/Spring
o Board confirms its approval of the Strategic Plan Vision, Mission and Values, and approves the Goals,
and Objectives
o Staff develops a detailed Action Plan, which includes strategies and timelines for each objective
o The Board and staff strategic planning work product helps guide the annual budget process
Spring/Summer
o The Strategic Plan’s Action Plan is completed and performance measures are identified
o Board adopts the FY 12/13- FY 17/18 Strategic Plan
July 1, 2012 – Strategic Planning period begins
The Strategic Planning Retreat: The Board’s Strategic Planning Retreat will be held on June 30, 2011 at the Woodland
Pavilion at Monticello from 9:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. During the Retreat, the Board will review and discuss the County’s
progress on previous plans and environmental scan information, including the results of the 2011 Citizen Survey, and
will begin to reach consensus on the County’s vision for the future and to identify the County’s top strategic priorities.
The Proposed Citizen Feedback Process
Because the strategic plan forms the basis for critical decisions regarding the Five Year Financial Plan, the annual
budget process and other major policy and programmatic issues, it is important that County citizens have an
opportunity to be engaged in the development of the plan.
The broadest and most comprehensive level of public engagement in the plan will come in the form of the 2011 Citizen
Survey, results of which will be shared with Board members during the strategic planning retreat to inform discussions
on that day. After the Board has identified preliminary priority strategic focus areas this summer, staff recommends
that the Board solicit citizen feedback by asking for insights and comments from the Board’s appointed Citizen
Advisory Councils and an invited stakeholder group using a structured discussion format.
After the Board approves the County’s Vision, Mission, Values, and top strategic priorities this fall, staff recommends
the same citizen feedback process be utilized, as set forth above, prior to the final approval of the goals and objectives
of the plan in December.
BUDGET IMPACT:
The Strategic Action Planning processes provide direction for the County’s Five-Year Financial Plan and annual
budget processes.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends that the Board approve its recommended process for the development of the FY 12/13 – FY 17/18
Strategic Plan, including the proposed schedule and citizen feedback process.
ATTACHMENTS
The County’s current FY 10/11 – FY 11/12 Strategic Plan
Return to agenda
Strategic Plan
Fiscal Years
10/11-11/12
August 2010
Albemarle County, Virginia
Strategic Plan
Fiscal Year 10/11– Fiscal Year 11/12
August 2010
Albemarle County
Board of Supervisors
Albemarle County, Virginia
Albemarle County will feature pedestrian friendly and self sufficient
communities. The Countryside will be rural. The County's natural
resources and natural beauty will be maintained. The County's
educational system will be world class and the County's quality of life will
be exceptional.
To enhance the well-being and quality of life for all citizens through the
provision of the highest level of public service consistent with the prudent
use of public funds
Integrity: We value our customers and co-workers by always
providing honest and fair treatment.
Innovation: We embrace creativity and positive change.
Stewardship: We honor our role as stewards of the public trust by
managing our natural, human and financial
resources respectfully and responsibly.
Learning: We encourage and support life long learning and
personal and professional growth.
3
Albemarle County, Virginia
Strategic Plan Development Process :
The Board of Supervisors has formally engaged in the County’s strategic planning efforts since 2001. The County’s FY07– FY10 Strate-
gic Plan, in which the Board directed staff to focus on enhancing the County’s quality of life, protecting its natural resources, managing
growth, developing infrastructure, and creating a long-range, comprehensive funding strategy formally ended on June 30, 2010. The on-
going work towards these County’s goals and objectives will not end, however, and will be incorporated into the County’s regular opera-
tions. For example, staff efforts regarding the transportation, master planning, and public safety objectives for which the completion time
periods were previously extended past June 30, 2010 will continue as part of the County’s regular on-going services and programs.
Since 2001, the County’s strategic planning process has been as follows:
The County made adjustments to its strategic planning processes and time schedule to be more agile and to best position the County to
address the unique and more immediate challenges it faces during these difficult economic times. Instead of holding its strategic plan-
ning session in the fall as it had in the previous eight years, the Board held a strategic planning session earlier in the year, on June 30,
to initiate the development of a more succinct two-year strategic action plan that would focus staff and Board’s efforts on the County’s
most immediate and critical needs. The Board also made adjustments to its upcoming budgeting processes.
At its June 30th strategy session, the Board discussed staff and Board relations and initiated the development of a 2-Year Strategic Ac-
tion Plan to position the County to be most effective in the new and evolving economy. Goals for the current Strategic Action Plan are
included on the following page.
To maximize staff resources and to time the development of the County’s FY 12/13 – FY 16/17 Strategic Plan to take into account the
results of the 2010 census, the County will begin the development of the more comprehensive plan during FY 11/12 in coordination with
Community Development Department staff as they embark on the update to the County’s Comprehensive Plan. In this way, staff efforts
to obtain citizen input and to analyze data and emerging trends will be efficiently coordinated to inform both of these important County
planning efforts.
4
Albemarle County, Virginia
FY 10/11 - FY 11/12 Goals
5
Goal 1: By June 30, 2012, the County will explore
and identify ways to address unfunded current
and future capital needs.
Goal 2: By June 30, 2012, Communication and
budget information sharing will be increased
between the General Government and School
Division.
Goal 3: By June 30 2012, the County and its
partners w ill complete the first two years activities
identified in the county’s Economic Vitality Action
Plan.
Goal 4: By June 30, 2012, the County will explore
options and identify the most desirable library
s ystem structure for the future.
Goal 5 : By December, 2010, the board of supervi-
sors will provide direction on a preferred solid
w aste disposal option for the County.
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
Crozet Library Update
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Capital Project Update
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Messrs. Foley, Letteri, Davis, Henry, and Lilley
LEGAL REVIEW: Yes
AGENDA DATE:
June 1, 2011
ACTION: INFORMATION: X
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS: No
REVIEWED BY:
BACKGROUND:
In December of 2004, the Board adopted the Crozet Master Plan, which identified the need for a new Crozet Library to
provide enhanced library services to the community and to serve as a catalyst for redevelopment in downtown Crozet.
In November of 2006, the Board authorized the design and construction of the library.
In May of 2008, the Board approved the formation of the Crozet Library Steering Committee to, along with the design
team of Grimm and Parker, facilitate the engagement of stakeholders and the public, to evaluate and balance the
various needs and objectives, and to oversee the schematic design phase of the project. The Committee developed
a preferred design recommendation which was reviewed and approved by the Board on June 3, 2009. In December
of 2010, the Board further directed staff to complete the Detailed Design phase of the project for purposes of
establishing accurate cost estimates and bringing the project to a “bid ready” state.
Since the Board approved the schematic plans in June of 2009, major points of project history include:
Dec 2009 – Proceeded with parking lot only design, phasing the project to allow construction of parking on an
interim basis to relieve existing parking constraints of downtown area.
May 2010 – Parking Lot site plan review directs inclusion of on-site Storm Water Management (SWM) due to
timing of Streetscape and SWM construction
Nov 2010 – ARB review of parking lot plan
Dec 2010 – Board directs completion of building design to achieve 95% completion of architectural drawings
and firm cost estimate hoping to take advantage of favorable bidding climates and interest rates
Apr 2011 – ARB approval of parking phase and building phase
May 2011 – Parking Lot bid documents issued
May 2011 – Building design meetings with user groups to progress Construction Drawings
May 2011 – Provided updated cost estimate by Architect
Aug 2011 – Scheduled completion estimate for architectural drawings and detailed construction cost estimates
(source for CIP process)
DISCUSSION:
The purpose of this agenda item is to provide a brief update to the Board on the status of the Crozet Library and
parking lot projects. The parking lot phase is expected to be constructed this summer starting in July with completion
in August. The building plans are expected to be “bid ready” by late summer and will include a detailed cost estimate
to inform the CIP submission process.
BUDGET IMPACT:
The original CIP Project Budget of $9.86 million was subsequently reduced by a series of appropriation adjustments to
$1.989 million to support property acquisitions, street improvements, demolition of existing structures, design services
and parking lot construction.
The Board will at a future date need to consider re-establishing project funding for building construction. Updated cost
estimates recently received from the design consultant are under review. A final, independent cost estimate will be
provided upon completion of the drawings in August.
AGENDA TITLE: Crozet Library Update
June 1, 2011
Page 2
The Friends of the Library are expected to fund $1.6 million of the total project cost.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
This executive summ ary is for information and for further discussion by the Board at its June, 2011 Retreat.
Return to agenda
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
Charlottesville Area Transit (CAT) Development Plan
Presentation
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Work session to review the Transit Development Plan for CAT
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Messrs. Foley, Elliot, Davis, Graham, Cilimberg, and Benish
LEGAL REVIEW: Yes
AGENDA DATE:
June 1, 2011
ACTION: INFORMATION: X
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS: Yes
REVIEWED BY:
BACKGROUND:
Bill Watterson, Manager of Charlottesville Area Transit (CAT), will present to the Board recommendations for future
service improvements identified in the updated Transit Development Plan (TDP), with a particular focus on the
recommendations for routes that serve Albemarle County. The TDP is updated every five years; the last update being
adopted in 2006.
The TDP is developed by the City in conjunction with the State Department of Rail and Public Transit (DRPT) and is
required to cover a six year planning period, July 1, 2011 to June 30, 2017. The Plan also contains long term-
recommendations for the period beginning in FY 2018. The TDP establishes a blueprint for CAT service over the six-
year planning period; implementation of these plans is subject to City Council’s annual approval of the transit service
modifications. Establishment of new service in the County is subject to approval and funding by the Board of
Supervisors.
City Council endorsed the TDP for CAT for the six year period beginning July 1, 2011 as a guide for local investments
in transit over that period; however, Council stated that it did not support the recommended modifications to service
along two routes serving the Woolen Mills and North Locust Avenue neighborhoods (Routes 1A and 2A). Accordingly,
the draft TDP is currently under revision based on the comments and direction provided by City Council.
DISCUSSION:
There are four routes funded by the County that serve three sections of the Urban Area:
Route 2B serves the Fifth Street area, including the County Office Building (COB) on Fifth Street and
Southwood Mobile Home Park;
Route 5 runs from Barracks Road Shopping Center to Fashion Square Mall and Walmart;
Route10 serves the Pantops Area including Wilton Farms Apartments, the Riverbend Shopping Center,
the MJH Outpatient Center, the Veteran Administration office and the Social Security office.
Route 24 provides night service to Pantops.
Two other “City” routes serve destinations located in the County, which are not funded by the County at this time:
Route 7 runs to Fashion Square Mall;
Route 1 serves PVCC.
A summary of CAT’s recommended service changes in the County is provided below. Mr. Watterson’s presentation
will provide more detail about these recommendations.
Recommended service changes in years 1 through 3 of the Plan (FY 2012--FY 2014):
Provide service to the Avon Street Extended and Mill Creek Drive area with the rerouting of Route 1,
which serves PVCC (no additional funding is anticipated to be needed from the County for this new route);
Make relatively minor modifications to Route 2 and Route 5 to provide bi-directional travel on those routes;
however, direct service to Region 10 offices on Old Lynchburg Road may be eliminated (service would be
within walking distance);
Provide service to the new Martha Jefferson Hospital, address service delays occurring on Route 10 in
Pantops and modify the night service (Route 24) to generally match the Route 10 day service. The
decision by City Council to not implement recommended changes to Routes 1A and 2B in the City has
resulted in limited options to address the delays now occurring on Route 10. In order to maintain one-hour
headways on Route 10, particularly during peak traffic periods, service that is now provided to some
AGENDA TITLE: Charlottesville Area Transit (CAT) Development Plan Presentation
June 1, 2011
Page 2
locations may need to be eliminated. County and CAT staff recommend that should service levels need to
be modified the Veterans Administration Office service be eliminated in order to maintain on time one-hour
headways. If further service reductions are needed, staff recommends that service to Wilton Farms
Apartments be eliminated. These locations are recommended for reduction based on the level of usage
and the travel time needed to access these locations. The issue of possible service reductions will be
reviewed in greater detail during Mr. Watterson’s presentation and guidance from the Board is requested
on this issue.
The improvements described above are revenue neutral and require no additional expenditure of funds by the County.
Recommended service changes years 4 through 6 of the Plan (FY 2015–FY 2017):
Provide service to The Shops at Stonefield (formerly Albemarle Place) by extending Route 8 to the site;
Provide service to Hollymead through a modification and extension of Route 5 (Route 5B).
Additional funding from the County may be needed to implement the above new services, particularly the future
Route 5B to Hollymead.
Identified long range service changes in the County beyond the six-year planning period (FY 2017--2035):
Meadow Creek Parkway service from the City to Fashion Square Mall;
Barracks Road Shopping Center to MJH (Pantops) cross-town service;
US 29 limited stop service (express service) to UVA;
US 29 Park-and-Ride lots;
Expanded Sunday service.
The Long Range Service Changes are outside of the six year planning period of the TDP. These recommendations
will be considered for inclusion in the six year planning period of the Plan with future updates from the TDP.
BUDGET IMPACT:
The TDP serves as the plan for implementing transit service to the City and the County’s surrounding Urban Area and
helps inform decisions on the funding of transit services. The County contracts for services with the City/CAT and
decisions on the funding for service, including new or expanded service, are made during the annual budget review
process.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
The presentation is provided for information. There is no action required at this time. Staff respectfully requests
guidance from the Board on potential modifications to the Routes 10 and 24 in Pantops.
Return to regular agenda
County of Albemarle
MEMORANDUM
TO: Members of the Board of Supervisors
FROM: Meagan Hoy, Senior Deputy Clerk
DATE: June 1, 2011
RE: Vacancies on Boards and Commissions
Attached please find an updated listing of vacancies on boards and commissions
through September 2011 provided for informational purposes only.
The following Boards and Commissions have been advertised and applications were
received as follows:
Acquisition of Conservation Easements (ACE) Committee: One vacancy.
No applications received.
Advisory Council on Aging: One vacancy.
No applications received.
Fiscal Impact Advisory Committee: One vacancy.
John Donohue
John Lowry
Housing Committee: One vacancy, UVA recommended replacement.
Sarah Collie, UVA Representative (see attached e-mail.)
Jefferson Area Disability Services Board: One vacancy, business representative.
No applications received.
Jefferson-Madison Regional Library Board: One vacancy.
Brian LaFontaine
William Schrader
David Storm
Pantops Community Advisory Council: Two vacancies.
Diane Caton
Region Ten Community Services Board: One vacancy.
To be advertised.
Rivanna Solid Waste Authority Citizens Advisory Committee: Three vacancies
(one being a joint City/County Chair).
No applications received.
Social Services Board: One vacancy.
Jack Jouett District.
Jail Authority: One vacancy, citizen member.
No applications received.
The following reappointments require action by the Board:
CACVB:
Gregory MacDonald
Fiscal Impact Advisory Committee:
Craig Evans
Historic Preservation Committee:
Jared Loewenstein
Steve Thompson
Jeff Werner
Jefferson-Madison Regional Library Board:
Gary Grant
Pantops Community Advisory Council:
Lynwood Bell
Rita Krenz
Region Ten Community Services Board:
Albert LaFave
Workforce Investment Board:
Rod Gentry
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
ACE Committee David Callihan 8/1/2012 Resigned Advertised
Advisory Council on Aging William Harvey 5/31/2011 5/31/2013 No Advertised, No applications recv'd
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 Yes 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
Fiscal Impact Advisory Committee Craig Evans 7/8/2011 7/8/2013 Yes Action Required
Fiscal Impact Advisory Committee Jeff Werner 7/8/2011 7/8/2013 Ineligible Advertised, 2 applications recv'd
Historic Preservation Committee Brian Broadus 6/4/2011 6/4/2014 No To be advertised
Historic Preservation Committee Jared Loewenstein 6/4/2011 6/4/2014 Yes Action Required
Historic Preservation Committee Steve Thompson 6/4/2011 6/4/2014 Yes Action Required
Historic Preservation Committee Jeff Werner 6/4/2011 6/4/2014 Yes Action Required
Housing Committee Deborah Van Eersel 12/31/2011 Resigned Action Required, UVA replacement
Jail Authority John Chamales 8/6/2011 8/6/2014 Ineligible Advertised, No applications recv'd
Jefferson Area Disability Services Board Amber Capron 6/30/2013 Resigned Advertised, No applications recv'd
JAUNT Juan Wade 9/30/2011 9/30/2015 Eligible No Action Required
JAUNT Clifford Buys 9/30/2011 9/30/2015 Eligible No Action Required
Jefferson-Madison Regional Library Board Gary Grant 6/30/2011 6/30/2015 Yes Action Required
Jefferson-Madison Regional Library Board Anthony Townsend 6/30/2011 6/30/2015 Ineligible Advertised, 3 applications recv'd
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
Natural Heritage Committee Mike Erwin 9/30/2013 Resigned To be advertised
Pantops Community Advisory Council Ron Hoffman 6/30/2011 6/30/2013 No Advertised
Pantops Community Advisory Council Glenna Kennett 6/30/2013 Resigned Advertised, 1 application recv'd
Pantops Community Advisory Council Rita Krenz 6/30/2011 6/30/2013 Yes Action Required
Pantops Community Advisory Council Richard Jennings 6/30/2011 6/30/2013 No Advertised
Pantops Community Advisory Council Lynwood Bell 6/30/2011 6/30/2013 Yes Action Required
Region Ten Community Services Board Albert LaFave 6/30/2011 6/30/2014 Yes Action Required
Region Ten Community Services Board Clyde Gouldman 6/30/2011 6/30/2014 No To be advertised
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
Social Services Board Mary Lou Folwer 12/31/2011 Resigned Action Required, Jack Jouett
Workforce Investment Board Rod Gentry 6/30/2011 6/30/2012 Yes Action Required
Workforce Investment Board Barbara Kessler 6/30/2011 6/30/2012 Eligible No Action Required
Workforce Investment Board Amanda Moxham 6/30/2011 6/30/2014 Eligible No Action Required
Revised 05/26/11
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
ZTA 2011 – 1 Wireless Broadband
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Proposal to amend the provisions of the Personal
Wireless Service Facilities section of the ordinance to
include Wireless Broadband as a type of Personal
Wireless Service Facility
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Bill Fritz
AGENDA DATE:
Planning Commission – April 19, 2011
Board of Supervisors – To be determined
ACTION: X INFORMATION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS: Yes
BACKGROUND:
Wireless Broadband is a technology that permits high-speed internet access to be provided throughout the County. It
is particularly useful as a means of providing service to rural areas that do not have access to land based high-speed
internet. The technology works like Personal Wireless Service Facilities in that one or more facilities are used to
transmit and receive the signals necessary to provide an adequate coverage. These facilities are considered radio
transmission towers requiring a special use permit under current regulations.
DISCUSSION:
Staff views this Zoning Text Amendment as a “house cleaning” amendment bringing the ordinance in line with current
wireless technology. The impact of this amendment will be the application of identical regulations to similar uses
(Unlicensed Wireless Broadband Internet Service Providers and Personal Wireless Service Facilities) with identical
regulations.
BUDGET IMPACT:
No impact is expected.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends approval of the Zoning Text Amendment.
STAFF: William D. Fritz, AICP
PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING: April 19, 2011
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS PUBLIC HEARING: To be determined
ZTA 2011 – 1 Wireless Broadband
ORIGIN: Resolution of Intent adopted by Planning Commission on February 8, 2011. (Attachment A)
PROPOSAL: To amend the definition of Personal Wireless Service Facilities to include Unlicensed W ireless
Broadband internet access.
PUBLIC PURPOSE TO BE SERVED:
The rural areas of the County have limited options for high speed internet access. One option to provide high-speed
internet access is to use a Wireless Broadband Internet Service. Licensed or unlicensed providers can provide
W ireless Broadband Internet Service. The Federal Communications Commission has determined that if a licensed
provider provides Wireless Broadband Internet Service, that service is considered to be protected by the provisions of
Section 704 of the 1996 Telecommunications Act. If an unlicensed provider provides the service, the service is not
protected by the provisions of Section 704 of the 1996 Telecommunications Act. However, the nature of the facilities
is the same regardless of whether the service is provided by a licensed or unlicensed provider.
Wireless Broadband Internet Service is provided by one or more facilities (towers or other points of transmission) in a
manner similar to cellular phone service. Under the current ordinance, unlicensed providers must submit a special
use permit for every site, while a licensed provider may make use of the three tier provisions allowed by the Personal
Wireless Service Facilities regulations. Staff sees a public purpose to be served by treating like uses with similar
review processes.
BACKGROUND:
The County adopted the Personal Wireless Service Facilities regulations in 2001. The regulations did not consider
Wireless Broadband Internet Service and staff can identify no discussion of any kind addressing Wireless Broadband
Internet Service in the Personal Wireless Service Facilities Policy. However, the concept of providing wireless service
is included in the Policy.
DISCUSSION:
Staff views this Zoning Text Amendment as a “house cleaning” amendment bringing the ordinance in line with current
wireless technology. The impact of this amendment will be the application of identical regulations to similar uses
(Unlicensed Wireless Broadband Internet Service Providers and Personal Wireless Service Facilities).
All Zoning Text Amendments are reviewed for possible impacts on Administration/Review Process, Housing
Affordability and Implications to Staffing/Staffing Costs.
Administration / Review Process: Approval of this text amendment will allow review of Unlicensed W ireless Broadband
Internet Service in the same way as Personal Wireless Service Facilities as opposed to using the special use permit
process. Over the last 10 years the Personal Wireless Service Facilities regulations have proven to be a much easier
process for applicants and the County. The process has resulted in predictable outcomes that have furthered the
goals of the County. Approval of this text amendment will result in easier administration and a streamlined review
process.
Housing Affordability: No impact.
Implications to Staffing/Staffing Costs: No increased staffing or staff costs are associated with this text amendment.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Attachment A: Resolution of Intent
Attachment B: Ordinance Language
View PC minutes
Return to agenda
ZTA-2011-01 Wireless Broadband
Attachment A
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 service 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 attachment
Return to staff report
Draft: 03/03/11
ZTA-2011-01 Wireless Broadband
Attachment B
1
ORDINANCE NO. 11-18( )
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND CHAPTER 18, ZONING, ARTICLE I, GENERAL PROVISIONS, OF THE
CODE OF THE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA
BE IT ORDAINED By the Board of Supervisors of the County of Albemarle, Virginia, that Chapter 18, Zoning,
Article I, General Provisions, is hereby amended and reordained as follows:
By Amending:
Sec. 3.1 Definitions
Chapter 18. Zoning
Article I. General Provisions
Sec. 3.1 Definitions
. . .
Personal wireless service facility: A facility for the provision of personal wireless services, as defined by 47
U.S.C. § 332 (Section 704 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996), including those Federal Communications
Commission licensed commercial wireless telecommunications services such as cellular, personal
communications services (PCS), specialized mobile radio (SMR), enhanced specialized mobile radio (ESMR),
common carrier wireless exchange access services, and unlicensed wireless services and common carrier
wireless exchange access services and, for the purposes of this chapter, unlicensed wireless broadband internet
access. (Added 10-17-01; Amended 10-13-04)
Return to staff report
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – APRIL 19, 2011
PARTIAL DRAFT MINUTES – STA-2011-00001 Resolution of Intent to Amend the Subdivision Ordinance for Special Lots,
ZTA-2011-0003 Resolution of Intent to Amend the Zoning Ordinance for Special Lots, and
ZTA-2011-00001 Unlicensed Wireless Broadband Internet Access
1
Albemarle County Planning Commission
April 19, 2011
The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public hearing on Tuesday, April 19, 2011, at 6:00
p.m., at the County Office Building, Auditorium, 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 Megan Yaniglos, Senior Planner; Judith Wiegand, Senior Planner; Amelia
McCulley, Director of Zoning/Zoning Administrator; J.T. Newberry, Code Enforcement Officer; Sarah
Baldwin, Senior Planner; Elaine Echols, Principal Planner; Bill Fritz, Director of Current Development;
Wayne Cilimberg, Director of Planning; Mark Graham, Director of Community Development; and Greg
Kamptner, Deputy County Attorney.
Call to Order and Establish Quorum:
Mr. Zobrist, Chair, called the regular m eeting to order at 6:00 p.m. and established a quorum.
ZTA-2011-00001 Unlicensed Wireless Broadband Internet Access
Amend Sec. 3.1, Definitions, of Chapter 18, Zoning, of the Albemarle County Code. This ordinance
would amend Sec. 3.1 by adding facilities for unlicensed wireless broadband internet access to the
definition of “personal wireless service facility.” The full text of the ordinance is available for examination
by the public in the offices of the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors and in the De partment of Community
Development, County Office Building, 401 McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia (Bill Fritz)
Mr. Fritz noted that there was no presentation since this was just a housekeeping matter. The technology
has changed since they originally adopted the Wireless Policy. What is before the Commission is a
proposal to include in the definition of a personal wireless service facility unlicensed wireless broadband
services. That is a way of providing internet service wirelessly. If someone ha s a Smart Phone right now,
they can do that. The interesting thing staff found is that the FCC says if a licensed carrier, such as
AT&T, Verizon, Sprint, etc., provides wireless broadband service they are covered under the
Telecommunications Act. If it is an unlicensed provider providing the exact same service using the exact
same type of equipment as a licensed carrier they are not covered by the Telecommunications Act. Staff
recommends amendment of the ordinance to treat like services in a like manner. That is all this does.
Mr. Zobrist invited questions for staff.
Ms. Porterfield asked does being licensed or unlicensed have any impact on a consumer if they allow
this. She there if there is any down side to an unlicensed one.
Mr. Fritz replied that staff has not looked at that in terms of the service provider. What they are trying to
do is treat the impacts on the community, the appearance of the antenna, the appearance of the base
station equipment and the impacts on the community. The consumer will have to decide do they want to
get service from provider A, provider B, or provider C. There are other alternatives, which some people
think are better and some people think are worse. Staff is not trying to enter the market of what is a
better service. Staff is actually trying to take the Telecommunications Act role of stepping back and
saying they are not going to make those judgments on technology.
Mr. Kamptner said what this text amendment does is brings this type of service under the County’s
Wireless Regulations, which allows for Tier I, Tier II and Tier III review rather than having them classified
as radio transmission towers, which would require a special use permit in every instance.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – APRIL 19, 2011
PARTIAL DRAFT MINUTES – STA-2011-00001 Resolution of Intent to Amend the Subdivision Ordinance for Special Lots,
ZTA-2011-0003 Resolution of Intent to Amend the Zoning Ordinance for Special Lots, and
ZTA-2011-00001 Unlicensed Wireless Broadband Internet Access
2
Ms. Porterfield said that she understood that, but wondered if it puts the County in any liability if they end
up with an unlicensed provider who is getting to do this.
Mr. Fritz replied that the FCC permits this type of service. It is provided throughout the country.
Therefore, it does not put the Count y in an awkward situation.
Mr. Loach said that there is no difference in the technologies between the two, the licensed, or the
unlicensed.
Mr. Fritz said that it is just whether they have a license or not.
Mr. Loach noted that the only potential downside is in the end it might mean m ore requests for monopoles
that they see for towers now at 7’ to 10’ wireless towers.
Mr. Fritz said the alternative would be more special use permits. Staff thinks the Personal Wireless
Service Facility Policy, because it has standards on how to review these is a better tool to review than
using the special use permit.
Mr. Zobrist asked if there were other questions for staff. There being none, he noted that there was no
applicant. He opened the public hearing and invited public comment. There being no public comment,
the public hearing was closed and the matter before the Commission.
Motion: Ms. Porterfield moved and Mr. Lafferty seconded to recommend approval of ZTA-2011-00001,
Unlicensed Wireless Broadband Internet Access with staff’s recommendation.
The motion passed by a vote of 7:0.
Mr. Zobrist noted that a recommendation for approval on ZTA-2011-00001, Unlicensed Wireless
Broadband Internet Access would be forwarded to the Board of Supervisors to a date to be determined.
Return to staff report
STAFF: Amelia McCulley
PLANNING COMMISSION: May 10, 2011
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS: June 8, 2011
ZTA: 2011-03 Exemptions for Creation of Special Lots
ORIGIN: Resolution of Intent proposed by staff and adopted by the Planning Commission
(Attachment A). This was done concurrently with the resolution of intent to amend the
Subdivision Ordinance, STA 2011-01.
PROPOSAL: Amend the Zoning Ordinance by providing exemptions from certain Zoning
Ordinance requirements, for the creation of Special Lots for identifiable purposes other than
development. Special lots are established for purposes such as public parks and greenways,
central well or sewer facilities, pre-existing cemeteries, public utilities, road rights-of-way and the
like.
PUBLIC PURPOSE TO BE SERVED: These special lots are limited to their identifiable special
purpose and are restricted from being used for development. Therefore, it does not serve a
public or practical purpose for them to meet requirements for the creation of lots that are
established for development. (The term, “development lot,” used within this report is not the
same as “development lot” in the Rural Areas district and is used here to refer to lots which can
be developed. These development lot requirements, such as minimum lot size, width, frontage,
building site and development right (RA only), are neither relevant nor necessary to their special
purpose. Furthermore, requiring that these lots meet all requirements established for
development lots can unnecessarily increase their size and value. As a result, this can
discourage property owners from providing land for these special purposes such as for public
parks and greenways, pre-existing cemeteries and road rights-of-way.
BACKGROUND: Our consistent administrative practice has allowed the establishment of
special lots. This and the subdivision text amendment (STA) will codify this practice. (See
official zoning determination in Attachment B.)
An example of the need for these exemptions is with the creation of greenway lots whether
required by proffer or offered through a subdivision process. Greenway properties commonly
consist of floodplain and critical slopes and do not include an approved building site. They do
not typically have road frontage and are part of a greenway system with road or pedestrian
access offsite. In addition, greenway lots often have an elongated or odd shape, which is
generally prohibited. Without appropriate exemptions, these lots would not meet Zoning and
Subdivision Ordinance requirements.
Another example of the need for special lot exemption from regulations is with the establishment
of a central well / community waterworks. The Virginia Health Department requires the creation
of a well lot and a deed of dedication. This well lot, often consisting of only 100 ft x 100 ft in
area, is approximately ¼ of an acre as opposed to the 2 acre minimum lot size required in the
Rural Areas district. The Health Department regulations further state:
The intent of these materials (plat and deed) is to describe the proposed well lot and
record the information to ensure the well lot is only used for waterworks related materials
or activities. Therefore, no additional buildings, parking lots, or storage may occur on or
within the well lot. (Reference to plat and deed added.)
Page 2
ZTA: 2011-03 Exemptions for Creation of Special Lots
STAFF DISCUSSION: In conjunction with the STA, notes will be required to be placed on the
plat which will state the identified purpose of the special lot and will limit the allowed use of the
property. Approval of these lots will be subjected to limited requirements and approvals that are
appropriate considering the limited uses allowed.
The following are criteria the Board has identified should be addressed with each Ordinance
amendment:
Administration / Review Process: Clear ordinance authority, including review process
and notes for plats, will improve the administration and review process for special lots. This
will also provide predictability and clarity for property owners/applicants.
Housing Affordability: No direct impacts are identified. Without these exemptions, the well
lots, greenway lots and other special lots should be increased in size. This and other
requirements have associated costs that will likely be passed on to property owners. This
additional cost would likely negatively impact housing affordability.
Implications to Staffing / Staffing Costs: As described under “administration/review
process,” this amendment will have a positive impact on staffing.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends adoption of the draft ordinance found in
Attachment C.
Attachment A: Resolution of Intent
Attachment B: Official Zoning Determination for Creation of Special Lots
Attachment C: Draft Zoning Ordinance Amendment
View PC minutes: April 19, May 10 and May 17
Return to agenda
ZTA 2011-03 Special Lots
Attachment A
RESOLUTION OF INTENT
WHEREAS, there is an identified need for the creation of lots that do not comply with all of the
standards for lots under Chapter 18, Zoning, of the County Code; and
WHEREAS, through a longstanding and consistent administrative interpretation of the Zoning
Ordinance, these special lots have been allowed to be created for specific uses such as public and private streets,
railroad rights-of-way, central water supplies and central sewerage systems, stormwater management facilities,
greenways, public utilities and pre-existing cemeteries, all of which serve a general public purpose; and
WHEREAS, it is desired to expressly define those lots that may be considered to be special lots and to
delineate those regulations of the Zoning Ordinance from which special lots are exempt.
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, 18-4 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 attachment
Return to staff report
ZTA 2011-03 & STA 2011-01 Special Lots
Attachment B
County of Albemarle
Department of Community Development
Memorandum Revised from 1-18-07
To: Interested Parties
From: Amelia McCulley, Zoning Administrator
Division: Zoning and Current Development
Date: February 13, 2007
Subject: Official Zoning Determination – creation of new non-development special
lots
The purpose of this memorandum is to provide an official written zoning determination regarding the
applicability of the zoning district and general regulations to the creation of new special non-
development lots. These lots shall be limited to those created for the following uses: greenways, road
or railroad rights-of-way, central wells and septic systems, stormwater management facilities, public
utilities and cemeteries. The majority of these lots are primarily used for public purposes (such as with
roads and greenways) or for utilities (such as with central well or septic). It is my determination that
these special purpose lots are not lots for the applicability of the zoning district and general
regulations provided that (and as long as) their use is restricted to the non-development use for which
they were created. This zoning determination relates to the lot requirements and does not extend to
use or area and bulk regulations relating to structures located upon these lots. Use of the property
and location of structures on these lots is still subject to applicable zoning regulations.
In our recent comprehensive amendment to the Subdivision Ordinance, provision was made for these
lots. We plan to codify this determination with a zoning text amendment in the near future. These lots
are the same as “non-building lot” as defined in Section 14-106 of the Subdivision Ordinance as
follows:
Non-building lot: The term “non-building lot” means a lot intended for the following uses: wells,
septic systems (including conventional drain fields), stormwater management facilities, open space,
common area, or pre-existing cemetery, but which does not contain a building site, and need not have a
development right assigned.
In the analysis to formulate this decision, I have considered the purposes and intent of both the
County’s comprehensive plan and the zoning ordinance (as set forth in Section 1) and find this
decision to be consistent with them. With regards to the creation of greenways, this decision
encourages and allows the dedication of land for public purposes which might not otherwise be done
due to regulatory conflicts or the loss of rights (such as in the RA with development rights).
Greenways and greenway parcels are similar to public road rights-of-way in several respects. By this
decision, greenway parcels and other non-development special lots may be created without the use of
development rights and without the lot requirements for building site, minimum lot size, frontage and
the like. New greenway parcels may be added to existing greenway parcels to extend the greenway
system in much the same way that right-of-way dedications are done for public roads.
There are also scenarios in which existing special-purpose lots may be reduced in area or eliminated
entirely through boundary line adjustments or the like. For example, an existing railroad right-of-way
which is being abandoned and is no longer in active use, may be added in whole or in part to
adjoining properties. In the case of subdivision improvements such as well lots which may be
ZTA 2011-03 & STA 2011-01 Special Lots
Attachment B
abandoned and added to adjoining properties, research will need to be conducted to determine if
amendment to the original subdivision plat is necessary and what form of approval that must take.
This approval is subject to compliance with zoning regulations.
For any new or revised non-development special lot which is shown on a plat, the plat must clearly
state the following:
Lot X is for the express purpose of ______ (an existing cemetery, railroad right-of-way, a new
well lot or a greenway or the like). It does not constitute a development lot under the
Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance; therefore, future use shall be limited to this purpose
without further County approval.
By this decision, the area and bulk regulations such as minimum size, frontage and the like are not
applicable to special non-development lots. In addition, the general regulations requiring a building
site and related utility (well and septic) approvals are also not applicable to special non-development
lots. In the Rural Areas, a development right is not required for the creation of a special non-building
lot. This memorandum is not a determination that existing special non-building lots do or do not have
development rights.
This special-purpose lot shall be limited to that area which is necessary for its express purpose and
shall not be made arbitrarily larger for future purposes. We are particularly concerned about
situations in which the express purpose may no longer be necessary and a future conversion use (for
development) is proposed. If that occurs, additional County approval is required and may include
combining this lot with adjoining property.
If questions arise in the administration of this decision, this decision will be revised to provide
clarification.
Go to next attachment
Return to staff report
Draft: 05/05/11
ZTA 2011-03 Special Lots
Attachment C: Draft Zoning Ordinance Amendment
1
ORDINANCE NO. 11-18( )
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND CHAPTER 18, ZONING, ARTICLE I, GENERAL PROVISIONS, AND
ARTICLE II, BASIC REGULATIONS, OF THE CODE OF THE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA
BE IT ORDAINED By the Board of Supervisors of the County of Albemarle, Virginia, that Chapter 18, Zoning,
Article I, General Regulations, and Article II, Basic Regulations, are hereby amended and reordained as follows:
By Amending:
Sec. 3.1 Definitions
Sec. 4.2.1 Building site required
By Adding:
Sec. 2.1.7 Creation and use of special lots
Sec. 4.3.02 Special lots
Chapter 18. Zoning
Article I. General Regulations
Sec. 2.1,7 Creation and use of special lots
A special lot shall not be subject to the requirements of this chapter for the creation of a lot including, but not
limited to, the building site requirements in section 4.2.1, the frontage and lot width requirements in section
4.6.1, the area and bulk regulations of the zoning district in which the special lot is located and, for special lots
in the Rural Areas zoning district, the requirement in section 10.3 that each lot less than twenty-one (21) acres in
size have a development right. A special lot shall be subject to the requirements of this chapter pertaining to the
use of the special lot and the location of a building, structure, and improvements on a special lot.
Sec. 3.1 Definitions
. . .
Special lot: The term “special lot” means a lot created to be used exclusively for public or private streets,
railroad rights-of-way and railroad lines, public utilities, publicly owned or operated public facilities, publicly
owned or operated parks, publicly or privately owned sites for personal wireless service facilities, central water
supplies and central sewerage systems as those terms are defined in chapter 16, stormwater management
facilities, cemeteries existing on June 8, 2011, conservation areas, preservation areas, open space, and
greenways.
. . .
Article II. Basic Regulations
Sec. 4.2.1 Building site required
No lot or parcel other than a special lot shall have less than one (1) building site. For purposes of this section,
the term “building site” shall mean a contiguous area of land in slopes of less than twenty-five (25) percent as
determined by reference to either topographic quadrangle maps of the Geological Survey - U. S. Department of
Draft: 05/05/11
ZTA 2011-03 Special Lots
Attachment C: Draft Zoning Ordinance Amendment
2
Interior (contour interval twenty [20] feet) or a source determined by the county engineer to be of superior
accuracy, exclusive of:
-Such Any area as may be located in the flood hazard overlay district or which is located under water;
- Such Any area as may be located within two hundred (200) horizontal feet of the one hundred year flood plain
of any public drinking water impoundment or within one hundred (100) horizontal feet of the edge of any
tributary stream to such impoundment; (Amended 11-11-87)
- Such Any area as may be designated as a resource protection areas on the resource protection areas map
adopted pursuant to chapter 17 of the Code of Albemarle; provided that nothing contained herein shall be
deemed to prevent or impair the water resources manager program authority from exercise of exercising
discretion as set forth in that ordinance chapter. (Added 9-9-92)
Sec. 4.3.02 Special lots
Special lots shall be permitted in all zoning districts.
Return to staff report
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – APRIL 19, 2011
PARTIAL DRAFT MINUTES – STA-2011-00001 Resolution of Intent to Amend the Subdivision Ordinance for Special Lots,
ZTA-2011-0003 Resolution of Intent to Amend the Zoning Ordinance for Special Lots, and
ZTA-2011-00001 Unlicensed Wireless Broadband Internet Access
1
Albemarle County Planning Commission
April 19, 2011
The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public hearing on Tuesday, April 19, 2011, at 6:00
p.m., at the County Office Building, Auditorium, 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 Megan Yaniglos, Senior Planner; Judith Wiegand, Senior Planner; Amelia
McCulley, Director of Zoning/Zoning Administrator; J.T. Newberry, Code Enforcement Officer; Sarah
Baldwin, Senior Planner; Elaine Echols, Principal Planner; Bill Fritz, Director of Current Development;
Wayne Cilimberg, Director of Planning; Mark Graham, Director of Community Development; and Greg
Kamptner, Deputy County Attorney.
Call to Order and Establish Quorum:
Mr. Zobrist, Chair, called the regular m eeting to order at 6:00 p.m. and established a quorum.
Consent Agenda:
Mr. Zobrist asked if any Commissioner would like to pull an item from the consent agenda for further
review.
a) Approval of minutes: 1-25-11, 2-22-11, 3-1-11, and 3-22-11
b) STA-2011-00001 Resolution of Intent to Amend the Subdivision Ordinance for Special Lots
(Amelia McCulley)
c) ZTA-2011-00003 Resolution of Intent to Amend the Zoning Ordinance for Special Lots
(Amelia McCulley)
Mr. Zobrist asked if any Commissioner wanted to pull any item from the consent agenda.
Mr. Lafferty asked for clarification on the resolution of intent to amend the Subdivision Ordinance for
Special Lots. In the second paragraph, second sentence, it says the development rights thereto provided
that they are created for specific uses such as. On the next page, it says used exclusively for public and
private streets. “Such as” is just a hint of the use. He wondered if staff wanted to say limited to or make
that wording a little stronger. He realized it was a resolution of intent and did not want to pull it, but he
questioned the wording.
Ms. McCulley replied that in the resolution of intent staff was trying not to think they could list all of the
specific purposes that would satisfy the special lot criteria. She asked Mr. Kamptner if he saw any
concern with the fact that it is so broad in the resolution , but then in the draft ordinance it was not a “such
as” but “limited to.”
Mr. Kamptner replied the language used in the resolution of intent was because the list of possible special
lots is not final yet and they want staff to go through the process and identify any other types of situations
that they would want to add to the list.
Mr. Lafferty noted under the definition it says used exclusively.
Mr. Kamptner replied when the lots are created they have to be used for those specific uses.
Mr. Lafferty agreed that made sense.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – APRIL 19, 2011
PARTIAL DRAFT MINUTES – STA-2011-00001 Resolution of Intent to Amend the Subdivision Ordinance for Special Lots,
ZTA-2011-0003 Resolution of Intent to Amend the Zoning Ordinance for Special Lots, and
ZTA-2011-00001 Unlicensed Wireless Broadband Internet Access
2
Ms. McCulley said that was a good point and a good way to explain that.
Motion: Ms. Porterfield moved and Mr. Lafferty seconded for acceptance of the consent agenda.
The motion carried by a vote of 7:0.
Mr. Zobrist noted the consent agenda items were approved.
Go to next set of PC minutes
Return to staff report
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – MAY 10, 2011 PAGE 1
DRAFT PARTIAL MINUTES – ZTA-2011-00003 and STA-2011-00001 Special Lots
Albemarle County Planning Commission
May 10, 2011
The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public hearing, and meeting on Tuesday,
May 10, 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, Ed Smith, Thomas Loach, Linda Porterfield
and Calvin Morris, Vice-Chairman. Commissioners absent were Don Franco and Duane Zobrist,
Chairman. Julia Monteith, AICP, Senior Land Use Planner for the University of Virginia was
absent.
Other officials present were; Elaine Echols, Principal Planner; Bill Fritz, Chief of Current
Development; Wayne Cilimberg, Director of Planning; Ron Higgins, Chief of Zoning; Mark
Graham, Director of Community Development; and Greg Kamptner, Deputy County Attorney.
Call to Order and Establish Quorum:
Mr. Morris called the regular meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. and established a quorum.
Regular Item:
ZTA-2011-00003 Special Lots – Amend Sec. 3.1, Definitions, and Sec. 4.2.1, Building site
required, and add Sec. 4.3.02, Special lots, of Chapter 18, Zoning, of the Albemarle County
Code. This ordinance would amend Sec. 3.1 by adding a definition of “special lots,” which are
lots created for uses serving specific delineated public purposes; amend Sec. 4.2.1 to provide that
special lots do not require a building site; and add Sec. 4.3.02 to provide that special lots of any
size may be created in all zoning districts. The full text of the ordinance is available for
examination by the public in the offices of the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors and in the
Department of Community Development, County Office Building, and 401 McIntire Road,
Charlottesville, Virginia. (Amelia McCulley)
DEFER TO MAY 17, 2011
Mr. Morris opened the public hearing and invited public comment. There being none, he closed
the public hearing to bring the matter before the Commission.
Motion: Ms. Porterfield moved and Mr. Lafferty seconded to defer ZTA-2011-00003 Special
Lots to May 17, 2011.
The motion was passed by a vote of 5:0. (Franco and Zobrist absent)
Mr. Morris noted that ZTA-2011-00003 Special Lots was deferred to May 17, 2011.
STA-2011-00001 Special Lots – Amend Sec. 14-106, Definitions, and Sec. 14-302, of Chapter
14, Subdivision of Land, of the Albemarle County Code. This ordinance would amend Sec. 14-
106 by renaming the term “non-building lot” to “special lot,” and changing the reference to non-
building lots in the definition of “remnant”; and amend Sec. 14-302 to refer to special lots. The
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – MAY 10, 2011 PAGE 2
DRAFT PARTIAL MINUTES – ZTA-2011-00003 and STA-2011-00001 Special Lots
full text of the ordinance is available for examination by the public in the offices of the Clerk of
the Board of Supervisors and in the Department of Community Development, County Office .
(Amelia McCulley) DEFER TO MAY 17, 2011
Mr. Morris opened the public hearing and invited public comment. There being none, he closed
the public hearing to bring the matter before the Planning Commission for action.
Motion: Ms. Porterfield moved and Mr. Loach seconded to defer STA-2011-00001 Special Lots
to May 17, 2011.
The motion was passed by a vote of 5:0. (Franco and Zobrist absent)
Mr. Morris noted that STA-2011-00001 Special Lots was deferred to May 17, 2011.
Mr. Cilimberg noted that both items would be taken up first at next week’s meeting, which will
be held in Room 241.
Go to next set of PC minutes
Return to staff report
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – MAY 17, 2011 PAGE 1
Draft MINUTES –
Albemarle County Planning Commission
May 17, 2011
The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public hearing, and meeting on Tuesday,
May 17, 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, Ed Smith, Calvin Morris, Vice-Chairman; Don
Franco and Duane Zobrist, Chairman. Commissioners absent were Linda Porterfield and
Thomas Loach. Julia Monteith, AICP, Senior Land Use Planner for the University of Virginia
was present.
Other officials present were; Wayne Cilimberg, Director of Planning; Francis MacCall, Senior
Planner; Amelia McCulley, Director of Zoning/Zoning Administrator; and Greg Kamptner,
Deputy County Attorney.
Call to Order and Establish Quorum:
Mr. Zobrist called the regular meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. and established a quorum.
Regular Item:
ZTA-2011-00003 Special Lots – Amend Sec. 3.1, Definitions, and Sec. 4.2.1, Building site
required, and add Sec. 4.3.02, Special lots, of Chapter 18, Zoning, of the Albemarle County
Code. This ordinance would amend Sec. 3.1 by adding a definition of “special lots,” which are
lots created for uses serving specific delineated public purposes; amend Sec. 4.2.1 to provide that
special lots do not require a building site; and add Sec. 4.3.02 to provide that special lots of any
size may be created in all zoning districts. The full text of the ordinance is available for
examination by the public in the offices of the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors and in the
Department of Community Development, County Office Building, and 401 McIntire Road,
Charlottesville, Virginia. (Amelia McCulley) DEFER TO MAY 17, 2011
STA-2011-00001 Special Lots – Amend Sec. 14-106, Definitions, and Sec. 14-302, of Chapter
14, Subdivision of Land, of the Albemarle County Code. This ordinance would amend Sec. 14-
106 by renaming the term “non-building lot” to “special lot,” and changing the reference to non-
building lots in the definition of “remnant”; and amend Sec. 14-302 to refer to special lots. The
full text of the ordinance is available for examination by the public in the offices of the Clerk of
the Board of Supervisors and in the Department of Community Development, County Office.
(Amelia McCulley) DEFER TO MAY 17, 2011
Mr. Zobrist noted that the two requests for STA-2011-00001 Special Lots and ZTA-2011-00003
Special Lots would be taken together.
Ms. McCulley handed out corrected amendment language for the subdivision draft. She
presented a PowerPoint presentation and explained the proposal, as follows.
ZTA 2011-03 and STA 2011-01
Exemptions for Creation of Special Lots
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – MAY 17, 2011 PAGE 2
Draft MINUTES –
What are Special Lots?
Special lots are established for purposes such as public parks and greenways, central well
or sewer facilities, pre-existing cemeteries, public utilities, road rights-of-way and the
like.
Examples of Special Lots:
A typical greenway may be a 100’ wide swath that could run 100 or 1,000 feet.
A well lot can be as little as 100’ X 100’ or 10,000 square feet.
These special lots may not need to meet all of the Subdivision and Zoning Ordinance
requirements.
Special Lots may not meet these requirements:
• Min. Lot Size (2 acres in RA);
• Min. Lot Frontage or Width (150 or 250 ft in RA);
• Min. Building Site (30,000 sq ft);
• Lot Shape;
• Submittal of groundwater assessment, or
• Agency Approvals: Health Dept, VDOT, etc.
Ms. McCulley asked to make one clarification since she had a good question from Morgan
Butler with SELC this afternoon. This ordinance amendment for the zoning and subdivision
ordinance is all about the creation of the lots. Any use of that property is still subject to the full
zoning and subdivision requirements. As example, if this ordinance is passed they could create a
lot for a personal wireless facility. It would be exempt from certain requirements such as the lot
size and building site and so forth. However, you could not get a permit or an approval, building
permit or any tier of approval permit from the county without having to comply with
requirements such as critical slope requirements. Therefore, this is just for the creation of the lot
or the subdivision of the lot, and not for the use itself. The use is still subject to all the
development types of requirements.
Mr. Zobrist asked what is happening now. Would they just be locating on a bigger lot.
Ms. McCulley replied that many lots go to record without county approval because that is
something the Health Department requires. Greenway lots they have allowed through the
administrative decision that she made a couple of years ago with a memo that is attached to the
staff report. That is the way the county has had to allow it just by administrative determination.
Mr. Zobrist noted as a result of a subdivision they file a plat map and it shows the greenways.
The greenways is on the plat map, which would get stamped and recorded.
Ms. McCulley replied that was correct. That green greenway lot typically is not going to meet
the full zoning and subdivision ordinance requirements.
Public Purpose
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – MAY 17, 2011 PAGE 3
Draft MINUTES –
Allow the creation of special lots (with a limited and identifiable special purpose) with
exemptions from certain (Zoning and Subdivision) requirements necessary for the
creation of lots intended for development.
Requiring that these lots meet all requirements is not necessary to their specified use and
can discourage property owners from providing land for these special purposes, such as
greenway donations.
Background
Codify consistent administrative practice (memo dated February 13, 2007)
Provide consistency between Zoning and Subdivision Ordinances
Origin: staff initiated resolution of intent adopted by the Commission on April 19, 2011.
Discussion
Approval of a special lot will be subjected to limited requirements and approvals that are
appropriate given the limited use of the property. Building permits, site plans or
whatever does follow for the actual use of the property is still subject to the full zoning
requirements. Notes on the plat creating the special lot will state the identified purpose of
the special lot and will limit the allowed use.
Recommendation
Adoption of the draft ordinances for ZTA 2011-03 and STA 2011-01.
Board of Supervisors public hearing is scheduled for June 1st.
Mr. Zobrist asked if that means that each of these special lots will be given a tax map# or will
they just be part of the parcel. He asked how that would work.
Ms. McCulley replied that once the special lots are recorded they will get a tax map number.
Mr. Zobrist asked if the special lots will be taxed accordingly as the special use.
Ms. McCulley replied that was correct.
Mr. Smith asked if the special lot will be taxed as the property around it.
Ms. McCulley replied that she did not know the answer to that. Some special lots are exempt
because they are actually for public use and exempt from taxation.
Mr. Zobrist noted that the answer to that is that the law states that they can be taxed based upon
the use that they are permitted to have. It has to be the fair market value of that use.
Mr. Kamptner noted that it would be the highest and best use. By definition what these parcels
can be used for. It could be used for wells, streets, greenways, and other public uses such as that.
A number of these special lots will be owned by public entities that are going to be exempt from
taxation anyway.
Mr. Zobrist said it would bring the value down because of the limitation on use.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – MAY 17, 2011 PAGE 4
Draft MINUTES –
Mr. Zobrist opened the public hearing and invited public comment. There being none, he closed
the public hearing to bring the matter before the Planning Commission for action.
Motion: Mr. Franco moved and Mr. Morris seconded for approval of ZTA-2011-00003 Special
Lots and STA-2011-00001 Special Lots based on the information provided in the staff report.
The motion was passed by a vote of 5:0. (Porterfield and Loach were absent)
Mr. Zobrist noted ZTA-2011-00003 Special Lots and STA-2011-00001 Special Lots would go to
the Board of Supervisors on June 1, 2011 with a recommendation for approval.
Return to staff report
STAFF: Amelia McCulley
PLANNING COMMISSION: May 10, 2011
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS: June 8, 2011
STA: 2011-01 Exemptions for Creation of Special Lots
ORIGIN: Resolution of Intent proposed by staff and adopted by the Planning Commission
(Attachment A). This was done concurrently with the resolution of intent to amend the Zoning
Ordinance (ZTA 2011-03 Special Lots).
PROPOSAL: Amend the Subdivision Ordinance by providing exemptions from certain
requirements, for the creation of Special Lots for identifiable purposes other than development.
Special lots are established for purposes such as public parks and greenways, central well or
sewer facilities, pre-existing cemeteries, public utilities, road rights-of-way and the like.
PUBLIC PURPOSE TO BE SERVED: These special lots are limited to their identifiable special
purpose and are restricted from being used for development. Therefore, it does not serve a
public or practical purpose for them to meet requirements for the creation of lots that are
established for development. (The term, “development lot,” used within this report is not the
same as “development lot” in the Rural Areas district and is used here to refer to lots which can
be developed. These development lot requirements, such as lot frontage, building site,
groundwater assessment, VDOT approval and Health Department approval, are neither relevant
nor necessary to their special purpose. Furthermore, requiring that these lots meet all
requirements established for development lots can unnecessarily add costs to their approval
and increase their value. As a result, this can discourage property owners from providing land
for these special purposes such as for public parks and greenways, pre-existing cemeteries and
road rights-of-way.
BACKGROUND: Our consistent administrative practice has allowed the establishment of
special lots. This and the zoning text amendment (ZTA) will codify this practice. (See official
zoning determination in Attachment B.)
An example of the need for these exemptions is with the creation of greenway lots whether
required by proffer or offered through a subdivision process. Greenway properties commonly
consist of floodplain and critical slopes and do not include a 30,000 square foot building site.
They do not typically have road frontage and are part of a greenway system with road or
pedestrian access offsite. In addition, greenway lots often have an elongated or odd shape,
which is generally prohibited. Without appropriate exemptions, these lots would not meet
Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance requirements.
Another example of the need for special lot exemption from regulations is with the establishment
of a central well / community waterworks. The Virginia Health Department requires the creation
of a well lot and a deed of dedication. This well lot, often consisting of only 100 ft x 100 ft in
area, is limited as to use.
Page 2
STA: 2011-01 Exemptions for Creation of Special Lots
The Health Department regulations further state:
The intent of these materials (plat and deed) is to describe the proposed well lot and
record the information to ensure the well lot is only used for waterworks related materials
or activities. Therefore, no additional buildings, parking lots, or storage may occur on or
within the well lot. (Reference to plat and deed added.)
STAFF DISCUSSION: Notes will be required to be placed on the plat which will clearly state
the identified purpose of the special lot and will limit the use of the property. Approval of these
lots will be subjected to limited requirements and approvals that are appropriate considering the
limited uses allowed.
The following are criteria the Board has identified should be addressed with each Ordinance
amendment:
Administration / Review Process: Clear ordinance authority, including review process
and notes for plats, will improve the administration and review process for special lots. This
will also provide predictability and clarity for property owners / applicants.
Housing Affordability: No direct impacts are identified. Without these exemptions, the well
lots, greenway lots and other special lots should be increased in size. This and other
requirements have associated costs that will likely be passed on to property owners. This
additional cost would likely negatively impact housing affordability.
Implications to Staffing / Staffing Costs: As described under “administration / review
process,” this amendment will have a positive impact on staffing.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends adoption of the draft ordinance found in
Attachment C.
Attachment A: Resolution of Intent
Attachment B: Official Zoning Determination for Creation of Special Lots
Attachment C: Draft Subdivision Ordinance Amendment
Return to agenda
STA 2011-01 Special Lots
Attachment A
RESOLUTION OF INTENT
WHEREAS, there is an identified need for the creation of lots that do not comply with all of the
standards for lots under Chapter 14, Subdivisions, of the County Code; and
WHEREAS, the Subdivision Ordinance authorizes non-building lots to be created without assigning
development rights thereto provided that they are created for specific uses such as public and private streets,
railroad rights-of-way, central water supplies and central sewerage systems, stormwater management facilities,
greenways, public utilities and pre-existing cemeteries, all of which serve a general public purpose; and
WHEREAS, there is a pending zoning text amendment that would create a class of lots identified as
special lots which serve the same purposes as non-building lots under the Subdivision Ordinance; and
WHEREAS, it is desired to have the Subdivision Ordinance and the Zoning Ordinance regulate special
lots or non-building lots in a consistent manner using the same terminology.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT for purposes of public necessity, convenience,
general welfare and good land development practices, the Albemarle County Planning Commission hereby
adopts a resolution of intent to amend County Code §§ 14-106, 14-302 and any other regulations of Chapter 14,
Subdivision of Land, 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
subdivision 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 attachment
Return to staff report
ZTA 2011-03 & STA 2011-01 Special Lots
Attachment B
County of Albemarle
Department of Community Development
Memorandum Revised from 1-18-07
To: Interested Parties
From: Amelia McCulley, Zoning Administrator
Division: Zoning and Current Development
Date: February 13, 2007
Subject: Official Zoning Determination – creation of new non-development special
lots
The purpose of this memorandum is to provide an official written zoning determination regarding the
applicability of the zoning district and general regulations to the creation of new special non-
development lots. These lots shall be limited to those created for the following uses: greenways, road
or railroad rights-of-way, central wells and septic systems, stormwater management facilities, public
utilities and cemeteries. The majority of these lots are primarily used for public purposes (such as with
roads and greenways) or for utilities (such as with central well or septic). It is my determination that
these special purpose lots are not lots for the applicability of the zoning district and general
regulations provided that (and as long as) their use is restricted to the non-development use for which
they were created. This zoning determination relates to the lot requirements and does not extend to
use or area and bulk regulations relating to structures located upon these lots. Use of the property
and location of structures on these lots is still subject to applicable zoning regulations.
In our recent comprehensive amendment to the Subdivision Ordinance, provision was made for these
lots. We plan to codify this determination with a zoning text amendment in the near future. These lots
are the same as “non-building lot” as defined in Section 14-106 of the Subdivision Ordinance as
follows:
Non-building lot: The term “non-building lot” means a lot intended for the following uses: wells,
septic systems (including conventional drain fields), stormwater management facilities, open space,
common area, or pre-existing cemetery, but which does not contain a building site, and need not have a
development right assigned.
In the analysis to formulate this decision, I have considered the purposes and intent of both the
County’s comprehensive plan and the zoning ordinance (as set forth in Section 1) and find this
decision to be consistent with them. With regards to the creation of greenways, this decision
encourages and allows the dedication of land for public purposes which might not otherwise be done
due to regulatory conflicts or the loss of rights (such as in the RA with development rights).
Greenways and greenway parcels are similar to public road rights-of-way in several respects. By this
decision, greenway parcels and other non-development special lots may be created without the use of
development rights and without the lot requirements for building site, minimum lot size, frontage and
the like. New greenway parcels may be added to existing greenway parcels to extend the greenway
system in much the same way that right-of-way dedications are done for public roads.
There are also scenarios in which existing special-purpose lots may be reduced in area or eliminated
entirely through boundary line adjustments or the like. For example, an existing railroad right-of-way
which is being abandoned and is no longer in active use, may be added in whole or in part to
adjoining properties. In the case of subdivision improvements such as well lots which may be
ZTA 2011-03 & STA 2011-01 Special Lots
Attachment B
abandoned and added to adjoining properties, research will need to be conducted to determine if
amendment to the original subdivision plat is necessary and what form of approval that must take.
This approval is subject to compliance with zoning regulations.
For any new or revised non-development special lot which is shown on a plat, the plat must clearly
state the following:
Lot X is for the express purpose of ______ (an existing cemetery, railroad right-of-way, a new
well lot or a greenway or the like). It does not constitute a development lot under the
Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance; therefore, future use shall be limited to this purpose
without further County approval.
By this decision, the area and bulk regulations such as minimum size, frontage and the like are not
applicable to special non-development lots. In addition, the general regulations requiring a building
site and related utility (well and septic) approvals are also not applicable to special non-development
lots. In the Rural Areas, a development right is not required for the creation of a special non-building
lot. This memorandum is not a determination that existing special non-building lots do or do not have
development rights.
This special-purpose lot shall be limited to that area which is necessary for its express purpose and
shall not be made arbitrarily larger for future purposes. We are particularly concerned about
situations in which the express purpose may no longer be necessary and a future conversion use (for
development) is proposed. If that occurs, additional County approval is required and may include
combining this lot with adjoining property.
If questions arise in the administration of this decision, this decision will be revised to provide
clarification.
Go to next attachment
Return to staff report
Draft: 05/05/11
STA 2011-01 Special Lots
Attachment C: Draft Subdivision Ordinance
1
ORDINANCE NO. 11-14( )
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND CHAPTER 14, SUBDIVISION OF LAND, ARTICLE I, GENERAL
PROVISIONS, AND ARTICLE III, SUBDIVISION PLAT REQUIREMENTS AND DOCUMENTS TO BE
SUBMITTED, OF THE CODE OF THE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA
BE IT ORDAINED By the Board of Supervisors of the County of Albemarle, Virginia, that Chapter 14,
Subdivision of Land, Article I, General Provisions, and Article III, Subdivision Plat Requirements and Documents
to be Submitted, are hereby amended and reordained as follows:
By Amending:
Sec. 14-106 Definitions
Sec. 14-203 Fees
Sec. 14-209 Rural subdivisions
Sec. 14-302 Contents of preliminary plat
Sec. 14-303 Contents of final plat
Sec. 14-310 Health director approval of individual private wells and/or septic systems
By Adding:
Sec. 14-208.3 Plats creating special lots
Chapter 14. Subdivision of Land
Article I. General Provisions
Sec. 14-106 Definitions
The following definitions shall apply in the interpretation and enforcement of this chapter:
. . .
Non-building lot: The term “non-building lot” means a lot intended for the following uses: wells, septic systems
(including conventional drain fields), stormwater management facilities, open space, common area, or pre-
existing cemetery, but which does not contain a building site, and need not have a development right assigned.
. . .
Special lot: The term “special lot” means a lot created to be used exclusively for public or private streets, railroad
rights-of-way and railroad lines, public utilities, publicly owned or operated public facilities, publicly owned or
operated parks, publicly or privately owned sites for personal wireless service facilities, central water supplies and
central sewerage systems as those terms are defined in chapter 16, stormwater management facilities, cemeteries
existing on June 8, 2011, conservation areas, preservation areas, open space, and greenways.
. . .
Remnant. The term “remnant” means any lot, other than one established as a non-building special lot, which does
not meet the minimum lot requirements of this chapter and the zoning ordinance.
Draft: 05/05/11
STA 2011-01 Special Lots
Attachment C: Draft Subdivision Ordinance
2
. . .
(§ 18-2 (part) 9-5-96, 4-13-88, 7-9-86, 3-29-78, 12-15-76, 4-21-76; § 18-56, 9-5-96, 10-17-79, 8-28-74; 1988
Code, §§ 18-2, 18-56; Ord. 98-A(1), 7-15-98; Ord. 02-14(1), 2-6-02; Ord. 05-14(1), 4-20-05, effective 6-20-05)
State law reference--Va. Code § 15.2-2252.
Sec. 14-203 Fees
Each subdivider shall pay a fee upon the submittal of a plat or other application, based on the schedule
below; provided that neither the county nor the county school board shall be required to pay any fee if it is the
applicant. The fee shall be in the form of cash or a check payable to the “County of Albemarle.”
. . .
C. Other subdivision plats:
1. Plat for a rural subdivision, family subdivision, or resubdivision: $690.00.
2. Plat for a boundary line adjustment: $200.00.
3. Plat creating one or more special lots and one residue lot: $88.00.
. . .
(9-5-96, 12-11-91, 6-7-89, 4-17-85, 12-1-82, 12-14-77, 3-2-77, 11-10-76, 8-28-74 (§ 3); 1988 Code, § 18-43; Ord.
98-A(1), 7-15-98; Ord. 99-14(1), 6-16-99; Ord. 02-14(2), 7-3-02; Ord. 04-14(1), adopted 12-8-04, effective 2-8-
05; Ord. 05-14(1), 4-20-05, effective 6-20-05; Ord. 09-14(1), 5-13-09, effective 10-1-09)
State law reference--Va. Code § 15.2-2241(9).
Sec. 14-208.3 Subdivision creating a special lot and one residue lot
The following sections of this chapter shall apply to each subdivision creating one or more special lots
and one residue lot:
A. General: Sections 14-100 through 14-108.
B. Administration and procedure: Sections 14-200 through 14-204 and sections 14-209, 14-226, 14-
229 and 14-236.
C. Plat requirements and documents to be submitted: Sections 14-300, 14-301, 14-302(A)(1), (3),
(4), (5), (6), (7), (9), (10), (11), (14) and (15), 14-302(B)(1), (2), (4), (5), (6), (7), (8), (9) and (10), 14-303(A),
(B), (C), (D), (E), (F), (H), (I), (L), (O) and (P), 14-304, 14-305(B), 14-310, 14-312, 14-314 and 14-316.
D. On-site improvements and design: Sections 14-406, 14-414, 14-416, 14-421, 14-426, 14-427, 14-
433 and 14-438.
Sec. 14-209 Rural subdivisions and subdivisions creating a special lot and one residue lot; procedure.
Draft: 05/05/11
STA 2011-01 Special Lots
Attachment C: Draft Subdivision Ordinance
3
Each plat for a rural subdivision or a subdivision creating one or more special lots and one residue lot
shall be submitted, reviewed and approved as follows:
A. The plat shall meet the standards for plats set forth in Virginia Code § 42.1-82.
B. Within sixty (60) days after submittal of the plat, the agent shall determine whether it complies
with the applicable requirements of this chapter. If the agent determines that the plat complies, he shall approve
the plat. If the agent determines that the plat does not comply, he shall inform the subdivider in writing of the
reasons for the denial, with citation to the applicable section of this chapter or other law, and what corrections or
modifications will permit approval. The agent shall either mail the notice of denial by first class mail, or
personally deliver it, to the subdivider. However, if the plat requires approval by any agency, department or
authority other than the county, and no evidence is provided at the time the plat is submitted that approval has
been obtained, the agent shall approve or disapprove the plat within thirty-five (35) days after receipt of approval
from the agency, department or authority provided that the plat shall be approved or denied not later than ninety
(90) days after resubmittal of the plat.
(§ 18-13 (part), 9-5-96, 12-21-83; § 18-57 (part), 9-5-96, 1-3-96, 4-13-88, 12-21-83, 10-17-79, 8-28-74; § 18-58
(part), 9-5-96, 8-28-74; 1988 Code, §§ 18-13, 18-57, 18-58; Ord. 98-A(1), 7-15-98; Ord. 05-14(1), 4-20-05,
effective 6-20-05)
State law reference--Va. Code §§ 15.2-2241(9), 15.2-2258.
Article III. Subdivision Plat Requirements and Documents to be Submitted
Sec. 14-302 Contents of preliminary plat
A preliminary plat shall contain the following information:
A. A preliminary plat shall contain the following information, which must be included in order for a
preliminary plat to be deemed complete under section 14-216(B):
. . .
10. Right of further division of proposed lots. The number of lots, as assigned by the
subdivider, into which each proposed lot may be further divided by right pursuant to section 10.3.1 of the zoning
ordinance, if applicable. The plat shall also contain the following note: “Parcel [letter or number] is assigned
[number] development rights and may/may not be further divided and when further divided these rights shall not
comprise more than [number] acres. The residue of Tax Map/Parcel [numbers] is retaining [number]
development rights and when further divided it shall not consist of more than [number] acres.” Development
rights need not be assigned to a special lot.
(9-5-96, 2-4-81, 8-28-74; 1988 Code, § 18-52; Ord. 98-A(1), 8-5-98; Ord. 05-14(1), 4-20-05, effective 6-20-05;
Ord. 08-14(1), 2-6-08)
State law reference--Va. Code §§ 15.2-2241(1), 15.2-2258, 15.2-2262.
Sec. 14-303 Contents of final plat
In addition to containing all of the information required by section 14-302, except for the information
required by section 14-302(A)(12), a final plat shall contain the following information:
Draft: 05/05/11
STA 2011-01 Special Lots
Attachment C: Draft Subdivision Ordinance
4
. . .
T. Special lots. If the subdivision creates a special lot, the following note shall be placed on the plat:
“Lot „X‟ is a special lot established solely for (insert purpose for the special lot as identified in the definition of
special lot in section 14-106).”
(9-5-96, 2-4-81, 8-28-74 (§ 8); 1988 Code, § 18-55; Ord. 98-A(1), 8-5-98; Ord. 02-14(1), 2-6-02; Ord. 05-14(1),
4-20-05, effective 6-20-05)
State law reference--Va. Code §§ 15.2-2241(1), 15.2-2262, 15.2-2264.
Sec. 14-310 Health director approval of individual private wells and/or septic systems.
If required as a condition of final plat approval, a final plat shall not be approved if individual private
wells are proposed for the subdivision until written approval has been received from the health director by the
agent. A final plat shall not be approved if septic systems are proposed for the subdivision until written approval
has been received from the health director by the agent as follows:
A. The health director shall determine the suitability of the soil of each lot of the subdivision for
which septic systems with a conventional drain field will be constructed, and shall submit his opinion to the agent.
B. The health director may require as a condition of his approval of the installation of septic systems
and, whenever necessary for the satisfactory installation of the septic systems, that individual lots be graded and
drained so as to assure the effective removal of surface water from each lot.
C. Special lots shall not be subject to this section unless the special lot is created for a water supply
or waste disposal purpose.
(Ord. 98-A(1), 8-5-98; Ord. 05-14(1), 4-20-05, effective 6-20-05)
State law reference--Va. Code §§ 15.2-2242(2), 15.2-2262.
Return to staff report
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
ZTA-2011-00004 Zoning Fee Amendments
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Zoning Fee changes to address the cost of Farm Sales,
Farm Stand, and Farmer’s Market applications, to provide
a reduced cost for simple site plan changes, and to
incorporate non substantive administrative changes.
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Foley, Elliott, Davis, Kamptner, Graham, McCulley,
Cilimberg
LEGAL REVIEW: Yes
AGENDA DATE:
Planning Commission – May 10, 2011
County Board – June 1, 2011
ACTION: X INFORMATION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS: Yes
REVIEWED BY:
BACKGROUND:
On February 3, 2010, the Board deferred action on the proposed zoning fee ordinance that would have amended the
fee structure for County zoning applications (the “zoning fee ordinance”). On May 5, 2010, the Board adopted a
zoning text amendment that established new regulations for farm stands, farm sales and farmers’ markets (the “farm
sales ordinance”) and established fees for special use permits for farmers’ markets (either $490 or $110, depending
on whether the site had existing parking and an approved commercial entrance). Subsequent to this action the Board
adopted the zoning fee ordinance on August 4, 2010 and established a $2,000 fee for special use permits. The
zoning fee ordinance did not include the reduced fees previously established for special use permit fees for farmers’
markets in the farm sales ordinance. Thus, under the current fee regulations, the fee for a special use permit for a
farmers’ market is $2,000.
The proposed ordinance (Attachment A) re-establishes the $490 and $110 fees for farmers’ markets, reduces the fee
for a class of minor amendments to site plans and makes other changes to the fee structure for notices as well as
administration of fees. The Planning Commission considered the proposed ordinance at its May 10, 2 011 meeting and
recommended approval of most of the proposed changes, but not the reduced application fees for farmers’ markets or
the reduced fee for notices for farm stands, farm sales, farmers’ markets and major home occupations.
DISCUSSION
The Comprehensive Plan provides the guiding policies and principles for the reduced fees for the targeted uses in this
proposed zoning text amendment.
With respect to the farm stands, farm sales and farmers’ markets, the Rural Areas Plan describes the vision for the
Rural Areas to include:
“A strong agricultural and forestal economy, with large unfragmented parcels of land on which to
produce their goods, opportunities to gain value from processing their own produce, and access to local
markets” and “Plans, policies and decision making that consider and protect rural economies and
ecological processes.”
Perhaps most relevant to this proposed ordinance is the following principle from the Rural Areas Plan: “Provide
support to local and agricultural and forestal economies and connect local producers and consumers of local rural
products.”
With respect to the reduced notice fees for major home occupations, home occupations are one of the uses identified
in the Rural Areas Plan,which, along with the farm sales-related activities, can promote the preservation of rural lands
and activities.” County Code § 18-5.2A(a) states that the purpose of the home occupation regulations is to “encourage
limited home-based economic development,” balanced with the need to protect the Rural Areas.
The proposed ordinance recommended by staff (Attachment D) is the same as the ordinance considered by the
Planning Commission with the exception of Sections 35.1(j)(1) and (2), which have been consolidated into Section
35.1(j)(1), as explained in the Fees for Notices section below.
AGENDA TITLE: ZTA-2011-00004 Zoning Fee Amendments
June 1, 2011
Page 2
Fees for special use permits for farmers’ markets
When the farm sales ordinance was considered by the Board, the reduced fees for farmers’ markets were justified by
the reduced review required for these applications as compared to other special use permits for commercial uses.
(Attachment D)
The $490 fee for proposed farmers’ markets that do not have existing parking and an approved commercial entrance
is equivalent to one- half of the $980 fee imposed for commercial use special use permits in effect at the time. The fee
was consistent with the fee charged for special use permits for Class B home occupations and small day care centers
lacking existing parking and an approved commercial entrance. Under the current zoning fee regulations, the fee for a
special use permit for a commercial use is $2,000; the fee for a special use permit for a Class B home occupation or a
day care center is $1,000.
The $110 fee for those proposed farmers’ markets that had existing parking and an approved commercial entrance
was justified because the application requires less review than a typical special use permit application. Although the
current zoning fee regulations no longer have a fee class for minor amendments to a special use permit; the fee for a
minor amendment to a site plan is $500, which is better aligned to the required review than a typical special use
permit application.
The Planning Commission recommended that the fees for special use permits for farmers’ markets set forth in Section
35.1(c)(7) and (8) not be reduced as set forth above. The Commission was concerned about the budget impacts of
the reduced fees.
Fees for Letters of Revision
Letters of revision are a class of minor site plan amendments that require much less review than a typical minor site
plan amendment and therefore the proposed reduced fee of $100 for letters of revision set fo rth in Section 35.1(d)(6)
is warranted. The Planning Commission recommended approval of this proposed amendment.
Fees for notices
The proposed ordinance includes three changes to the fee structure for public notices. First, under the current
regulations, Section 35.1(j)(1) requires that an applicant pay a $200 fee plus the actual cost of postage for the first 50
mailed notices. The proposed ordinance would amend Section 35.1(j)(1) by eliminating the requirement that the
applicant pay the actual cost of postage. This change would have little budget impact and would simplify
administration by eliminating the need for staff to collect any later -identified unpaid postage costs. The Planning
Commission recommended approval of this change.
Second, staff recommends that Section 35.1(j)(1) be amended to exempt farm stands, farm sales, farmers’ markets
and major home occupations from the fee imposed for mailed notices to adjoining property owners. The draft
ordinance considered by the Planning Commission (Attachment A) provided that a fee of $199 be established to
provide the Board the greatest flexibility in setting a fee. Staff now recommends that these uses not be subject to any
fee for mailed notices. Because the costs of mailed notice would have to be absorbed by the County, the Planning
Commission recommended that these uses be subject to the $200 fee for mailed notices under Section 35.1(j)(1).
Lastly, Section 35.1(j)(3) is recommended to be amended to provide that the fee for published notice be based on a
“cost quote from the publisher” instead of on “actual cost.” This change clarifies that the publication cost is limited to
the actual cost of publication, and not the County’s costs in processing the published noticed, which is assumed to be
covered by the application fee. The Planning Commission recommended approval of this change, but recommended
that the proposed final clause of Section 35.1(j)(3), which would exempt special use permits for farmers’ markets from
the publication costs, be deleted.
Administration
The last paragraph of Section 35.1 is proposed to be amended to expressly authorize the zoning administrator to
refund application fees subsequent to the submission of an application in those instances when it is determined that
said fees are not required . The Planning Commission recommended approval of this proposed amendment.
Conclusion
Despite the budget impacts from the reduced or eliminated fees under the proposed ordinance, the guiding principles
of the Comprehensive Plan support the reduced fees in the proposed ordinance.
AGENDA TITLE: ZTA-2011-00004 Zoning Fee Amendments
June 1, 2011
Page 3
One alternative approach would be to set the fees for special use permits for farmers’ markets based upon
comparables under the current fee regulations. Under that approach, the fees for farmers’ market special use permits
would be $1000 (based on the fee for a Class B home occupation or a day care center) and $500 (based on the fee
for a minor site plan amendment). However, staff notes that even these fees may be market barriers for small or
infrequently held farmers’ markets.
BUDGET IMPACT
The proposed ordinance impacts the County’s budget because most of the costs for reviewing special use permits for
farmers’ markets would be absorbed by the County and all of the costs associated with published notice for those
permits, and mailed notice for farm stands, farm sales, farmers’ markets and major home occupations would be
covered by the County. For each special use permit for farmers’ market on a site that has existing parking and an
approved commercial entrance, the fee would be $110 under the proposed or dinance as compared to $2,000 under
the current fee regulations, and there would be no fee for published and mailed notices as compared to an
approximately $800 fee under the current fee regulations.
RECOMMENDATIONS
After the public hearing, staff recom mends that the Board adopt the revised ordinance (Attachment D).
ATTACHMENTS
A – Proposed Zoning Text Amendment Considered by the Planning Commission, dated April 25, 2011
B – Staff Report to the Planning Commission, dated May 10, 2011
C – May 5, 2010 Executive Summary for ZTA 2009-018 (Farm Stands, Farm Sales and Farmers’ Markets)
D – Revised Zoning Text Amendment Recommended by Staff dated May 20, 2011
Return to agenda
Draft: 04/25/11
1
ORDINANCE NO. 11-18( )
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND CHAPTER 18, ZONING, ARTICLE IV, PROCEDURE, OF THE
CODE OF THE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA
BE IT ORDAINED By the Board of Supervisors of the County of Albemarle, Virginia, that Chapter 18,
Zoning, Article IV, Procedure, is hereby amended and reordained as follows:
By Amending:
Sec. 35.1 Fees
Chapter 18. Zoning
Article IV. Procedure
Sec. 35.1 Fees.
Each applicant shall pay the following applicable fees, provided that neither the county nor the county
school board shall be required to pay any fee if it is the applicant:
a. Zoning text amendments: $1000.00
b. Zoning map amendments:
1. Less than 50 acres; application and first resubmission: $2500.00
2. Less than 50 acres; each additional resubmission: $1250.00
3. 50 acres or greater; application and first resubmission: $3500.00
4. 50 acres or greater; each additional resubmission: $1750.00
5. Deferral of scheduled public hearing at applicant’s request: $180.00
c. Special use permits:
1. Additional lots under section 10.5.2.1, public utilities, day care center, home occupation
Class B, to amend existing special use permit, or to extend existing special use permit;
application and first resubmission: $1000.00
2. Additional lots under section 10.5.2.1, public utilities, day care center, home occupation
class B, to amend existing special use permit, or to extend existing special use permit;
each additional resubmission: $500.00
3. Signs reviewed by the board of zoning appeals: See subsection 35.1(f)
4. All other special use permits; application and first resubmission: $2000.00
5. All other special use permits; each additional resubmission: $1000.00
6. Deferral of scheduled public hearing at applicant’s request: $180.00
7. Farmers’ markets without an existing commercial entrance approved by the Virginia
Department of Transportation or existing and adequate parking - $490.00.
8. Farmers’ markets with an existing commercial entrance approved by the Virginia
Department of Transportation and existing and adequate parking - $110.00.
d. Site plans:
1. Preliminary site plans; administrative review: $1200.00 plus $15 per dwelling unit and
$0.015 per square foot of nonresidential structure
2. Preliminary site plans; planning commission review: $1800.00 plus $15 per dwelling unit
and $0.015 per square foot of nonresidential structure
3. Final site plans; administrative review: $1500.00
4. Final site plans; planning commission review: $2000.00
Draft: 04/25/11
2
5. Waiver of drawing of site plan under section 32.2: $1500.00
6. Site plan amendments under section 32.3.8 ¶2 (minor): $500.00 (minor); $100.00 (letter
of revision)
7. All other site plan amendments (major): $1500.00
8. Appeals to the board of supervisors under section 32.4.2.7: $240.00
9. Reinstatement of review under section 32.4.2.1: $240.00
10. Reinstatement of review under section 32.4.2.4: $80.00
11. Extension of period of validity: $475.00
12. Inspections pertaining to secured site plan improvements; per inspection: $280.00
13. Deferral of scheduled public meeting at applicant’s request: $180.00
e. Certificates of appropriateness considered by the architectural review board (“ARB”):
1. For a site plan; per review by the ARB: $1000.00
2. For a building permit; per review by the ARB: $590.00
3. Amendment to approved certificate of appropriateness: $225.00
f. Matters considered by the board of zoning appeals:
1. Variances: $500.00
2. Appeals: $240.00
3. Special use permits for signs under section 4.15.5: $500.00
g Matters considered by the zoning administrator or other officials:
1. Official determinations regarding compliance: $185.00
2. All other official determinations, including development rights: $100.00
3. Zoning clearance for tourist lodging: $100.00
4. Zoning clearance for a home occupation, class A, a major home occupation, or a minor
home occupation: $25.00
5. Zoning clearance for temporary fundraising activity: No fee
6. All other zoning clearances: $50.00
7. Sign permits under section 4.15.4; no ARB review required: $25.00
8. Sign permits under section 4.15.4; ARB review required: $120.00
h. Groundwater assessments:
1. Tier 1 assessment under section 17-401: $50.00
2. Tier 3 assessment under section 17-403: $510.00
3. Tier 4 assessment under section 17-404: $1100.00
i. Miscellaneous:
1. Change in name of development or change in name of street: $80.00
2. Relief from conditions of approval; modification or waiver of requirements: $425.00
3. Tier II personal wireless service facilities: $1820.00
j. Required notice:
1. Preparing and mailing or delivering up to fifty (50) notices, except as provided in section
35.1(j)(2): $200.00 plus the actual cost of first class postage.
2. Preparing and mailing or delivering, per notice, for notice required by sections 5.1.47 or
5.2A: $199.00.
23. Preparing and mailing or delivering, per notice more than fifty (50): $1.00 plus the actual
cost of first class postage.
34. Published notice: actual cost based on a cost quote from the publisher, except for
farmers’ markets under section 35.1(c)(7) and (8) for which there shall be no fee.
Draft: 04/25/11
3
The fee shall be in the form of cash or a check payable to the “County of Albemarle.” An application
presented without the required fee shall not be deemed to be submitted and shall not be processed. If the
zoning administrator determines after a fee has been paid that the review and approval to which the fee
pertains is not required to establish the use or structure, the fee shall be refunded to the applicant in full.
(Amended 5- 5-82; 9-1-85; 7-1-87; 6-7-89; 12-11-91 to be effective 4-1-92; 7- 8-92; Ord. 10-18(7),
adopted 8-4-10, effective 1-1-11; Ord. 11-18(1), 1-12-11)
Return to exec summary
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
ZTA2011-00004 Zoning Fee Amendments
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Zoning Fee changes to address the cost of Farm Sales,
Farm Stand, and Farmer’s Market applications by reducing
costs, to provide a reduced cost for simple site plan
changes, and to incorporate non substantive
administrative changes.
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Graham, Kamptner, McCulley, Cilimberg
AGENDA DATE:
Planning Commission – May 10, 2011
County Board – To be Scheduled following Planning
Commission Action
ACTION: X INFORMATION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS: Yes
REVIEWED BY:
BACKGROUND:
On February 3, 2010, the County Board voted to deny a fee amendment to the Zoning Ordinance (ZTA2009-017), but
upon reconsideration, agreed to indefinitely defer this for additional unspecified information. On May 5, 2010, the
County Board adopted a Zoning Ordinance Amendment for Farm Stands, Farm Sales, and Farmer’s Markets
(ZTA2009-018), which included a provision to subsidize most of the cost of this application by requiring a fee of only
$110 for the simplest applications and $490 for the more complex applications that require a new commercial entrance
onto a public road. In June 2010, the County Board asked that ZTA2009—017 be placed on the Board Agenda for
reconsideration. That reconsideration was held on August 4, 2010 and the Board adopted this fee amendment without
any changes to the ordinance proposal presented in February 2010. Through a staff oversight, the Board was not
informed of the need to modify that fee structure to reflect what had been adopted in May 2010 for Farmer’s Markets.
Hence the adopted zoning fees raised the cost for a Farmer’s Market application to what is charged for similar Special
Use Permits, eliminating the special subsidy intended for these applications. This ordinance amendment is designed
to reduce that fee to the $110 as the Board approved in May 2010, including possible changes to the cost of the legal
advertisement and notices for these applications, and to provide one additional change to the site plan amendments,
adding a fee for a ―Letter of Revision‖ which is much smaller than otherwise charged for a site plan amendment.
DISCUSSION:
To address the issues covered in the background section of this report, a resolution of intent to amend the Zoning
Ordinance was adopted by the Planning Commission on January 25, 2011. Subsequent to this resolution of intent,
staff drafted a Zoning Ordinance am endment to address this intent. (Attachment A ) Next, as noted in the May 2010
discussion of the Farmer’s Market Executive Summary, staff and the Planning Commission had recommended a
greatly reduced fee for a Farmer’s Market. (Attachment B) When the Zoning Fees were reintroduced in August 2010,
staff overlooked the fact that this special fee had been created since the February consideration of fees.. This
ordinance amendment brings the fees back in line with that adopted for Farmer’s Markets in May 2010.
Next, when Farm Stands, Farm Sales, and Farmers Markets were considered in May 2010, there was not a Zoning
Ordinance fee provision for required notices or the cost of required legal advertisements. That provision was added to
the Zoning Ordinance with the fee changes adopted in August 2010. This provision was not discussed by the
Planning Commission or County Board when this ordinance amendment was considered. So, staff has no direction on
whether there was an intent to also subsidize those parts of the application. Assuming there was, this would eliminate
the need for notices, which is a cost of $200 or more to an applicant, and the cost of the two required legal
advertisements, which are a cost of $600 or more for a Farmer’s Market. The legal advertisement is only required for a
Farmer’s Market Special Use Permit and is not required for the Farm Stand or Farm Sales.
To provide the Planning Commission and County Board maximum flexibility in fees for notices, the ordinance
amendment gives three options:
AGENDA TITLE: ZTA-2011-00004 Zoning Fee Amendments
Page 2
1. The fee can remain the same $200 as currently required for other applications by rejecting the
changes to 35.1.j.1. and rejecting 35.1.j.2.
2. The fee can be reduced to $0 by modifying 35.1.j.2 to reflect a fee of $0
3. The fee can be anywhere between the current $200 and $0 by modifying the fee in 35.1.j2. to that
amount. The fee may not exceed the currently advertised fee
Staff does not recommend option 3 be considered, as the diff erence may become so small that the cost of
administering the fee is the greatest use of the revenue. If the County’s intent is to significantly subsidize this
application, staff recommends option 2. If the County’s intent is to limit the subsidy to what was considered in May
2010, staff recommends option 1.
Similar to the above, there is the cost of the legal advertisement for a Farmer’s Market Special Use Permit. If the
County’s intent is to significantly subsidize the cost of Farmer’s Markets, staff recommends the ordinance amendment
as proposed under 35.1.j.4, as this waives this cost for applicants. If the County’s intent is to limit the subsidy to what
was discussed in 2010, staff recommends rejecting the change shown in 35.1.j.4.
Next, following implementation of the revised Zoning Ordinance fees in January 2011, staff recognized reduced fees
for very simple site plan changes, called a ―Letter of Revision‖, had not been included in the ordinance. To rectify this
and avoid charging applicants for the more expensive amendment fee, staff is recommending that 35.1.d.6 be
amended as shown in the attached fee amendment.
The final ordinance changes staff notes are some clarifications made to the administration of fees. Under 35.1.j4, staff
has clarified that the cost of the legal advertisement is solely based on the cost quoted to the County by the newspaper
publisher. This simplifies the fee and clarifies the intent was not to include additional county costs of processing the
legal advertisement. That county cost is assumed to be covered by the cost of the application. Staff also notes the
changes at the end of the ordinance amendment that clarify the means of paying the fee, that an application is not
considered complete without the fee, and if Zoning Administrator determines no fee was required, that the fee be
returned to the applicant. These changes are not considered substantive, but simply clarify intent.
BUDGET IMPACT:
For a typical Farmer’s Market application that does not require a new entrance, the proposed difference in the fee
is estimated at $1,890. If the County also subsidizes the cost of the notices and legal advertisements, the
difference is estimated to increase by an additional $800. Assuming 4 Farmer’s Market applications per year, this
equates to an additional County subsidy of $10,760 that would need to be funded from County revenues. If the
decision is to lower the application fees but not to reduce the notice or advertisement fees, this equates to a
County subsidy of $7,560 that would need to be funded from County revenues.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
1. Staff recommends the fees for a Farmer’s Market Special Use Permit Application be amended as shown in
Section 35.1.j.7 & 8, of Attachment A. This will make the fees consistent with those adopted in May 2010.
2. Staff recommends the fee for a Letter of Revision be amended as shown in Section 35.1.d.6 of Attachment A.
3. Staff recommends the fee for notices shown in Section 35.1.j.2 of Attachment A be amended to $0, provided
the County’s wishes to extend the subsidy for Farm Sales, Farm Stands, and Farmer’s Market. If there is not
interest in extending this subsidy to the notices, staff recommends rejecting the changes to Sec 35.1.j.1 & 2 as
shown in Attachment A.
4. Staff recommends the fee for legal advertisements associated with a Farmer’s Market Special Use Permit
application be amended as shown in Section 35.1.j.4 of Attachment A, provided the County is interested in
extending the application subsidy to these fees. If there is not interest in extending this subsidy for Farmer’s
Markets, staff recommends the changes to Section 35.1.j.4 of Attachment A be rejected.
5. Staff recommends the remaining administrative changes at the end of Section 35.1 as shown in Attachment A
be adopted.
ATTACHMENTS
A – Zoning Fee Changes proposed by Staff, ZTA2011-01
B – May 5, 2010 Executive Summary for ZTA2009-018, including Farmer’s Markets
View PC minutes
Return to exec summary
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
ZTA 2009-018 Farm Stands, Farm Sales and Farmers
Markets
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Amend the Zoning
Ordinance to provide additional markets for the sale of
local agricultural products and merchandise, while meeting
basic technical requirements to assure public health and
safety.
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Messrs. Cilimberg and Newberry, Ms. McCulley
LEGAL REVIEW: Yes
AGENDA DATE:
May 5, 2010
ACTION: X INFORMATION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS: YES
REVIEWED BY: VWC
BACKGROUND:
This issue arose initially as a result of a zoning complaint about the unapproved off -site sale of farm products at a
County location. This case highlighted the fact that while farmers can sell products at their farm, it may not be a good
location from which to sell to their customers. This case further revealed the fact that the permitted off -site or off-farm
locations for a farmer to sell products are relatively limited in our Zoning Ordinance. Therefore, the current Ordinance
provisions are not adequately meeting the County’s Comprehensive Plan goals for the sale of local produce.
On December 10th, we held a public roundtable to solicit input on this ordinance amendment. The roundtable was
attended by a group with diverse agricultural endeavors ranging from those growing and selling raw fruits and
vegetables to those who produce value-added products and those who raise and produce beef, poultry and the like.
With their valuable input, staff made significant revisions to the draft proposal. (See Roundtable Input and Revisions
Resulting from Roundtable Input attachments to the January 19th Commission work session report included in
Attachment II.)
On January 19th, staff held a work session with the Commission to both introduce the proposal and to resolve five (5)
issues. The Commission’s direction on these and several other issues is incorporated into the recommended
Ordinance language. (See Attachment I) On April 6th, the Planning Commission held a public hearing and
recommended approval of this ordinance. (See Attachment II)
DISCUSSION:
Rather than charging the regular $980 fee for a commercial use, staff recommended a reduced or subsidized fee for
the farmers market special use permits (the only one of the three uses involving a special use permit). As a result of
discussion in public hearing, the Commission supported the idea of utilizing a two-tiered fee structure. The lesser of
the two fees, $110, would be charged for those uses that will be served by existing parking and an existing commercial
entrance. This lower-tiered fee is consistent with the fee for a minor amendment to a special use permit and is based
on the reduced review necessary for a minor addition to a site with existing infrastructure. This lower fee would apply
for example, to the use of existing church or school sites. The higher-tiered fee is recommended at $490, or half the
full commercial use fee. This reduction or subsidy is generally consistent with the fee charged for special use permits
involving home occupations and small day care centers. This fee would be imposed for sites which are not already
developed with adequate parking and entrance. The draft ordinance has been revised to reflect this fee structure.
Comment from the public suggested that the ordinance should clarify whether the Water Protection Ordinance is
applicable to these uses. In addition to this, the proposed ordinance has been revised to capture minor grammatical
corrections to the text.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff and the Planning Commission recommend adoption of the proposed ordinance found in Attachment I.
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment I: Proposed Ordinance
Attachment II: Planning Commission Public Hearing Report Packet
Return to exec summary
Draft: 05/20/11
1
ORDINANCE NO. 11-18( )
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND CHAPTER 18, ZONING, ARTICLE IV, PROCEDURE, OF THE
CODE OF THE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA
BE IT ORDAINED By the Board of Supervisors of the County of Albemarle, Virginia, that Chapter 18,
Zoning, Article IV, Procedure, is hereby amended and reordained as follows:
By Amending:
Sec. 35.1 Fees
Chapter 18. Zoning
Article IV. Procedure
Sec. 35.1 Fees.
Each applicant shall pay the following applicable fees, provided that neither the county nor the county
school board shall be required to pay any fee if it is the applicant:
a. Zoning text amendments: $1000.00
b. Zoning map amendments:
1. Less than 50 acres; application and first resubmission: $2500.00
2. Less than 50 acres; each additional resubmission: $1250.00
3. 50 acres or greater; application and first resubmission: $3500.00
4. 50 acres or greater; each additional resubmission: $1750.00
5. Deferral of scheduled public hearing at applicant’s request: $180.00
c. Special use permits:
1. Additional lots under section 10.5.2.1, public utilities, day care center, home occupation
Class B, to amend existing special use permit, or to extend existing special use permit;
application and first resubmission: $1000.00
2. Additional lots under section 10.5.2.1, public utilities, day care center, home occupation
class B, to amend existing special use permit, or to extend existing special use permit;
each additional resubmission: $500.00
3. Signs reviewed by the board of zoning appeals: See subsection 35.1(f)
4. All other special use permits; application and first resubmission: $2000.00
5. All other special use permits; each additional resubmission: $1000.00
6. Deferral of scheduled public hearing at applicant’s request: $180.00
7. Farmers’ markets without an existing commercial entrance approved by the Virginia
Department of Transportation or without existing and adequate parking - $490.00.
8. Farmers’ markets with an existing commercial entrance approved by the Virginia
Department of Transportation and with existing and adequate parking - $110.00.
d. Site plans:
1. Preliminary site plans; administrative review: $1200.00 plus $15 per dwelling unit and
$0.015 per square foot of nonresidential structure
2. Preliminary site plans; planning commission review: $1800.00 plus $15 per dwelling unit
and $0.015 per square foot of nonresidential structure
3. Final site plans; administrative review: $1500.00
4. Final site plans; planning commission review: $2000.00
Draft: 05/20/11
2
5. Waiver of drawing of site plan under section 32.2: $1500.00
6. Site plan amendments under section 32.3.8 ¶2 (minor): $500.00 (minor); $100.00 (letter
of revision)
7. All other site plan amendments (major): $1500.00
8. Appeals to the board of supervisors under section 32.4.2.7: $240.00
9. Reinstatement of review under section 32.4.2.1: $240.00
10. Reinstatement of review under section 32.4.2.4: $80.00
11. Extension of period of validity: $475.00
12. Inspections pertaining to secured site plan improvements; per inspection: $280.00
13. Deferral of scheduled public meeting at applicant’s request: $180.00
e. Certificates of appropriateness considered by the architectural review board (“ARB”):
1. For a site plan; per review by the ARB: $1000.00
2. For a building permit; per review by the ARB: $590.00
3. Amendment to approved certificate of appropriateness: $225.00
f. Matters considered by the board of zoning appeals:
1. Variances: $500.00
2. Appeals: $240.00
3. Special use permits for signs under section 4.15.5: $500.00
g Matters considered by the zoning administrator or other officials:
1. Official determinations regarding compliance: $185.00
2. All other official determinations, including development rights: $100.00
3. Zoning clearance for tourist lodging: $100.00
4. Zoning clearance for a home occupation, class A, a major home occupation, or a minor
home occupation: $25.00
5. Zoning clearance for temporary fundraising activity: No fee
6. All other zoning clearances: $50.00
7. Sign permits under section 4.15.4; no ARB review required: $25.00
8. Sign permits under section 4.15.4; ARB review required: $120.00
h. Groundwater assessments:
1. Tier 1 assessment under section 17-401: $50.00
2. Tier 3 assessment under section 17-403: $510.00
3. Tier 4 assessment under section 17-404: $1100.00
i. Miscellaneous:
1. Change in name of development or change in name of street: $80.00
2. Relief from conditions of approval; modification or waiver of requirements: $425.00
3. Tier II personal wireless service facilities: $1820.00
j. Required notice:
1. Preparing and mailing or delivering up to fifty (50) notices: $200.00 plus the actual cost
of first class postage , except for uses under sections 5.1.47 and 5.2A, for which there
shall be no fee.
2. Preparing and mailing or delivering, per notice more than fifty (50): $1.00 plus the actual
cost of first class postage.
Draft: 05/20/11
3
3. Published notice: actual cost based on a cost quote from the publisher, except for
farmers’ markets under section 35.1(c)(7) and (8) for which there shall be no fee.
The fee shall be in the form of cash or a check payable to the “County of Albemarle.” An application
presented without the required fee shall not be deemed to be submitted and shall not be processed. If the
zoning administrator determines after a fee has been paid that the review and approval to which the fee
pertains is not required to establish the use or structure, the fee shall be refunded to the applicant in full.
(Amended 5- 5-82; 9-1-85; 7-1-87; 6-7-89; 12-11-91 to be effective 4-1-92; 7- 8-92; Ord. 10-18(7),
adopted 8-4-10, effective 1-1-11; Ord. 11-18(1), 1-12-11)
Return to exec summary
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
11-03( ) Agricultural and Forestal Districts; periodic
review of two districts and corrections to the district
descriptions to identify all those tax map parcels
within the districts
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Public hearings on an
ordinance to amend Division 2, Districts, of Article II,
Districts of Statewide Significance, of Chapter 3,
Agricultural and Forestal Districts, of the County Code
pertaining to the periodic review of the Hatton and Totier
Creek AF Districts; and corrections to those AF Districts
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Messrs. Foley, Elliott, Davis, Kamptner, Graham,
Cilimberg
LEGAL REVIEW: Yes
AGENDA DATE:
June 1, 2011
ACTION: X INFORMATION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS: Yes
REVIEWED BY:
BACKGROUND:
Virginia Code § 15.2-4311 requires the periodic review of agricultural and forestal districts (AFD) to determine whether they
should continue, be modified, or be terminated unless the Board determines that review is unnecessary. During the review
process, land within the District may be withdrawn at the owner’s request by filing a written notice with the Board any time
before the Board acts on the review.
The Hatton AFD, which was created in 1983 and currently includes twenty-four parcels and 860.268 acres, is undergoing its
periodic ten-year review. This AFD is located in the southeastern corner of the County along the Rivanna River. As of the
submission of this executive summary, no landowners have requested withdrawal.
The Totier Creek AFD, which was created in 1983 and currently includes fifty-five parcels and 8,715.047 acres, is also
undergoing its periodic ten-year review. This AFD is located in the south central portion of the County. As of the
submission of this executive summary, one landowner has requested to withdraw a 56.5 acre parcel (TMP 135-11) from the
District.
Virginia Code § 15.2-4311 requires that the Board conduct a public hearing on AFD reviews, and that they also be reviewed
by both the Agricultural and Forestal District Advisory Committee and the Planning Commission for their recommendations.
The Advisory Committee and the Planning Commission have reviewed these AFDs and recommended the continuation of
the two districts. The AFD-specific staff reports to the Planning Commission are attached (Attachment B).
DISCUSSION:
The Hatton AFD primarily consists of large forested parcels and large farm parcels. Four parcels in the District are under
conservation easements. Of the 860.268 acres in the District, 379 acres are enrolled in the Agricultural category of the
land use taxation program, and 192 acres are enrolled in the Forestal category. Enrollment in these tax categories
indicates active rural uses in the District. In addition to agriculture and forestry, there are approximately 15 dwellings in the
District. The conservation of this area will help maintain the environmental integrity of the County and aid the protection of
ground and surface water, agricultural soils, mountain resources, critical slopes and wildlife habitat.
The parcels identified in section 3-215 of the proposed ordinance as being added to this District are merely new parcel
numbers assigned to parcels created from parcels already in the District. T MP 135-22C was created from TMP 135-22,
TMPs 135-22C1 and 135- 22C2 were created from TMP 135-22C, and TMP 136-9 was created from TMP 136-9C. As of
the date this executive summary was written, no owner within the District has requested that land be withdrawn from the
District.
The Totier Creek AFD primarily consists of large forested parcels and large farm parcels, and several parcels in the District
are under conservation easements. Of the 8,715.047 acres in the District, 2,064 acres are enrolled in the Agricultural
category of the land use taxation program, 1,163 acres in the Forestal category, 19 acres in the Horticultural category, and
20 acres in the Open Space category. Enrollment in these tax categories indicates active rural uses in the District. In
addition to agriculture, forestry and horticulture, there are approximately 35 dwellings in the District. The conservation of
AGENDA TITLE: 11-03( ) Agricultural and Forestal Districts; periodic review of two districts and corrections to the
district descriptions to identify all those tax map parcels within the districts.
June 1, 2011
Page 2
this area will help maintain the environmental integrity of the County and aid the protection of ground and surface water,
agricultural soils, mountain resources, critical slopes and wildlife habitat.
All but one parcel identified in section 3-227 of the proposed ordinance as being added to the District are merely new
parcel numbers assigned to parcels created from parcels already in the District. TMPs 121-70A, 70B and 70D were
created from TMP 121-70, TMP 121-70E was created from TMP 129-5, and TMPs 134-3A, 3B, 3C, 3D, 3E, 3F, 3G, 3H, 3I,
3J, 3K and 3L were created from TMP 134-3. The identification of TMP 129-9 being added to the District is a correction,
as this parcel is in the District but was inadvertently deleted from County Code section 3-227 in a prior ordinance. TMP
121-70 is identified as being removed from the District because land from that parcel became part of tax map 121 parcels
70A, 70B and 70D, and TMP 134-19 is identified as being removed because land from that parcel became part of TMP
134-3. TMP 135-11 is identified as being removed because the landowner requested withdrawal of that parcel , consisting
of 56.5 acres, from the District during this review.
The attached ordinance (Attachment A) would continue the Hatton and Totier Creek AFDs for an additional 10-year
period and establish the next review period, revise the parcels identified within those Districts, and authorize the
withdrawal of TMP 135-11 from the Totier Creek AFD.
BUDGET IMPACT:
None
RECOMMENDATIONS:
After conducting public hearings on the AFD Reviews, which may be held together as one public hearing, staff
recommends that the Board adopt the attached ordinance.
ATTACHMENTS:
A – Ordinance amending County Code Chapter 3
B – Staff reports to the Planning Commission
Hatton AFD
Totier Creek AFD
Return to agenda
Draft: May 11, 2011
ATTACHMENT A
ORDINANCE NO. 11-03(1)
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND AND REORDAIN CHAPTER 3, AGRICULTURAL AND FORESTAL
DISTRICTS, ARTICLE II, DISTRICTS OF STATEWIDE SIGNIFICANCE, DIVISION 2, DISTRICTS,
OF THE CODE OF THE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA.
BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of the County of Albemarle, Virginia, that Chapter 3,
Agricultural and Forestal Districts, Article II, Districts of Statewide Significance, Division 2, Districts,
of the Code of the County of Albemarle, Virginia, is hereby amended and reordained as follows:
By Amending:
3-215 Hatton Agricultural and Forestal District
3-227 Totier Creek Agricultural and Forestal District
CHAPTER 3. AGRICULTURAL AND FORESTAL DISTRICTS
DIVISION 2. DISTRICTS
Sec. 3-215 Hatton Agricultural and Forestal District.
The district known as the "Hatton Agricultural and Forestal District" consists of the following
described properties: Tax map 135, parcels 13, 13A, 13B, 14B, 15, 15A, 15C, 17, 18, 19, 22, 22A , 22C,
22C1, 22C2; tax map 136, parcels 2A, 6B, 8H, 9, 9A2, 9B, 9C, 9D1, 9E. This district, created on June
29, 1983 for not more than 10 years and last reviewed on June 20, 2001 June 8, 2011, shall next be
reviewed prior to June 29, 2011 June 8, 2021.
(Code 1988, § 2.1-4(a); Ord. 98-A(1), 8-5-98; Ord. 01-3(1), 6-20-01; Ord. 07-3(1), 7-11-07; Ord. 10-3(2),
7-7-10)
Sec. 3-227 Totier Creek Agricultural and Forestal District.
The district known as the "Totier Creek Agricultural and Forestal District" consists of the
following described properties: Tax map 121, parcels 70, 70A, 70B, 70D, 70E, 72C, 85, 85A; tax map
122, parcels 5, 5A; tax map 128, parcels 13, 14A, 14B, 14C, 14D, 27, 29, 30, 72; tax map 129, parcels 3,
5, 6, 6A, 7A, 7D, 9; tax map 130, parcels 1, 5A; tax map 134, parcels 3, 3A, 3B, 3C, 3D, 3E, 3F, 3G, 3H,
3I, 3J, 3K, 3L, 19; tax map 135, parcels 7, 10, 11. This district, created on June 29, 1983 for not more
than 10 years and last reviewed on June 20, 2001 June 8, 2011, shall next be reviewed prior to June 29,
2011 June 8, 2021.
(Code 1988, § 2.1-4(b); Ord. 98-A(1), 8-5-98; Ord. 01-3(1), 6-20-01)
Return to exec summary
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
STAFF REPORT SUMMARY
Project Name:
AFD2011-00001 Hatton AF District Review
Staff: Eryn Brennan, Senior Planner
Planning Commission Public Hearing:
May 24, 2011
Board of Supervisors Public Hearing:
June 8, 2011
Proposal: Periodic review of the Hatton AF
District.
Comprehensive Plan Designation:
Rural Areas
RECOMMENDATION: That the Planning Commission recommend renewal of the District for
another 10-year period.
Petition: Review of the Hatton Agricultural and Forestal District – Referral to Agricultural and Forestal
Advisory Committee: Periodic (10-year) review of the Hatton Agricultural and Forestal District, as required in
Section 15.2-4311 of the Code of Virginia. The district includes the properties described as: Tax map 135,
parcels 13, 13A, 13B, 14B, 15, 15A, 15C, 17, 18, 19, 22, 22A, 22C, 22C1, 22C2; tax map 136, parcels 2A,
6B, 8H, 9, 9A2, 9B, 9C, 9D1, 9E. This district, created on June 29, 1983 for not more than 10 years and last
reviewed on June 20, 2001, shall next be reviewed prior to June 29, 2011.
Purpose
The County’s Comprehensive Plan identifies Albemarle County’s Agricultural and Forestal Districts Program
(the “AFD Program”) as one of several voluntary programs available to landowners that “encourage the
protection of prime agricultural soils and working farms from nonagricultural development.” The AFD
Program is an important voluntary land protection measure. By State Law and the County Code, the purposes
of the AFD Program are to:
Conserve and protect agricultural and forestal lands for the production of food and other agricultural and
forestal products;
Conserve and protect agricultural and forestal lands as valued natural and ecological resources which
provide essential open spaces for clear air sheds, watershed protection, wildlife habitat, as well as for
aesthetic purposes; and
Provide a means by which agricultural and forestal lands may be protected and enhanced as a viable
segment of the State and local economies, and as important economic and environmental resources.
Effects of an Agricultural and Forestal District
The placement of land in an Agricultural and Forestal District has the following effects:
1. Prohibition of development to more intensive use. As a condition to creation of the district, no parcel
within the district may be developed to a use more intensive than that existing on the date of creation
of the district, other than uses resulting in more intensive agricultural or forestal production, without
the prior approval of the Board of Supervisors. The meaning of “development to a more intensive
2
use” is defined in County Code § 3-202.
2. Applicability of Comprehensive Plan and Zoning and Subdivision ordinances . The Comprehensive
Plan and the Zoning and Subdivision Ordinances apply within a district to the extent they do not
conflict with any conditions of creation or continuation of the district, or the purposes of the AFD
Program.
3. Limitation on restricting or regulating certain agricultural and forestal farm activities. The County
may not unreasonably restrict or regulate by ordinance farm structures or agricultural and forestal
practices that are contrary to the purposes of the AFD Program unless the restriction or regulation is
directly related to public health and safety. However, the County may regulate the processing or retail
sales of agricultural or forestal products or structures in accordance with the Comprehensive Plan and
County ordinances.
4. Consideration of district in taking certain actions. The County must consider the existence of a
district and the purposes of the AFD Program in actions pertaining to the Comprehensive Plan, its land
use ordinances, and other land use-related decisions and procedures affecting parcels of land adjacent
to a district.
5. Availability of land use value assessment. Land within a district devoted to agricultural or forestal
production qualifies for land use value assessment if the requirements for such an assessment under
State law are satisfied. Placing land within a district is one of three ways in which land devoted to
open space use may qualify for land use value assessment if the requirements for such an assessment
under State law are satisfied.
6. Review of proposals by agencies of the Commonwealth, political subdivisions and public service
corporations to acquire land in district. The Board of Supervisors must review any proposal by an
agency of the Commonwealth, political subdivision of the Commonwealth, or public service
corporation to acquire land in a district. The purpose of the Board’s review is to determine: (i) the
effect the action would have upon the preservation and enhancement of agriculture and forestry and
agricultural and forestal resources within the district; and (ii) the necessity of the proposed action to
provide service to the public in the most economical and practicable manner.
7. Parcel created by division remains in district. A parcel created from the permitted division of land
within a district continues to be enrolled in the district.
8. Prohibition of certain service-related assessments and tax levies. Land used primarily for agricultural
or forestal production may not be subjected to benefit assessments or special tax levies by a special
district for sewer, water or electricity or for nonfarm or nonforest drainage on the basis of frontage,
acreage or value. There are two exceptions: (a) the assessment or levy was imposed prior to the
formation of the district; or (b) the assessment or levy is imposed on a lot not exceeding one-half acre
surrounding any dwelling or nonfarm structure located on the land.
In general, a district may have a stabilizing effect on land use. The landowners in the district are making a
statement that they do not intend to develop their property in the near future, and that they would like the area
to remain in agricultural, forestal, and open space uses. Adjacent property owners may be encouraged to
continue agricultural, forestal or open space uses if they do not anticipate development of adjacent lands.
Periodic Review of Agricultural and Forestal Districts
A district may continue indefinitely, but it must be reviewed by the County not more than every 10 years to
3
determine whether the district should be continued. Before being considered by the Board of Supervisors, a
district is reviewed by the County’s Agricultural and Forestal District Advisory Committee and the Planning
Commission. Both the Advisory Committee and the Planning Commission provide recommendations to the
Board as to whether the district should be terminated, modified or continued.
Once it has received the recommendations of the Advisory Committee and the Planning Commission, the
Board conducts a public hearing. After the public hearing, the Board may terminate, modify or continue the
district. If the Board continues the district, it may impose conditions on the district different from those
imposed on the district when it was created or last reviewed. Landowners within a district receive notice of
this process, including notice of any proposed different conditions.
When a district is reviewed, land within the district may be withdrawn at the owner’s discretion by filing a
written notice with the Board at any time before the Board acts to continue, modify, or terminate the district.
Unless the district is modified or terminated by the Board, the district continues as originally constituted, with
the same conditions and time period before the next review as were established when the district was created or
last reviewed. If the Board terminates the district, the land within the terminated district is subject to and liable
for roll-back taxes under Virginia Code § 58.1-3237 and the lands are no longer subject to the benefits and
obligations described in the “Effects” section above.
AFD 2011-1 HATTON DISTRICT REVIEW
The Albemarle County Code currently contains this description of the Hatton District (please note underlined
parcels indicate additions to the district due to land subdivisions):
Sec. 3-215 Hatton Agricultural and Forestal District.
The district known as the "Hatton Agricultural and Forestal District" consists of the following
described properties: Tax map 135, parcels 13, 13A, 13B, 14B, 15, 15A , 15C, 17, 18, 19, 22, 22A,
22C, 22C1, 22C2; tax map 136, parcels 2A, 6B, 8H, 9, 9A2, 9B, 9C, 9D1, 9E. This district, created
on June 29, 1983 for not more than 10 years and last reviewed on June 20, 2001, shall next be
reviewed prior to June 29, 2011.
(Code 1988, § 2.1-4(a); Ord. 98-A(1), 8-5-98; Ord. 01-3(1), 6-20-01; Ord. 07-3(1), 7-11-07; Ord. 10-
3(2), 7-7-10)
The parcels in the District are located in the southeastern corner of the County along the Rivanna River
(Attachment A).
The District was created in 1983, and originally included 2,545.588 acres. The District now includes 24 parcels
and 860.268 acres.
Agricultural and Forestal District Significance: Of the 860.268 acres that comprise the Hatton District, 379
acres are enrolled in the Agricultural category of the Land-Use Value Taxation program, while 192 acres are
enrolled in the Forestry category. Enrollment in these tax categories is an indicator of active rural land uses.
Land Use other than Agriculture and Forestry: In addition to agricultural and forestal uses, the Hatton District
includes approximately 15 dwellings.
Local Development Patterns: The District primarily consists of large forested parcels and large farm parcels.
Four parcels in the District are under conservation easements (Attachment B).
4
Comprehensive Plan Designation and Zoning Districts: The Hatton District is entirely designated as Rural
Areas in the Comprehensive Plan, and the parcels included in the District are zoned RA Rural Areas
(Attachment B).
Environmental Benefits: Conservation of this area will help maintain the environmental integrity of the County
and aids in the protection of ground and surface water, agricultural soils, mountain resources, critical slopes,
and wildlife habitat. The Hatton District is located in both the Totier Creek, Ballinger Creek, and James River
– Rock Island Creek watersheds (Attachment B).
Time Period: The District was created on June 29, 1983, and was last reviewed on June 20, 2001. The Hatton
District is currently on a 10-year review cycle.
Landowners may withdraw their parcels from districts by right during a renewal at anytime before the Board of
Supervisors takes final action to continue, modify, or terminate the district. Landowners were notified of the
renewal by certified mail on March 8 and May 4, 2011. As of this date, no landowners have requested
withdrawal.
Agricultural and Forestal Districts Advisory Committee Recommendation: On April 5, 2011, the Agricultural
and Forestal District Advisory Committee recommended renewal of the Hatton District for a 10-year period.
Staff Recommendation: That the Planning Commission recommend renewal of the Hatton District for a 10-
year period.
Attachments:
A. Hatton AF District
B. Hatton District – Characteristics
View PC minutes
Return to agenda
GIS-Web
Geographic Data Services
www.albemarle.org
(434) 296-5832
Tax Map Grid
Overview Roads
Primary Roads
Secondary Roads
Overview Roads - City
Road Bridges
Railroad Bridges
Road Centerlines
Road Centerlines - City
Roads
Roads - City
Railroads
Buildings
Buildings - City
Driveways
Parcels
Lakes and Reservoirs
Ponds
Major Streams
Other Streams
AgForest Districts
Albemarle Boundary
Charlottesville Boundary
Scottsville Boundary
Hatton Ag For District 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 22, 2011
Hatton
Totier Creek
JAMES RIVER RD
WARREN FERRY RDCRAWFORD FARMWARREN HILL LNTotier Creek
James River-Rock Island Creek
Ballinger Creek
James River-Brokenborough Creek
s 0 560 1,120 1,680 2,240
Feet
Hatton Ag For District
Legend
Agricultural & Forestal District
Conservation Easements
Watersheds
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – MAY 24, 2011
Draft Partial MINUTES – AFD-2011-00001 Review of Hatton Agricultural and Forestal District and
AFD-2011-00002 Review of the Totier Creek Agricultural and Forestal District - Submitted to BOS
1
Albemarle County Planning Commission
May 24, 2011
The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a meeting and public hearing on Tuesday, May 24,
2011, at 6:00 p.m., at the County Office Building, Lane Auditorium, Second Floor, 401 McIntire Road,
Charlottesville, Virginia.
Members attending were Ed Smith, Thomas Loach, Linda Porterfield, and Don Franco. Members absent
were Russell (Mac) Lafferty, Duane Zobrist, Chairman; and Calvin Morris, Vice-Chairman. Julia Monteith,
AICP, Senior Land Use Planner for the University of Virginia was present.
Other officials present were Eryn Brennan, Senior Planner; Scott Clark, Senior Planner; Amelia McCulley,
Director of Zoning/Zoning Administrator; Johnathan Newberry, Code Enforcement Officer; Glenn Brooks,
County Engineer; Wayne Cilimberg, Director of Planning and Greg Kamptner, Deputy County Attorney.
Call to Order and Establish Quorum:
Mr. Cilimberg called the regular meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. and established a quorum.
Public Hearing Items:
AFD-2011-00001 Review of the Hatton Agricultural and Forestal District
Periodic (10-year) review of the Hatton Agricultural and Forestal District, as required in Section 15.2 -4311
of the Code of Virginia. The district includes the properties described as Tax map 135, parcels 13, 13A,
13B, 14B, 15, 15A, 15C, 17, 18, 19, 22, 22A, 22C, 22C1, 22C2; tax map 136, parcels 2A, 6B, 8H, 9, 9A2,
9B, 9C, 9D1, 9E. The district includes a total of 8,715.047 acres. The area is designated as Rural Area in
the Comprehensive Plan and the included properties are zoned RA Rural Areas. (Eryn Brennan)
Ms. Brennan presented a PowerPoint presentation and summarized the request.
This is the ten-year periodic review for the Hatton Agricultural and Forestal District. The district
was created in 1983. Originally, the district included approximate ly 2,500 acres. The district now
includes 24 parcels and 860 acres. The district is located at the southeastern corner along the
Rivanna River and is composed largely of forested parcels and large farm parcels.
Land owners were notified of the district renewal by certified mail on March 8, 2011 and as of this
date, no landowners have requested withdrawal from the district.
On April 5th the Agricultural and Forestal District Committee recommended renewal of the Hatton
District for a ten-year period.
Staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend renewal of the Hatton Agricultural and
Forestal District for a period of ten years from the date of the Board of Supervisors action.
Mr. Loach invited questions for staff.
Ms. Porterfield noted this one was the first one she had seen that had dropped this many acres. She
asked what that acreage turned into.
Ms. Brennan responded that she believed there were quite a few withdrawals during the 2003 review.
She noted that there had been an increase in acreage to the adjacent agricultural and forestal district,
which is the Totier District that will be reviewed next. She did not know if people withdrew and then went
back into the Totier Creek Agricultural and Forestal District. While th is district has decreased significantly,
the Totier Creek has increased by 2,000 acres. It might be the effect of having two districts that are in
such close proximity to one another. The two districts were founded at the same time.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – MAY 24, 2011
Draft Partial MINUTES – AFD-2011-00001 Review of Hatton Agricultural and Forestal District and
AFD-2011-00002 Review of the Totier Creek Agricultural and Forestal District - Submitted to BOS
2
Mr. Loach opened the public hearing and invited the applicant to address the Commission. There being
no one present to speak for the applicant, he invited pub lic comment. There being no public comment,
the public hearing was closed and the matter before the Planning Commission for discussion and action.
Motion: Ms. Porterfield moved and Mr. Franco seconded to recommend approval of the renewal of the
AFD-2011-00001, Hatton Agricultural/Forestal District for another ten-year period from the day of the
Board of Supervisors action.
The motion passed by a vote of 4:0.
Mr. Loach noted that AFD-2011-00001 Hatton Agricultural/Forestal District Review would go to the Board of
Supervisors on June 1, 2011 with a recommendation for approval of the renewal for a ten-year period.
Return to staff report
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
STAFF REPORT SUMMARY
Project Name:
AFD2011-00002 Totier Creek AF District
Review
Staff: Eryn Brennan, Senior Planner
Planning Commission Public Hearing:
May 24, 2011
Board of Supervisors Public Hearing:
June 8, 2011
Proposal: Periodic review of the Totier Creek
AF District.
Comprehensive Plan Designation:
Rural Areas
RECOMMENDATION: That the Planning Commission recommend renewal of the District for
another 10-year period.
Petition: Review of the Totier Creek Agricultural and Forestal District – Referral to Agricultural and Forestal
Advisory Committee: Periodic (10-year) review of the Totier Creek Agricultural and Forestal District, as
required in Section 15.2-4311 of the Code of Virginia. The district includes the properties described as: Tax
map 121, parcels 70A, 70B, 70D, 70E, 72C, 85, 85A; tax map 122, parcels 5, 5A; tax map 128, parcels 13,
14A, 14B, 14C, 14D, 27, 29, 30, 72; tax map 129, parcels 3, 5, 6, 6A, 7A, 7D, 9; tax map 130, parcels 1, 5A;
tax map 134, parcels 3, 3A, 3B, 3C, 3D, 3E, 3F, 3G, 3H, 3I, 3J, 3K, 3L; tax map 135, parcels 7, 10, 11. This
district, created on June 29, 1983 for not more than 10 years and last reviewed on June 20, 2001, shall next be
reviewed prior to June 29, 2011.
AFD 2011-2 TOTIER CREEK DISTRICT REVIEW
The Albemarle County Code currently contains this description of the Totier Creek District (please note
underlined parcels indicate additions to the district due to land subdivisions):
Sec. 3-227 Totier Creek Agricultural and Forestal District.
The district known as the "Totier Creek Agricultural and Forestal District" consists of the following
described properties: Tax map 121, parcels 70, 70A, 70B, 70D, 70E, 72C, 85, 85A; tax map 122,
parcels 5, 5A; tax map 128, parcels 13, 14A, 14B, 14C, 14D, 27, 29, 30, 72; tax map 129, parcels 3,
5, 6, 6A, 7A, 7D, 9; tax map 130, parcels 1, 5A; tax map 134, parcels 3, 19; tax map 135, parcels 7,
10, 11. This district created on June 29, 1983 for not more than 10 years and last reviewed on June 20,
2001, shall next be reviewed prior to June 29, 2011.
(Code 1988, § 2.1-4(b); Ord. 98-A(1), 8-5-98; Ord. 01-3(1), 6-20-01)
The parcels in the District are located in south central portion of the County (Attachment A).
The District was created in 1983, and originally included 6,962.173 acres. The District now includes 55 parcels
and 8,715.047 acres.
Agricultural and Forestal District Significance: Of the 8,715.047 acres that comprise the Totier Creek District,
2,064 acres are enrolled in the Agricultural category of the Land-Use Value Taxation program, 1,163 acres are
enrolled in the Forestry category, 19 acres are enrolled in the Horticulture category, and 20 acres are enrolled in
the Open Space category. Enrollment in these tax categories is an indicator of active rural land uses.
2
Land Use other than Agriculture and Forestry: In addition to agricultural and forestal uses, the Hatton District
includes approximately 35 dwellings.
Local Development Patterns: The District primarily consists of large forested parcels and large farm parcels,
and several parcels in the District are under conservation easements (Attachment B).
Comprehensive Plan Designation and Zoning Districts: The Totier Creek District is entirely designated as
Rural Areas in the Comprehensive Plan, and the parcels included in the District are zoned RA Rural Areas
(Attachment B).
Environmental Benefits: Conservation of this area will help maintain the environmental integrity of the County
and aids in the protection of ground and surface water, agricultural soils, mountain resources, critical slopes,
and wildlife habitat. The Totier Creek District is located in both the Totier Creek and James River –
Brokenborough, Ballinger Creek, James River, James River – Rock Island Creek, and Totier Creek watersheds
(Attachment B).
Time Period: The District was created on June 29, 1983, and was last reviewed on June 20, 2001. The Totier
Creek District is currently on a 10-year review cycle.
Landowners may withdraw their parcels from districts by right during a renewal at anytime before the Board of
Supervisors takes final action to continue, modify, or terminate the district. Landowners were notified of the
renewal by certified mail on March 8 and May 4, 2011. As of this date, one landowner has requested to
withdraw a 56.5 acre parcel, Tax Map 135, Parcel 11, from the district (Attachment C).
Agricultural and Forestal Districts Advisory Committee Recommendation: On April 5, 2011, the Agricultural
and Forestal District Advisory Committee recommended renewal of the Totier Creek District for a 10-year
period.
Staff Recommendation: That the Planning Commission recommend renewal of the Totier Creek District for a
10-year period, and recommend approval of the owner’s request to withdraw Tax Map 135, Parcel 11 from the
district.
Attachments:
A. Totier Creek AF District
B. Totier Creek District – Characteristics
C. Parcel Requesting to Withdraw
View PC minutes
Return to agenda
GIS-Web
Geographic Data Services
www.albemarle.org
(434) 296-5832
Tax Map Grid
Overview Roads
Primary Roads
Secondary Roads
Overview Roads - City
Road Bridges
Railroad Bridges
Road Centerlines
Road Centerlines - City
Roads
Roads - City
Railroads
Buildings
Buildings - City
Driveways
Parcels
Lakes and Reservoirs
Ponds
Major Streams
Other Streams
AgForest Districts
Albemarle Boundary
Charlottesville Boundary
Scottsville Boundary
Totier Creek Ag For District 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 22, 2011
Totier Creek
Hatton
Totier Creek
Totier Creek
Ballinger Creek
James River-Brokenborough Creek
James River-Rock Island Creek
s 0 1,600 3,200 4,800 6,400
Feet
Totier Creek Ag For District
Legend
Agricultural & Forestal District
Conservation Easements
Watersheds
GIS-Web
Geographic Data Services
www.albemarle.org
(434) 296-5832
Tax Map Grid
Overview Roads
Primary Roads
Secondary Roads
Overview Roads - City
Road Bridges
Railroad Bridges
Road Centerlines
Road Centerlines - City
Roads
Roads - City
Railroads
Buildings
Buildings - City
Driveways
Parcels
Lakes and Reservoirs
Ponds
Major Streams
Other Streams
AgForest Districts
Albemarle Boundary
Charlottesville Boundary
Scottsville Boundary
Request for Withdrawal 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 April 5, 2011
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – MAY 24, 2011
Draft Partial MINUTES – AFD-2011-00001 Review of Hatton Agricultural and Forestal District and
AFD-2011-00002 Review of the Totier Creek Agricultural and Forestal District - Submitted to BOS
1
Albemarle County Planning Commission
May 24, 2011
The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a meeting and public hearing on Tuesday, May 24,
2011, at 6:00 p.m., at the County Office Building, Lane Auditorium, Second Floor, 401 McIntire Road,
Charlottesville, Virginia.
Members attending were Ed Smith, Thomas Loach, Linda Porterfield, and Don Franco. Members absent
were Russell (Mac) Lafferty, Duane Zobrist, Chairman; and Calvin Morris, Vice-Chairman. Julia Monteith,
AICP, Senior Land Use Planner for the University of Virginia was present.
Other officials present were Eryn Brennan, Senior Planner; Scott Clark, Senior Planner; Amelia McCulley,
Director of Zoning/Zoning Administrator; Johnathan Newberry, Code Enforcement Officer; Glenn Brooks,
County Engineer; Wayne Cilimberg, Director of Planning and Greg Kamptner, Deputy County Attorney.
Call to Order and Establish Quorum:
Mr. Cilimberg called the regular meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. and established a quorum.
Public Hearing Items:
AFD-2011-00002 Review of the Totier Creek Agricultural and Forestal District
Periodic (10-year) review of the Totier Creek Agricultural and Forestal District, as required in Section
15.2-4311 of the Code of Virginia. The district includes the properties described as Tax map 121, parcels
70A, 70B, 70D, 70E, 72C, 85, 85A; tax map 122, parcels 5, 5A; tax map 128, parcels 13, 14A, 14B, 14C,
14D, 27, 29, 30, 72; tax map 129, parcels 3, 5, 6, 6A, 7A, 7D, 9; tax map 130, parcels 1, 5A; tax map 134,
parcels 3, 3A, 3B, 3C, 3D, 3E, 3F, 3G, 3H, 3I, 3J, 3K, 3L; tax map 135, parcels 7, 10, 11. T he district
includes a total of 860.268 acres. The area is designated as Rural Area in the Comprehensive Plan and
the included properties are zoned RA Rural Areas. (Eryn Brennan)
Ms. Brennan presented a PowerPoint presentation and summarized the request.
This is the ten-year periodic review for the Totier Creek Agricultural and Forestal District. The
district was created in 1983. Originally, the district included approximately 6,900 acres. The
district now includes 55 parcels and roughly 8,700 acres. The district is located in the
southeastern corner of the County along the Rivanna River and adjacent to the Hatton
Agricultural and Forestal District. It consists primarily of forested and large farm parcels.
Land owners were notified of the district renewal by certified mail on March 8, 2011 and as of this
date, only one landowner has requested to withdraw a parcel from the district.
On April 5th the Agricultural and Forestal District Committee recommended renewal of the Totier
Creek Agricultural and Forestal District for a ten-year period.
Staff recommends the Planning Commission also recommend renewal of the Totier Creek
Agricultural and Forestal District for a period of ten years from the date of the Board of
Supervisors action.
Mr. Loach invited questions for staff. There being none, he opened the public hearing and invited the
applicant to address the Commission. There being no one present for the applicant he invited public
comment. There being no public comment, the public hearing was closed and the matter before the
Planning Commission.
Motion: Ms. Porterfield moved and Mr. Smith seconded to recommend approval of the renewal of AFD-
2011-00002, Totier Creek Agricultural/Forestal District for another ten-year period and to approve the
owner’s request to withdraw tax map 135, parcel 11 from the District.
The motion passed by a vote of 4:0.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – MAY 24, 2011
Draft Partial MINUTES – AFD-2011-00001 Review of Hatton Agricultural and Forestal District and
AFD-2011-00002 Review of the Totier Creek Agricultural and Forestal District - Submitted to BOS
2
Mr. Loach noted that AFD-2011-00002 Totier Creek Agricultural/Forestal District Review would go to the
Board of Supervisors on June 1, 2011 with a recommendation for approval of the renewal of a ten-year
period and to allow the one withdrawal.
Return to staff report
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
ZMA 2010-00009, Republic Capital
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Rezoning of a 20.54 acre site zoned LI Light Industry and
HI Heavy Industry, which allows industrial, office, and
limited commercial uses (no residential use), to amend
proffers.
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Davis, Kamptner, Cilimberg, Brennan
LEGAL REVIEW: Yes
AGENDA DATE:
June 1, 2011
ACTION: X INFORMATION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS: Yes
REVIEWED BY:
BACKGROUND:
On February 17, 1988, the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors approved ZMA1987-19 to rezone a 20.54 acre site
from R1 Residential to LI Light Industry and HI Heavy Industry. The rezoning included a proffered plan and proffers.
The applicant is now seeking to amend the proffers associated with ZMA1987-19. On March 15, 2011 the Planning
Commission, by a vote of 7:0, recommended approval of ZMA2010-00009 with the following expectations:
1. An interconnection between Northside Drive and the University of Virginia Foundation property shall be provided
through a commitment to either dedicate right of way along the boundary with the Foundation property as an
extension of a road through the subject property or through the reservation of a 25’ strip for a road along the
shared property line with the Hall’s property, Tax Map 32, Parcel 22C5.
2. There shall be no parking on the south side of the buildings adjacent to Airport Acres.
3. The requested proffer changes will be made regarding a reduced buffer adjacent to Airport Acres as proposed
by the applicant (from 150 to 50 feet with a four-foot high planted berm and a building setback of 75
feet; additionally, the building height restriction of 30 and 25 feet for any portion of a structure within 300 feet of
Airport Acres will be eliminated).
4. Technical changes shall be made to other proffers.
5. The proffered plan shall be revised to reflect the amended proffers or the proffered the plan shall be removed.
DISCUSSION:
On April 4, 2011, the applicant submitted revised proffers to address the Planning Commission’s expectations, which
included removal of the proffered plan. Following the applicant’s submittal, staff provided comments in an effort to
simplify and clarify the proffers, to assure that they were in an acceptable form, and to address the Planning
Commission’s expectations above (Attachment B). Following is a summary of staff’s comments
Proffer 1: Staff recommended that this proffer, which restricts uses if public sewer is not available, be
eliminated as unnecessary. Proposed uses not served by public sewer are already restricted by the Health
Department, which issues permits for onsite sewage disposal only for domestic waste. In addition, because
the site is zoned Light Industry and Heavy Industry, any use not served by public sewer that proposes to
discharge sewage other than domestic waste would require a special use permit.
Proffer 2: Staff requested that this proffer be revised to use language previously accepted for such a proff er
where, as here, the applicant proffers to prohibit uses otherwise allowed in the zoning district. In addition, the
phrase in the proposed proffer that the prohibited uses “would include” those listed creates an ambiguity as to
whether the list is exclusive or merely serves as an example.
Proffer 3: Staff recommended that this proffer be deleted because Tax Map and Parcel Number 32-22C,
which is the subject of this proffer, does not exist.
Proffer 4: Staff recommended that this proffer be revised because it is does not provide who determines
Northside Drive’s capacity, the capacity threshold, responsibility for constructing the road improvements or
what those improvements would be.
AGENDA TITLE: ZMA 2010-00009, Republic Capital
June 1, 2011
Page 2
Proffer 5: Staff recommended that this proffer be revised because it is unclear. The proffer needed to specify
when the buffer would be expanded, such as in conjunction with the first site plan, its length (a 10-foot long
berm would do little good) and location. Staff also requested that the proffer be revised to use language
previously accepted for such a proffer where, as here, the applicant proffers to establish a berm or a similar
buffer.
Proffer 6: Staff recommended that this proffer be revised because it is unclear. Staff recommended revisions
to a number of key terms in the proffer, including changing “reasonably consistent” to “consistent” (in
reference to the architectural style of the buildings) and changing “natural” to “neutral” in reference to the
buildings’ colors.
Proffer 7: Staff recommended that this proffer be revised because it is unclear. In addition, the Planning
Commission requested that there also be no loading in that 150-foot zone. As written, the proffer allows
travelways and loading areas in the 150-foot zone.
Proffer 8: Staff requested that this proffer be revised to use language previously accepted for such a proffer
where, as here, the applicant is proffering to reserve right-of-way for future dedication. This proffer is intended
to address one of the Planning Commission’s expectations; however, the County Engineer and the Virginia
Department of Transportation have determined that the dedication of a 25-foot strip of land along the this
project’s boundary line with Tax Map 32, Parcel 22C5 would not be adequate to build a road connection to a
future extension of Lewis and Clark Drive. The County Engineer has noted that the proffer has little tangible
value to the County because: (1) the future extension is dependent upon acquiring an additional 25 feet of
right-of-way from the abutting parcel; and (2) the proffered alignment, which includes two angle breaks along
the property line, would not accommodate the required curvature of the road.
After receiving the comment letter, the applicant requested to go directly to the Board of Supervisors for public hearing.
The applicant’s final proffer statement, dated May 23, 2011, is Attachment A.
BUDGET IMPACT:
None.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Although the applicant has attempted to address four of the five expectations recommended by the Planning
Commission, the proffers are not in a legally acceptable form for the reasons noted above. Thus , staff recommends
that the Board defer holding a public hearing on the rezoning until the proffers are revised to address the issues noted
herein or that it hold the public hearing and defer or deny the rezoning.
ATTACHMENTS
A – Proposed Proffers
B – Applicant Comment Letter, dated May 4, 2011
C – 1988 Proffered Plan
D – March 15, 2011 Planning Commission Staff Report
Return to agenda
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
Phone (434) 296-5832 Fax (434) 972-4012
May 4, 2011
Marcia Joseph
481 Clarks Tract
Keswick, VA 22947
RE: ZMA 2010-0009, Republic Capital Amendment
Tax Map 32, Parcel 22
Dear Ms. Joseph:
Thank you for your recent resubmittal on April 4, 2011 regarding the above noted tax map and parcel for
a zoning map amendment to amend and consolidate proffers associated with a development on the subject
parcel approved on December 2, 1987, November 20, 1987, and February 18, 1988.
The information provided with your resubmittal has been reviewed and comments are summarized below
and in the attachments. Please note that it was the consensus of the reviewers that proffer #1 could be
eliminated because Health Department approval would restrict the uses if the capacity was not available
and would be required before site plan approval, and proffer #3 could also be eliminated because tax
map/parcel 32-22C is no longer an active parcel.
COUNTY ENGINNER COMMENTS
Comments are provided in bold italics in Attachment A.
VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORATION (VDOT)
Comments are provided in bold italics in Attachment A.
CURRENT DEVELOPMENT
Comments are provided in bold italics in Attachment A.
ZONING COMMENTS
The parcels included in the 1987 proffered plan no longer correspond to the parcels as they exist today.
Subsequent research revealed that there are two parcels that have been subdivided since 1987 that are still
subject to the proffered plan as shown in Attachment B (32-22C5 & 32-22M). Please note that the
proffered plan may be removed or changed regarding tax map/parcel 32-22, but the two subdivided
parcels would still be subject to the 1987 plan. It is recommended that the applicant consider adding
these parcels to the current rezoning; however, if the parcels are not added to the rezoning, a proffer
providing a connection to tax map/parcel 32-22C5 would be required.
Specific comments regarding the proposed proffers are provided in bold italics in Attachment A.
ZMA 2010-9, Republic Capital Amendment, Marcia Joseph, May 4, 2011 2
DESIGN PLANNER COMMENTS
For those portions of the development that are visible from the Route 29 Entrance Corridor, the EC
Guidelines will apply in addition to any architectural proffers. The applicant should note that
Architectural Review Board approval will be required prior to final site plan approval, and the ARB
review will include both the site and architectural designs. Consequently, the County review associated
with proffer #6 will occur after the applicant has completed the ARB review process.
For reference, the applicant’s architectural proffer reads as follows:
The exterior architectural styling of the buildings will be reasonably consistent throughout the
project. The buildings will be substantially masonry or concrete wall construction with brick,
stucco, textured concrete or masonry facades, finished in natural earth tones on all building sides,
facing residential zoned land.
Comments:
1. “Shall” is typically used instead of “will” in this type of application.
2. “Reasonably consistent” is vague.
3. The facing material of walls may be of concern to neighbors, but the construction of the wall is
not a concern for the rezoning.
4. Using the modifier natural with earth tones doesn’t really place a limit on color. Neutral,
meaning not pronounced, is somewhat more workable (though still left open to considerable
interpretation).
5. As written, the proffer does not specify who will review for the architectural issues or when the
condition must be met.
Based on these comments, revised wording for the architectural proffer is recommended in Attachment A.
Resubmittal or Public Hearing
Within 30 days of the date of this letter, please do one of the following:
(1) Resubmit in response to these comments on a resubmittal date as published in the project
review schedule (the full resubmittal schedule may be found at www.albemarle.org in the
“forms” section at the Community Development page), OR
(2) Request a public hearing be set with the Board of Supervisors based on the information
provided with your original submittal (a date will be set in accordance with the Board of
Supervisor’s published schedule as mutually agreed to by you and the County), OR
(3) Request indefinite deferral and state your justification for requesting the deferral. (Indefinite
deferral means that you intend to resubmit/request a public hearing be set with the Board of
Supervisors after the 30 day period.)
If we have not received a response from you within 30 days, we will contact you again. At that time, you
will be given 10 days to do one of the following: a) resubmit your application, b) request withdrawal of
your application, c) request to schedule your application for a specific Board of Supervisors public
hearing date as mutually agreed to with staff, or d) request indefinite deferral and state your justification
for requesting the deferral. If none of these actions is taken, staff will schedule your application for a
public hearing based on the information provided with your original submittal.
A public hearing with the Board of Supervisors will not be advertised until you advise us that the project
is ready to proceed to a public hearing. At that time, a legal advertisement will be run in the newspaper
and a report will be prepared to go to the Board of Supervisors.
ZMA 2010-9, Republic Capital Amendment, Marcia Joseph, May 4, 2011 3
If you wish to meet with staff after you review these comments, please contact me and I will set up a
meeting.
Sincerely,
Eryn Brennan
Senior Planner
(434) 296-5832 x 3029
ebrennan@albemarle.org
cc: Amelia McCulley, Zoning
Sarah Baldwin, Zoning
Glenn Brooks, Engineering
Bill Fritz, Current Development
Joel DeNunzio, VDOT
Victoria Fort, Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority
Northern Drive, LLC
P.O. Box 7885
Charlottesville, VA 22906
ZMA 2010-9, Republic Capital Amendment, Marcia Joseph, May 4, 2011 4
Republic Capital
Proffers
March 28, 2011
1. In order to provide a tangible incentive for the extension of public sewer to this industrial
property, but in recognition of the lack of the same currently, we hereby proffer that prior to
the installation of public sewer the uses that will be allowed will be those that do not require
public sewer and which can be served by domestic septic fields. Furthermore, the buildings
which will be constructed will have less than a total of 225,000 square feet, until such public
sewer is available.
2. We hereby proffer a restriction of the types of uses of the property for that portion of the property
designated as HI, Heavy Industrial. The uses that will be prohibited on the property would
include the following: brick manufacturing; concrete mixing plants; manufacturing of sewage
disposal systems; manufacturing and recycling of tires; petroleum, gasoline, natural gas and
manufactured gas storage; sawmills; wood preserving operations.
Cite by section number the restricted uses. Suggested language is provided below:
The uses of the Property permitted by right shall be all those uses allowed by right under Section 27.2.1
of Chapter 18, Zoning, of the Albemarle County Code, as that section is in effect on [date of rezoning
action], 2011, a copy of which is attached hereto and incorporated herein as Attachment A, except for:
a) Assembly and fabrication of light aircraft from component parts manufactured off-
site (Section 27.2.1(8)).
b)
c)
d)
3. We agree to restrict the uses of the 9 acres of Parcel 32-22C zoned HI, Heavy Industrial in the
same way as provided in number 2 above.
4. In the way of road improvements, we proffer to limit development of the property to not exceed
the capacity of the Northside Drive until such time as the road is improved to accommodate
the additional traffic generated by the added development of this rezoning. The capacity of
Northside Drive is that capacity which will accommodate the traffic from the contiguous
properties if fully developed under the existing zoning.
This proffer is unclear regarding who makes the determination of capacity or what the threshold of
capacity is, and who is responsible for making the road improvements. In addition, the capacity on the
intersection with Route 29 is not mentioned in the proffer. It may be more critical to analyze the
intersections on Route 29 used to access the property to ensure there is adequate capacity and turning
movement treatments. Intersections adjacent to Northside Drive will be used for access because of the
lack of a crossover on Route 29 at Northside Drive. Therefore, the proffer should address specific road
improvements proposed for Northside Drive and state when those improvements would be made (i.e.
prior to the first site plan or subdivision approval).
Attachment A
ZMA 2010-9, Republic Capital Amendment, Marcia Joseph, May 4, 2011 5
5. We will expand the undisturbed buffer area from the required 30 foot width to a 50 foot width
along the boundary line abutting the lots of Airport Acres. We will provide a 4 foot high
berm with 4 feet to 6 feet high evergreen trees and shrubs planted 15 feet on center. Total
setback distance from the boundary line abutting Airport Acres will be 75 feet.
The proffer needs to specify when the buffer will be expanded, such as in conjunction with the first site
plan. Also the length and location of the buffer (i.e. in the 30 foot buffer required by the ordinance or
somewhere in the expanded 50 foot buffer) needs to be specified. Plant species should also be specified.
6. The exterior architectural styling of the buildings shall will be reasonably consistent throughout
the development project. The buildings will be substantially masonry or concrete wall
construction with All building facades facing residential zoned land shall have brick, stucco,
textured concrete or masonry facing facades, finished in neutral natural earth tones. on all
building sides, facing residential zoned land. For the sides of buildings facing residential
zoned land that are not visible from the Entrance Corridor, the style, color, and materials shall
be subject to Design Planner approval with the building permit.
7. There shall be no designated parking or loading within 150 feet of the boundary line abutting
Airport Acres on the south side of any building which is itself located within 150 feet of the
boundary line.
The Planning Commission requested that there also be no loading in the 150 foot zone, and this
proffer as written would permit travelways and loading spaces, including pavement to allow truck
turning movements within 150 feet of Airport Acres. To address the Planning Commission’s requests,
suggested changes to the proffer are proposed above.
8. If the Applicant’s final site plans do not include a road connection to the future extension of
Lewis and Clark Drive, then upon the request of Albemarle County, Virginia for the purpose
of the connection of Northside Drive to the future extension of Lewis and Clark Drive, the
Owner shall dedicate to the County a right of way consisting of a 25 foot strip of land along
the boundary line between this property and Tax Map 32 parcel 22C5. If the County does not
request that the land be dedicated within 25 years after the date these proffers are accepted,
the proffer is extinguished.
This proffer meets the condition approved by the Planning Commission; however, the County
Engineer and VDOT have determined that the dedication of a 25 foot strip of land along the boundary
line with 32-22C5 would not be adequate to build a road connection to a future extension of Lewis and
Clark Drive. The problems would include the additional 25 foot dedication on the Hall property, and
the ability to have a road connection that would meet a design standard given that the two angle breaks
on the property line would not accommodate the curvature of a road. Also, where the property line
connects to Northside Drive, the skew of the intersection appears to be too large. The plan also does
not have enough information to determine if the connection point at the back of the property is
constructible. Therefore, staff would not be able to advise the Board of Supervisors that the second
portion of this proffer has any tangible value to the County.
In addition, the language for this proffer needs to be revised to meet County standards. Language for a
similar proffer recently approved by the Board of Supervisors is provided below for your information:
Future North Free State Connector Extension Road. The Owner shall dedicate a one hundred (100)
foot strip of land along the Property boundary with the Norfolk Southern Railroad as shown on
Exhibit 2c and labeled “100’ Reserved Road ROW” for dedication upon demand by the county for the
purpose of constructing a road that extends the North Free State Connector Road northward across
the Rivanna River. The Owner shall dedicate right-of-way within six (6) months following written
notice of demand by the County. Such reservation shall remain in place through December 31, 2025.
ZMA 2010-9, Republic Capital Amendment, Marcia Joseph, May 4, 2011 6
The County must accept the dedication within twelve (12) months following its demand for. Should
this road be removed from the Albemarle County Comprehensive Plan, said reservation shall become
null and void, and the Owner or Successors shall retain fee simple ownership of the parcel.
Attachment A
Attachment B
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road, North Wing
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
Phone (434) 296-5832 Fax (434) 972-4126
April 5, 2011
Marcia Joseph
481 Clarks Tract
Keswick, VA 22947
RE: ZMA201000009 Republic Capital Amendment
Tax Map Parcel 03200000002200
Dear Ms. Joseph:
The Albemarle County Planning Commission, at its meeting on March 15, 2011, by a vote of 6:0:1
recommended approval of the above-noted petition to the Board of Supervisors.
Please note that this approval is subject to the following conditions:
1. An interconnection between Northside Drive and the University of Virginia Foundation property shall
be provided for through commitment to either dedicate right of way along the boundary with the
Foundation property as an extension of a road through the subject property or through reservation of
25’ for a road along the shared property line with the Hall’s property.
2. There shall be no parking on the south side of the buildings adjacent to Airport Acres.
3. The requested proffer changes will be made regarding a reduced buffer adjacent to Airport Acres as
proposed by the applicant (from 150 to 50 feet with a four-foot high planted berm and a building
setback of 75 feet; additionally, the building height restriction of 30 and 25 feet for any portion of a
structure within 300 feet of Airport Acres will be eliminated).
4. Technical changes shall be made to other proffers.
5. Revise the proffered plan to reflect the amended proffers or remove the proffered the plan.
View staff report and attachments
View PC minutes of January 18 and March 15, 2011
Return to exec summary
Please be advised that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors public hearing will be scheduled in the
near future.
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,
Eryn Brennan
Senior Planner
Planning Division
CC: Northside Drive, LLC
P.O. Box 7885
Charlottesville, VA 22906
ZMA 2010-9 Republic Capital Amendment
PC Public Hearing 3/15/11
1
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
STAFF REPORT SUMMARY
Project Name: ZMA201000009 Republic
Capital Amendment
Staff: Eryn Brennan, Senior Planner
Planning Commission Public Hearing:
March 15, 2011
TMP: Tax Map 32 Parcel 22
Location: Located on west side of Route 29N, at the
intersection with Northside Drive
Owner: Northside Drive, LLC Applicant: Marcia Joseph, Joseph Associates, LLC
Magisterial District: Rio
Acreage: 20.54 acres
By-right use: industrial and commercial uses (no
residential use)
Proffers: Yes
Proposal: Rezoning of a portion of a
20.54 acre site zoned LI Light Industrial,
which allows industrial office and limited
commercial uses (no residential use), to
amend proffers. No residential units are
proposed.
Comprehensive Plan Designation: The Places
29 Master Plan designates the subject property
as Light Industrial and Heavy Industrial. The
Light Industrial (light purple) designation allows
manufacturing, predominately from previously
prepared materials, of products or parts, and
may include processing, fabrication, assembly,
treatment, packaging, incidental storage, sales,
and distribution of these products. The Heavy
Industrial (gray) designation allows for
manufacturing or other enterprises with
significant external effects or which pose
significant risks due to the involvement of
hazardous materials. This designation applies to
a range of employment, production, and
commercial uses that are likely to create impacts
that are not suitable adjacent to residential uses
or many types of office or research activities. The
requested zoning map amendment and proffer
change is consistent with these designations.
Character of Property: Undeveloped Use of Surrounding Properties: Residential, office park,
office, industrial, and open space/undeveloped
Factors Favorable:
1. The requested proffer changes
regarding a reduced buffer are
consistent with the Light
Industrial designation outlined in
the Places 29 Master Plan.
2. The proposal furthers Economic
Development Policy objectives to
accommodate business and
industrial growth.
Factors Unfavorable:
1. The proffered plan has not been amended to be in
accord with the proposed proffer changes.
2. There is no proposed provision for an
interconnector road on this parcel as shown in the
Places 29 Master Plan.
3. Other proffers not proposed to be amended are in
need of technical changes.
RECOMMENDATION: Based on the factors noted as unfavorable, staff does not recommend
approval of this rezoning, unless the unfavorable factors are resolved.
ZMA 2010-9 Republic Capital Amendment
PC Public Hearing 3/15/11
2
STAFF PERSON: Eryn Brennan, Senior Planner
PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING: March 15, 2011
ZMA 2010-9 Republic Capital Amendment
Applicant: Marcia Joseph, Joseph Associates, LLC
Petition:
PROJECT: ZMA201000009 Republic Capital Amendment
PROPOSED: Rezoning of a portion of a 20.54 acre site zoned LI Light Industrial, which allows industrial, office,
and limited commercial uses (no residential use), to amend proffers. No residential units are proposed.
PROFFERS: Yes
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE/DENSITY: Industrial Service - warehousing, light industry, heavy
industry, research, office uses, regional scale research, limited production and marketing activities, supporting
commercial, lodging and conference facilities, and residential (6.01-34 units/acre)
ENTRANCE CORRIDOR: Yes
LOCATION: Located on west side of Route 29N, at the intersection with Northside Drive
TAX MAP/PARCEL: 03200000002200
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Rio
Specifics of the Proposal
This request is to amend and consolidate proffers associated with the development on the subject parcel approved
on February 18, 1988. (See Attachments A for 1988 proffers and Attachment B for the proffered plan.) The
proposed amendments pertain primarily to consolidating the proffers regarding the buffer area adjacent to Airport
Acres and reducing the depth of the buffer. Specifically, the applicant is requesting to reduce the buffer area from
150 feet to 50 feet with a 4 foot high planted berm and a building setback of 75 feet (instead of the minimum 50
feet allotted by the Zoning Ordiance) from the adjoining residential district (Attachment C). The proposed proffer
changes would eliminate the building height restriction of 30 feet and 25 feet for any portion of a structure within
300 feet of Airport Acres. The applicant would like to have building heights subject to Section 26.6 of the Zoning
Ordinance.
Background
The parcel under review was part of a 20.54 acre
rezoning to LI Light Industrial and HI Heavy Industrial
in 1988. The rezoning included a proffered plan and
proffers, one of which required a four acre buffer
between Airport Acres and the parcel under review.
In response to the initial application submitted on
October 18, 2010, the applicant received a comment
letter on December 3, 2011 outlining recommendations
from reviewers, which included a request to provide for
an interconnection through the University of Virginia
Research Park. The letter also noted that the requested
proffer amendments conflicted with the proffered plan,
and in a subsequent correspondence recommended this
issue be resolved.
The Planning Commission work session held on
January 18, 2011 provided guidance to staff and the
applicant regarding questions concerning the buffer, The area shaded light blue of the highlighted parcel is zoned LI
Light Industrial, and the area shaded dark blue is zoned HI Heavy
Industrial.
ZMA 2010-9 Republic Capital Amendment
PC Public Hearing 3/15/11
3
setback, and interconnector road shown on the Places 29 Master Plan adopted on February 2, 2011. The Planning
Commission expressed general support for the buffer reduction and maximum 35’ building height, but requested
that the applicant explore the feasibility of an interconnector road on the site (Attachment D).
Following the January 18, 2011 work session, the applicant has elected to go directly to a Planning Commission
public hearing with no proposed revisions or changes to the plan or proffers.
Character of the Site and Area
The site has undeveloped, heavily forested areas and areas which have been cleared and graded based on a site
plan approved in 2000 (Attachments E and F). The portion of the parcel zoned LI Light Industry adjacent to the
Airport Acres development is heavily forested. The adjacent parcels to the south and southeast are zoned
R1Residential, and the parcels to the west and north are zoned PDIP Planned Development Industrial Park and are
part of the University of Virginia Research Park.
Planning and Zoning History
The ZMA 1987-11 Republic Capital application to rezone approximately 25.6 acres from R1 Residential
to HI Heavy Industry was denied on December 2, 1987.
The ZMA 1988-19 Republic Capital application to rezone approximately 25.6 acres from R1 Residential
to HI/LI Heavy/Light Industry was approved with proffers on February 18, 1988.
A critical slopes waiver to allow grading near an existing drainage swale was approved on October 5,
1999.
The SDP 2001-38 Rivanna Commercial Park site plan to construct one 81, 540 square foot building was
approved on June 14, 2001. The site has been graded in accordance with the approved site plan, but the
building has not yet been constructed.
ZMA 2010-9 Republic Capital was reviewed by the Planning Commission as a work session item and
comments were provided to the applicant.
Conformity with the Comprehensive Plan
The Places 29 Master Plan designates the subject property as Light Industrial and Heavy Industrial. The Light
Industrial (light purple) designation allows manufacturing, predominately from previously prepared materials, of
products or parts, and may include processing, fabrication, assembly, treatment, packaging, incidental storage,
sales, and distribution of these products. It does not include basic industrial processing (see Heavy Industrial). The
Light Industrial designation allows for a range of employment and commercial uses that may have impacts that
would not be suitable in or adjacent to residential uses, retail uses, commercial uses, or many types of commercial
office or research activities.
The Heavy Industrial (gray) designation allows for manufacturing or other enterprises with significant external
effects or which pose significant risks due to the involvement of hazardous materials. This designation applies to
a range of employment, production, and industrial uses that are likely to create impacts that are not suitable
adjacent to residential uses or many types of office or research
activities. The requested zoning map amendment and proffer change is
consistent with these designations. The requested zoning map
amendment and proffer change is consistent with these designations.
The Places 29 Master Plan was adopted on February 2, 2011. The plan
proposes a road through this property connecting US Route 29 with
Lewis & Clark Drive (see red arrow in adjacent image). Although the
exact location of the road has not yet been determined, it was modeled
as an interconnection necessary to reduce traffic on Rt. 29 and facilitate
increased traffic flow associated with new development in this part of
the County. Staff believes that making a provision for this future
ZMA 2010-9 Republic Capital Amendment
PC Public Hearing 3/15/11
4
connection either through this property, or via an internal road within the development to a connecting road,
would be appropriate as part of a rezoning application for this property. Such a provision could be made through a
proffer for dedication of right-of way on demand by the County and a revision to the proffered plan.
The County Engineer conducted a feasibility study for an interconnector road and has provided the following
comments:
Per the Planning Commission’s and your request, I have investigated the feasibility of a road
connecting Rt. 29 and the future extension of Lewis & Clark Drive. I had no trouble laying out a
road which would have an adequate grade and curvature to provide the connection as
recommended in the comprehensive plan, with minimal impact to the proposed development.
This proposed conceptual alternative borders the northern property lines, and involves part of the
off-site parcel 32-22C5. The connection becomes the main route, instead of the cul-de-sac
terminus on parcel 32-67. In addition, a roundabout at Lewis & Clark Drive, or similar measures
would adequately address through-traffic concerns, while maintaining the “midblock”
connectivity between the north and south ends of development along this section of Rt. 29,
prolonging and improving the signal functionality on Rt. 29, and providing access to the research
park and western destinations for the future occupants of this development.
Principles of the Neighborhood Model
Staff has determined that only two of the twelve principles of the Neighborhood Model apply to the
application request, and these are addressed below:
Interconnected
Streets and
Transportation
Networks
The Neighborhood Model recommends interconnections (vehicular or
walkways/bikeways) between adjoining parcels to allow for dispersal of vehicle trips,
provide opportunities for residents to walk to work, and to promote multi-modal
transportation. The existing concept plan shows interconnected travelways within the
development; however, a provision for a future connector linking US Route 29 and
Lewis & Clark Drive would ensure interconnectivity to the larger transportation network
ZMA 2010-9 Republic Capital Amendment
PC Public Hearing 3/15/11
5
in the area. This principle is not met.
Relegated Parking Parking is currently relegated on the existing proffered plan. This principle is met.
The existing proffered concept plan for the site was created before the Neighborhood Model was adopted. As
with many plans of its era, it is general in nature and did not consider the need for interconnections. Since Zoning
and Current Development have determined that the proffered plan would have to be amended based on the
proposed proffer changes, the proffered plan should be revised to conform with today’s Comprehensive Plan,
particularly concerning vehicular interconnectivity.
Economic Development Policy
Another relevant part of the Comprehensive Plan is the Economic Development Policy. The County’s goal for
economic growth is to:
Maintain a strong and sustainable economy: 1) benefiting County citizens and existing businesses and providing
diversified economic opportunities; 2) supportive of the County's Growth Management Policy and consistent with
the other Comprehensive Plan goals; and, 3) taking into consideration the greater Charlottesville Metropolitan
region.
Objectives and strategies include:
OBJECTIVE II: Plan for land and infrastructure to accommodate future business and industrial growth.
Strategy 2: Designate areas for office, commercial and industrial development within the designated
Development Areas that meet the development standards of the Comprehensive Plan and will
provide sufficient land to meet community needs through the next Comprehensive Plan revision.
Ensure that land for business and light-industrial uses are consistent with the
neighborhood model principles, which provide for ease of access for employees to
housing, support services, and multi-modal transportation options. (Underlining added)
Strategy 3: Utilize the rezoning process and associated proffer allowances to address needs brought about by
new development and to provide the community with assurances about future development
activities.
Strategy 4: Encourage infill development of business and industrial uses in Development Areas, including
consideration of proactively rezoning land to allow for light-industrial uses as needs are identified
through Master Plans and other efforts. Initiate zoning text amendments that further enable
business and light-industrial uses of the appropriate zoning districts.
While the proposal supports the County’s economic development policy objective to accommodate future
business and industrial growth, it is not consistent with the neighborhood model principle to provide
interconnections between adjoining parcels to promote connectivity and multi-modal transportation.
Staff Comment
Reduced Buffer and Building Height
Staff does not anticipate that the proposed proffer changes regarding reduction of the buffer adjacent to the
Airport Acres development would have any adverse impact on environmental, cultural, or historic resources and
has no objection to the proposed proffer amendments. Staff also supports the applicant’s proposed building height
and setback or a setback that complies with the requirements in the Zoning Ordinance. At this time, staff has not
received any communication or correspondence from adjacent neighbors.
ZMA 2010-9 Republic Capital Amendment
PC Public Hearing 3/15/11
6
Provision for Future Interconnector Road
Staff believes that not providing for a future
interconnector road as shown in the Places 29
Master Plan would have a detrimental impact on
traffic and the overall transportation network in the
area, and is not consistent with the goals of the
County’s economic development policy or Places
29 Master Plan. The UVa Research Park directly
north of this property has provided for a future
connection to extend from Lewis & Clark Drive to
connect to Northside Drive in an effort to foster
vehicular connectivity, and the road shown in the
area of this property is an integral part of that
vehicular network. The County Engineer has also
shown that a road is topographically feasible on the
site, and in a location that only minimally impacts
the development. Therefore, staff believes that
provision for a future interconnector should be
provided with this rezoning.
Proffers
Staff cannot support proffer revisions that are not reflected on the proffered plan. In addition, zoning comments
provided to the applicant in December requested additional changes to the proffers and plan in order to achieve
greater clarity and ensure they meet current zoning requirements and standards (Attachment G). In the absence of
changes to the proffers and plan based on these comments, staff cannot support the application as proposed.
Summary
Factors Favorable:
3. The requested proffer changes regarding a reduced buffer are consistent with the Light Industrial
designation outlined in the Places 29 Master Plan.
4. The proposal furthers Economic Development Policy objectives to accommodate business and
industrial growth.
Factors Unfavorable:
4. The proffered plan has not been amended to be in accord with the proposed proffer changes.
5. There is no proposed provision for an interconnector road on this parcel as shown in the Places 29
Master Plan.
6. Other proffers not proposed to be amended are in need of technical changes.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends denial of this rezoning based on the unfavorable factors noted in this report.
ATTACHMENTS:
A 1988 Proffers
B 1988 Proffered Concept Plan
C Proposed Proffers Amendments (including plan and section)
D Work Session Action Memo
E Characteristics of Site
F Site Plan Approved in 2000
G Zoning Comments
ZMA 2010-9 Republic Capital Amendment
PC Public Hearing 3/15/11
7
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) 972-4176
MEMORANDUM
TO: Marcia Joseph. ASLA, AICP
Joseph Associates LLC
481 Clarks Tract
Keswick, Virginia 22947
FROM: Eryn Brennan, Senior Planner
DATE: February 1, 2011
RE: ZMA201000009 Republic Capital
Dear Ms. Joseph:
On January 18, 2011, the Albemarle County Planning Commission reviewed the above-noted item in a work
session. Attached please find the section of the official action memo for this meeting describing the
discussion and direction provided by the Commission on this item.
If you have any questions please do not hesitate to contact me at (434) 296-5832.
ZMA-2010-00009 Republic Capital – Planning Commission Work Session Comments
The Planning Commission held a work session to review the proposal to amend and consolidate those
proffers associated with the development on the subject parcel approved on February 18, 1988. The
proposed amendments pertain primarily to consolidating the proffers regarding the buffer area adjacent to
Airport Acres and reducing the depth of the buffer. The app licant submitted a request on November 15,
2010 to reduce the buffer area to 50’ and impose a building setback of 75’ (instead of the required 50’)
from the adjoining residential district.
Both staff and the applicant presented PowerPoint presentations. The Planning Commission held a
discussion, asked questions, took public comment, and provided suggestions.
The Planning Commission provided guidance for the applicant’s next submittal and responded to the
questions posed in the staff report, as follows:
Issue 1: Buffer Reduction
Question: Should the buffer be set at 50’ and setback be set at 75’ as proposed by the applicant in the
proffer amendment, or should the buffer and setback comply with buffer and setback requirements in the
Zoning Ordinance?
The conclusions were:
Buffer: Two of the three abutting neighbors had been contacted and were okay with what was being
proposed. The third neighbor came to the meeting and wanted a higher berm. A 10’ high berm at 3:1 on
either side that is not part of the 50’ buffer makes for a 110’ wide area in which no buildings or parking
would be allowed. The PC expressed general support for this alternative proposal. Mr. Franco was okay
with a reduced buffer if the neighbors can be convinced to go along with wh at the ordinance requires. He
would also prefer parking not to be located along the edge of the Airport Acres properties, and would like
a cross-section through the site to understand what the neighbors would see with a reduced buffer.
Question: Should the applicant provide for a future interconnecting road between US Route 29 and
Lewis & Clark Drive as provided in the UVA Research Park proffers and as shown on the Places 29
Master Plan?
The conclusions were:
Road Connection: Regarding the road connection, the Planning Commission instructed the applicant to
explore the feasibility of an interconnection. Nothing has to be built right now. The goal is to make sure
the opportunity for the connection is not precluded in the future. The first step is to see whether a road
can be achieved topographically on this site. The Planning Commission also expressed general support
for allowing a 35’ building height.
No formal action taken.
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road, North Wing
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
Phone (434) 296-5832 Fax (434) 972-4126
MEMORANDUM
RE: Zoning comments provided to applicant regarding initial application submittal
DATE: December 3, 2010
ZONING COMMENTS
In reference to the plan:
1. The type of screening trees and shrubs proposed in the buffer should be provided on the plan.
2. It appears that the submitted plan is only a portion of the proffered plan. Please submit a complete
plan depicting the entire development as previously proffered in proffer 4.
In reference to the proffers:
3. The applicant should consider combining proffers 2 & 3 and consider adding heavy equipment &
storage to the prohibited uses. In addition, the applicant should consider referencing the Ordinance
section and date.
4. The current rezoning application must be referenced by the date and title of the plan in proffer 4.
5. Proffer 5 (1-18-88) refers to added development; hence, the proffer should reference the prior
rezoning application number, proffer number, and date of approval.
6. The applicant should consider using the screening language in section 32.7.9.8 for proffer 6. The
applicant should clarify the tree type and whether or not only a single row of trees is proposed.
Change to last sentence from "total distance" to either “minimum total distance” or “setback” for
clarity. Spell out 75 "feet."
7. Proffer 6 (1-18-88) should list the berm as a minimum height.
8. The applicant should consider changing proffer 11 (12-2-87) to refer to Design Planner approval
prior to issuance of a building permit.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – JANUARY 18, 2011
DRAFT MINUTES – SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL
1
Albemarle County Planning Commission
January 18, 2011
The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public hearing on Tuesday, January 18, 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, and Don
Franco. Absent was 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 Lindsay Harris, Budget Analyst; Trevor Henry, Manager of Office of Facilities
Development; Amelia McCulley, Director of Zoning/Zoning Administrator; Elaine Echols, Principal
Planner; Glenn Brooks, County Engineer; David Benish, Chief of Planning; and Greg Kamptner, Deputy
County Attorney.
Call to Order and Establish Quorum:
Mr. Zobrist, Chair, called the regular meeting to order at 6:02 p.m. and established a quorum. He noted
there would be no presentation on Willow Lake tonight since it would be heard next week. Two
Commissioners Mr. Lafferty and Mr. Morris were absent. Mr. Morris gave his input to him on tonight’s
items.
ZMA-2010-00009 Republic Capital
PROPOSED: Rezoning of 20.54 acres from Light Industrial which allows industrial, office, and limited
commercial uses (no residential use) to Light Industrial which allows industrial, office, and limited
commercial uses (no residential use) to amend proffers. No residential units are proposed.
PROFFERS: Yes
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE/DENSITY: Industrial Service - warehousing, light industry, heavy
industry, research, office uses, regional scale research, limited production and marketing activities,
supporting commercial, lodging and conference facilities, and residential (6.01-34 units/acre)
ENTRANCE CORRIDOR: Yes
LOCATION: Located on west side of Route 29N, at the intersection with Northside Drive
TAX MAP/PARCEL: 03200000002200
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Rio
(Eryn Brennan)
Ms. Echols, in Ms. Brennan’s absence, presented a PowerPoint Presentation and explained the proposed
amendments to ZMA-2010-00009 Republic Capital.
This is a work session on a request for an existing zoned property to modify a proffer related to a
buffer area on a proffered plan. The current land use plan recommends the area for Industrial
Service. The Places29 plan recommends the area for industrial use, which is scheduled for
approval in the near future. The applicant’s request is to change the buffer area and t o modify a
proffer related to the buffer area on a proffered plan. A four acre but undefined width for a
building setback was proffered in 1988. In 2011, that amount of land for a proffer seems to be
more than what would normally be expected in the development areas. Staff has been working
on trying to make better use of their development areas, especially the Light Industrial properties
to make that available for uses that are needed in the County.
The purpose of this work session is to get Commission input on several t hings:
Should the buffer area be reduced from four acres to a 50’ buffer?
That actually exists right now, but the issue has to do more with the building setback. The proffer
is written so there is a 50’ buffer, but there is also a four acre buffer area with no buildings in that
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – JANUARY 18, 2011
DRAFT MINUTES – SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL
2
area. There could be parking in those areas. The applicant is asking to establish a 75’ building
setback.
Is a building setback of 75’ appropriate?
Should the applicant provide for a future interconnection through the pro perty to connect US
Route 29 to Lewis and Clark Drive?
Ms. Porterfield asked if the 50’ is included in the four acres.
Ms. Echols replied yes that it was included in the four acres. The way it relates is there is a 50’
undisturbed area and then the building has to be outside of that four acres. It is basically a screening
buffer. It gets a little complicated. There are three sets of proffers, which need to be cleaned up as part
of the rezoning that is the mechanics of it. Staff needs to get the big questions answered first before they
figure out how to do it.
The proffered plan says a four acre screening buffer. The applicant’s proposal is that 50’ would
be undisturbed plus a 25’ berm and planting area, and that no buildings would be closer than 75’.
A drawing is in the staff report in Attachment C. The applicant will provide additional information.
The drawing shows an undisturbed buffer on the light industrial property, 20’ of berm area, plus a
5’ planting area, and the building location as the proposal. The existing and proposed are in
excess of what the ordinance requires right now. Staff thinks that in order to use the
development area more effectively this extent of a buffer may not be necessary.
Mr. Zobrist noted that there were single-family residences behind it.
Ms. Echols replied that was true. The current requirement is 30’ for a buffer area and 50’ for the single -
family residence buildings. Staff recognizes this may not be something the Commission wants to do.
Staff recognizes that more than likely the neighbors would prefer to have as much distance as possible.
That is human nature. Staff received a phone call today from someone who asked about what does this
really look like on the ground and what is that distance like. Staff took some measurements and noted
what the 75’ buffer would look like as opposed to the 50’.
The second question is whether an interconnection should be provided. Part of the Places29
Plan is to set up a series of perpendicular and parallel roads to try to take the pressure off 29
North. The way they do that is to get the interconnections from the perpendicular roads that gets
them into the parallel roads. She noted that a proffer was received from the UVA Research Park
to allow for an interconnection to North Side Drive. It comes pretty close to Airport Acres. This is
not an exact location.
Staff is concerned they may lose an opportunity to get an interconnection to this road. If there
were a site plan for this area that was approved, then they would have no ability to get an
interconnection through this property. An adjacent property is Hall’s Body Shop. It would be
difficult to get a interconnection through that property right now. It is an opportunity they have
and things have changed since 1988.
They now have some recommendations for parallel and perpendicular roads in their plan. Staff
believes that an interconnection should be provided for it. There does not need to be a whole lot
done about it other than not precluding the opportunity for an interconnection be made. There
are different mechanical ways to get there, but staff thinks it is important to get that now.
Staff recommends that the Commission advise staff and the applicant on any changes. The
Commission is requested to provide answers to the questions so the applicant can then move
forward to their next step and know what to do with their next submittal.
Marcia Joseph, representative for the applicant, presented a PowerPoint Presentation to explain the
background of the request.
The property is zoned Light Industrial. The current Comp Plan calls for Industrial. The request is as
follows:
Reduce undisturbed buffer area from 150’ to a 50’ undisturbed buffer and a 4’ high berm planted
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – JANUARY 18, 2011
DRAFT MINUTES – SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL
3
with screening trees
Increase the height of the buildings allowed within 300’ of the residential property line from 25’
that was proffered in 1989, to 35’ in height (current ordinance standard)
The reasons for the applicant’s request is:
The current approval removes nearly 4 acres of Light Industrial property from active use
Albemarle County officials have voiced concern about the lack of Industrially zoned land
Staff has been proposing changes to the zoning ordinance to reduce the required buffer area
between residential and industrially zoned properties
Discussions and meetings with residential neighbors indicated that the residents abutting the
property could support the request to reduce the undisturbed buffer to 50’ with a 4’ high planted
berm. There were two neighbors, but she noticed there is another neighbor present that did not
respond. They sent letters and worked with folks over the summer to see what it was they were
interested in having and whether they could support something like this.
Background
The proffers approved in 1989 were cobbled together at the last of three Board of Supervisor
public hearings. They combine three separate proffer letters. They are confusing and they
render more than four acres of Industrial zoned land unusable.
The proffers never restricted the building area (square feet) allowed on this Light Industrial
property. The dimension is 150’ from the property line that is shared with Airport Acres.
Mr. Zobrist asked if the parcel has frontage on Route 29.
Ms. Joseph replied that the request was for part of the parcel. This portion does not have frontage on
Route 29. She continued the PowerPoint Presentation. She reviewed a table from staff that reduces
setbacks in buffer areas. Therefore, they knew this was something the County had been inter ested in
doing. They have contacted and met with the neighbors to see what their concerns were. They worked
with them to create a change in the buffer area that they could support. She viewed several illustrations
of the proposed buffer area including the area shared with the residential area. She reviewed a graphic
of what they plan to do. There are three residences that will be impacted by the plan. Two of the
adjacent property owners met with them on site. Information was sent to the adjacent owne rs before they
made the submittal to the County. This was something that they could support. She explained the
proposal.
Staff Request #1
Staff believes that no proffers for buffer and setback distances are necessary and the prevailing
ordinance requirements are appropriate in lieu of the proffers.
Applicant Request
Allow the residential neighbors in Airport Acres to have peace of mind knowing that any building
will be buffered by a 50’ undisturbed wooded area and a 4’ high planted berm.
Staff Request #2
• Staff believes the applicant should provide for a future interconnecting road between US Route
29 and Lewis and Clark Drive as provided for in the UVA Research Park proffers and as shown
on the Places 29 Master Plan.
Applicant Request
If they were to make that connection the most logical thing for them to do to not bisect that
property would be to come as close as they could to Airport Acres, which was what they were
trying to avoid.
Applicant’s Reasons to limit traffic through the Industrial Park
Staff cites traffic modeling done to justify the Places 29 road layouts – many of the connecting
roads have been removed from the plan by the Board of Supervisors, it is not likely that the traffic
modeling done for Places 29 is still valid.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – JANUARY 18, 2011
DRAFT MINUTES – SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL
4
The intent is to create private roads to serve the Industrial Park .
It is important to limit passenger vehicular traffic to minimize the conflicts between truck ingress
and egress and passenger vehicles.
If a public road through this site is required, then the road will abut Airport Acres subdivision, as
shown in the comprehensive plan.
Rezoning Amendment Request
• Reduce buffer area
• Increase the height of the buildings from 25’ in height in the area within 300’ of the residential
property line to ordinance allowance of 35’ in height
Rezoning Amendment Request Factors Favorable
• Allows an additional two acres to be added to the available Light Industrial Property in Albemarle
County
• Proposes a buffer and berm to protect the residential neighbors
• Has support from at least two of the adjacent residential neighbors
• Allows for more flexibility for industrial use of the property
• Current Comprehensive Plan designates this area as Industrial Service
• Separates passenger vehicles from industrial truck traffic
• Neighbors support the amendment request – She noted they have a letter from the adjacent
owner.
Mr. Zobrist invited questions.
Ms. Porterfield asked if she was saying they do not want to proffer the road going through.
Ms. Joseph replied that was correct.
Ms. Porterfield noted there were two things she wants, but they were not giving the County the proffer for
the road.
Ms. Joseph replied that was correct. The only idea was to come forward to reduce the buffer.
Ms. Porterfield asked how big are they proposing the trees to go in at on the berm. The trees are all
deciduous.
Ms. Joseph replied that was correct. They are proposing that this is a 4’ high berm and they would start
4’ to 6’ high trees in there. Essentially to start they would have 8’.
Ms. Porterfield noted it would be a 35’ building eventually at 300’ back.
Ms. Joseph replied that the existing proffers say that any building within 300’ of the property line cannot
be taller than 25’. They are asking for 35’ from the start. From that point, they have the setback. There
are also material standards for the buildings themselves because the neighbors were concerned that
these not be big metal buildings. The neighbors wanted the buildings to be brick, masonry, or whatever
as spelled out in the proffers. They have no intent of changing that.
Mr. Zobrist invited public comment.
Carroll Good, resident of 3660 Airport Acres Subdivision, said he backs up to the property. The only
question he would have is would they still maintain the 50’ undisturbed buffer. He was not aware that
there was a four acre parcel for a buffer zone. He did not have any problem with that. He wanted the 50’
undisturbed buffer there. He was really not too pleased with having the road go all the way through ,
which was up to the Commission as to what they will approve. That is all he had.
Johnathan Williamson said he just noticed the road tonight. He asked staff to bring up the picture of the
road. He pointed out the road goes right through his property. That is a big problem. They are going
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – JANUARY 18, 2011
DRAFT MINUTES – SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL
5
from 300’ to 50’, but are only putting 8’ in. His deck was 16’ above the ground. Therefore, he would be
able to see anything over there. The berm needs to be higher if they are going that low. If they go 75’,
then it needs to be at least a 20’ berm. The reason he built in Airport Acres was it was the first
subdivision and was nice and quiet. They can’t hear Hall’s Body Shop. He was curious about what was
going in the place. He did not want any run off since he still had a well. He was concerned with the
property value. He asked how the property value would be affected by building that close.
Mr. Smith asked how long he had lived there.
Mr. Williamson replied about two years. However, he had been through there all his life.
Blake Hurt, representative for the owner, noted that Ms. Joseph and he had worked on this plan in 1988.
When they did the plan, which was somewhat of a sketch, their thought was also that the 300’ area would
not include buildings, but would allow parking. Apparently, the County has said that no parking should be
allowed next to that building. He always thought the building went up to the 300’ line and then parking
would be allowed on the other side. Therefore, he was surprised by this. He explained their proposal.
Their proposal was basically to change the proffer. Their idea was that the County should be
more acceptable to having industrial property. It looked like the idea of having a reduced buffer
would be accepted. Therefore, they suggested that they change the proffer to clean it up to make
changes to a two-story building to 14’ heights. Because the building sets down that would make
it 35’, which was within the County regulation. It would reduce the buffer to 50’, which was still 60
percent more than what the County currently requires. That is what they are offering.
They are against the interconnection on the road. What does that mean? Their original intent
was if there was a connection to the University Research Park their road would quick ly become
the thoroughfare for traffic leaving the Research Park property coming out to Route 29. They see
a potential conflict between all of those cars coming out and some slow moving truck coming out
of one of the lots and having a traffic problem or difficulty getting in and out. Therefore, they are
not for that second request.
They understand the people at Airport Acres want a minimal impact from their property. Adding a
road right next to the neighbors was something they would be able to object to, and they would
object to it also. That does not mean that if there is a way to work with the University and there
was some reason that they could find that would make everybody happy that they would not
consider it. What they don’t want is to be required to do it. Their proffer does not do that and
they were not going to include it if it comes before the Commission.
Ms. Porterfield asked if there were going to be loading docks, and Mr. Hurt replied that the loading docks
would be on the lower side.
Mr. Zobrist noted concern with the dotted lines on the plan.
Ms. Echols noted that it was a planned connection. It was in the Places29 plan and modeled. Some of
the roads are no longer shown on the plan, but there are words in the Places29 plan that call for the need
of a road with a starting point and ending point. She noted Mr. Benish and Mr. Brooks were present to
answer questions.
Mr. Benish noted that he did not have a lot more to add. The alignment is schematic and not intended to
be looked at literally. One of the benefits of these mid-block crossings is that it prolongs the viability of
the at-grade road crossings. Being able for traffic to be split between Lewis and Clark Drive, Route 29
and Airport Road, based on the traffic generated in the Research Park being able to split that traffic
among a number of intersections, allows for some of the other intersections to stay at grade or without as
major of an improvement. It is splitting the traffic up. That was one of the benefits from this pa rticular
road connection. Looking at this site it might not be a question of whether it has to bifurcate or split the
site, but other opportunities to provide for ways that at least for some point in the future when and if the
road is necessary there are some options to consider. That is a way to approach it as well. He did not
think the emphasis is so much it has to be built now. However, let’s not foreclose on the opportunity if
and when it is needed in the future.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – JANUARY 18, 2011
DRAFT MINUTES – SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL
6
Mr. Zobrist asked aren’t they asking the applicant to develop the site around a question mark.
Mr. Benish replied they are providing for some option to provide road connectivity. Then they could go
back and see how that could fit within the context of this plan. Dedication of right -of-way along the edges
of the development might provide for a corridor that could be used in the future. That is just an example,
so to be able not to go through the middle of the site.
Mr. Zobrist asked if they are not expecting the applicant to build it. He asked if what staff wants is a right-
of-way.
Ms. Echols noted they want the opportunity to be able to have a road connection through there. They are
not asking them to build it. They are not necessarily asking them to plan a public road at that locat ion. At
that location, they want to make sure that an interconnection can be made in the future.
Mr. Zobrist noted the problem he would have as an applicant is they want to build something that won’t be
disturbed in future.
Mr. Benish said that section is not that far away, but probably depends on how rapidly the UVA
Foundation builds and North Pointe develops. The intersection of this roadway is the mid-point access to
the North Pointe development.
Ms. Porterfield said it appears that two out of three residents don’t have any problem with it. The point is
what they are doing will affect their quality of life by decreasing the amount of land in between and the
height of the building. The applicant is very clear they don’t want to work with the County on the road
alignment. She was disturbed there was not a little bit of give and take and would like to see some before
being willing to change things that were done previously.
Mr. Franco said with respect to the setback he thought it was great the appli cant worked with the
neighbors to try to get the last person on board. The reduction in setback was still in excess of what they
were talking about in general. He did not have a big problem with it. He would prefer to see that the
building setback be moved to a location to make sure there is no parking on the residential side. The
building could be designed to be more of a buffer from the parking. The parking is going to be more of
the noise generator. He knew it was going to have to step up the hill, but would like to see the building
located so there is no parking on that edge. He thought there was room to play with the berm to get
consensus with all three neighbors. He would like to understand the interconnection. He knew the
challenges of that site, and was not sure they can get an interconnection in there anyway. The
interconnection is a good idea if they can get it. He understands their concerns if they have a private
road within their industrial community.
Mr. Loach agreed with Mr. Franco on the building site with no parking on the residential side. As far as
the connection, maybe it would be more plausible if they plan for the connection. There should be a
connection required until the other road was finished so they would not be the fir st one there where
everybody gets in the habit of cutting through. He agreed with staff that they should at least look at it. He
thanked the applicant for working with the neighbors since he appreciated the efforts they went through.
Mr. Zobrist noted it was not the intent that anything is built there. It is the intent that it be reserved in case
they can get connectivity somewhere. They have to get other property in order to get it all done. The
whole idea is that they just reserve it with a dotted l ine. The connection would not be required until it
could be done.
Mr. Franco said that they could explore that now as part of this. He was not sure if it was even possible
with the grades on that site.
Mr. Smith said he was in favor of the 50’ buffer and the 25’ setback. He would like to see the berm
raised. Since they are asking for a 10’ height raise in the building, then the berm should be raised 10’.
He did not see burdening the gentleman with the road.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – JANUARY 18, 2011
DRAFT MINUTES – SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL
7
Mr. Zobrist asked staff if they had received enough direction.
Ms. Echols summarized the Planning Commission’s direction, as follows: Most of the Commission was in
favor of exploring an interconnection, not requiring anything to happen right now, but in the future making
sure that opportunity is not precluded as long as it can topographically be achieved.
Mr. Zobrist agreed as long as it was not feasible.
Ms. Echols noted that Glenn Brooks, County Engineer, was coming to the podium because they have
actually looked at this in terms of the feasibility of it.
Mr. Brooks noted he had a question about the berm. If they were asking for a 10’ berm with 3:1 on either
side it is like 60’ or 70’. He asked is that part of the 50’ buffer.
Ms. Joseph replied no.
Mr. Brooks noted that it would be a 110’ buffer at that point, and Ms. Joseph agreed.
Mr. Zobrist noted that was a nice buffer.
Ms. Echols summarized that the other thing the Commission was interested in with the interconnection is
having a buffer. She was not sure if she heard anybody speak in favor of a reduced buffer from what the
applicant is requesting.
Mr. Franco said if the neighbors could be convinced he was okay with it. Getting it down to where the
Code is now or where the Code might be heading might give them the flexibility. Right now if it was a 4’
buffer and 20’ across and it has to get 40’ more, then maybe some of that can come out of the existing to
raise that height up. He was happy to consider it if that is where the applicant and the neighbors want to
go.
Mr. Benish noted that they also wanted the parking away from the residential.
Mr. Franco said he like the idea of using the building as much as possible to buffer. He understands that
building will be turned 90 degrees from what is shown on the picture. However, trying to push that
building to the edge would create a better buffer rather than having parking right there.
Ms. Echols agreed with him regarding the parking, driveways, and such. Staff did not notice the building
heights. The proffers were cobbled together. Staff would be recommending that the minimum building
height be what the zoning ordinance calls for right now, which is 35’. They would not be recommending
less than is available in any zoning district in the County, which would be 35’. Getting rid of the proffer
that deals with 25’ high buildings would definitely be something staff would be in favor of. The residences
could be 35’ in height.
Mr. Franco said he was comfortable with that. What he did not understand is that they did not have a
cross section through this site to understand where the residences set relative to these graded pads.
However, getting consistent with the rest of the Light Industrial would be nice.
Ms. Echols asked if there was anything else.
Since there was no further discussion, Mr. Zobrist noted the Commission would take a five minute break
and then start on the last item.
In summary, The Planning Commission provided guidance for the applicant’s next submittal and
responded to the questions posed in the staff report, as follows:
Issue 1: Buffer Reduction
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – JANUARY 18, 2011
DRAFT MINUTES – SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL
8
Question: Should the buffer be set at 50’ and setback be set at 75’ as proposed by the applicant in the
proffer amendment, or should the buffer and setback comply with buffer and setback requirements in the
Zoning Ordinance?
The conclusions were:
Buffer: Two of the three abutting neighbors had been contacted and were okay with what was being
proposed. The third neighbor came to the meeting and wanted a higher berm. A 10’ high berm at 3:1 on
either side that is not part of the 50’ buffer makes for a 110’ wide area in which no buildings or parking
would be allowed. The PC expressed general support for this alternative proposal. Mr. Franco was okay
with a reduced buffer if the neighbors can be convinced to go along with what the ordinance requires. He
would also prefer parking not to be located along the edge of the Airport Acres properties, and would like
a cross-section through the site to understand what the neighbors would see with a reduced buffer.
Question: Should the applicant provide for a future interconnecting road between US Route 29 and
Lewis & Clark Drive as provided in the UVA Research Park proffers and as shown on the Places 29
Master Plan?
The conclusions were:
Road Connection: Regarding the road connection, the Planning Commission instructed the applicant to
explore the feasibility of an interconnection. Nothing has to be built right now. The goal is to make sure
the opportunity for the connection is not precluded in the future. The first step is to see whether a road
can be achieved topographically on this site. The Planning Commission also expressed general support
for allowing a 35’ building height.
No formal action taken.
Go to next set of minutes
Return to PC actions letter
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – MARCH 15, 2011
DRAFT MINUTES – Submitted for Approval
1
Albemarle County Planning Commission
March 15, 2011
The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public hearing on Tuesday, March 15, 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 Bill Fritz, Director of Current Development; Eryn Brennan, Senior Planner;
Ron Higgins, Chief of Zoning; Sarah Baldwin, Senior Planner; David Benish, Chief of Planning; 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.
ZMA-2010-00009 Republic Capital
PROPOSED: Rezoning of a portion of a 20.54 acre site zoned LI Light Industrial, which allows industrial,
office, and limited commercial uses (no residential use), to amend proffers. No residential units are
proposed.
PROFFERS: Yes
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE/DENSITY: Industrial Service - warehousing, light industry, heavy
industry, research, office uses, regional scale research, limited production and marketing activities,
supporting commercial, lodging and conference facilities, and residential (6.01 -34 units/acre)
ENTRANCE CORRIDOR: Yes
LOCATION: Located on west side of Route 29N, at the intersection with Northside Drive
TAX MAP/PARCEL: 03200000002200
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Rio
(Eryn Brennan)
Ms. Brennan presented a PowerPoint presentation and summarized the staff report.
This request is to amend and consolidate proffers associated with the development on the subject
parcel approved on February 18, 1988. The proposed amendments pertain primarily to
consolidating the proffers regarding the buffer area adjacent to Airport Acres and reducing the
depth of the buffer. Specifically, the applicant is requesting to reduce the buffer area from 150
feet to 50 feet with a 4 foot high planted berm and a building setback of 75 feet (instead of the
minimum 50 feet allotted by the Zoning Ordinance) from the adjoining residential district. The
proposed proffer changes would eliminate the building height restriction of 30 feet and 25 feet for
any portion of a structure within 300 feet of Airport Acres. The applicant would like to have
building heights subject to Section 26.6 of the Zoning Ordinance.
The parcel under review was part of a 20.54 acre rezoning to LI Light Industrial and HI Heavy
Industrial in 1988. The rezoning included a proffered plan and proffers, one of which required a
four acre buffer between Airport Acres and the parcel under review.
In response to the initial application submitted on October 18, 2010, the applicant received a
comment letter on December 3, 2011 outlining recommendations from reviewers, which included
a request to provide for an interconnection through the University of Virginia Research Park. The
letter also noted that the requested proffer amendments conflicted with the proffered plan, and in
a subsequent correspondence recommended this issue be resolved. The applicant then
requested a work session.
The Planning Commission work session held on January 18, 2011 provided guidance to staff and
the applicant regarding questions concerning the buffer, setback, and interconnector road shown
on the Places 29 Master Plan adopted on February 2, 2011. The Planning Commission
expressed general support for the buffer reduction and maximum 35’ building height, but
requested that the applicant explore the feasibility of an interconnector road on the site .
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – MARCH 15, 2011
DRAFT MINUTES – Submitted for Approval
2
Following the January 18, 2011 work session, the applicant has elected to go directly to a
Planning Commission public hearing with no proposed revisions or changes to the plan or
proffers.
The site has undeveloped, heavily forested areas and areas which have been cleared and graded based
on a site plan approved in 2000. The portion of the parcel zoned LI Light Industry adjacent to the Airport
Acres development is heavily forested. The adjacent parcels to the south and southeast are zoned R1 ,
Residential, and the parcels to the west and north are zoned PD IP Planned Development Industrial Park
and are part of the University of Virginia Research Park.
The Places 29 Master Plan recently adopted on February 2nd designates the subject property as Light
Industrial and Heavy Industrial. The map also shows a connector road bissecting the site to connect
Route 29 to a future extension of Lewis and Clark Drive. The location of the road on the map is not an
exact location, but rather a place holder to show an interconnector in this general area to facilitate
increased traffic flow associated with new development in this part of the County. In response to the
Planning Commission’s request to explore the possiblity of a road in this location the County Engineer at
the request of Planning staff conducted a feasibility study and provided detailed comments that are in the
staff report. His comments and map, both of which were also shared with the applicant show that a road
meeting the recommendations of the Comprehensive Plan is possible on this site and in a location th at
would only minimally impact the proposed developed.
In addition to the Places29 master Plan, the County’s Economic Development Policy encourages infill
development and rezonings to allow for Light Industrial uses. However, it also states that business es and
Light Industrial uses should comply with the Neighborhood Model principles, which includes
interconnectivity between adjacent parcels and also developing an effective transportation network. Staff
has not objection to the reduced buffer or the elim ination of restrictions on building height. However, staff
does believe that not providing for a future interconnector road has shown in the Places29 Master Plan
would have a detrimental impact on traffic and the overall transportation network in the area and is not
consistent with the County’s Economic Development Policy or the Master Plan.
The Light Industrial designation allows manufacturing, predominately from previously prepared materials,
of products or parts, and may include processing, fabrication , assembly, treatment, packaging, incidental
storage, sales, and distribution of these products. It does not include basic industrial processing (see
Heavy Industrial). The Light Industrial designation allows for a range of employment and commercial uses
that may have impacts that would not be suitable in or adjacent to residential uses, retail uses,
commercial uses, or many types of commercial office or research activities.
The UVA Research Park directly north of this property has provided for a future c onnection to extend from
Lewis and Clark Drive to connect to Northside Drive in an effort to foster vehicular interconnectivity in the
area. The road shown in the area of this property is an integral part of that vehicular network. In addition,
the proffered plan has not been amended to be in accord with the proposed proffer changes and zoning
has also requested further amendments to other proffers that are at this point outdated and in need of
technical changes. That was included as an attachment in the staff report.
Factors Favorable:
1. The requested proffer changes regarding a reduced buffer are consistent with the Light Industrial
designation outlined in the Places 29 Master Plan.
2. The proposal furthers Economic Development Policy objectives to accommodate business and
industrial growth.
Factors Unfavorable:
1. The proffered plan has not been amended to be in accord with the proposed proffer changes.
2. There is no proposed provision for an interconnector road on this parcel as shown in the Places
29 Master Plan.
3. Other proffers not proposed to be amended are in need of technical changes.
For these reasons staff recommends denial this rezoning request.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – MARCH 15, 2011
DRAFT MINUTES – Submitted for Approval
3
Staff recommends denial of request
RECOMMENDED MOTION:
A. Should a Planning Commissioner choose to recommend approval of this zoning map amendment:
Move to recommend approval of ZMA 2010-9 Republic Capital (with proffers amended as such).
B. Should a Planning Commissioner choose to recommend denial of this zoning map amendment:
Move to recommend denial of ZMA 2010-9 Republic Capital Should a commissioner motion to
recommend denial, he or she should state the reason(s) for recommending denial.
Mr. Zobrist invited questions for the staff.
Mr. Franco asked if the interconnection being discussed was a mid-block connection. The entrance into
the Research Park is one. Then Airport road’s next connection. He asked what is the distance between
those.
Ms. Brennan replied that she did not have the distance between A irport Road and Lewis and
Clark. She asked if he was interested in how many interconnections were planned with the Places29
Master Plan along this section of 29.
Mr. Franco replied yes, in order to get a sense of the length of the block they were trying to encourage
and create.
Ms. Brennan replied, as she understands many of the interconnections were taken out. There is a light
that is planned at this location in the future. She believed there were two maybe three linkages in the
Places29 Plan to 29.
Mr. Cilimberg noted between Lewis and Clark and Airport Road he thought this was the only
interconnection that is proposed under Places29. There are on the other side of 29 connections to a road
that would go through North Pointe parallel to 29. There are a couple on that side and onl y one on this
side. He referred the questions to Mr. Benish.
Mr. Benish noted that he handed Mr. Franco a scaled map that shows where the interconnections are. It
roughly looked like it was 2 ,500 to 3,000 to Lewis and Clark to the north and somewhere between 3,000
and 4,000 square feet.
Mr. Franco agreed that it looked like it scaled to about a mile.
Mr. Cilimberg asked Mr. Benish to verify it, but he believed this is the only connection between 29 and
Lewis and Clark in that intervening area.
Mr. Benish agreed that is correct.
Mr. Cilimberg said it also interconnects east on the North Pointe side. It is a connecting road over to
North Pointe Boulevard. He noted that the traffic study for Places29 indicated that it would carry between
4,000 and 5,000 trips on this particular connection in consideration of land uses in area when they would
develop out, which could be many years out.
There being no further questions for staff, Mr. Zobrist invited the applicant to address the Planning
Commission.
Marcia Joseph, representative for the applicant, pointed out the reasons they submitted this was very
simple. They thought the Board of Supervisors was concerned about the amount of Light Industrial land
available. This would add approximately two acres of available Light Industrial land in this area. They
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – MARCH 15, 2011
DRAFT MINUTES – Submitted for Approval
4
thought because staff had proposed some changes to the setbacks and buffer areas required between
residential areas and Light Industrial areas that this would be in harmony with that particular proposal.
The current setback on the property from Airport Acres is 150’ currently. They were proposing to reduce
the undisturbed buffer to 50’ and then have a 4’ berm with plantings on top of the berm. They were going
to wait to talk with the neighbors and to see what kind of plantings they desired. They were talking about
evergreen screening. The other reason they submitted this request is that they had gone out and talked
with the neighbors. They would not have submitted this had they not had support of at least two of the
adjacent neighbors. The third neighbor never contacted them, but did come to the last Planning
Commission meeting. They worked with them to find out what it was that they could live with. They could
live with a 50’ undisturbed buffer and the 4’ high berm planted with 4’ to 6’ evergreen trees . Therefore,
that is what they did. They are gaining about 75’ as a result of this. The reasons they are not supporting
the county engineer’s road design is that it takes as much land from the property as they would be
gaining. They have about a 50’ right-of-way going on there and at least 25’ on one side of it. Then they
have extensive grading going on there, too. The other thing that happens is t he location of this road
makes it very awkward for them to put in any kind of entrance into this site without having some type of
competition occur with the road itself, with their access road, and the roads themselves. Therefore, it is
something they could not support. The other thing they about was to go ahead and put that road where it
is shown on the Comprehensive Plan. They made a promise to the adjacent owners that they would not
put that road next to their property. They wanted to honor that promise, also. Those are the reasons they
came here. They thought that the County would appreciate more Light Industrial property being
available. What they are asking them to do with this is at one point at the last meeting someone said they
were asking for something and they give something back. At this point, they came out with zero. So at
this point in time, they don’t want to give up the land. They would stay status quo if they start designing
around this road the way it is. She offered to answer questions.
Mr. Zobrist invited questions for Ms. Joseph.
Mr. Loach said the staff report says with regard to the road the County Engineer says that he has no
trouble laying out a road, which will have an adequate grade and curvature, and will provide a connection
as recommended in the Comprehensive Plan with minimal impact to the proposed development. He
asked if she was saying his insertion is incorrect.
Ms. Joseph replied she was saying that they all have a different idea of what minimal is depending upon
what our reference point is. She was telling him what she was seeing on this plan is that they are gaining
back 75 feet and losing at least 75 feet on the other side of the property. They have to design around
this, which means it is going to determine where they place their buildings and where the y place their
access road so they don’t have any conflicts where the County Engineer’s road is coming in . They are
going to have an entrance there, which is close to where he is suggesting the spurs come off the existing
roads. .
Mr. Brennan said in her discussion with the County Engineer about his proposal, his thinking was that this
presented a minimal amount of impact as he was understanding what was already approved with the
proffered plan. The County Engineer was thinking that it skirted the edge of the development so
minimally interfered with the footprint buildings on the plan that was proffered.
Ms. Joseph said all of that is relative on the minimum aspect.
Ms. Porterfield asked if there is any alignment of the road that she could live with.
Ms. Joseph replied that where it is shown where someone has determined if they look at the grades that
is probably where it should go. However, they would be impacting an old neighborhood, Airport Acres,
and they have made a promise. Therefore, she could not support that.
Ms. Porterfield asked in her mind there is no other.
Ms. Joseph agreed that there is not. The other thing is if they look at the topography, the largest place of
flat slopes is right at the top. If they bisect that area, they are losing a large lot.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – MARCH 15, 2011
DRAFT MINUTES – Submitted for Approval
5
Mr. Zobrist invited public comment. There being none, the public hearing was closed and the matter
before the Planning Commission.
Mr. Franco noted that he was having a real tough time and would like to hear from other Commissioners.
He wants to encourage the LI uses. He thought that was good. However, he would like to find a win/win.
He did not like the idea of trading even so that they are given them extra land, but are taking it away. He
did think the interconnection is important. He wished there was a different way to approach it. Personally,
he would be open to reducing the buffer even more in order to get that connection. He felt the connection
is very important.
Mr. Loach agreed with Mr. Franco. It is consistent with the principles of the Neighborhood Model and the
approved Places29 Master Plan. The County has made a case that they feel that at least the impact is
not so substantial that they couldn’t support it.
Mr. Franco pointed out it is a mile long block that they are trying to break off. He thought if it was some of
the smaller interconnections, he could probably live with not having that interconnection. He u nderstands
what it is going to take to make it an attractive offer to the applicant. The only thing he can think of is to
reduce that buffer even more so they are gaining three acres to give away 50’ on the other side for the
right-of-way. That way it is a little bit of an enticement to pursue this.
Mr. Loach added the fact that is it going to be signalized there with a connection across, which was
important.
Mr. Lafferty agreed that the connector is very important from the traffic studies that he has seen in
Places29, and they are suppose to uphold the Comprehensive Plan as one of their responsibiliti es.
Mr. Morris agreed adding the new master plan, Places29.
Mr. Zobrist said he had a question for counsel. They have an approved zoning and there is a State
statute that says they cannot use a change in the Comprehensive Plan, which is Places29, to jump on
somebody and not let them build what they have been approved for. He asked for comment from Mr.
Kamptner if it applies here.
Mr. Kamptner asked if he was asking whether the Comprehensive Plan could prevent an approved
zoning.
Mr. Zobrist replied that is correct. The statute says if they have an approved zoning in place that they
cannot use the Comprehensive Plan as a reason not to let it go forward.
Mr. Kamptner agreed. At this point, the applicant will either be submitting a subdivision plat or a site plan
and that is reviewed against the existing zoning and not against the Comprehensive Plan. The Comp
Plan is a policy document. By the time the zoning is in place, the policy considerations have already
been addressed one way or the other.
Mr. Cilimberg noted that is why really the only relevant place for this to be discussed at this point is a part
of that rezoning. It is not a site plan before the Commission, but a rezoning. They are asking to change
how they are using this property with the reduced setback and buffer.
Mr. Zobrist noted that they are asking to reduce the buffer. That is a change in the zoning condition.
Mr. Franco said that is why he says from his side that they have to find a way to encourage them to
pursue this. If that means reducing that buffer even smaller in order to get that connection, then that is
something he would encourage. They don’t have another mechanism before us to get that
interconnection built other than condemnation.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – MARCH 15, 2011
DRAFT MINUTES – Submitted for Approval
6
Mr. Zobrist said it seems that could be accomplished by leaving the dotted line in the buffer. Ms. Joseph
says she does not want to do that because she thought that would be breaking her word to the neighbors.
The way he read the one letter from the neighbor he said he would be happ y with a 50’ buffer. He did not
say anything about a road going down there. He asked if he was missing something.
Mr. Franco said there were two questions. One, is where is the right place to put the road. The second is
how will it affect their development and how do they encourage them to pursue something so they get this
interconnection. They can’t do it via the site plan or subdivision ordinance. Therefore, it has to be
through this rezoning act.
Mr. Zobrist noted the way the County Engineer proposes it here, they have a whole lot of things that have
to fall into place whether that road will ever be built. It is going over a separate piece of property that is
not up for rezoning right now. He has a real tough time with these dotted lines because he does not know
what they mean in terms of if they yes they will leave a dotted line in it has to be put somewhere. They
want to build their Light Industrial complex around that. Yet they don’t have any idea where it is going to
go or if it will even be built in the life time of those buildings.
Mr. Franco said that he understands that, but felt the key is to make the provision for it. That is why he
looks at the line the County Engineer has drawn. He can see moving the part that turns and finall y
approaches UVA’s property and have that split the property line to help reduce the impacts to this
particular piece. Again, it moves the dotted line somewhere and when the other piece comes forward
hopefully, they can get the remaining pieces of land that they need. However, it at least makes a
provision for it in the future.
Mr. Cilimberg noted that adjacent piece is under the same ownership. Part of it is under the plan that
exists now for zoning.
Mr. Zobrist asked if 32-22S is under the same ownership. He questioned if it was the parcel in front on
Route 29 that was in the same ownership.
Mr. Franco said it makes a certain amount of sense to have it there. It is doable grade wise. It is still the
same question of how do they make it happen. T hey don’t get it all out of one property owner but they do
make a provision for it. May be that reduction now does not take two acres, but only one acre. Then it is
a net to the applicant to pursue that. He was thinking in his mind that it was not somet hing they have to
build, but make a provision for it by reserving it as right-of-way.
Mr. Zobrist said that they have to reserve for today, which is the problem. They are looking at 20 years in
the future and say where is it going to go in 20 years.
Mr. Franco pointed out what he was saying was to take the County Engineer’s alignment and along the
property line that is perpendicular more or less to UVA’s shared property line and have 25’ on either side
of that for a 50’ right-of-way. He would like to hear what staff has to say about it.
Mr. Cilimberg said that they don’t know exactly how much the applicant is going to raise. They don’t
know how much they are going to have to allow for grading. Obviously, the 50’ can accommodate the
road as right-of-way. There may be additional grading necessary. Therefore, the actual area that would
be necessary for the road would be greater. They were using the plan. As they see, this is the approved
zoning plan. It appears that part of that zoning plan is on that adjacent property. It may not be under the
same ownership any longer, but the property appears to be incorporated into this plan in part.
Mr. Franco said that it is still subject to this.
Mr. Cilimberg replied the plan is still the operative plan. The other thing that they have said is that even if
there is no road allowance the buffer that they are asking for needs to be reflected by this plan. That has
to be done before it is approved. Therefore, there is going to be an adjustment to the plan necessary to
reflect the buffer. If there was also going to be a road shown they would want that as well to be indicated
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – MARCH 15, 2011
DRAFT MINUTES – Submitted for Approval
7
on the plan. If nothing else, through their reserved area where it would be located. Staff could work on
that and between the Board m eeting if the applicant were willing to accommodate that.
Mr. Kamptner said this is a proffered rezoning. Attachment C is the proffered plan that staff says is
inconsistent with the proffers. It says proposed buffer.
Ms. Brennan replied that is correct. It is a reduction in the buffer. Current Development made a
determination that if they want to reduce the buffer, then they need to reflect that on the proffered plan.
Mr. Franco asked how does that work if part of the proffered plan is no longer under the same ownership.
Ms. Brennan assumed he was referring to this portion. Z oning also noted many inconsistencies in the
proffers that they requested be addressed. It is technical changes to the plan. That is equally a relevant
question. There also has been a site plan since 2000 that has been approved for this portion of the
building that does not match the proffered plan. So all of these things would need to be coordinated into
a proffered plan that reflects the conditions of the site today, the buildings that have been approved on
the site today, a possible interconnector, the reduced buffer, and then the change in the actual boundary
of the parcel. There are many changes to the proffers and to the proffered plan in order to bring a 20
year old plan up to date that would be needed.
Mr. Franco noted what he heard the applicant say earlier basically was to present their conditions or their
reasoning for submitting this request. He did not know where they stood as a group, but if they were
asking them to show that road on that shared property line in the general alignment that the County
Engineer has done, is that something they would entertain. He asked if that provides enough land back
to make this an incentive for them. That is ultimately the question.
Mr. Zobrist invited the applicant to come forward and speak.
Mr. Hurt asked Mr. Franco to restate what he said.
Mr. Franco asked staff to go to the drawing showing the part that is perpendicular. If that section of road
shown were centered on the property line with the adjacent property does that make it more attractive to
them. It gives them 25’ back along that edge. He asked if that was now more palatable.
Blake Hurt, property owner, said that it is now more palatable. There were a couple problems in that the
intersection shown is a problem. In the back, they wanted to have a large piece so they could use it for a
single tenant. Then it comes down and enters just about where that intersection is. The way engineer
put it in, they have already designed the buildings for it. The big problem is they don’t know how that
intersection would realistically work . It must be minimal for the engineer, but he did not see that. The
second point is the way he has drawn it that the road goes right through the middle of the plan that they
have proposed. The road goes right through several buildings.
Mr. Zobrist asked if he owned parcel 32-22C.
Mr. Hurt replied that he owns the piece that has the site plan approved that is adjacent to 29. The porti on
in the back was split off and sold to his neighbor, Mr. Hall. Therefore, he does not own that anymore.
Mr. Zobrist noted the plan staff as looking at was outdated.
Mr. Cilimberg replied that the plan they have actually incorporates some of what he ha s sold. It is under
the same zoning.
Mr. Hurt noted that plan says he is going to restrict the development . That is not the proposed plan that
was approved. That is the envelope of where all of the buildings were going to be. If they look at the plan
and the profits that is what is used. As he said last time, he was not strongly opposed to connecting to
the University. The problem was that there was going to be 500 car trips potentially there. He could
understand why the University would love to have another access. However, if they put industrial uses in
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – MARCH 15, 2011
DRAFT MINUTES – Submitted for Approval
8
there that is inconsistent with having thousands of cars come through there to cut the corner from the
airport. Until it is clearer what uses are going to be there, he did not want to encourage th at. That does
not mean that it won’t happen. All they were trying to do is just move the border a little bit before they had
to reach that decision. Therefore, in his mind, this is not an absolute no. However, as it is proposed, it
just does not make sense for them to do it at this time.
Ms. Porterfield said what she was confused about is Ms. Joseph was talking about the alignment being
right up close to Airport Acres. However, if they are talking about the alignment with the fuchsia color
road, that is not anywhere close to the housing. She asked if they were talking about two different things.
Mr. Hurt replied yes, in a way because the 29 Master Plan shows the road going over to Airport Acres. If
the idea was why don’t they put the public road up against Airport Acres in an easement they are not
using, that would put the road right against the neighborhood, and they would go crazy. That is exactly
what they did not want. Since they will have a 50’ buffer there let’s put that road in there. That would
mean the road would cross over their property against the residential property and go up there. That was
not the agreement they had with the neighbors.
Ms. Porterfield noted that is not what the engineer has drew.
Mr. Hurt agreed.
Ms. Porterfield said the question is does he like what the engineer drew.
Mr. Hurt replied that he did not like what the engineer has done, particularly at the entrance. He has
already designed a building that goes where he has very casually drawn this road. As was s aid, that is
not a 50’ road. That is a 50’ road and whatever grading is required to hold the 50’ road up. His thought
was if they want that connection, the connection has to go up towards Mr. Hall, or they have to wait until
they develop the property and see if the uses work. In most cases, they want more traffic. But, it is not
clear to him since has industrial use that is going to be attractive to people who are going to have trucks
moving out slowly out onto the road when there are 4,000 cars trying to get out of the Airport area.
Ms. Porterfield asked if he had time if he could submit an alignment that he could live with. She asked if
he could go back and look at the buildings he wanted to build to s ee if there is an alignment somewhere
in there that he could live with. If they could go along with what Mr. Franco was saying about maybe
doing some more work on the buffer that is towards Airport Acres so that he was going to gain some
property down there for what he is going to lose up on the top.
Mr. Hurt said that it was speculation, which was the problem. For example, it depends on what Mr. Hall
wants to do with his property. For example, the engineer has already drawn part of the road going
through there. He does not know what Mr. Hall wants to do.
Mr. Zobrist asked if the property to the north belongs to Mr. Hall.
Mr. Hurt replied that he sold the property to Mr. Hall and he assumes that he still owns it. There would
have to be some coordination between those two. He was a patient man, which was why he was still
working on this some 20 years later. He did not know how long it would take Mr. Hall to respond. He was
not opposed to working closely with the University. In fact, his idea when he too k this property was that
they would provide warehouse and industrial services to the University. So there is some sense in saying
well to the extent that they could connect, that would work. However, until they are further down the road
and know where the University Road is, what kind of uses the y have, and whether it is going to be largely
used for accessing University property or just to exit traffic, he can’t make a commitment. It will not work
with a distribution company that will have tractor trailers coming out of there. That is what they are
asking. All they wanted to do was to adjust the side setback. Until they actually start building things , he
can’t say where the road should be. It would be dangerous to do that.
Mr. Porterfield noted that there might be some real benefits. If he was talking about tractor trailers and
there was a chance that they were going to get if this road is built and it goes on across 29 with the stop
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – MARCH 15, 2011
DRAFT MINUTES – Submitted for Approval
9
light, they are going to have a much better access both north and south for almost anything they probably
would have.
Mr. Hurt said that was exactly right. That is why he was so delighted that Mr. Rotgin has decided to put
that traffic light in there. He guaranteed that he has already talked to him about paying for a portion of it.
Ms. Porterfield asked if it was worth a deferral to see if he could work something out. She asked if it was
worth him coming back with a proposed alignment. If there was no land there , it was going to be more
difficult to achieve.
Mr. Hurt said that they are not really going to know until they start putting some buildings up and finding
out what kind of demand. For example, if they start building buildings and it is largely built with 2,500
square foot smaller users, such as copier repair places and cleaning places, then they coul d see that the
connection would be beneficial to those tenants. Instead of that alignment, he would extend the road that
has, which goes through the center of the property, and connect there. He was willing to do that
assuming that improves the property as most traffic would. Currently, they have a heavy industrial use
and the people who have talked to them are people with slow moving traffic. In that case, he did not want
to say divide the property where they wanted ten acres and then end up with two f ive acre tracts that are
not as good. Therefore, he can’t make that decision until he actually begins development. The question
that they are trying to get is if they could change the side setback that would allow them to develop the
property more quickly because that makes more of the property valuable and he could have different
kinds of building arrangements. By denying that he basically was going to stop and wait. That will delay
the whole decision. What he was saying is that he thought that an ali gnment was possible. The question
is what is going to be the use. He can’t decide on the use until he builds a building. He can’t really build
a building until they have some idea of what the property is going to be. They are requesting to get the
side setback. They are open to the idea, but just can’t until they actually start something that will tell them
what the road network should be.
Mr. Kamptner asked to correct what he said earlier because it dove tails to what Mr. Hurt just said. He
has been looking at the wrong proffered plan. Where they do have specificity, the rezoning can create its
rights that continue on through the subdivision and site plan process. Without that kind of specificity the
State Subdivision Site Plan laws do allow for the localities to require that on site streets be coordinated
with existing and planned streets at the Subdivision and Site Plan stage. Clearly, it makes sense to have
these things planned out or addressed at the rezoning stage.
Mr. Zobrist said what he was saying was staff can work with the applicant at the site plan stage to work
out his interconnectivity and it does not have to be done now.
Mr. Kamptner replied looking at the plan that is actually proffered that is general and does not lay out an
internal road alignment and building locations, which Attachment B does. One that is more general in
nature is not going to create the kinds of rights that might bind the County down the road.
Mr. Zobrist noted it was premature to try to say they have to stick this road somewhere when they don’t
have any idea where it ought to go.
Mr. Kamptner replied right, in traditional zoning where they don’t have specific plans that were dealing
with the issue, it was addressed at the subdivision and site plan stage.
Mr. Franco noted what he as hearing the applicant saying is that if they end up with a more industrial kind
of use that is there they may chose not to do the interconnection unless it is associated with UVA. They
may not want to encourage the traffic to go either through the site or adjacent to the site.
Mr. Zobrist invited the applicant to address the Commission.
Blake Hurt said that he was for a good plat. He agreed that the more interconnections the better.
Therefore, he was sensitive to that. If he had heavier uses, he certainly would not want the heavier uses
coming into the internal road system to compete with high speed car traffic. That was the original
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – MARCH 15, 2011
DRAFT MINUTES – Submitted for Approval
10
proposal. If they have a road coming through here, just let it connect. They don’t wan t that. The second
question what if Mr. Hall allowed a road through his property where would he stand on that. Well in that
case, it would also compete with that, but would depend upon what stage they are. He could see that
maybe that would work. So if they had a heavy use and the question came back to them after they
started development and they could see how it would work would they take 25’ of your property on your
side and you could work out the intersection would that be amendable. He would say that is probably
reasonable. However, he did not want to commit to that now because that interconnection is easily
drawn, but not easily built. Until they have a clear idea of what is going to be and that depends somewhat
on what he ends up building, they can’t determine that.
Mr. Franco asked do they phrase something. They have done it in the past from point A to point B. Point
A would be the shared property line along.
Mr. Hurt noted how it has always been done in the past. W hen he comes up with a site plan, the staff will
say they really want this road and will ask them to volunteer it. He would say well he really does not.
Staff would say essentially let’s work together on it. It always seems to work out that way . He does not
know how they could pin him down today. It always seems he ends up coming before the Commission
and it always seems to be a negotiation. He assumes that is how it is going to come out in the future
when he comes up with a site plan to say let’s build these buildings, they are going to say what about that
road. Then they are going to have to talk about it.
Mr. Franco asked if staff agrees with that.
Mr. Cilimberg agreed that they try. He did not agree that it works. He thought Mr. Kamptner had
explained where they are on that. They were trying to talk about what might provide the allowance. They
have a proffer with a foundation next door that allows for an ultimate interconnection. It does not actually
show it on a plan. It may be that they want in this case to have proffer language that would indicate along
this boundary that provision would be made for an interconnection along their boundary as well.
Therefore, when they come in with a site plan they can then determine where that interconnection should
take place rather than trying to draw it at this point in time when they are not sure how their plans are
going to play out.
Mr. Kamptner noted that Mr. Cilimberg’s suggestion is one that has been used for other projects where
potential connections or extensions of roads were well off into the future. What the applicant proffered in
one of the examples that he recalled was an agreement to reserve some area that might be used on site
for part of the future alignment.
Mr. Cilimberg noted that he did not have the word ing, but believed that was the type of wording they used
with the Foundation’s rezoning last year. They came in for a rezoning to add square footage within the
park and he believed that proffer was in that framework rather than showing it on the plan specifically in a
location.
Mr. Kamptner asked if it was tied to the actual implementation of the proffer tied to a site plan or plat.
Mr. Cilimberg replied that he could not remember the specific language. The Foundation proffer says that
they have allowed for the connection to be made. In a site plan for the Foundation, ultimately they would
have that accommodated. He was just speaking at possibly using the same approach on this property.
Ms. Monteith said he was saying that their proffer is a verbal proffer or words rather than an alignment on
a piece of paper.
Mr. Cilimberg agreed
Mr. Porterfield asked to clarify from what was just said. Is that proffer binding on the applicant. In other
words, there will be an alignment that will be a road.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – MARCH 15, 2011
DRAFT MINUTES – Submitted for Approval
11
Mr. Cilimberg replied that there was an alignment if they exercise the rights under the proffer, which
usually are based upon demand or some language like that for the County. Normally where that would
end up being exercised is as part of the site plan process.
Ms. Porterfield said unless the County ultimately decides they don’t want the road the County can get the
road.
Mr. Cilimberg replied that they have to be prepared when that plan comes in. If they don’t have anything
definitively identified yet, then they might have to lose the proffer for the connection. This plan is the old
one that actually, as he mentioned needs to be revised just to reflect their buffer changes. In this
particular case, this plan showed the entrance here, which Mr. Hurt wa s referring to that entrance there
may be have conflict with what our County Engineer had drawn. In addition, the routing would have gone
through this other area, which he believed was not part of their property. There is the possibility under
this plan, as an example, of having that connection that ultimately might come through. H e was not
saying this was the way it was going to end up. There is the possibility of having that connection and that
connection which ultimately could go through.
Mr. Kamptner noted that Mr. Cilimberg covered most of it.
Mr. Franco said he was not proposing that they have to nail it down today. He would like to see a
provision for it. He was comfortable with any kind of language that makes the applicant comfortable that
there will be a connection either through this site or that he has to give 25’ of right-of-way along that far
property line to enable it over there. He just wants to see a provision made for the interconnection.
Mr. Zobrist said the problem they were going to have is that he can certainly make a proffer that he will
make a right-of-way available for interconnectivity and not locate it. Then it defers it to the site plan. He
would have to show where it could possibly be at the time of the site plan. Tha t would be the only way
they could do it. He will have a site plan right now. The University is years away from a site plan on their
property. Therefore, they are going to have to live with whatever he comes up with on his property. He
asked the applicant if they plan to develop the property immediately.
Mr. Hurt replied given his recent experience he was not sure. They had planned a couple of buildings
close to what they thought as going to be a reasonable entrance. The answer is that they will cont inue to
plan that. It is unlikely that they will have a site plan within the next year.
Mr. Zobrist asked if they could do a fuzzy proffer that would work for everybody. The applicant would
have to figure out if it would work or not at some point. He n oted that they would have to make available
property for interconnectivity under the highway standard at the site plan stage. If it w ere not required by
the County, then it would be waived.
Mr. Hurt asked if that was the same as what staff is recommending.
Mr. Zobrist noted that they don’t know the appropriate place for it until they decide what kind of buildings
they are going to build. They are not proffering to build the road, but to give interconnectivity.
Mr. Hurt noted that what staff is recommending goes through both his property and Mr. Hall’s property.
He asked if he has to pay to do the whole thing.
Mr. Zobrist said no and suggested that they start over. H e was not proffering to build a road, but to give
interconnectivity and reserve property for it if that is required during the period of the site plan stage. He
asked Mr. Cilimberg if that was correct.
Mr. Cilimberg replied yes, that the whole idea was rather than trying to get this particular alignment or
some other alignment pinned down now that instead there would simply be proffer language that would
provide for the opportunity to interconnect along their border with the Foundation property. It would not
pinned down with the proffer. It would be determined at the time of site plan.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – MARCH 15, 2011
DRAFT MINUTES – Submitted for Approval
12
Mr. Hurt said that was where he was confused. Does that mean that if he suggested that with some
change to the entrance that he would give part of the property in the back and not all of the road. Would
he have fulfilled that. On the other hand, does he have to make an arrangement, which means all of the
road goes on your property otherwise you site plan is not approved.
Mr. Cilimberg said that it depends also, on what the County has decided as the reasonable connection,
too. It may or may not. They don’t have a plan yet. There are not plans specifically for the location.
What the University proffered along its property line was to provide for that interconnection opportunity at
such time it would be required by the County or as part of their site planning work on their side of the
boundary. His point was to try to have a similar proffer here. So they are not getting into a question of
where this road should be located because they really don’t know that at this point. They don’t know it in
their planning and the County has only conceptually outlined a best location that they could determine.
Mr. Hurt asked if that means that all the road goes on his property.
Mr. Cilimberg replied that it could.
Mr. Franco noted that was what he heard him object to. So what he was trying to do was provide an out
that he either provides the whole thing on his property or 25’ along that shared property line with Hall so
that then he knows he has made accommodation for it and the County can put it whereve r in the future if
they want to.
Mr. Hurt agreed that is what he was opposed to.
Mr. Cilimberg said that he was hearing Mr. Hurt say that he would provide along this property line the
opportunity for an interconnecting road.
Mr. Hurt noted for 25’.
Mr. Franco said he heard him saying that he would provide 20’ along the shared property line with Mr.
Hall or an interconnection through his site should that be if he chooses to do. He asked if he agreed with
that.
Mr. Hurt said that he had moved him quite a long ways. He would have to think about the 25’. However,
if the idea is 25’ along the property line or an alternative that he picks up 50’, then he thought that was
okay.
Mr. Franco noted that he would be picking up 75’.
Mr. Hurt said the problem is that they all know that they can’t build a road at that slope on a 50’ tract.
However, given the limitations they have he thought that was all right.
Mr. Cilimberg requested to ask a question so they know where they are. He asked if he believes this is
along the lines of the plan that he is going to pursue.
Mr. Hurt replied when Ms. Joseph and he sat on the floor and drew those things out the instructions were
that they wanted to cover the entire site with building so when they talk about an envelope t hey have
plenty of flexibility. That is what is drawn there. That has something like 250,000 square feet.
Regrettably, they are not going to be able to do that kind of density.
Mr. Cilimberg said that he was thinking more in terms of the road location.
Mr. Hurt replied that it was completely arbitrary. They did not know the site plan and they did not know
the grade. Under the current plan, there is going to be a central road that comes down and does a left
hand turn into Northside Drive.
Mr. Cilimberg said that they anticipate some kind of road in this general location.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – MARCH 15, 2011
DRAFT MINUTES – Submitted for Approval
13
Mr. Hurt agreed. However, he keeps drawing it over that border. That is not the part.
Mr. Cilimberg asked if he was saying that he did not want an interconnection on that road.
Mr. Hurt replied that what he was saying as at this point he could not tell him. He would think if life goes
perfectly and it is all office building and come back and say instead of heavy industrial let’s put a tower
there, then he would be happy to have an interconnection. If the University and he make some kind of
great deal, he was certain they could work something out on that. However, he cannot tell them that
today.
Mr. Cilimberg said that the language Mr. Franco is suggesting would be a certain depth along the
boundary line with Mr. Hall.
Mr. Hurt replied 25’.
Mr. Cilimberg said and/or the provision along the back property line at some point where a connection
could be made.
Mr. Franco noted that would give him a fall back scenario of knowing that the most he has to give is 25’
along that shared property line, but it also gives him the flexibility should he chose to execute something
similar to this and provide that interconnection, too, but not lose that 25’. He can make that decision at
the site plan when the user was in place.
Mr. Hurt said that he does not have to build the road. This is that he provides the provision.
Mr. Cilimberg said that he was going to have to build some road for himself. The rest of it would be right -
of-way that would be dedicated for connection.
Mr. Franco asked if he was comfortable with what they just said.
Mr. Hurt replied yes, that the 25’ along the border or a provision for a connection as long as he had the
ability just to do the 25’.
Mr. Zobrist added or a connection with the University along the back border.
Mr. Hurt agreed.
Ms. Porterfield questioned if this was going to be 25’ of right-of-way period. If they get the 25’ from the
other property owner, they don’t have the interconnection.
Mr. Franco noted that they don’t have a interconnection now.
Mr. Zobrist said that they could put in a site plan and build this now.
Ms. Porterfield noted that they would also have to live with the current setbacks and buffers. What they
are asking for is to get some things that they would like to have. Yet if they end up only being able to get
25’ of right-of-way, they have not achieved an interconnection.
Mr. Franco said that she was correct. However, if they said all 50’ had to be on them, the indication he
had from the applicant they will come back saying well they will just give them nothing because they are
not going to rezone. Then they would definitely not have an interconnection. This lays out a potential for
an interconnection in the future. It does not ensure it, but it lays the potential. They are better off than
they are now in his mind.
Ms. Porterfield suggested that they talk about lessening the buffer along Airport Acres. There were some
concerns. They were talking about no parking on the Airport Acres side. She asked if that was agreeable
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – MARCH 15, 2011
DRAFT MINUTES – Submitted for Approval
14
with any buildings that are build. In other words, all of the parking and all the travel has to be on the north
side of anything built along Airport Acres.
Mr. Hurt said that none would be adjacent, but there has to be parking on the three sides
Ms. Porterfield said if they are actually going to put parking between them. What she meant was
otherwise, there was no parking on the Airport Acres side of the buildings at all. She asked staff to make
sure they have that as a condition.
Mr. Cilimberg said these are not conditions. These are proffers. This is not a special use permit.
Therefore, the applicant has to volunteer the proffers that address issues that have been identified if they
make a recommendation to the Board in that effect or they can stay with what they have got and go to the
Board and say they want to be approved as submitted.
Ms. Porterfield said that was one concern of the neighbors that came in. She asked the applicant if th ey
would proffer that there would be no parking on the south side of the buildings.
Mr. Hurt said he felt they would be inclined to proffer no parking on the south side of the buildings.
Ms. Porterfield said there was some discussion about getting the berm higher, which was going to make it
wider. She asked what is the actual dimensions.
Ms. Brennan replied that the applicant has proposed a 4’ berm . As she understands from the work
session, there was a resident who was concerned that was too low. She believed from a discussion with
the engineer that he did not feel the berm needed to be higher because it would have to be wider, which
would create a bigger setback for a berm higher than 4’. Staff is fine with a 4’ high berm.
Ms. Porterfield asked if it is going to be wide enough from front to back to be able to handle trees that are
going to grow to some reasonable size.
Ms. Brennan replied yes. When zoning reviewed the application, they requested a bit more specificity in
terms of some of the plantings. That is something that can be worked out. She thought they were fine
with the 4’ high berm.
Ms. Porterfield was concerned in using heavy and light industrial that they don’t start to create a blight on
residential neighborhoods. She wants the neighborhood to survive as well as to have harmony with the
other uses.
Mr. Hurt said he agreed with that.
Mr. Franco assumed that as part of the recommendation that the plan would have to be cleaned up
before it goes to the Board to meet the technical crite ria that has been mentioned by staff. He asked if
staff was comfortable with the Commission making the recommendation and staff taking care of the
details of the plan before it goes to the Board, or, does the Commission need to see it again.
Mr. Cilimberg replied that was up to the Commission. The Commission has directed staff before to work
on plans before going to the Board. There is the chance that the Board could even drop the proffered
plan altogether. If this plan is something that they don’t intend to do, then they could defer everything to
proffers that don’t include a plan. That is another option.
Mr. Zobrist noted the Board is going to do what they are going to do. The Commission just has to give
them our best recommendations
Mr. Cilimberg suggested the Commission recommend what they feel like should be included in the
rezoning. Then the applicant working with staff will need to address those things through proffers and the
plan or not.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – MARCH 15, 2011
DRAFT MINUTES – Submitted for Approval
15
Mr. Franco moved for approval of ZMA-2010-00009 Republic Capital with the conditions:
that an interconnection between Northside Drive and the Foundation property be provided
through this site or 25’ along the shared property line with the Hall’s property;
that interconnection be provided for;
in addition, there be no parking on the south side of the buildings built on this property on the
Airport Acres side.
Mr. Kamptner asked to clarify that the first part of the interconnection was to be at the option of the
applicant if they chose to do the full thing on their property.
Mr. Franco agreed if they chose to do the full thing on their property or provide 25’ along the shared
property line, that they are to provide for no parking adjacent to Airport Acres between Airport Acres and
the building on the south side of the buildings there. In addition, it was to allow for the reduced setback
and also include how staff deals with the technical changes to the proffers in the plan .
Mr. Morris asked for confirmation from the applicant.
Mr. Blake Hurt asked for clarification that it was parking on the south side of the buildings that are
adjacent to the Airport Acres because there are other buildings further away.
Mr. Franco agreed that it included the parking adjacent to Airport Acres.
Mr. Loach seconded the motion.
Mr. Zobrist noted that it had been moved and seconded to recommend approval of ZMA -2010-00009 as
set forth in the motion on the record with the conditions set forth. There being no further discussion, the
role was called.
The motion was passed by a vote of 7:0.
ZMA-2010-00009 Republic Capital will go before Board of Supervisors on a date to be determined with a
recommendation for approval subject to the proffer amendments as recommended by staff, as follows.
1. An interconnection between Northside Drive and the University of Virginia Foundation property
shall be provided for through commitment to either dedicate right of way along the boundary with
the Foundation property as an extension of a road through the subject property or through
reservation of 25’ for a road along the shared property line with the Hall’s property.
2. There shall be no parking on the south side of the buildings adjacent to Airport Acres.
3. The requested proffer changes will be made regarding a reduced buffer adjacent to Airport Acres
as proposed by the applicant (from 150 to 50 feet with a four -foot high planted berm and a
building setback of 75 feet; additionally, the building height restriction of 30 and 25 feet for any
portion of a structure within 300 feet of Airport Acres will be eliminated).
4. Technical changes shall be made to other proffers.
5. Revise the proffered plan to reflect the amended proffers or remove the proffered the plan.
Return to PC actions letter