HomeMy WebLinkAbout2011-11-02Tentative
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
T E N T A T I V E
NOVEMBER 2, 2011
9:00 A.M., AUDITORIUM
COUNTY OFFICE BUILDING
1. Call to Order.
2. Pledge of Allegiance.
3. Moment of Silence.
4. Adoption of Final Agenda.
5. Recognitions.
a. Governor’s Technology Awards.
b. VML “Go Green” Challenge for 2011.
c. Albemarle County firefighters - Fill the Boot Campaign for the Central Virginia Muscular Dystrophy
Association.
6. Appointment of Human Resources Director.
7. From the Public: Matters Not Listed for Public Hearing on the Agenda.
8. Consent Agenda (on next sheet).
10:00 a.m. - Action Items:
9. Video Streaming Board of Supervisors’ meetings.
10. Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission (TJPDC) Legislative Program, David Blount.
11. Review of Solid Waste Service Options.
12. Albemarle County Environmental Stewardship Strategic Plan.
13. 11:30 a.m. - Public Hearing: ZTA-2010-00005 Signs – Amend Secs. 4.15.1, Purpose
and intent, 4.15.2, Definitions, 4.15.4, Signs authorized by sign permit, 4.15.6, Signs exempt from the sign permit
requirement, 4.15.7, Prohibited signs and sign characteristics, 4.15.8, Regulations applicable in the MHD, RA, VR, R-1
and R-2 zoning districts, 4.15.9, Regulations applicable in the R-4 and R-6 zoning districts, 4.15.11, Regulations
applicable in the PUD, DCD and NMD zoning districts, 4.15.12, Regulations applicable in the C-1 and CO zoning districts,
4.15.13, Regulations applicable in the HC, PD-SC and PD-MC zoning districts, 4.15.14, Regulations applicable in the HI,
LI and PD-IP zoning districts, 4.15.15, Regulations applicable in the entrance corridor overlay district, 30.6.4, Certificates
of appropriateness, and 30.6.5, Development exempt from requirement to obtain certificate of appropriateness, and add
Sec. 4.15.4A, Signs authorized by temporary sign permit, of Chapter 18, Zoning, of the Albemarle County Code. This
ordinance would amend the stated purpose and intent of the sign regulations (4.15.1), add and amend definitions (4.15.2),
amend the procedures for obtaining sign permits and permits for temporary signs (4.15.4, 4.15.4A), increase the number
of permits for temporary signs allowed in a calendar year from 4 to 6 and allow the 60 day period to be aggregated among
the several permits (4.15.4A), amend the scope of home occupation and window signs that are exempt from the sign
permit requirement (4.15.6), increase the area of a window or door covered by signs from 25% to 50% before they are
considered prohibited signs that obstruct vision (4.15.7), amend the sign regulations applicable to the several zoning
districts by increasing the maximum size of freestanding signs from 24 to 32 sq. ft. and allow bonus panel signs in some
districts, reducing the minimum sign setback for directory and temporary signs in certain districts from 10 to 5 feet,
amending the maximum height of temporary and wall signs in some districts, standardizing the method for calculating the
permitted area of a wall sign (1.5 sq. ft. per linear foot of structure frontage), allowing sandwich board signs in the
file:////coba-webapp01/BOSForms/Agenda/2011Files/Migration/20111102/00_Agenda.htm (1 of 3) [10/7/2020 5:29:55 PM]
Tentative
commercial and planned industrial zoning districts, and having the Highway Commercial district be subject to the sign
regulations in section 4.15.12 rather than section 4.15.13 (4.15.8, 4.15.9, 4.15.11 through 4.15.14), eliminate the
requirement of a certificate of appropriateness for a window sign or a sign visible through a window (4.15.15), add
standards for bonus panel signs and sandwich board signs (4.15.16), allow all signs, rather than just walls signs, to be
eligible for a countywide certificate of appropriateness (30.6.4), and amend the class of signs exempt from the requirement
for a certificate of appropriateness (30.6.5).
14. Closed Meeting.
15. Certify Closed Meeting.
16. Boards and Commissions: Vacancies/Appointments.
1:30 p.m. – Presentations:
17. DIA Update, Phil Roberts, DIA Chief for Rivanna Station, and Col John Strycula, Post Commander Ft Belvoir.
18. Board-to-Board, Monthly Communications Report from School Board, School Board Chairman
19. VDOT Update, David Crim.
Action Items:
20. Meadow Creek Parkway Resolution of Intent.
21. Route 29 Western Bypass Resolution from the Jack Jouett Bypass Design Committee.
22. From the Board: Matters Not Listed on the Agenda.
23. Adjourn to November 9, 2011, 4:00 p.m., Room 241.
CONSENT AGENDA
FOR APPROVAL:
8.1 Approval of Minutes: August 17 and September 21, 2010; March 2, March 3, March 7(A), March 9(N), April 19
(A), April 20 and June 1, 2011.
8.2 Cancel November 9, 2011 Regular Night Meeting.
8.3 FY 2011 Budget Amendment and Appropriations.
8.4 FY 2012 Budget Amendment and Appropriations.
8.5 ACE Round 10 Approvals - Accept completed Rushia and Nash/Violette Appraisals; Approve extending
invitations to sell a conservation easements.
8.6 VDOT Revenue Sharing Program Application, FY 2012/13.
8.7 Resolution to accept Olympia Drive and Town and Country Lane Connector into the State Secondary System of
Highways.
file:////coba-webapp01/BOSForms/Agenda/2011Files/Migration/20111102/00_Agenda.htm (2 of 3) [10/7/2020 5:29:55 PM]
Tentative
8.8 Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) Resolution.
8.9 Initiatives to Address Gang Activity in Albemarle County.
FOR INFORMATION:
8.10 FY 2012 1st Quarter Cash and Non-Cash Proffer Report and 2011 State Survey of Cash Proffers.
8.11 Summary of Grant Applications Submitted in September, 2011.
Return to Top of Agenda
Return to Board of Supervisors Home Page
Return to County Home Page
file:////coba-webapp01/BOSForms/Agenda/2011Files/Migration/20111102/00_Agenda.htm (3 of 3) [10/7/2020 5:29:55 PM]
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
FY 2011 Budget Amendment and Appropriations
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Approval of Budget Amendment and Appropriation
#2011093, #2011095, and #2011096.
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Messrs. Foley, Letteri, and Davis; and Ms. L. Allshouse
LEGAL REVIEW: Yes
AGENDA DATE:
November 2, 2011
ACTION: INFORMATION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: X INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS: Yes
REVIEWED BY:
BACKGROUND:
Virginia Code § 15.2-2507 provides that any locality may amend its budget to adjust the aggregate amount to be
appropriated during the fiscal year as shown in the currently adopted budget; provided, however, any such amendment
which exceeds one percent of the total expenditures shown in the currently adopted budget must be accomplished by
first publishing a notice of a meeting and holding a public hearing before amending the budget. The Code section
applies to all County funds, i.e., General Fund, Capital Funds, E911, School Self-Sustaining, etc.
The total of the requested FY 2011 appropriations itemized below is $362,175.32. 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 three (3) FY 2011 appropriations as follows:
One (1) appropriation (#2011093) totaling $215,268.81 for required County obligations in FY 10/11 that
exceeded initial budgeted amounts;
One (1) appropriation (#2011095) totaling $131,455.92 for various school programs; and
One (1) appropriation (#2011096) totaling $15,450.59 for expenses that exceeded rental income at the Old
Crozet School.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends approval of the budget amendment in the amount of $362,175.32 and the approval of Appropriations
#2011093, #2011095, and #2011096.
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A – Appropriation Descriptions
Return to consent agenda
Return to regular agenda
Attachment A
Appropriation #2011093 $ 215,268.81
Revenue Source: General Fund Balance $ 215,268.81
This request is for an appropriation to fund required County obligations in FY 10/11 whose costs exceeded initial
budgeted amounts. This request will appropriate $215,268.81 from the General Fund Balance as follows:
Circuit Court - $20,766.00 – This is primarily to cover the payment of overtime hours worked by one
County employee within the Circuit Court who has worked a total of 428 uncompensated overtime hours
since her start date. Since discovering the employee’s accumulation of overtime, the employee is currently
required to complete timesheets consistent with the organization’s on-going practice of maintaining Fair
Labor Standards Act compliance. In addition, this appropriation includes funding for unanticipated
equipment repair incurred during FY 10/11.
Fire Rescue - $35,900.00 – This appropriation covers overexpenditures in Fire Rescue that were incurred
as a result of mandatory overtime dictated by changes to the Virginia State Code.
City of Charlottesville Fire Contract - $30,129.30 – The City fire contract actual expenses exceeded
budgeted expenses in FY 10/11. These expenses are based on the net City-to-County call volume
experienced in FY 09/10. During the FY 09/10 period, the County experienced two significant snow storms
and a number of summertime micro-bursts. The weather related events caused the actual net City-to-
County call volume to exceed the estimated amount by about 90 calls.
Albemarle Charlottesville Regional Jail - $107,583.22 – This is to provide the funding required by the
County to the Regional Jail per the regionial agreement. In FY 10/11, actual inmate days were 5%, or
4,095, higher than planned, resulting in a required expenditure over budget.
Fire/Rescue Tax Credit - $3,713.17 – This personal property tax credit may be applied toward any vehicle
owned by an active fire/rescue volunteer. In FY 10/11, utilization of this program exceeded budget by
$3,713.17.
Blue Ridge Juvenile Detention Center - $17,177.12 – This is to provide the funding required by the
County to the BRJDC per agreement. This was due to the the County’s per diem usage at the facility
during FY 10/11 and the per diem cost adjustment that occurred during the year.
Appropriation #2011095 $131,455.92
Revenue Source: Miscellaneous Local $ 59,759.46
State Revenue $ 3,066.00
Federal Revenue $ 68,630.46
This request is for School Division appropriations approved by the School Board on September 8, 2011. Th is
appropriation request of $131,455.92 is for the following:
The 21st Century Community Learning Centers federal grant funds are used for the Club Yancey After
School Program which provides academic, civic, cultural, and fitness/wellness enrichment to e ligible
students at no cost to the parents. There is a fund b alance in the amount of $39,795.78 from FY 09/10
which may be appropriated for use in FY 10/11.
Algebra Readiness funds provide mathematics intervention services to middle school students who a re at
risk of failing. FY 10/11 expenditures exceeded appropriations, which were based on the amount the
County expected to receive in State funding. This request is to appropriate an additional $3,066.00 that was
received in State funding to balance the fund.
Albemarle County Public Schools Department of Transportation received a grant from the Hampton Roads
Clean Cities Coalition Federal pass-thru grant in the amount of $28,834.68. These funds were used to
purchase idle reduction kits for 14 buses. These kits provide a reduction in engine idling, diesel fuel
consumption and emissions, and warm cabins on the buses.
An appropriation in the amount of $59,759.46 from Albemarle High School’s activity fund to reimburse the
County School Division for athletic items purchased for Albemarle High School.
Appropriation #2011096 $15,450.59
Revenue Source: General Fund Balance $ 15,450.59
In FY 10/11, the Old Crozet School Fund had maintenance expenses of $75,670.75 and rental receipts of
$60,150.31. This resulted in a negative fund balance of $15,450.59. This appropriation will transfer $15,450.59 from
the General Fund fund balance to the Old Crozet School Fund and will balance the fund.
Attachment A
Return to exec summary
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
FY 2012 Budget Amendment and Appropriations
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Approval of Budget Amendment and Appropriation
#2012034, #2012035 and #2012036.
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Messrs. Foley, Davis; and Ms. L. Allshouse
LEGAL REVIEW: Yes
AGENDA DATE:
November 2, 2011
ACTION: INFORMATION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: X INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS: YES
REVIEWED BY:
BACKGROUND:
Virginia Code § 15.2-2507 provides that any locality may amend its budget to adjust the aggregate amount to be
appropriated during the fiscal year as shown in the currently adopted budget; provided, however, any such amendment
which exceeds one percent of the total expenditures shown in the currently adopted budget must be accomplished by
first publishing a notice of a meeting and holding a public hearing before amending the budget. The Code section
applies to all County funds, i.e., General Fund, Capital Funds, E911, School Self-Sustaining, etc.
The total of the requested FY 2012 appropriations itemized below is $162,586.93. 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 three (3) FY 2012 appropriations as follows:
One (1) appropriation (#2012034) totaling $18,045.11 for various school programs;
One (1) appropriation (#2012035) totaling $91,974.00 for the replacement of various servers, modems and
batteries at the Emergency Communications Center (ECC); and
One (1) appropriation (#2012036) totaling $52,567.82 for various Capital projects.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends approval of the budget amendment in the amount of is $162,586.93 and the approval of
Appropriations #2012034, #2012035 and #2012036.
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A – Appropriation Descriptions
Return to consent agenda
Return to regular agenda
Attachment A
1
Appropriation #2012034 $18,045.11
Revenue Source: Miscellaneous Local Revenue* $ 8,584.51
Grant Fund Balances $ 9,460.60
(* fees and donations)
This request is for School Division appropriations approved by the School Board on September 8, 2011. This
appropriation request of $18,045.11 is as follows:
An appropriation in the amount of $8,084.51 to reimburse the County School Division budget for athletic
personnel expenses.
An appropriation of $500.00 in donations received by Albemarle High School (AHS) from the AHS
Parent/Teacher/Student Organziation. The donor requested that this contribution be used to help fund any
instructional needs at AHS.
Various Shannon Foundation Grants received by the School Division have unexpended fund balances from
FY 10/11. This request is to reappropriate $9,460.60 in these remaining grant balances to FY 12.
Appropriation #2012035 $91,974.00
Revenue Source: ECC Fund Balance $ 10,996.00
ECC 800 MHz Fund Balance $ 80,978.00
The Emegency Communication Center’s (ECC) Management Board approved the reappropriation of $91,974.00 at its
meeting on Thursday, October 20, 2011 and is requesting the County of Albemarle, acting as fiscal agent for the
ECC, to make the following appropriations from ECC’s available fund balances:
$10,996.00 for the emergency purchase of two replacement modems for the Computer Aided Dispatch
(CAD) system. The ECC has been notified by its CAD vendor that the current modems, which are several
years old, are obsolete and will no longer be covered by its maintenance contract until the modems are
replaced.
$46,928.00 to replace two servers from the recording system and fund an increase of $708.00 in the
renewal of the annual maintenance contract. The ECC has been notified by its vendor that the current
servers will no longer be covered under its current maintenance contract.
$34,050.00 for the replacement of back-up batteries for the microwave system at the ECC and tower sites.
ECC recently had a malfunction with the batteries when they overheated and caused a system problem.
The batteries are several years old and have been recommended for replacement by Motorola.
Appropriation #2012036 $52,567.82
Revenue Source: School Capital Fund Balance $ 144,304.03
Gen Gov’t Capital Fund Balance $ (111,736.21)
Gen Gov’t Capital Loan Proceeds $ 20,000.00
As staff works to close out the FY 11 Capital Improvement Program year, additional budget adjustments are
requested for projects that were completed or will be expens ed in the following fiscal year. This request is to
appropriate a total of $52,567.82 to the Capital Program as follows:
a) Re-appropriate $144,304.03 from the School Capital Fund Balance to support the FY 11 School
Administrative Technology capital project, that was not complete by year-end in FY 11. This project is to
upgrade the voice-over IP phone system at various schools. The upgrade is scheduled to begin in January
2012 and to be compete in March 2012.
b) Re-appropriate $54,792.13 from the General Gover nment Capital Fund Balance for the purchase of
Seminole Engine 82 and its associated equipment. The County and Seminole Trail VFD accepted delivery
from the factory in FY 12 (September 2011) and the associated loose and portable equipment is currently
being installed on the vehicle. The total balance available for this purchase in FY 11 was $724,449.00. The
Board has previously approved the re-appropriation of $669,656.87 for this purpose. The $54,792.13 is the
remaining balance.
Attachment A
2
c) Reduce the currently appropriated FY 12 General Government Fund Balance revenue account by
$146,528.34 and the associated budgeted expenditures for the following FY 12 projects by the same
amount. This is to correctly reflect the FY 11 project balances that were available at FY 11 year end to
move forward into FY 12:
o (50,000.00) Master plan, Pantops
o (34,695.13) Fire Dept Contingency
o (8,494.08) Fire Dept Emergency Radio Notification System
o (52,142.73) Access Albemarle
o (1,196.40) Parks & Rec Maintenance
d) Appropriate $20,000.00 in General Government Loan Proceed Revenues and reduce the use of General
Government Fund Balance Revenues by $20,000.00 to reflect the correct amount of loan proceeds
identified in the Board’s Resolution of Official Intent to Reimburse Expenditures with Pro ceeds of a
Bowrrowing dated May 11, 2011.
Return to exec summary
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
ACE Round 10 Approvals
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Request approval of Rushia and Nash/Violette ACE
appraisals and authorize invitations to sell conservation
easements
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Messrs., Foley, Elliott, Davis, Herrick, Cilimberg, Benish,
and Goodall
LEGAL REVIEW: Yes
AGENDA DATE:
November 2, 2011
ACTION: INFORMATION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: X INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS: Yes
REVIEWED BY:
BACKGROUND:
On January 5, 2011, the Board of Supervisors approved the Acquisition of Conservation Easement (ACE)
Committee’s request to have the four remaining properties from the Round 10 (FY 2009-10) applicant pool (Thurman,
Rives, Rushia, and Nash/Violette) appraised (see Attachment “A”). All higher-ranked easements were already being
either acquired (Pugh/Stanerson) or withdrawn from consideration (Lively and Barksdale). Last spring, Thurman was
acquired and Rives voluntarily withdrew his application, leaving only two eligible properties for consideration: Rushia
and Nash/Violette.
Under County Code section A.1-111(A), "[T]he board of supervisors shall designate the initial pool of parcels identified
for conservation easements to be purchased. The size of the pool shall be based upon the funds available for
easement purchases in the current fiscal year and the purchase price of each conservation easement in the pool
established under section A.1-111(B)."
DISCUSSION:
The Rushia and Nash/Violette appraisals have been completed and were officially approved by the Appraisal Review
Committee on October 4, 2011. The ACE Committee now recommends that the Board accept the completed Rushia
and Nash/Violette appraisals and authorize invitations to both landowners to sell conservation easements for the
amounts indicated in the approved appraisals. Based on the appraisals, the purchase price of the Rushia easement
would be $203,980 and the purchase price for the Nash/Violette easement would be $58,800. With $735,913.69 in the
ACE budget, funds are available to purchase both easements (see Attachment “B”). Acquisition of these two
easements would protect the following resources:
127 acres of farm and forestland
1,384 feet of state road frontage, including 750 feet on I-64
1,800+ feet of riparian buffer on Stockton Creek
36 acres of “prime” farm and forestland
61 acres of protected mountaintop (Beaver Creek Mountain)
4,700+ feet of common boundary with 3 other properties under easement
Acquisition of these two easements would also provide the following benefits:
Elimination of 12 development rights
Both properties lie in the watershed of the South Fork of the Rivanna River Reservoir
BUDGET IMPACT:
Funding for the purchase of this conservation easement is available existing funds in the CIP-Planning-Conservation
budget (line-item 9010-81010-580409).
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends that the Board:
1) Accept the completed Rushia and Nash/Violette appraisals (see Attachment “B”); and
2) Approve extending invitations to submit an offer to sell to Rushia and Nash/Violette based on the appraisals.
ATTACHMENTS
A – Ranking Order of ACE Applicants from Round 10
B – ACE Budget for Round 10 & Rushia and Nash/Violette Easement Acquisition Costs
Return to consent agenda
Return to regular agenda
Attachment “A”
Ranking Order of ACE Applicants from Round 10 (FY 2009-10)
(20 points are needed to qualify for ACE Funding)
Applicant Tax Map Acres Points Tourism Status
Lively, Julius TM 93, Parcel 53 90.950 acres 48.45 points yes withdrawn
(Simeon) TM 93, Parcel 53C 10.650 acres
TM 93, Parcel 53D 10.500 acres
TM 93, Parcel 54 184.570 acres
Total 296.670 acres
Ethel Pugh/Stanerson TM 56, Parcel 25C 96.220 acres 33.36 points yes acquired 5.26.2011
(Ivy)
Barksdale, John TM 100, Parcel 34 153.010 acres 29.66 points yes withdrawn
(Walnut Creek)
Thurman, Thelma TM 94, Parcel 20A 108.400 acres 25.36 points no acquired 2.14.2011
(Milton)
Rives, Barclay TM 65, Parcel 93A1 3.811 acres 24.58 points yes withdrawn
(Cismont) TM 65, Parcel 94 3.000 acres
TM 65, Parcel 94 “A” 1.250 acres
TM 65, Parcel 94 “B” 15.950 acres
TM 65, Parcel 95 4.872 acres
TM 65, Parcel 95A 3.978 acres
TM 65, Parcel 121 38.840 acres
Total 71.701 acres
Rushia, Ed & Chris TM 39, Parcel 27 86.700 acres 22.43 points yes hope to acquire
(Crozet)
Nash/Violette TM 71, Parcel 43 40.160 acres 22.06 points yes hope to acquire
(Greenwood)
William Traylor TM 48, Parcel 45 14.569 acres 10.27 points no ineligible
(Stony Point) TM 48, Parcel 46 25.456 acres
Total 40.025 acres
_______________________________________________________________________________________________
Totals 8 applicants 862.926 acres
Note: Tourism value is determined by the presence of specific elements from the ranking evaluation criteria
making certain properties eligible for funding from the transient lodging tax. The specific criteria include the
following: contains historic resources or lies in a historic district; lies in the primary Monticello viewshed;
adjoins a Virginia scenic highway, byway or entrance corridor; lies on a state scenic river; provides
mountaintop protection.
Ranking Order of ACE Applicants from Round 10 (FY 2009-10)
(20 points are needed to qualify for ACE Funding)
Applicant Tax Map Acres Points Status
Lively, Julius TM 93, Parcel 53 90.950 acres 48.45 points rejected ACE offer
(Simeon) TM 93, Parcel 53C 10.650 acres
TM 93, Parcel 53D 10.500 acres
TM 93, Parcel 54 184.570 acres
Total 296.670 acres
Ethel Pugh/Stanerson TM 56, Parcel 25C 96.220 acres 33.36 points acquired on 2.14.2011
(Ivy)
Barksdale, John TM 100, Parcel 34 153.010 acres 28.71 points rejected ACE offer
(Walnut Creek)
Thurman, Thelma TM 94, Parcel 20A 108.400 acres 25.36 points hope to acquire
(Milton)
Rives, Barclay TM 65, Parcel 93A1 3.811 acres 24.58 points hope to acquire
(Cismont) TM 65, Parcel 94 3.000 acres
TM 65, Parcel 94 “A” 1.250 acres
TM 65, Parcel 94 “B” 15.950 acres
TM 65, Parcel 95 4.872 acres
TM 65, Parcel 95A 3.978 acres
TM 65, Parcel 121 38.840 acres
Total 71.701 acres
Rushia, Ed & Chris TM 39, Parcel 27 86.700 acres 22.43 points hope to acquire
(Crozet)
Nash/Violette TM 71, Parcel 43 40.160 acres 21.06 points hope to acquire
(Greenwood)
William Traylor TM 48, Parcel 45 14.569 acres 10.27 points ineligible
(Stony Point) TM 48, Parcel 46 25.456 acres
Total 40.025 acres
_______________________________________________________________________________________________
ACE Ranking Evaluation Criteria & Points Determination
Owner: Lively, Julius
Property: TM 93, Parcel 53 ( 90.950 acres) 3 DivR’s + 5 DevR’s = 8 DR’s
TM 93, Parcel 53C ( 10.650 acres) 0 DivR’s + 5 DevR’s = 5 DR’s
TM 93, Parcel 53D ( 10.500 acres) 0 DivR’s + 5 DevR’s = 5 DR’s
TM 93, Parcel 54 (184.570 acres) 8 DivR’s + 4 DevR’s = 12 DR’s
Total (296.670 acres) 11 DivR’s + 19 DevR’s = 30 DR’s
Ranking Criteria Determination Source for Points Points
Criteria A.1 ¼ mile from Limestone Farm plats/County overlay maps 2.00
Criteria A.2 296.670 acres RE Assessor’s Office 5.93
Criteria B.1 no landowner 0.00
Criteria B.2 no landowner 0.00
Criteria B.3 24 DR’s eliminated Zoning & Planning Departments 12.00
Criteria C.1 no County overlay maps 0.00
Criteria C.2 yes landowner 5.00
Criteria C.3 1,340 feet on Route 53 County tax map/plats 4.23
(Entrance Corridor)
Criteria C.4 yes - in Monticello viewshed PEC/Monticello viewshed maps 2.00
Criteria C.5 yes - Henderson habitat zone DCR Division of Natural Heritage 5.00
Criteria C.6 102 acres “prime” farm/forest County Soil Survey 2.04
Criteria C.7 4,100 feet on the Rivanna River County overlay maps 4.10
Criteria C.8 yes - Rivanna River plat/survey/County overlay maps 2.05
Criteria C.9 35 foot buffer on Rivanna River landowner 4.10
Criteria C.10 n/a County Engineering Department 0.00
Criteria C.11 no County overlay maps 0.00
Criteria C.12 no landowner/DOF 0.00
Criteria D.1 n/a Based on income grid 0.00
Point Total 48.45 points
PEC = Piedmont Environmental Council; VOF = Virginia Outdoors Foundation; TNC = The Nature Conservancy
DCR = Department of Conservation and Recreation; SH = Scenic Highway; EC = entrance corridor; SR = State Road;
CE = Conservation Easement; SFRR = South Fork Rivanna River watershed; SWMHD = Southwest Mountains
Historic District.
ACE Ranking Evaluation Criteria & Points Determination
Owner: Ethel R. Pugh/Bettie Stanerson
Property: TM 56, Parcel 25C (96.220 acres) 4 DivR’s + 2 DevR’s = 6 DR’s
Ranking Criteria Determination Source for Points Points
Criteria A.1 1,900 feet on TM 72-20A plats/County overlay maps 8.72
1,450 feet on TM 56-113
Criteria A.2 96.220 acres RE Assessor’s Office 1.92
Criteria B.1 no landowner 0.00
Criteria B.2 yes (retired, medical issues) landowner 3.00
Criteria B.3 5 usable DR’s eliminated Zoning & Planning Departments 2.50
Criteria C.1 no County overlay maps 0.00
Criteria C.2 yes landowner 3.00
Criteria C.3 370’ on I-64 (EC) County tax map/plats 3.21
600’ on SR 683
Criteria C.4 none PEC/Monticello viewshed maps 0.00
Criteria C.5 yes (w/in ¼ mile) DCR Division of Natural Heritage 3.00
Criteria C.6 49 acres County Soil Survey 0.98
Criteria C.7 SF Rivanna River Watershed County overlay maps 3.00
Criteria C.8 no plat/survey/County overlay maps 0.00
Criteria C.9 4,029’ on Stockton Mill Creek landowner 4.03
Criteria C.10 n/a County Engineering Department 0.00
Criteria C.11 no County overlay maps 0.00
Criteria C.12 no landowner/DOF 0.00
Criteria D.1 n/a Based on income grid 0.00
Point Total 33.36 points
PEC = Piedmont Environmental Council; VOF = Virginia Outdoors Foundation; TNC = The Nature Conservancy
DCR = Department of Conservation and Recreation
SH = Scenic Highway; EC = entrance corridor; SR = State Road
CE = Conservation Easement
SFRR = South Fork Rivanna River watershed
SWMHD = Southwest Mountains Historic District
ACE Ranking Evaluation Criteria & Points Determination
Owner: Barksdale, John
Property: TM 100, Parcel 34 (153.010 acres) 7 DivR’s + 3 DevR’s = 10 DR’s
Ranking Criteria Determination Source for Points Points
Criteria A.1 1,076 feet on Walnut Creek Park plats/County overlay maps 9.77
2,810 feet on C. Hudson
Criteria A.2 153.010 acres RE Assessor’s Office 3.06
Criteria B.1 no landowner 0.00
Criteria B.2 no landowner 0.00
Criteria B.3 7 usable DR’s eliminated Zoning & Planning Departments 3.50
Criteria C.1 yes - 40 acres in Gay Mtn. MOD County overlay map 0.95
3 acres in RAB
Criteria C.2 yes landowner 3.00
Criteria C.3 1,076 feet on SR 631 County tax map/plats 3.08
Criteria C.4 none PEC/Monticello viewshed maps 0.00
Criteria C.5 mafic outcrops w/ rare plants? DCR Division of Natural Heritage 3.00
Criteria C.6 105 acres County Soil Survey 2.10
Criteria C.7 no County overlay maps 0.00
Criteria C.8 no plat/survey/County overlay maps 0.00
Criteria C.9 none landowner 0.00
Criteria C.10 n/a County Engineering Department 0.00
Criteria C.11 no County overlay maps 0.00
Criteria C.12 no landowner/DOF 0.00
Criteria D.1 88% funding Based on income grid 1.20
Point Total 29.66 points
PEC = Piedmont Environmental Council; VOF = Virginia Outdoors Foundation; TNC = The Nature Conservan cy
DCR = Department of Conservation and Recreation
SH = Scenic Highway; EC = entrance corridor; SR = State Road
CE = Conservation Easement
SFRR = South Fork Rivanna River watershed
SWMHD = Southwest Mountains Historic District
ACE Ranking Evaluation Criteria & Points Determination
Owner: Thurman, Thelma
Property: TM 94, Parcel 20A (108.400 acres) 4 DivR’s + 5 DevR’s = 9 DR’s
Ranking Criteria Determination Source for Points Points
Criteria A.1 w/in ¼ mile of Limestone Farm County overlay map 2.00
Criteria A.2 108.400 acres RE Assessor’s Office 2.17
Criteria B.1 no landowner 0.00
Criteria B.2 yes landowner 3.00
Criteria B.3 6 DR’s eliminated Zoning & Planning Department 3.00
Criteria C.1 no County overlay map 0.00
Criteria C.2 yes landowner 5.00
Criteria C.3 2,647’ on SR 623 County overlay map 4.65
Criteria C.4 no DHR & Monticello viewshed maps 0.00
Criteria C.5 no DCR - Division of Natural Heritage 0.00
Criteria C.6 55 acres “prime soil” County Soil Survey 1.10
Criteria C.7 no County overlay map 0.00
Criteria C.8 no County overlay map 0.00
Criteria C.9 2,958’ w/ 50-100’ wide buffers landowner 4.44
Criteria C.10 n/a County Engineering Department 0.00
Criteria C.11 no County overlay map 0.00
Criteria C.12 no Department of Forestry 0.00
Criteria D.1 n/a VOF, PEC, TNC etc. 0.00
Point Total 25.36 points
PEC = Piedmont Environmental Council; VOF = Virginia Outdoors Foundation; TNC = The Nature Conservancy
DHR = Department of Historic Resources; DCR = Department of Conservation and Recreation
SFRR = South Fork Rivanna River Reservoir
ACE Ranking Evaluation Criteria & Points Determination
Owner: Rives, Barclay
Property: TM 65, Parcel 93A1 ( 3.811 acres) 0 DivR’s + 1 DevR’s = 1 DR’s
TM 65, Parcel 94 ( 3.000 acres) 0 DivR’s + 1 DevR’s = 1 DR’s
TM 65, Parcel 94 “A” ( 1.250 acres) 0 DivR’s + 1 DevR’s = 1 DR’s
TM 65, Parcel 94 “B” (15.950 acres) 0 DivR’s + 5 DevR’s = 5 DR’s
TM 65, Parcel 95 ( 4.872 acres) 0 DivR’s + 2 DevR’s = 2 DR’s
TM 65, Parcel 95A ( 3.978 acres) 0 DivR’s + 1 DevR’s = 1 DR’s
TM 65, Parcel 121 (38.840 acres) 1 DivR’s + 6 DevR’s = 7 DR’s
Total (71.701 acres) 1 DivR’s + 17 DevR’s = 18 DR’s
Ranking Criteria Determination Source for Points Points
Criteria A.1 783 feet on Mirza (TM 65 -93) plats/County overlay maps 3.57
Criteria A.2 71.701 acres RE Assessor’s Office 1.43
Criteria B.1 no landowner 0.00
Criteria B.2 no landowner 0.00
Criteria B.3 16 DR’s eliminated Zoning & Planning Departments 8.00
Criteria C.1 no County overlay maps 0.00
Criteria C.2 yes landowner 3.00
Criteria C.3 470 feet on Route 231 County tax map/plats 2.92
144 feet on SR 740
Criteria C.4 yes - SWMHD PEC/Monticello viewshed maps 3.00
Criteria C.5 no DCR Division of Natural Heritage 0.00
Criteria C.6 33 acres County Soil Survey 0.66
Criteria C.7 no County overlay maps 0.00
Criteria C.8 no plat/survey/County overlay maps 0.00
Criteria C.9 none landowner 0.00
Criteria C.10 n/a County Engineering Department 0.00
Criteria C.11 yes (Kinloch Ag-For) County overlay maps 2.00
Criteria C.12 no landowner/DOF 0.00
Criteria D.1 n/a Based on income grid 0.00
Point Total 24.58 points
PEC = Piedmont Environmental Council; VOF = Virginia Outdoors Foundation; TNC = The Nature Conservancy
DCR = Department of Conservation and Recreation; SH = Scenic Highway; EC = entrance corri dor; SR = State Road;
CE = Conservation Easement; SFRR = South Fork Rivanna River watershed; SWMHD = Southwest Mountains
Historic District.
ACE Ranking Evaluation Criteria & Points Determination
Owner: Rushia, Ed & Christina
Property: TM 39, Parcel 27 (86.700 acres) 3 DivR’s + 5 DevR’s = 8 DR’s
Ranking Criteria Determination Source for Points Points
Criteria A.1 990 feet on Henley plats/County overlay maps 11.54
1,922 feet on Shaw
1,856 feet on Pietsch
Criteria A.2 86.700 acres RE Assessor’s Office 1.73
Criteria B.1 no landowner 0.00
Criteria B.2 no landowner 0.00
Criteria B.3 6 usable DR’s eliminated Zoning & Planning Departments 3.00
Criteria C.1 61 acres in MOD County overlay maps 2.97
35 acres in RAB
Criteria C.2 no landowner 0.00
Criteria C.3 none County tax map/plats 0.00
Criteria C.4 none PEC/Monticello viewshed maps 0.00
Criteria C.5 no DCR Division of Natural Heritage 0.00
Criteria C.6 8 acres County Soil Survey 0.19
Criteria C.7 SF Rivanna River Watershed County overlay maps 3.00
Criteria C.8 no plat/survey/County overlay maps 0.00
Criteria C.9 none landowner 0.00
Criteria C.10 n/a County Engineering Department 0.00
Criteria C.11 no County overlay maps 0.00
Criteria C.12 no landowner/DOF 0.00
Criteria D.1 n/a Based on income grid 0.00
Point Total 22.43 points
PEC = Piedmont Environmental Council; VOF = Virginia Outdoors Foundation; TNC = The Nature Conservancy
DCR = Department of Conservation and Recreation
SH = Scenic Highway; EC = entrance corridor; SR = State Road
CE = Conservation Easement
SFRR = South Fork Rivanna River watershed
SWMHD = Southwest Mountains Historic District
ACE Ranking Evaluation Criteria & Points Determination
Owner: Margaret Nash/Martin Violette
Property: TM 71, Parcel 43 40.160 acres 1 DivR’s + 6 DevR’s = 7 DR’s
Ranking Criteria Determination Source for Points Points
Criteria A.1 none plats/County overlay maps 0.00
Criteria A.2 40.160 acres RE Assessor’s Office 0.80
Criteria B.1 no landowner 0.00
Criteria B.2 no landowner 0.00
Criteria B.3 6 usable DR’s eliminated Zoning & Planning Departments 3.00
Criteria C.1 no County overlay maps 0.00
Criteria C.2 yes landowner 3.00
Criteria C.3 730’ on I-64 (EC) County tax map/plats 3.87
654’ on SR 824
Criteria C.4 none PEC/Monticello viewshed maps 0.00
Criteria C.5 yes - snail on Stockton Creek DCR Division of Natural Heritage 5.00
Criteria C.6 28 acres County Soil Survey 0.56
Criteria C.7 SF Rivanna River Watershed County overlay maps 3.00
Criteria C.8 no plat/survey/County overlay maps 0.00
Criteria C.9 1,834’ - 1 side Stockton Mill Creek landowner 1.83
Criteria C.10 n/a County Engineering Department 0.00
Criteria C.11 no County overlay maps 0.00
Criteria C.12 yes landowner/DOF 1.00
Criteria D.1 n/a Based on income grid 0.00
Point Total 22.06 points
PEC = Piedmont Environmental Council; VOF = Virginia Outdoors Foundation; TNC = The Nature Conservancy
DCR = Department of Conservation and Recreation
SH = Scenic Highway; EC = entrance corridor; SR = State Road
CE = Conservation Easement
SFRR = South Fork Rivanna River watershed
SWMHD = Southwest Mountains Historic District
ACE Ranking Evaluation Criteria & Points Determination
Owner: Traylor, William
Property: TM 48, Parcel 45 14.569 acres 0 DivR’s + 5 DevR’s = 5 DR’s
TM 48, Parcel 46 25.456 acres 0 DivR’s + 5 DevR’s = 5 DR’s
Total 40.025 acres 0 DivR’s + 10 DevR’s = 10 DR’s
Ranking Criteria Determination Source for Points Points
Criteria A.1 <¼ mile of Gunn (TM 48-47C) plats/County overlay maps 2.00
Criteria A.2 40.160 acres RE Assessor’s Office 0.80
Criteria B.1 no landowner 0.00
Criteria B.2 no landowner 0.00
Criteria B.3 9 usable DR’s eliminated Zoning & Planning Departments 4.50
Criteria C.1 yes - 34 acres in MOD County overlay maps 0.68
Criteria C.2 no landowner 0.00
Criteria C.3 right-of-way County tax map/plats 0.00
Criteria C.4 none PEC/Monticello viewshed maps 0.00
Criteria C.5 no DCR Division of Natural Heritage 0.00
Criteria C.6 39 acres of “prime” farm/forest County Soil Survey 0.78
Criteria C.7 no County overlay maps 0.00
Criteria C.8 no plat/survey/County overlay maps 0.00
Criteria C.9 756’ on perennial, internal stream landowner 1.51
Criteria C.10 n/a County Engineering Department 0.00
Criteria C.11 no County overlay maps 0.00
Criteria C.12 no landowner/DOF 0.00
Criteria D.1 yes - wants to donate some portion Based on income grid ????
Point Total 10.27 points
PEC = Piedmont Environmental Council; VOF = Virginia Outdoors Foundation; TNC = The Nature Conservancy
DCR = Department of Conservation and Recreation
SH = Scenic Highway; EC = entrance corridor; SR = State Road
CE = Conservation Easement
SFRR = South Fork Rivanna River watershed
SWMHD = Southwest Mountains Historic District
Sec. A.1-108. Ranking criteria.
In order to effectuate the purposes of the ACE program, parcels for which conservation easement
applications have been received shall be ranked according to the criteria and the point values assigned as
provided below. Points shall be rounded to the first decimal.
A. Open-space resources.
1. The parcel adjoins an existing permanent conservation easement, a
national, state or local park, or other permanently protected open-space: two (2) points, with one additional
(1) point for every five hundred (500) feet of shared boundary; or the parcel is within one-quarter (1/4) mile,
but not adjoining, an existing permanent conservation easement, a national, state or local park, or other
permanently protected open-space: two (2) points.
2. Size of the parcel: one (1) point for each fifty (50) acres.
B. Threat of conversion to developed use.
1. The parcel is threatened with forced sale: five (5) points.
2. The parcel is threatened with other hardship: three (3) points.
3. The number of usable division rights to be eliminated on the parcel: one-half (1/2)
point for each usable division right to be eliminated, which shall be determined by subtracting the number of
retained division rights from the number of division rights. A division right includes all by-right divisions of
both 2-acre lots and the 21-acre residual lots. Each right represents the right to build a single dwelling.
C. Natural, cultural and scenic resources.
1. Mountain protection: one (1) point for each fifty (50) acres in the mountain overlay
district, as defined in the Comprehensive Plan. An additional one (1) point may be awarded for each twenty
(20) acres within a ridge area boundary. For purposes of this section, the term “ridge area boundary” means
the area that lies within one hundred (100) feet below designated ridgelines shown on county mountain
overlay district elevation maps. If the landowner elects to use these points in the ranking criteria, the Deed of
Easement shall prohibit all construction within the MOD. No farm building or agricultural structure may be
allowed unless prior written approval is obtained from each Grantee”.
2. Working family farm, including forestry: five (5) points if at least one family
member’s principal occupation and income (more than half) is farming or foresting the parcel; three (3)
points if one family member has as a secondary occupation working the farm sufficient to qualify for the
land use tax program.
3. The parcel adjoins a road designated either as a Virginia scenic highway or byway,
or as an entrance corridor under section 30.6.2 of Chapter 18 of the Albemarle County Code: two (2) points,
with one (1) additional point for each six hundred (600) feet of road frontage; or the parcel adjoins a public
road: two (2) points, with one (1) additional point for each one thousand (1000) feet of road frontage ; or, the
parcel is substantially visible from, but is not contiguous to, a public road designated either as a Virginia
scenic highway or byway, or as an entrance corridor under section 30.6.2 of Chapter 18 of the Albemarle
County Code: two (2) points. If the landowner elects to use points in the ranking criteria for frontage on a
Virginia scenic highway or byway, any new dwelling shall have a 250’ setback from said roadway or shall
not be visible in any season of the year from the scenic road on a site ap proved by the Grantee. Otherwise,
one (1) point will be awarded for each one thousand (1000) feet of road frontage.
4. The parcel contains historic resources: three (3) points if it is within a national or
state rural historic district or is subject to a permanent easement protecting a historic resource; two (2) points
if the parcel is within the primary Monticello viewshed, as shown on viewshed maps prepared for Monticello
and in the possession of the county; two (2) points if the parcel contains arti facts or a site of archaeological
or architectural significance as determined by a qualified archaeologist or architectural historian under the
United States Department of Interior’s professional qualification standards. If the landowner elects to use
these points in the ranking criteria for artifacts or sites of archaeological or architectural significance, the
Deed of Easement shall require the permanent protection of these resources as designed by Department of
Historic Resources.
5. The parcel contains an occurrence listed on the state natural heritage inventory or a
qualified biologist has submitted documentation of an occurrence of a natural heritage resource to the ACE
Program and the Division of Natural Heritage on behalf of the applicant: five (5) points; or the parcel is
within one-quarter (1/4) mile of an occurrence listed on the State Natural Heritage Inventory: two (2) points.
6. The parcel contains capability class I, II or III soils (“prime soils”) for agricultural
lands or ordination symbol 1 or 2 for forest land, based on federal natural resources conservation service
classifications found in the United States Department of Agriculture Soil Survey of Albemarle County,
Virginia: one (1) point for each fifty (50) acres containing such soils to a maximum of five (5) points.
7. The parcel is within the South Fork Rivanna Reservoir Watershed, the Chris Greene
Lake Watershed, or the Totier Creek Reservoir Watershed: three (3) points; or the parcel adjoins the Ivy
Creek, Mechums River, Moormans River, Rocky Creek (of the Moormans River), Wards Creek (of the
Moormans River), Doyles Creek, Buck Mountain Creek, South Fork Rivanna Reservoir River, North Fork
Rivanna River, Totier Creek Reservoir, Swift Run (of the North Fork Rivanna River), Lynch River (of the
North Fork Rivanna River, Rivanna River, Jacob’s Run, or the Hardware River, Rockfish River, James
River, any waters designated as “Exceptional Waters” by the Virginia Water Control Board, any public water
supply reservoir or emergency water supply reservoir: one (1) point for each one thousand (1000) feet of
frontage.
8. The parcel adjoins a waterway designated as a state scenic river: one-half
(1/2) point for each one thousand (1000) feet of frontage. If the landowner elects to use these points in the
ranking criteria, any new dwelling shall not be visible from the river or require a 250’ setback from the river
so as to maintain the natural, scenic quality of the property from the river.
9. The parcel is subject to a permanent easement whose primary purpose is to establish
or maintain vegetative forest buffers adjoining perennial or intermittent streams, as those terms are defined in
Chapter 17 of the Albemarle County Code: one (1) point for each one thousand (1000) linear feet of buffer
that is between thirty-five (35) and fifty (50) feet wide; one and one-half (1½) points for each one thousand
(1000) linear feet of buffer that is greater than fifty (50) feet but not more than one hundred (100) feet wide;
two (2) points for each one thousand (1000) linear feet of buffer that is greater than one hundred (100) feet
wide. If the owner voluntarily offers in his application to place the parcel in such a permanent easement,
then the above-referenced points may also be awarded.
10. The parcel is within a sensitive groundwater recharging area identified in a county-
sponsored groundwater study: one (1) point.
11. The parcel is within an agricultural and forestal district: two (2) points.
12. One (1) point for a professionally prepared Forestry Stewardship Management Plan
approved by the Virginia Department of Forestry.
D. County Fund Leveraging.
1. State, federal, or private funding identified to leverage the purchase of the
conservation easement: one (1) point for each ten (10) percent o f the purchase price for which those funds
can be applied.
Return to exec summary
Attachment “B”
1. ACE Budget for Round 10 (FY 2009-10) Applicant Pool
Current County Funds Available from FY11-12 Re-appropriation $ 619,459.94
Funds from Farmland Preservation Grants 116,453.75
Net Funds Available for Rushia & Nash/Violette (FY09-10) $ 735,913.69
2. Acquisition Cost for Rushia & Nash/Violette - Round 10 (FY 2009-10)
Applicant Total Appraised FMV Easement Value (% FMV) ACE Payment (% EV)
Rushia $ 737,000 $ 217,000 (29%) $ 203,980.00 (94%)
(Crozet)
Nash/Violette $ 521,000 $ 84,000 (16%) $ 58,800.00 (70%)
(Greenwood)
_______________________________________________________________________
Totals $1,301,300 $ 344,000 $ 262,780.00
FMV = Fair Market Value
EV = Easement Value
Return to exec summary
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
VDOT Revenue Sharing Program Application, FY 2012/13
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Resolution to approve the County’s participation in the
Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) Revenue
Sharing Program for FY 12/13
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Messrs. Foley, Elliott, Davis, and Benish
LEGAL REVIEW: Yes
AGENDA DATE:
November 2, 2011
ACTION: INFORMATION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: X INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS: Yes
REVIEWED BY:
BACKGROUND:
The VDOT Revenue Sharing Program is a competitive funding program for transportation improvements which
requires a dollar for dollar match from participating localities. Participation in the VDOT Revenue Sharing Program
leverages matching funds from VDOT to advance important transportation projects. The County has participated in
this Program since 1988. Last year, the County provided a $1.5 million match and received the full award of $1.5
million, which was applied to the Broomley Road Bridge replacement project.
DISCUSSION:
The Board of Supervisors approved participating in the FY 13 Revenue Sharing Program at its meeting on October 10,
2011. The Board directed staff to make application for up to $1.0 million in matching funds to implement the County
Sidewalk Construction Program with the intent to construct new sidewalks in up to four locations:
1. Crozet Avenue North (Rt. 810), from St. George Avenue to Ballard Drive;
2. South Pantops Drive (Rt. 1140), from Carriage Hill Apartment to State Farm Blvd. and then along State Farm
Blvd. (Rt. 1117) from South Pantops Drive to Rt. 250;
3. Barracks Road (Rt. 654), from the Charlottesville City Limits to Barracks West Apartments;
4. Hydraulic Road (Rt. 743), from just south of Commonwealth Drive to Georgetown Road intersection (north
side of road).
To complete the County’s application, The Board needs to adopt a resolution to participate in the Revenue Sharing
Program. A draft resolution has been provided for approval (Attachment A).
BUDGET IMPACT:
The required local match will be up to $1.0 million depending on the amount of revenue sharing funds awarded.
Existing funding already appropriated to the Crozet Avenue North, State Farm Blvd. and South Pantops Drive projects
can be used for part of the required local match. This funding plus the anticipated $239,951 from de-allocated
Revenue Sharing Program local matching funds, which will be refunded by VDOT to the County this fiscal year,
provides approximately $876,000 of the necessary match funding. The balance can be funded (approximately
$124,000) from the Transportation Improvement Program CIP Fund which has a current balance of $655,170.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends that the Board adopt the attached resolution to participate in VDOT’s Revenue Sharing Program for FY
12/13, for up to $1.0 million in VDOT Revenue Sharing Program funds to implement the County Sidewalk Construction
Program by constructing sidewalks in up to four locations.
ATTACHMENTS
A – Resolution
Return to consent agenda
Return to regular agenda
RESOLUTION TO PARTICIPATE IN
VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
REVENUE SHARING PROGRAM FOR FISCAL YEAR 2013
WHEREAS, the County of Albemarle desires to submit an application for up to
$1.0 million of revenue sharing funds through the Virginia Department of Transportation
Fiscal Year 2012/13 Revenue Sharing Program; and
WHEREAS, the County is willing to commit a $1.0 million match in order to
compete for a Revenue Sharing Program award; and
WHEREAS, these funds are requested to fund the County’s Sidewalk Construction
Program to install new sidewalks along roadways in up to four locations:
1. Crozet Avenue North (Rt. 810), from St. George Avenue to Ballard Drive;
2. South Pantops Drive (Rt. 1140), from Carriage Hill Apartment to State Farm Blvd.
and then along State Farm Blvd. (Rt. 1117) from South Pantops Drive to Rt. 250;
3. Barracks Road (Rt. 654), from the Charlottesville City Limits to Barracks West
Apartments;
4. Hydraulic Road (Rt. 743), from just south of Commonwealth Drive to Georgetown
Road intersection (north side of road).
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Albemarle County Board of
Supervisors hereby commits to provide up to $1.0 million of matching funds in its
application for up to $1.0 million of revenue sharing funds from the Virginia Department
of Transportation Revenue Sharing Program and requests that the Virginia Department
of Transportation approve the County’s application.
Return to exec summary
The Board of County Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virgin ia, in regular meeting on the
4th day of November 2009, adopted the following resolution:
R E S O L U T I O N
WHEREAS, the street(s) as described on the attached Additions Form AM-4.3 dated
November 2, 2011, fully incorporated herein by reference, is shown on plats recorded in the
Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of Albemarle County, Virginia; and
WHEREAS, the Resident Engineer for the Virginia Department of Transportation has
advised the Board that the street(s) meet the requirements established by the Subdivision Street
Requirements of the Virginia Department of Transportation.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Albemarle Board of County Supervisors
requests the Virginia Department of Transportation to add the street(s) as described on the
attached Additions Form AM-4.3 dated November 2, 2011, to the secondary system of state
highways, pursuant to §33.1 -229, Code of Virginia, and the Department's Subdivision Street
Requirements; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Board guarantees a clear and unrestricted right -of-
way, as described, exclusive of any necessary easements for cuts, fills and drainage as described
on the recorded plats; and
FURTHER RESOLVED that a certified copy of this resolution be forwarded to the Resident
Engineer for the Virginia Department of Transportation.
* * * * *
The road(s) described on Additions Form AM-4.3 is:
1) Town and Country Lane (State Route 1776) from Route 250 (Richmond Road)
north to Route 1770 (Olympia Drive), as shown on plat recorded in the office the
Clerk of Circuit Court of Albemarle County in Deed Book 4061, page 466, with a 53-
foot and variable right-of-way width, for a length of 0.08 miles.
2) Town and Country Lane (State Route 1776) from Route 1770 (Olympia Drive),
north to the end of State maintenance, as shown on plat recorded in the office the
Clerk of Circuit Court of Albemarle County in Deed Book 4061, page 466, with a 53 -
foot and variable right-of-way width, for a length of 0.01 miles.
3) Olympia Drive (State Route 1770) from the intersection of Route 1776 (Town and
Country Lane), west of Route 1769, as shown on plat recorded in the office the
Clerk of Circuit Court of Albemarle County in Deed Book 4061, page 466, with a 45 -
foot and variable right-of-way width, for a length of 0.41 miles.
Total Mileage – 0.50
Return to consent agenda
Return to regular agenda
Resolution: Equal Rights Amendment (ERA)
WHEREAS, the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) ensures that women and men will have equal rights
under the United States Constitution; and
WHEREAS, the County of Albemarle supports the advancement of human rights; and
WHEREAS, the United States Constitution fails to guarantee equal rights and equal protection for
women to the continuing detriment of all citizens; and
WHEREAS, the Equal Rights Amendment would provide the only incontestable remedy for gender
discrimination for both women and men by providing a Constitutional guarantee of equal rights under the law;
and
WHEREAS, the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution and the various state constitutional
statements of gender equality generally do not provide the strict scrutiny of equal protection for the matters of
gender as is now accorded race, religion, and national origin; and
WHEREAS, the only permanent right women explicitly have in the U.S. Constitution is the right to vote
and rights not supported by the Constitution can be undermined in legislatures and courts; and
WHEREAS, in past years, laws and policies in the Commonwealth of Virginia have unjustly
discriminated against girls and women in general, and against particular classes of women, such as in matters
of sexual assault, marital property, and sexual harassment, and although some such laws and policies have
become somewhat less discriminatory, such improvements can be, have been, and are being reversed; and
WHEREAS, the ERA, introduced in 1972, requires ratification by three more states; and
WHEREAS, some institutional policies, whether overtly discriminatory or "facially neutral," in public,
voluntary, and private institutions, still have inequitable effects on women; policies such as those dealing with
insurance, pension, family medical leave from employment, job promotions, occupational choice, recreational
opportunities, and access to medical care, and stereotypes still exist which limit women's roles and activities;
and
WHEREAS, women and men, many of whom through economic necessity, must also work in the job
market and/or at home face grave health, financial, and career repercussions as a result of weak or nonexistent
laws on paid leave, and discrimination against workers with family responsibilities; and
WHEREAS millions of American women, especially women who are mothers, face particularly severe
hiring and promotion bias, U.S. Department of Labor data found that mothers earn just 60 cents for every dollar
that fathers earn with more than 19 million families with children now have a mother as the primary or co-
breadwinner, and 70 percent of children live in households in which all adults are in the labor force further
discriminating against the children of these households, men and women (http://www.hrw.org/node/96432); and
WHEREAS, in many other ways the tasks of providing equal opportunities to women and men, and the
tasks of removing burdens which fall unjustly on women as compared with men remain uncompleted,
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors of the County of Albemarle,
Virginia does hereby indicate its support for the principal that “Equality of rights under the law shall not be
denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.” and
AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Board of Supervisors of the County of Albemarle, Virginia
hereby urges the General Assembly of the Commonwealth of Virginia to ratify the ERA during the 2012 session .
Signed and sealed this _____ day of November 2011,
Return to consent agenda
Return to regular agenda
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
Initiatives to Address Gang Activity in Albemarle County
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Adopt a Resolution to support regional gang suppression
efforts
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Messrs. Foley, Elliott, Davis, and Col. Sellers
LEGAL REVIEW: Yes
AGENDA DATE:
November 2, 2011
ACTION: INFORMATION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: X INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS: Yes
REVIEWED BY:
BACKGROUND:
Over the past several months, Col. Steve Sellers, Albemarle County Chief of Police, along with other senior law
enforcement officials, has reviewed gang activity in this region. This review led to the opportunity to have community
dialogue and review of this issue with local media outlets, community organizations and elected officials. One
outcome of these discussions has been to launch a more proactive approach to addressing gang issues in Albemarle
County and this region. In addition, it has been recognized that a need exists to seek funding to support regionally
based law enforcement initiatives related to stemming gang activity. One of the requirements for accessing federal
grant funding is for a “governing body” to acknowledge publically that gangs are an issue in the community and need
to be addressed.
DISCUSSION:
At the present time, thirteen (13) identified gangs are present in the Charlottesville-Albemarle region with a total of
154 members. The City of Charlottesville and County of Albemarle work together to address regional gang issues
through the Charlottesville-Albemarle Gang Enforcement Unit (CAGE). The unit is comprised of officers from both
agencies and from the Jefferson Area Drug Enforcement (JADE) Taskforce who meet monthly with the Central
Virginia Gang Investigators Association (CVGIA) comprised of all law enforcement partners in the region. During
these meetings, gang trends, intelligence and criminal activity are reviewed and discussed. These meetings also
include federal and state partners, local and federal prosecutors, corrections officials, probation/parole officials and
some school resource officers. In April of this year, Col. Sellers and Chief Longo tasked CAGE with conducting
periodic targeted operations related to criminal gang activity which have yielded positive results.
Gangs are a regional issue and do not follow jurisdictional or socio-economic boundaries. The best approach toward
controlling gangs is through a community-based focus, with participation by government, law enforcement, faith
communities, schools, non-profits and parents. The City and County Chiefs of Police, as well as neighboring chiefs
and sheriffs, are committed to continuing to work together to address the issue; however, they do not have the
capacity to dedicate resources specifically to focus on gangs within current staffing levels. Moreover, members of
CAGE, as well as the designated Gang Team, have other fulltime responsibilities within their respective agencies.
Accordingly, in order to devise a more full-time and comprehensive, regional approach to combating gangs, it is
proposed that federal funding be pursued to provide full-time staffing for this cause. Adoption of the attached
resolution by the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors is a required pre-requisite for filing such federal grant
applications.
BUDGET IMPACT:
The County’s participation in CAGE and CVGIA is achieved through the Albemarle County Police Departmen t’s
annual operating budget. If federal funding is awarded, resources will be made available for a full -time grant
funded position (100%) to address gang issues in the region.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
It is recommended that the Board of Supervisors adopt the attached resolution supporting regional gang suppression
efforts.
ATTACHMENTS
A – Resolution
Return to consent agenda
Return to regular agenda
RESOLUTION
WHEREAS, it is the mission of the Albemarle County government 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; and
WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors recognizes that criminal street gangs exist and are
conducting criminal enterprise in Albemarle County which has a direct negative impact on
citizens; and
WHEREAS, the Albemarle County Police Department is actively engaged in gang
prevention and enforcement through a coordinated effort of local, state and federal law
enforcement resources; and
WHEREAS, it is in the best interest of Albemarle County citizens to eliminate the threat
of criminal street gangs and prevent their further development in our communities.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT for purposes of public necessity,
general welfare and safety, the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors does hereby fully
support regional gang suppression efforts that focus on identifying dangerous and influential
gang members and removing them from the community while also preventing further
development of criminal street gangs through education, collaboration and community
involvement.
Return to exec summary
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
FY 2012 1st Quarter Cash and Non-Cash Proffer
Report and 2011 State Survey of Cash Proffers
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Report on cash proffer revenue, expenditures, and
non-cash proffers for July-September 2011.
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Messrs. Foley, Elliot, Davis, Graham, Higgins; and
Ms. McCulley and Ms. Ragsdale
LEGAL REVIEW: Yes
AGENDA DATE:
November 2, 2011
ACTION: INFORMATION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: INFORMATION: X
ATTACHMENTS: Yes
REVIEWED BY:
BACKGROUND:
In 2007, the Board directed staff to provide a quarterly update on the status of cash proffers. Since that time, the
report has been expanded to also include updates on non-cash proffers that benefit the County and mitigate impacts
of development.
This report includes proffer activity (both cash and non-cash improvements) for the months of July through September
2011 (FY2012 1st quarter). This report also includes the County’s annual report to the State for FY 2011 and historical
cash proffer data from FY 2005-2011. The next quarterly proffer report will be on the Board’s February 1, 2012
agenda
DISCUSSION:
Cash Proffers July 2011-September 2011 (1st Quarter Fiscal Year 2012)
A. Proffered: There were no rezoning requests approved this quarter that provided new cash proffers.
B. Total Obligated Cash Proffers: Since no new rezonings were approved during the 1st quarter that increased
obligated cash proffers, the total obligated cash proffers is $40,502,008. This total reflects annual adjustments
to anticipated proffer revenue not received yet from obligated proffers in which annual adjustments were
proffered.
C. Revenue: The County received a total of $54,582 from existing cash proffers during this quarter from the
following developments:
Development Amount Intended Purpose
Glenmore $2,300 Schools or CIP and Transportation Improvements
Old Trail $9,000 Parks and Schools in Crozet
Wickham Pond $29,032 CIP Projects serving Crozet
Belvedere $14,250 Affordable Housing
D. Total Interest Earnings: Interest earned is provided in the attached table and reflects postings through
August 31, 2011. (Attachment A) Total interest earned to date on all proffers is $318,995.
E. Expenditures: There were no appropriations of proffer revenue during this quarter.
F. Current Available Funds: As of September 30, 2011, the available cash proffer fund balance is $1,351,930.
Some of these funds were proffered for specific projects while others may be used for general projects within
the CIP. (See Attachment A)
Non Cash Proffers-Proffered
There were two rezonings approved by the Board during this quarter. ZMA 2010-03 Morey Creek Professional Center
was approved to rezone 12.06 acres from PRD Planned Residential District to PD-MC Planned Development Mixed
Commercial, to allow 100,000 square feet of general office space and a parking structure. This site is located on
Fontaine Avenue. Proffered improvements include improvements at the Fontaine/Route 29 ramps, including lane
improvements and traffic signals, a pedestrian path along Fontaine Avenue and other pedestrian/trail improvements.
ZMA 2011-04 Albemarle Place (a.k.a. Stonefield) was approved to amend proffers regarding phasing of road
improvements and required interparcel street connections.
AGENDA TITLE: FY 2012 1st Quarter Cash and Non-Cash Proffer Report and 2011 State Survey of Cash Proffers
November 2, 2011
Page 2
2011 Survey of Cash Proffers Accepted by Local Governments for the Commission on Local Government
The state mandates that localities accept ing cash proffers report to the Commission on Local Government (CLG)
annually. The report for FY 2011 is attached (Attachment B). During Fiscal Year 2011, the County collected $209,880
in cash proffers and expended $186,265. There were no cash proffers pledged during this year, as there were no new
rezonings approved involving cash proffers (See Attachment B). Expended cash proffers in 2011 were allocated
primarily to affordable housing and stormwater management projects.
Since FY 2005, staff has tracked proffers pledged, collected and expended by fi scal year and by category of
expenditure. Please see Attachment C for further comparisons over the past six fiscal years (FY 2004-2011).
BUDGET IMPACT:
Cash proffers are a valuable source of revenue that supplements the funding of important County projects that would
otherwise be funded by general tax revenue. In addition, non-cash proffers provide improvements that might
otherwise need to be funded by general tax revenue. With the elimination of positions in Community Development, a
full time position is no longer devoted to proffers; instead, approximately one-half of a zoning planner’s time is devoted
to managing this program. While there have not been as many proffered rezonings approved recently, staff is still
responsible for tracking existing proffers for previously approved rezonings, including Old Trail Village, Belvedere, and
more recently, The Shoppes at Stonefield (Albemarle Place). Included with the CLG survey of cash proffers is an
estimate of staff time spent on completing the survey each year.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
This summary is provided for information on proffer activity and no action is required. Staff welcomes any comments
for improvements from the Board that they may wish to see in the future.
ATTACHMENTS
A. Cash Proffer Summary
B. FY 2011 Annual State Cash Proffer Survey
C. Cash Proffer Activity FY 2004-2011
Return to consent agenda
Return to regular agenda
PROFFER SUMMARYAs of September 30, 2011FUND # PROFFER NAME ZMA #'STOTAL ANTICIPATED REVENUE*TOTAL FUNDS RECEIVEDTOTAL INTEREST EARNINGS*TRANSFER OF FUNDS TO CIP/OTHERCURRENT AVAILABLE FUNDS HOW FUNDS MAY BE USED8534 AVON PARK 2004-0359,00059,000 5,711 064,711Pedestrian Improvements in Neighborhood 48536 BELVEDERE STATION 2004-07400,25079,000 823 079,823Affordable housing8520GLENMORE1999-16893,000752,000129,927-875,3646,562School CIP to expand Stone Robinson or to schools; Other CIP projects.8521 GLENMORE** 1999-16569,000328,700 56,326 -375,00010,026any other trans impr in CIP related to Village of Rivanna and 250E corridor. 8523 GRAYROCK 1997-1262,50062,500 13,278 075,778Improvements to Rt. 691 (Jarmans Gap Rd.)8527HOLLYMEAD AREA C2001-20210,000164,7625,180-112,44257,49929N Traffic Study and CIP for HOLLYMEAD8528 HOLLYMEAD AREA D 2002-02481,000481,000 23,857 -473,71231,14429N Traffic Study and CIP projects8545HOLLYMEAD TOWN CENTER A1*2005-15609,000109,000559-28,50781,051Route 29 traffic study, Transit, and Greenway connection8529MJH @ PETER JEFFERSON PLACE*2001-15367,718419,14510,3140429,458Improvements at I-64 Interchange/Rt. 250 and Transit service8538 NORTH POINTE 2000-09460,000400,000 28,811 -400,00028,81129N transportation study and Affordable housing8537 OLD TRAIL VILLAGE 2004-242,328,00085,000 1,870 -50,00036,866Parks and Schools in Crozet8546POPLAR GLEN II2005-1477,800121077,921Affordable housingPROFFER FUNDS-CURRENT AVAILABLE10/26/20118546POPLAR GLEN II2005-1477,800121077,921Affordable housing8533 STILLFRIED LANE 2003-1278,00078,000 6,336 084,336Affordable housing8525 UVA RESEARCH PARK 1995-0478,71878,718 900 -79,500118Expended on Airport Rd. Project8535 WESTERN RIDGE 2001-025,0005,159 857 -5,0001,017Stop light at Western Ridge/Rt. 2408540 WICKHAM POND 2004-17345,162173,268 4,034 -59,161118,141CIP projects in Crozet8541 WESTHALL (1.1) 2006-01123,00051,000 2,824 053,824Future Eastern Avenue in Crozet8542 WESTHALL (1.2) 2006-01 17,000 916 -7,00010,916CIP projects in Crozet8543 WESTHALL (3.3) 2006-013,000 166 03,166Pedestrian bridge for greenway8544 LIBERTY HALL 05-5 & 07-14137,600102,400 193 0102,593CIP projects in Crozet 8530 ALBEMARLE PLACE 2001-072,610,000100,000 3,666 -103,6660Rt. 29 Regional Transportation Study8526 AVEMORE 2000-1050,00050,000 1,286 -51,2860Traffic Signal at intersection Rt. 20/Fontana Drive8539 GREENBRIER 2000-069,3349,334 82 -9,4160Drainage facilities downstream from property.8532 HOLLYMEAD AREA B 2001-1950,00050,000 1,522 -51,5220Rt. 29 Regional Transportation Study8524SPRINGRIDGE1998-13100,000100,0002,215-102,2150Traffic calming; road improvements and other CIP projects in HollymeadPROFFER FUNDS EXPENDED8524SPRINGRIDGE1998-13100,000100,0002,215-102,2150Traffic calming; road improvements and other CIP projects in Hollymead8522 STILL MEADOWS 1997-01135,000135,000 17,221 -152,2210Schools in Hollymead AVON PARK II* 2007-05437,6460 0 00CIP projectsBLUE RIDGE CO-HOUSING* 2007-12306,9210 0 00CIP projects in CrozetCASCADIA 2002-04405,0000 0 00Schools and CIP projects serving PantopsFONTANA PHASE 4C* 2004-18740,4920 0 00Affordable Housing and CIP projects HADEN PLACE 2005-0782,5000 0 00Transporation in CIP for CrozetHOLLYMEAD TOWN CENTER A2* 2007-0116,055,7580 0 00Berkmar Drive Ext. and Recreational FacilitiesLEAKE* 2006-162,281,7430 0 00CIP projects 0Affordable Housing LIVENGOOD* 2006-15929,8730 0 00Affordable Housing and CIP projects NGIC EXPANSION* 2007-031,264,8000 0 00CIP projectsPATTERSON SUBDIVISION* 2007-11138,1250 0 00CIP projectsOAKLEIGH FARM* 2007-041,602,7550 0 00CIP projectsRIVANNA VILLAGE @ GLENMORE* 2001-081,122,8030 0 00Schools and Transportation projects serving Village of RivannaWICKHAM POND II2005-18405,0000000CIP projects in CrozetPROFFER FUNDS NOT YET RECEIVEDWICKHAM POND II2005-18405,0000000CIP projects in Crozet WILLOW GLEN* 2006-192,907,8000 0 00CIP projectsAVINITY-revenue anticipated2006-05 1,340,010 0 0 00CIP projects in Neighborhoods 4 & 5313,5000Affordable Housing8531 ECKERD PHARMACY 2003-03 6,000 0 0 00Upgrade traffic signal at Rolkin/Rt. 250. TOTAL40,502,008 3,970,785 318,995 -2,937,851 1,351,930*Anticipated revenue includes annual adjustments (as of 9/30) for those cash proffers with proffered adjustments. *Interest earnings through August 2011. 10/26/2011
Commission on Local Government
2011 Survey of Cash Proffers Accepted by Local Governments
QUESTIONS?
CONTACT ZACK ROBBINS AT THE COMMISSION ON LOCAL GOVERNMENT,
(804) 371-8010 or zachary.robbins@dhcd.virginia.gov
Page 1 of 4 5/2/11
Date: September 28, 2011
Locality: County of Albemarle County X City Town
Name: Rebecca Ragsdale Title: Senior Planner
Phone: (434) 296-5832 Fax: (434) 972-4012
Email: rragsdale@albemarle.org
YES NO
Did your locality accept cash proffers at any time during the 2010-2011 Fiscal Year? X
If you answered "No" for the 2010-2011 Fiscal Year, additional information is not needed. Please
return the survey to the Commission on Local Government as indicated on the next page.
If you answered "Yes" for the 2010-2011 Fiscal Year, provide the following information concerning the
cash proffers accepted by your locality: (See definitions on next page.)
FY2010-2011
1. Total Amount of Cash Proffer Revenue Collected by the Locality during
the 2011-2011 Fiscal Year: $ 209,880
2. Estimated Amount of Cash Proffers Pledged during the 2010-2011 Fiscal
Year and Whose Payment Was Conditioned Only on Time: $ 0
3. Total Amount of Cash Proffer Revenue Expended by the Locality during the
2010-2011 Fiscal Year: $ 186, 265
4. Indicate the Purpose(s) and Amount(s) for Which the Expenditures in Number 3 Above Were Made:
Schools $
Roads and Other Transportation Improvements $
Fire and Rescue/Public Safety $
Libraries $
Parks, Recreation, and Open Space $
Water and Sewer Service Extension $
Community Centers $
Stormwater Management $ 74,880
Special Needs Housing $
Affordable Housing $ 111,385
Miscellaneous $
Total Dollar Amount Expended
(Should Equal Amount in Number 3 Above) $ 186,265
Please see other side.
Comments:
Use additional
sheet if
necessary.
Commission on Local Government
2011 Survey of Cash Proffers Accepted by Local Governments
QUESTIONS?
CONTACT ZACK ROBBINS AT THE COMMISSION ON LOCAL GOVERNMENT,
(804) 371-8010 or zachary.robbins@dhcd.virginia.gov
Page 2 of 4 5/2/11
Please complete this form and return it to the Commission on Local Government by September 30, 2011,
using one of the following methods:
•By Mail: Zack Robbins
Commission on Local Government
600 E. Main Street, Suite 300
Richmond, VA 23219
•By Fax: (804) 371-7090
•By Email: A Microsoft Word template of this form may be downloaded at
http://www.dhcd.virginia.gov/CommissiononLocalGovernment/pages/cashproffersurvey.htm
Once completed, send it by email to:zachary.robbins@dhcd.virginia.gov
DEFINITIONS
Cash Proffer: (i) any money voluntary proffered in a writing signed by the owner of property subject to
rezoning, submitted as part of a rezoning application and accepted by a locality pursuant to the authority
granted by Va. Code Ann. § 15.2-2303, or § 15.2-2298, or (ii) any payment of money made pursuant to a
development agreement entered into under authority granted by Va. Code Ann. § 15.2-2303.1.
Cash Proffer Revenue Collected [§15.2-2303.2(D)(1), Code of Virginia]: Total dollar amount of
revenue collected from cash proffers in the specified fiscal year regardless of the fiscal year in which the
cash proffer was accepted. Unaudited figures are acceptable.
Cash Proffers Pledged and Whose Payment Was Conditioned Only on Time [§15.2-2303.2(D)(2),
Code of Virginia]: Cash proffers conditioned only on time approved by the locality as part of a rezoning
case. Unaudited figures for the specified fiscal year are acceptable.
Cash Proffer Revenue Expended [§15.2-2303.2(D)(3), Code of Virginia]: Total dollar amount of
public projects funded with cash proffer revenue in the specified fiscal year. Unaudited figures are
acceptable.
Commission on Local Government
2011 Survey of Cash Proffers Accepted by Local Governments
QUESTIONS?
CONTACT ZACK ROBBINS AT THE COMMISSION ON LOCAL GOVERNMENT,
(804) 371-8010 or zachary.robbins@dhcd.virginia.gov
Page 3 of 4 5/2/11
***IMPORTANT NOTICE REGARDING MANDATE***
Agency Assessment of Mandate SCT.DHCD018:
Disclosure of Proffered Cash Payments and Expenditures
As you may know, Delegate Byron’s HB 2319 and Senator Stanley’s identical SB 1382 – both of which were
approved by the 2011 Virginia General Assembly and signed by Governor McDonnell – amended Va. Code § 2.2-
613 relating to state agency assessment of mandates imposed on localities. Specifically, the bills require that
“with respect to state mandates imposed on local governments, such assessments shall include an estimate of the
fiscal impact of the mandates on the affected local governments in addition to a written justification as to why the
mandate should or should not be eliminated.”
The Department of Housing and Community Development/Commission on Local Government (DHCD/CLG) is
presently assessing the impact of the mandate that requires local governments with populations over 3,500 that
accept cash proffers on new developments to make an annual report to the CLG concerning the amount received
from cash proffers, the amount expended from cash proffers revenue, and the purpose of such expenditures.
DHCD/CLG will be conducting the assessment of this mandate during the period July 1 – September 30, 2011.
Consequently, we ask that you assist us in assessing the fiscal impact of this mandate by estimating the amount of
time and the cost associated with completing the annual cash proffer survey, according to the categories
indicated in the table below and by answering the two questions that follow.
Personnel Time Burden (in Hours) Required to Comply with Mandate (by Category) Cost to
Comply
Title(s) of Person(s)
Completing Survey
Record
Keeping
Survey
Completion
Survey
Review/
Approval
Survey
Submission
All
Other
Total Time Estimated
Cost ($$)
Rebecca Ragsdale
Senior Planner
36 1 1 .25 38.25 $1,000
(approximated
based on
senior planner
hourly rate x
total time
spent)
1. Would your locality maintain the information requested on the cash proffer survey if you were not
required to report it to the CLG each year? Briefly describe any information that you would not maintain
but for the reporting requirement.
Yes, Albemarle County would maintain this information even if it was not a requirement of CLG. The
County already reviews and prepares quarterly cash proffer and non-cash proffer summary reports
which contain the information requested in the annual cash proffer survey.
2. Should the annual cash proffer survey requirement be eliminated? Please explain why or why not.
No because the information compiled by CLG based on the annual reports is useful to localities and is
the only source available for this type of benchmarking data on peer localities.
Commission on Local Government
2011 Survey of Cash Proffers Accepted by Local Governments
QUESTIONS?
CONTACT ZACK ROBBINS AT THE COMMISSION ON LOCAL GOVERNMENT,
(804) 371-8010 or zachary.robbins@dhcd.virginia.gov
Page 4 of 4 5/2/11
In addition, the CLG strongly encourages each affected locality to provide additional comments and feedback
regarding the burden associated with maintaining the necessary records and completing and submitting the
survey. Please feel free to attach additional sheets as necessary. Thank you for your assistance in assessing
the fiscal impact and justifiability of this mandate.
Proffer Activity FY2004-2011 total.xlsxFUND TYPE Proffered Collected Expended Proffered Collected Expended Proffered Collected Expended Proffered Collected Expended$0 $67,600 $100,744 $1,164,000 $31,000 $172,594 $405,000 $11,000 $12,690 $1,000$0 $0 $0 $487,762 $0 $0 $524,600 $629,539 $22,844,859 $230,443 $59,161$59,000 $217,159 $0 $200,000 $10,400 $165,257 $332,500 $131,300 $109,666 $18,230,800 $1,300 $475,000$0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $875,000 $554,850$0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $550,000 $0$0 $0 $0 $1,340,000 $0 $0 $3,000 $53,000 $50,000 $961,000 $3,000 $0$0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0$0$0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $9,344 $9,416 $30,000 $0$0 $0 $0 $435,250 $0 $0 $366,000 $355,000 $0 $678,065 $27,000$500,000Totals$59,000 $284,759 $100,744 $3,627,012 $41,400 $337,851 $1,631,100 $1,189,183 $181,772 $44,169,724 $262,743 $1,589,011FY 06-07 FY 07-08FY 04-05FY 05-06Affordable HousingRoads & Other Transportation CostsFire & Rescue/Public SafetyLibrariesWater & Sewer Service ExtensionStormwater ManagementGeneral CIP FundParks, Recreation & Open SpaceSchools FUND TYPE Proffered Collected Expended Proffered Collected Expended Proffered Collected Expended$0 $0 $0 $0 $6,000 $0 $0 $5,500 $0$0 $15,131 $0 $0 $75,129 $0 $0 $112,103 $0$0 $373,617 $66,000 $0 $189,572 $0 $60,527 $0$0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0$0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0$0 $50,000 $0 $0 $6,000 $1,838 $0 $5,500 $0$0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0$0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $74,880$0 $3,000 $0 $0 $35,750 $0 $0 $26,250 $111,385Totals$0 $441,748 $66,000 $0 $122,879 $191,410 $0 $209,880 $186,265CASH PROFFER ACTIVITY 2004-20112005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011Proffered$59,000 $3,627,012 $1,631,100 $44,169,724 $0 $0 $0Collected$284,759$41,400$1,189,183$262,743$391,748$122,879$209,880Parks, Recreation & Open SpaceWater & Sewer Service ExtensionStormwater ManagementAffordable HousingSchoolsGeneral CIP FundRoads & Other Transportation CostsFire & Rescue/Public SafetyLibrariesFY 09-10FY 10-11 FY 08-09Collected$284,759$41,400$1,189,183$262,743$391,748$122,879$209,880Expended$100,744 $337,851 $181,772 $1,589,011 $66,000 $191,410 $186,265$200,000$400,000$600,000$800,000$1,000,000$1,200,000$1,400,000$1,600,000$1,800,000$2,000,000ProfferedCollectedExpended$0$200,000$400,0002005200620072008200920102011
Proffer Activity FY2004-2011 total.xlsxCASH PROFFERS COLLECTED BY CATEGORY 2005-2011 CIP Schools Roads/Transp. Public Safety Parks/Rec Water/Sewer Stormwater Affordable Hsng.2005$67,600 $217,1592006$31,000 $10,4002007$629,539 $11,000 $131,300 $53,000 $9,344 $355,0002008$230,443 $1,000 $1,300 $3,000$27,0002009$15,130 $373,617 $50,000$3,0002010$75,129 $6,000 $35,7502011$112,103 $5,500 $60,527 $5,500$26,250$1,000,000$1,200,000$1,400,000Affordable Hsng.Stormwater$0$200,000$400,000$600,000$800,000$1,000,0002005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011Affordable Hsng.StormwaterWater/SewerParks/RecPublic SafetyRoads/Transp.SchoolsCIP
Proffer Activity FY2004-2011 total.xlsxCASH PROFFERS EXPENDED BY CATEGORY 2005-2011General CIP Schools Roads/Transp. Public Safety Parks/Rec Water/Sewer Stormwater Affordable Hsng.2005$100,7442006$172,594 $165,2572007$12,690 $109,666 $50,000 $9,4162008$59,161 $475,000 $554,850$500,0002009$66,0002010$189,572 $1,8382011$74,880 $111,385$1,200,000$1,400,000$1,600,000$1,800,000Affordable Hsng.StormwaterWater/Sewer$0$200,000$400,000$600,000$800,000$1,000,000$1,200,000$1,400,0002005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011StormwaterWater/SewerParks/RecPublic SafetyRoads/Transp.SchoolsGeneral CIP
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
September, 2011 Grant Applications
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Summary of Grant applications submitted in
September, 2011
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Messrs. Foley, Elliott, Davis, White
LEGAL REVIEW: Yes
AGENDA DATE:
November 2, 2011
ACTION: INFORMATION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: INFORMATION: X
ATTACHMENTS: Yes
REVIEWED BY:
BACKGROUND:
Pursuant to recent revisions to the County’s Grants Policy and associated procedures, periodic information on the
County’s application for and use of grants are to be provided to the Board.
DISCUSSION:
The attached information provides a brief description of two grant applications submitted by County departments in
September 2011. It is not known at this time whether these grants will be awarded to the County; however, an
appropriation request will be presented to the Board at a future meeting should funding be awarded.
BUDGET IMPACT:
The budget impact is noted in the summary of each grant.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
This report is for information only.
ATTACHMENTS
September 2011 Grant Applications
Return to consent agenda
Return to regular agenda
FEMA – Assistance to Firefighter Grant
Applicant Department/Agency – Fire/Rescue
Local Program – Volunteer Firefighter Training Funds
Amount Requested - $126,765
Local Match - $31,691 reserved from Grants Matching Funds
Receipt of this grant will not require future commitment from the County for staffing. However,
training needs will continue regardless of whether the grant is received or not and the County
will need to determine how to fund future required training for firefighters.
VML Insurance Company
Applicant Department/Agency – Human Resources
Local Program – Safety
Amount Requested - $2,000
No Local Match Required
Planned Use of Grant
Funds The money will be used for 2 things: 1. Purchase ergonomic equipment for various
departments in an effort to prevent/address musculoskeletal disorders in the
workplace.2. Attend the annual Virginia Occupational Safety and Health
conference hosted by the Virginia Department of Labor and Industry.
Receipt of funds will not require any future commitment from the County.
Return to exec summary
Planned Use
of Grant
Funds:
To provide necessary training to bring volunteer firefighters to the National Firefighter Protection
Agency (NFPA) minimum standard of Firefighter 1. Our current training staff in ACFR has the
capacity to train fewer volunteer firefighters than we are able to attract through our recruiting
efforts.
The grant will provide funding for training as follows:
1. $115,000 - instructor costs for Firefighter 1 and 2 (NFPA 1001)
2. $4,000 - instructor costs for instructor training (NFPA 1041) this is "train-the-trainer" training.
3. $15,456 - to send employees to Hazmat training to attain Technician/Specialist level as part of
commitment to regional hazmat team.
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
Video streaming Board of Supervisors’ Meetings
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Discussion of options and resources required for video
streaming Board of Supervisors meetings
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Messrs. Foley, Davis, and Culp; and Ms. Catlin and Ms.
Jordan
LEGAL REVIEW: Yes
AGENDA DATE:
November 2, 2011
ACTION: X INFORMATION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS: No
REVIEWED BY:
BACKGROUND:
Board members recently inquired about the possibility of video streaming Board meetings to increase the
transparency of the Board’s activities and to allow individuals who are unable to attend the meetings to view them.
This agenda item provides information regarding what other Virginia localities are doing and provides a staff
recommendation if Board members would like to pursue the possibility of video streaming the County’s Board
meetings.
DISCUSSION:
To estimate potential citizen interest in video streaming, staff researched Board meeting podcast download trends
since Board meeting podcasting began in 2006. As the chart below indicates, there has been a steady and significant
increase in the number of podcast downloads in the past five years, with the highest level of downloads occurring in
the first quarter of 2011. Based on the first two months of data for the current quarter, the final number for this
quarter is expected to surpass that record number. The trend indicates that the public is interested in accessing audio
records of Board meetings, particularly since the County provides podcasts within 24 hours of the Board meeting in
most instances.
Podcasting Trends:
YEAR Q1 Jan-Mar Q2 Apr-Jun Q3 Jul-Sep Q4 Oct-Dec
2006 ** ** 167 230
2007 355 903 979 1,259
2008 5,779 6,946 10,192 9,542
2009 11,388 13,440 14,275 15,672
2010 14,435 8,669 2,451 7,483
2011 22,292 19,074 17,776(Jul/Aug) ---
Peer Locality Research:
In order to assess how Virginia peer localities are approaching video streaming, County staff researched sixteen
localities in Virginia that are frequently used by Albemarle County for benchmarking purposes. Of those localities, six
are not currently video streaming - Hanover, Augusta, Bedford, Rockingham, Frederick and Spotsylvania. Ten are
video streaming either alone or in combination with cable television to broadcast their meetings. The table below
provides details on these ten jurisdictions:
Jurisdiction Population Cable Broadcast Video Stream Archives
Stafford 128,961 Live/Playback Live/Playback X
Roanoke 92,376 Live/Playback Playback X
Montgomery 94,392 Playback Playback X
James City 67,009 Live/Playback Playback X
Charlottesville 43,475 Live/Playback Live/Playback X
Louisa 33,158 N/A Playback X
Henrico 306,935 N/A Playback X
AGENDA TITLE: Video streaming Board of Supervisors’ Meetings
November 2, 2011
Page 2
Loudoun 312,311 Playback Playback X
Fairfax 1,081,726 Live/Playback Playback X
Prince William 402,002 N/A Playback X
All ten localities provide a “video-on-demand” service. “Video-on-demand” includes the live video and/or the ability to
view recorded meetings “on demand.” Seven of the ten localities used cable broadcast capabilities prior to initiating
video streaming. Having the cable franchise in place beforehand helped reduce the initial costs for the video
streaming service with regard to equipment purchase, staff training, and other operational requirements.
The ten localities procure outside services with a range of costs to provide full video streaming capability to their
website users. There doesn’t seem to be a favored service provider. The most expensive services provide a function
that connects specific agenda items to the appropriate video section. This feature allows viewers to fast forward or
skip entire sections and thereby view only the agenda items they prefer. Currently the County is using a Board
agenda system developed with in-house resources that could work in combination with either of the video streaming
systems described below.
The following information provides several cost options to give the Board an idea of the magnitude of the expense
associated with this service. (Costs are approximate and would need to be further defined based on direction provided
by the Board):
Granicus
o $ 8,175.00 onetime start up cost for software
o $ 500.00 onetime purchase of cameras (three portable cameras)
o $ 13,920.00 annual recurring cost
o Staff resources – This service would require staff training and resources during the meeting to video
the proceedings and after the meeting to post the video online
Peg Central/Leightronix
o $ 18,778.00 onetime start up cost for software (includes three portable cameras)
o $ 4,700.00 annual recurring cost
o Staff resources – This service would require staff training and resources during the meeting to video
the proceedings and after the meeting to post the video online
Both options provide three portable cameras. Typically, one camera is set up facing the audience, one camera is set
up facing the Board, and the third camera is either set up facing the Board to provide a larger view of the Board, or it
is used as a back-up if one of the first two cameras fail. While the exact staffing impact is difficult to calculate
precisely due to unknown length of Board meetings, at a minimum, one person who is knowledgeable in operating
video equipment would be responsible to be present at the Board meeting to assure the cameras are operating
correctly, to switch the video stream view to capture the speakers and the overhead presentations, and to assure that
the video stream is going out. In addition, that person would spend approximately one hour prior to the Board
meeting to set up the equipment, and approximately one hour after the Board meeting to dismantle the equipment.
Time would also be required after each meeting to post the video on the County website.
The cameras are portable, which would allow video streaming to be used for other meetings in the County Office
Building. However, there may be additional fees associated with those uses. Currently there is no funding allocated
for video streaming Board meetings and there are no staff resources currently identified to assume those additional
responsibilities. Staff considered the use of volunteers, but recommends against that due to the need for a reliable,
consistent resource to ensure the timely and professional delivery of the service. All of the localities that staff
researched are using staff or cable company resources to run the cameras and provide post -processing services. A
new staffing resource would need to be identified to handle the new responsibilities that would be creat ed by video
streaming.
AGENDA TITLE: Video streaming Board of Supervisors’ Meetings
November 2, 2011
Page 3
BUDGET IMPACT:
The budget impact of this item would depend on the option that the Board is interested in pursuing as set forth above.
There would be start up and operating budget impacts, and the staff ing impact would depend on the level of service
desired by the Board.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends that the Board consider the information provided and provide staff further guidance regarding the
video streaming of Board meetings. If the Board is interested in pursuing video streaming, staff recommends that the
Board direct staff to proceed with researching the best possible video-on-demand system and include the project as a
new initiative in the upcoming operating budget process.
Return to agenda
October 26, 2011
TO: Members, Albemarle County Board of Supervisors
Albemarle County Executive
FROM: David C. Blount, Legislative Liaison
RE: TJPD Legislative Program
Attached is the draft 2012 TJPD Legislative Program. As I discussed when
I met with you in September, I will be presenting the program and seeking
your approval of it at your November 2nd meeting. Most of the priority
items, the titles of which are listed below, have been regional priorities for
a number of years. I would like to draw your particular attention to a new
priority position on Secondary Road Devolution, as well as to the
State/Local Funding and Chesapeake Bay TMDL positions, which also
incorporate some new statements within these existing positions.
1) Secondary Road Devolution
2) State/Local Funding and Revenues
3) Public Education Funding
4) Chesapeake Bay TMDL
5) Transportation Funding
6) Land Use and Growth Management
7) Comprehensive Services Act
As in the past, the legislative program draft also contains sections that
highlight ongoing local government positions. You will note just several
changes in these sections under “Areas of Continuing Concern,” where
new language is underlined and language proposed for deletion is stricken.
I will be happy to discuss suggested changes or additions to the draft
program that you may have when we meet on November 2. Thank you.
Recommended Action: Approve the draft TJPD legislative program,
understanding that additional, suggested revisions to the draft may be
incorporated into the final version.
View attachment
Return to agenda
2012
Thomas Jefferson Planning
District Legislative Program
Representing the Local Governments of:
Albemarle County
City of Charlottesville
Fluvanna County
Greene County
Louisa County
Nelson County
October 2011
Joe Chesser, Chairman
Steve Williams, Executive Director
David Blount, Legislative Liaison
Legislative Position of TJPDC, Charlottesville,
and the Counties of Albemarle, Fluvanna, Greene, Louisa and Nelson
The Planning District localities are strongly opposed to any legislation or regulations that
would transfer responsibility to counties for construction, maintenance or operation of
current or new secondary roads.
The Administration is examining the possibility for shifting the responsibility for certain
functions of the state’s secondary road system to localities. A report produced last summer for
the Commonwealth Transportation Board bolstered the argument for this “devolution” by noting
that the state’s “secondary construction and maintenance budgets are declining, the system’s
condition is deteriorating, the cost to restore the system to a state of good repair is increasing,
funds for new construction have evaporated, and VDOT is required to continue to accept new
roads into the secondary system.” Indeed, for FY11, VDOT allocated about $410 million to
secondary road construction and maintenance (down about one-third from the FY07 figure).
Ever-increasing amounts of state construction dollars are being transferred annually to maintain
existing infrastructure. Prior examinations have rated nearly one-third of secondary road mileage
as having deficient pavement. With nearly 50,000 miles of roads, Virginia’s secondary road
system is four times larger than the network of roads maintained by cities, towns and the tw o
counties that maintain their own roads.
Efficient and effective transportation infrastructure, including the secondary road system,
is critical to a healthy economy, job creation, a cleaner environment and public safety. In the past
20 years, the number of miles travelled on Virginia roadways has steadily increased, while the
attention to maintaining the secondary system has taken a back seat. Shifting the responsibility
for secondary roads to local entities could result in vast differences among existing road systems
in different localities, potentially placing the state at a competitive economic disadvantage with
other states when considering business and job recruitment and movement of goods.
We question if it is less costly for Virginia taxpayers to have local governments, which
lack the capacity, to maintain secondary roads, and lose the economies of scale of having those
functions performed by a single state agency that has had that responsibility nearly a century.
What will be the costs to taxpayers of the inefficiencies of duplication arising from nearly 100
local transportation departments? While such a plan might buoy the state’s transportation budget,
it will only shift the burden of paying for these necessary transportation costs to homeowners’
real estate tax bills, and the political liability for unpopular tax increases to local elected officials.
Before the Administration recommends devolution of the secondary roads system, any
proposal must be based on a collaboratively-developed plan and timetable that ensures a smooth
transition, appropriate and adequate local authority over transportation and land use planning,
and access to adequate locally-controlled resources and revenue authority, without further burden
to local property owners.
PRIORITY ITEMS
SECONDARY ROAD DEVOLUTION
Legislative Position of TJPDC, Charlottesville,
and the Counties of Albemarle, Fluvanna, Greene, Louisa and Nelson
The Planning District localities urge the governor and legislature to 1) honor their funding
obligations to localities; 2) resist shifting costs for state programs to localities; and 3) not
further restrict local revenue authority. Further, the state and local governments should
jointly examine contractual relationships for services the state requires localities to deliver.
Stagnant local revenues, along with disappearing federal stimulus dollars and coming
teacher retirement rate increases, will present formidable challenges to local budgets this year.
Two things that will be hard to come by: meaningful increases in state aid for locally-provided
services and restoration of previous cuts in core programs. Unfortunately, recent state funding
reductions have not been accompanied by program changes that could alleviate financial burdens
on localities. Underfunded/unfunded state requirements and “cost shifting” by the state reduce
local ability to meet local needs to pay for programs and services. Increased demand for services
primarily funded at the local level present unique challenges to rural, urban and fast-growing
localities alike (all present in our region).
Accordingly, we believe reduction or elimination of state funding for state-required
services/programs should be accompanied by relaxation or suspension of the state requirement or
flexibility for the locality to meet the requirement. Further, the state and localities should
examine the concept of a contractual relationship for services that the state requires localities to
deliver. This would be an important step, given that 1) most state aid to local governments pays
for services localities are mandated to provide; 2) state standards prescribe how services are to be
delivered; and 3) localities have to meet such standards regardless of the costs.
Local governments also are overly dependent on real estate taxes that continue to produce
less revenue due to the sluggish housing market. Therefore, any changes to Virginia’s tax code
or in state policy should not reduce local government revenues or restrict local taxing authority.
This includes proposals to alter or eliminate the BPOL and Machinery and Tools taxes, or to
divert Communications Sales and Use Tax Fund revenues intended for localities to other uses.
Instead, the legislature should broaden the revenue sources, including authority to levy a food
and beverage tax, available to local governments. The state should refrain from establishing local
tax policy at the state level and allow local governments to retain authority over decisions that
determine the equity of local taxation policy.
We also request the following:
The state should restore across-the-board reductions in aid-to-localities. These funds
provide financial assistance for local implementation of state-required or state high-priority
programs. If the state cannot meet this commitment, then program regulations, criteria, and
administrative requirements should be adjusted to reflect the decrease in state resources.
The governor and legislature should protect the future integrity of the Virginia
Retirement System, while exploring the viability and benefits of allowing local governments 1)
to require Plan 1 employees to pay their share of retirement contributions, and 2) to offer defined
contribution retirement plans to their employees. Finally, the General Assembly should ensure
the appropriate collection of transient occupancy taxes from online transactions.
STATE/LOCAL FUNDING and REVENUES
Legislative Position of TJPDC, Charlottesville,
and the Counties of Albemarle, Fluvanna, Greene, Louisa and Nelson
The Planning District localities urge the legislature to fully fund the state share of the
realistic costs of the Standards of Quality without making allocation formula and policy
changes that reduce state funding or shift additional funding responsibility to localities.
The state will spend nearly $5 billion on public education in FY12, just under 30% of its
general fund budget (a drop of over five percent from FY09). This level of funding for FY12 is
expected to be over $600 million less than the FY09 amounts. Meanwhile, local governments
boost education funding by spending over $3 billion more per year than required by the state.
Recent reductions in state funding for public education were accomplished in large part
through a number of K-12 policy changes that will lessen the state’s funding obligations moving
forward. For example, the state “saved” millions of dollars by shifting costs to localities through
making some spending ineligible for state reimbursement or lowering the amount of the payback.
It also imposed a cap on state funding for education support personnel in FY10. While we
oppose such actions, we believe localities and school divisions should be given flexibility to
meet requirements and management their budgets when such reductions and cost-shifting occur.
We also urge the state to resist further policy changes that would require localities to fund a
greater share of costs. State funding should be realistic and recognize actual educational needs,
practices and costs; otherwise, more of the education funding burden will fall on local real estate
taxes.
The state budgeted teacher salary figure (on which it bases its share of teacher costs)
trails the statewide and national averages. Teacher pay comprises the majority of K-12
expenditures, and local market conditions dictate the level of pay required to recruit and retain
quality teachers. Accordingly, localities in our region should be included in the “Cost of
Competing Adjustment” now available only to various localities primarily in Northern Virginia.
This would help our localities to reach and maintain competitive compensation. Likewise, to
help recruit, develop and retain a highly qualified and diverse teacher workforce, the state also
should not eliminate or decrease state funding for benefits for school employees.
Concerning the Local Composite Index (LCI), we support 1) establishment of a
mechanism for local appeal of the calculated LCI to the state; and 2) changes to redefine the
local true values component of the formula to include land use taxation value, rather than fair
market assessed value, for properties that have qualified and are being taxed under a land use
value program.
Regarding school capital needs, we continue to urge state financial assistance with school
construction and renovation needs, including funding for the Literary Loan and interest rate
subsidy programs. The state should resist its customary seizing of dollars from the Literary Fund
to pay state costs for teacher retirement.
PUBLIC EDUCATION FUNDING
Legislative Position of TJPDC, Charlottesville,
and the Counties of Albemarle, Fluvanna, Greene, Louisa and Nelson
The Planning District localities support the goal of improved water quality, but it is
imperative that we have major and reliable forms of financial and technical assistance from
the federal and state governments if comprehensive water quality improvement strategies for
local and state waters emptying into the Chesapeake Bay are to be effective. We support
fairness in applying requirements for reductions in nutrient and sediment loading across
source sectors, along with accompanying authority and incentives for all sectors t o meet such
requirements. We believe fairness across sectors will require appropriate regulatory
mechanisms at both the state and local government levels. The Planning District localities are
in strong agreement that we will oppose actions that impose monitoring, management or
similar requirements on localities without providing sufficient resources.
As the result of various court settlements concerning the Clean Water Act of 1972, the
Environmental Protection Agency is enforcing water quality standards in the Chesapeake Bay watershed by
imposing a pollution diet (known as Total Maximum Daily Load, or TMDL) to reduce pollution to
acceptable levels. Bay states submitted plans showing how they will achieve TMDL goals for reducing
nitrogen, phosphorous and sediment flowing into the Bay. The proposed TMDL and Virginia Watershed
Implementation Plan require two-year milestones for the state and localities. As local governments will be
greatly impacted by initiatives to reduce pollutants into state waters of the Bay watershed, it is imperative
that aggressive state investment in meeting such milestones occurs. This investment must take the form of
authority, funding and other resources being in place to assure success, and must ensure that cost/benefit
analyses are conducted of solutions that generate the greatest pollution reductions per dollar spent.
Local governments are particularly concerned about the various effects on their communities and
their economic growth. There will be costs to meet reduced pollutant discharge limitations for localities that
own/operate treatment plants. Local governments will be required to develop and implement nutrient
management programs for certain large, public properties. Costs for stormwater management regulations
will fall on both new development and redevelopment. There will be economic impacts due to increased
cost for compliance by agriculture and increased fees charged by the permitted dischargers.
Accordingly, we recommend and request the following:
1. Sufficient state funds for the full cost of implementing TMDL measures that will be required of local
governments, including those associated with revised stormwater management regulations and any new
requirement for locally-implemented stormwater management programs.
2. Sufficient federal funds for grants and low-interest loans for capital costs, such as for permitted dischargers
to upgrade treatment plants and for any retrofitting of developed areas, while minimizing the economic
impact of increased fees.
3. Sufficient state funding for and direction 1) to the Cooperative Extension Service and Soil and Water
Conservation Districts to aid farmers with best management practices (BMP) in their operations, and 2) to
the Soil and Water Conservation Board for monitoring resource management plan compliance.
4. Any expansion of the Nutrient Exchange Program to allow trading and offsets of nutrients among
stormwater, onsite septic, wastewater, agriculture and forestry should be contained within and be relevant to
a particular watershed, and should ensure that monetary exchanges are equivalent to the costs of the
applicable BMP offset.
CHESAPEAKE BAY TMDL
Legislative Position of TJPDC, Charlottesville,
and the Counties of Albemarle, Fluvanna, Greene, Louisa and Nelson
The Planning District localities urge the state to establish separate, dedicated and
permanent state revenue streams to expand and maintain our transportation
infrastructure. We urge the state to restore formula allocations for secondary/urban
construction and for unpaved roads, and to preserve urban street maintenance dollars.
Local governments need sustainable, dedicated, non-general funds from the state to
support our transportation network. Absent such an investment, Virginia faces a congestion and
mobility crisis that will stifle economic growth and negatively affect the quality of life of our
residents. The need to fund a declining transportation infrastructure is dire and state dollars
remain inadequate. Maintenance of the existing system continues to grow, with nearly $2 billion
being spent yearly on maintenance, of which one-half billion dollars being transferred from the
construction to the maintenance budget. In addition, formula distributions for unpaved roads and
primary/urban/secondary construction have been eliminated.
We urge the state to fund transportation needs with stable and recurring revenues that are
separate from the general fund and that are sufficient to meet Virginia’s well-documented
highways, transit and other needs. We believe the state should direct its funding efforts at all
transportation modes, both statewide and regionally, targeting investments to solutions that put
money to work on new ideas and in tandem with leveraging private investment. We urge the
state to restore formula allocations for secondary/urban construction and for unpaved roads. We
also support stable and increasing dollars for cities and towns to maintain roads within their
jurisdictional boundaries.
We believe state funding should account for urban area needs where public
transportation is important, the increasing traffic demands placed on fast-growing localities and
ongoing improvements necessary on rural, secondary roads. We believe these improvements are
vital to our region’s ability to respond to local and regional congestion and economic
development issues.
We support ongoing state and local efforts to coordinate transportation and land use
planning, without eroding local land use authority, and state incentives for localities that do so.
We urge VDOT to be mindful of local comprehensive, land use and bicycle/trail plans, as well as
regional transportation plans, when conducting corridor or transportation planning within a
locality or region. We also take the following positions:
1) We support enabling authority to establish mechanisms for funding transit and non-
transit projects in the region, including funding for existing and future state-supported
inter-city and high speed passenger rail.
2) While we opposed the closing of VDOT’s Louisa residency facilities and support its
reopening, we also support the option for the locality to purchase the property.
TRANSPORTATION FUNDING
Legislative Position of TJPDC, Charlottesville,
and the Counties of Albemarle, Fluvanna, Greene, Louisa and Nelson
The Planning District localities encourage the state to provide local governments with
additional tools to manage growth, without preempting or circumventing existing
authorities.
In the past, the General Assembly has enacted both mandated and optional land use
provisions applicable to local governments in order to address growth issues. While some have
been helpful, others have prescribed one-size-fits-all rules that hamper preparing for growth
across localities that approach their land use planning differently. Preemption or circumvention
of existing local authority hinders localities in implementing the comprehensive plan or
regulating land uses. Moreover, current land use authority often is inadequate to allow local
governments to provide for balanced growth in a manner that protects and improves quality of
life.
The General Assembly should grant localities additional tools necessary to meet
important infrastructure needs that are driven by development. We endorse efforts to have impact
fee and proffer systems that are workable and meaningful for various parties, but we oppose
attempts to weaken our current proffer authority. Rather, we support the road impact fee
authority, adopted in 2007, being revised to include additional localities and to provide the
following: 1) a fair allocation of the costs of new growth on public facilities; 2) facility costs that
include various transportation modes, schools, public safety, libraries and parks; 3) effective
implementation and reasonable administrative requirements; and 4) no caps or limits on locality
impact fee updates.
Further, to enhance our ability to pay for infrastructure costs and to implement services
associated with new developments, we support localities being given authority to enact local
ordinances for determining whether public facilities are adequate (“adequate public facility,” or
APF ordinances).
We also take the following positions:
1) We support optional cluster development as a land use tool for local governments.
2) While we support the concept of urban development areas (UDAs) as contained in the
Code, we also support making the use of UDAs optional for localities.
3) Concerning conservation of land, we support a) dedicated state funding for acquiring,
preserving and maintaining open space; b) full authority to generate local dollars for
such efforts; c) additional incentives for citizens to create conservation easements;
and d) authority for localities, at their option, to enact scenic protection and tourist
enhancement districts.
4) The General Assembly should define “lost profits” and lost access” in the proposed
Constitutional amendment on eminent domain before submitting it to referendum.
Any definitions should be fair to both property owners and taxpayers who pay for
public improvements and not apply to temporary conditions.
LAND USE and GROWTH MANAGEMENT
Legislative Position of TJPDC, Charlottesville,
and the Counties of Albemarle, Fluvanna, Greene, Louisa and Nelson
The Planning District localities urge the state to be partners in containing costs of the
Comprehensive Services Act (CSA) and to better bal ance CSA responsibilities between
state and local government.
Since the inception of the Comprehensive Services Act in the early 1990’s, there has
been pressure to hold down costs, to cap state costs for serving mandated children, to increase
local match levels and to make the program more uniform by attempting to control how localities
run their programs. After four years of steep increases (ranging from five to 16 percent) in state
and local costs of residential and non-residential mandated services, CSA pool expenditures for
state and local governments have declined the last several years. Costs remain challenging to
forecast because of factors beyond state and local control (number of mandated children in a
community, severity of problems, service rates, and availability of alternative funding).
In addition, localities pay the overwhelming majority (80%) of costs to administer this
shared program. State dollars for administration have not increased since the late 1990’s. At the
same time, administrative costs have jumped due to additional data collection/compilation and
reporting requirements.
Therefore, we support the following:
1) The state should either provide additional funding for administrative support or revise
its data collection and reporting requirements;
2) The state should provide full funding of the state pool for CSA, with allocations based
on realistic anticipated levels of need; and
3) The state should establish a cap on local expenditures in order to combat higher local
costs for serving mandated children, costs often driven by unanticipated placements in a locality.
We believe that the categories of populations mandated for services should not be
expanded unless the state pays all the costs. We also urge the state to be proactive in making
residential facilities and service providers available, especially in rural areas.
In a further effort to help contain costs and provide some relief to local governments, we
recommend that the state establish contracts with CSA providers to provide for a uniform
contract management process, improve vendor accountability and control costs. We encourage
the state to consider penalties for individuals who have had children removed from their care due
to abuse or neglect. We also support local and regional efforts to address areas of cos t sharing
among localities by procuring services through group negotiation.
COMPREHENSIVE SERVICES ACT
AREAS OF CONTINUING CONCERN
The Planning District’s member localities recognize economic development and workforce
training as essential to the continued viability of the Commonwealth. We support policies that
closely link the goals of economic and workforce development and the state’s efforts to
streamline and integrate workforce activities and revenue sources. We also support increased
state funding for workforce development programs.
We support the state’s Economic and Workforce Development Strategic Plan for the
Commonwealth that more clearly defines responsibilities of state and local governments and
emphasizes regional cooperation in economic, workforce and tourism development.
We support enhanced funding for the Regional Competitiveness Act to continue
meaningful opportunities for regional projects. We also support increased state funding for the
Industrial Site Development Fund, the Governor’s Opportunity Fund and tourism initiatives that
help promote economic development in localities and regions.
We encourage the state and local governments to work with other entities to identify and
promote local, regional and state agricultural products and to encourage expansion and
opportunities for rural enterprises.
We oppose restructuring of the Virginia Cooperative Extension Service (VCES) that
would eliminate beneficial extension agents and/or increase the financial burden on local
governments for the same service; rather, we support continued state funding for VCES and the
services that extension agents provide in localities.
We appreciate and encourage continuing state incentives and support for expediting
deployment and reducing the cost of broadband technology, particularly in underserved areas.
The Planning District’s member localities believe that environmental quality should be funded
and promoted through a comprehensive approach, and address air and water quality, solid waste
management, land conservation, climate change and land use policies. We are committed to
protection and enhancement of the environment and recognize the need to achieve a proper
balance between environmental regulation and the socio-economic health of our communities
within the constraints of available revenues. Such an approach requires regional cooperation due
to the inter-jurisdictional nature of many environmental resources, and adequate state funding to
support local and regional efforts.
We believe the following:
The state should not impose a fee, tax or surcharge on water, sewer, solid waste or other
local services to pay for state environmental programs. To do so would set a disturbing precedent
whereby the state could levy surcharges on local user fees to fund state priorities.
ECONOMIC and WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
The legislature should provide funding for wastewater treatment and other necessary
assistance to localities as it works to clean up the state’s impaired waterways. The state also
should explore alternative means of preventing and remediating water pollution.
The state should not enact legislation mandating expansion of the area covered by the
Chesapeake Bay Preservation Act. Instead, the state should 1) provide legal, financial and
technical support to localities that wish to comply with an y of the Act’s provisions, 2) allow
localities to use other practices to improve water quality, and 3) provide funding for other
strategies that address point and non-point source pollution.
We support legislative and regulatory action to ensure that alternative on-site sewage
systems (AOSS) will be operated and maintained in a manner that protects public health and the
environment.
The state should be a partner and advocate for localities in water supply development and
should work with and assist localities in addressing water supply issues, including investing in
regional projects. Also, the state’s water supply planning efforts should continue to involve local
governments.
We support legislation enabling localities, as a part of their zoning ordinances, to
designate and/or reasonably restrict the land application of biosolids to specific areas within the
locality, based on criteria designed to further protect the public safety and welfare of citizens. In
addition, we support increased local government representation on the Biosolids Use Regulation
Advisory Committee (BURAC).
The Planning District’s member localities recognize that special attention must be given to
developing circumstances under which people, especially the disabled, the poor, the young and
the elderly, can achieve their full potential. Funding reductions to community agencies are
especially troublesome, as their activities often end up preventing more costly services later. The
delivery of health and human services must be a collaborative effort from federal, state and local
agencies. We urge the General Assembly to ensure funding is available to continue such valuable
preventive services.
We oppose any changes in state funding or policies that result in an increase of the local
share of costs for human services.
The state should increase funding to the Virginia Juvenile Community Crime Control Act
(VJCCCA) program, which has cut in half the number of Department of Juvenile Justice
commitments over the past decade. Further, the state should maintain a formula-driven
allocation process for VJCCCA funding.
The state should provide sufficient funding to allow Community Services Boards (CSBs)
to meet the challenges of providing a community-based system of care, including maximizing
the use of Medicaid funding. We believe children with mental health needs should be treated in
the mental health system, where CSBs are the point of entry. We support state action to increase
investment in the MR waiver program for adults and young people and Medicaid reimbursement
for children’s dental services. We also oppose any shifting of Medicaid matching requirements
from the state to localities.
HEALTH and HUMAN SERVICES
We support funding for mental health and substance abuse services at juvenile detention
centers.
We oppose new state or federal entitlement programs that require additional local
funding.
We support the provision of sufficient state funding to match all available federal dollars
for the administration of mandated services within the Department of Social Services, and to
meet the staffing standards for local departments to provide services as stipulated in state law.
We support sufficient state funding assistance for older residents, to include companion
and in home services, home delivered meals and transportation.
We support the continued operation and enhancement of early intervention and
prevention programs (and renewal of CSA Trust Fund dollars to support them), including school-
based prevention programs which can make a difference in children’s lives. This would include
the state’s program for at-risk four-year-olds, and the Child Health Partnership and Healthy
Families programs.
The legislature should provide full funding to assist low-income working and TANF (and
former TANF) families with childcare costs. These dollars help working-class parents pay for
supervised day care facilities and support efforts for families to become self-sufficient. We
oppose any initiatives to shift traditional federal and state childcare administrative responsibility
and costs to local governments. We believe the current funding and program responsibility for
TANF employment services should remain within the social services realm. We also support a
TANF plan that takes into account and fully funds state and local implementation and support
services costs.
The Planning District’s member localities believe that every citizen should have an opportunity
to afford decent, safe and sanitary housing. The state and local governments should work toward
expanding and preserving the supply and improving the quality of affordable housing for the
elderly, the disabled and low- and moderate-income households. Regional housing solutions and
planning should be implemented whenever possible.
We support the following: 1) local flexibility in the operation of affordable housing
programs, 2) creation of a state housing trust fund, 3) local flexibility in establishment of
affordable dwelling unit ordinances, 4) the award of grants and loans to low- or moderate-
income persons to aid in purchasing dwellings, and 5) the provision of other funding to
encourage affordable housing initiatives.
We support enabling legislation that allows property tax relief for community land trusts
that hold land for the purpose of providing affordable homeownership.
We support measures to prevent homelessness and to assist the chronic homeless.
We support incentives that encourage rehabilitation and preservation of historic
structures.
We support retaining local discretion to regulate the allowance of manufactured homes in
zoning districts that permit single-family dwellings.
HOUSING
We encourage and support the use of, and request state incentives for using
environmentally friendly (green) building materials and techniques, which can contribute to the
long-term health, vitality and sustainability of the region.
The Planning District’s member localities encourage state financial support, cooperation and
assistance for law enforcement, emergency medical care, criminal justice activitie s and fire
services responsibilities carried out locally.
We urge the state to make Compensation Board funding a top priority, fully funding local
positions that fall under its purview. It should not increase the local share of funding
constitutional offices or divert funding away from local offices, but increase money needed for
their operation. Local governments continue to provide much supplemental funding for
constitutional officer budgets when state funding is reduced.
We urge continued state funding of the HB 599 law enforcement program (in accordance
with Code of Virginia provisions), the drug court program and the Offender Reentry and
Transition Services (ORTS) (formerly Pre-Release and Post-Incarceration Services (PAPIS)),
Community Corrections and Pretrial Services Acts. We also support continued state endorsement
of the role and authority of pretrial services offices.
The state should continue to allow exemptions from the federal prisoner offset and
restore the per diem payment to localities for housing state-responsible prisoners to $14 per day.
Also, the state should not shift costs to localities by altering the definition of state-responsible
prisoner.
We support restoration of state funding responsibility for the Line of Duty Act.
We urge state funding for the Volunteer Firefighters’ and Rescue Squad Workers’
Service Award Program and other incentives that would help recruit and retain emergency
service providers. Further, the state should improve access to and support for training for
volunteer and paid providers.
We encourage shared funding by the state of the costs to construct and operate regional
jails; however, we do not believe the state should operate local and regional jails.
The Planning District’s member localities believe that since so many governmental actions take
place at the local level, a strong local government system is essential. Local governments must
have the freedom and tools to carry out their responsibilities.
We oppose intrusive legislation involving purchasing procedures; local government
authority to establish hours of work, salaries and working conditions for local employees;
matters that can be adopted by resolution or ordinance; and procedures for adopting ordinances.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT STRUCTURE and LAWS
PUBLIC SAFETY
We request that any changes to the Virginia Freedom of Information Act (FOIA)
preserve 1) a local governing body’s ability to meet in closed session, 2) the list of records
currently exempt from disclosure under FOIA, and 3) provisions concerning creation of
customized computer records. We support changes to allow local and regional public bodies to
conduct electronic meetings as now permitted for state public bodies. and to simplify how notice
of special meetings is provided to local governing body members.
We support the State authorizing localities to increase the income and financial worth
limitations for real property tax exemption or deferral programs.
We oppose any changes to state law that further weaken a locality’s ability to regulate
noise or the discharge of firearms.
We support expanding local authority to regulate smoking in public places.
The state should amend the Code to require litigants in civil cases to pay for the costs
associated with compensating jury members.
We support increased state funding for regional planning districts.
We support legislation to increase permissible fees for courthouse maintenance.
The state should ensure that local connectivity and compatibility are considered in any
centralizing of state computer functions.
We oppose attempts to reduce sovereign immunity protections for localities.
We support enactment of an interest rate cap of 36% on payday loans, fees and other
related charges.
Return to memo
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
Long Term Solid Waste Service Options
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Process for evaluating future solid waste service options
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Messrs. Foley, Elliott, Davis, Graham, and Shadman
LEGAL REVIEW: Yes
AGENDA DATE:
November 2, 2011
ACTION: X INFORMATION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS: Yes
REVIEWED BY:
BACKGROUND:
In October 2010, the Board reviewed options for solid waste services based on information provided by staff. The
Board reviewed service level options and costs and decided to maintain the current level of service through short term
agreements with the Rivanna Solid Waste Authority (RWSA). The County currently provides a support payment to
the Authority to cover any operating deficits after revenues are considered. This action was taken after the City of
Charlottesville advised RSWA and the County that they had no interest in continuing to receive services from RSWA’s
Ivy facility. At a December 2010 meeting, staff advised the Board that the City had expressed an interest in
continuing to support recycling services provided by RSWA at the McIntire Recycling Facility. The Board established
expectations for the service agreements to continue solid waste and recycling services and directed staff to work with
RSWA staff to develop agreements to continue these services while long term options were considered.
In August 2011, the Board reviewed the RSWA support agreements for both the RSWA Ivy and McIntire Facilities
(Attachments A and B) and authorized the County Executive to sign these agreements. While the agreements
satisfied the Board expectations for services in the short term, questions remained as to whether or not RSWA could
meet the County’s long term needs within the current structure of a regional authority, recognizing that a regional body
with City representatives would be involved in the decisions regarding a service provided solely to County residents.
To address this concern, the Board directed staff to prepare a review of how future services might be provided
following RSWA’s consideration of the current Organizational Agreement. The RSWA Board conducted a review of
the Organizational Agreement in early August and agreed to propose a change to the agreement to “allow” rather than
“require” that RSW A provide services for the City and County. While this did not resolve the County’s long term
direction, it did clarify that RSW A does not advocate to be the sole provider of solid waste services. The purpose of
this agenda item is to seek Board direction on a preferred process for determining a long term strategy to meet the
County’s solid waste needs.
DISCUSSION:
In considering long-term options for delivery of solid waste services, staff believes there are three options that the
Board should consider:
1) Maintain a support agreement by which RSWA would continue to provide these services. The advantages of
this option are that the RSWA has proven to be a cost effective service provider and is very experienced at
providing these services at the Ivy facility. The disadvantages of this option are that the current Authority
structure and the complexity of the service agreement make it difficult for the County to address long-term
capital improvement requirements for services solely provided to County residents. For example, the current
agreement is subject to 2 year periods and has non-appropriation clauses to avoid binding future Boards to
this agreement. Both of those factors present a problem for RSWA financing major capital improvements.
Similarly, the current RSWA Organizational Agreement makes it possible for the County representation on the
RSW A Board to be a dissenting minority when RSWA adopts its annual budget. If the City representatives
and the independent member of the RSWA Board included costs in the budget that the County found
unacceptable, the County is left with the choice of either paying that cost or terminating the agreement. That
would effectively leave the County with an ongoing short term agreement rather than a long-term solution to
meet its solid waste needs.
AGENDA TITLE: Long Term Solid Waste Service Options
November 2, 2011
Page 2
2) Enter negotiations to either purchase or lease the part of the Ivy facility that provides the solid waste services
and then either manage it with County employees or contract out the management to others. The advantages
of this option are that the County assumes better financial control of its solid waste services and uses an
existing facility rather than investing in a new facility. The disadvantages of this option are that the County
has very little experience managing solid waste services and this would likely require a new permit from the
Virginia Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ). The lack of experience could potentially be addressed
by RSWA employees simply shifting to the County, however, the transfer of the operation to the County and
the lease or purchase of the facility would be subject to approval by the RSWA Board. Additionally, with the
potential of needing a new permit from DEQ, it is possible that an upgrade of the facility to meet current
standards would be required. However, it is likely that an upgrade will be needed in any case to provide
effective long term operations.
3) Identify a new location for constructing a transfer station and provide solid waste services independent of
RSWA. The advantages of this option are that the County is no longer subject to the approval of the RSWA
Board and the County can establish its own direction for providing long term solid waste services, including
the financial planning and control of capital investments. This potential operation could be overseen by the
Board of Supervisors through a County department or could be set up as an independent Authority similar to
the Albemarle County Service Authority or as an additional responsibility of the Albemarle County Service
Authority. The disadvantages of this option are that the County would need to undertake the often difficult
and controversial siting of this new facility and the complexity of managing this new service. The
management issue is very similar for options 2 and 3. Staff anticipates finding an acceptable location for a
new facility would prove very controversial and the conditions to address concerns would increase the cost of
services.
Staff has not fully evaluated each of these options and has concerns that the information above lacks the
expertise to provide a reliable analysis, especially with respect to the costs and other issues that may be
associated with options 2 or 3. For staff to fairly compare the above options and their costs and assure that
significant issues are not overlooked, we believe contracting with a consultant experienced in solid waste services
is necessary and prudent given the significance of establishing a long term direction. Staff anticipates this would
be contracted as a professional service and that the scope of services would be adjusted through negotiations
rather than requesting a simple quote for a predefined service.
BUDGET IMPACT:
While staff has not discussed these services with potential consultants, it is thought that the cost would like ly be in the
range of $30-40,000 for a preliminary analysis adequate to provide the necessary information for the Board to
effectively evaluate the options. The FY12 CIP appropriation to the RSWA for environmental services has been
evaluated as a possible funding source. Based on past expenditures and anticipated services in the year ahead, staff
believes that a portion of this amount could be shifted to a consultant contract while still meeting all obligations under
the RSW A Environmental Support Agreement.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends that the Board:
1) Direct staff to procure consulting services to evaluate the options as described above, as well as any other
options.
2) Direct staff to prepare an appropriation request in an amount necessary for the consultant contract based on
a negotiated scope of services.
ATTACHMENTS:
A – 8/23/11 Ivy Facility Agreement
B – 8/23/11 McIntire Facility Agreement
Return to agenda
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
Albemarle County Environmental Stewardship
Strategic Plan
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Approval of Albemarle County Environmental
Stewardship Strategic Plan
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Messrs. Foley, Letteri, Davis, Shadman and Lowe
LEGAL REVIEW: Yes
AGENDA DATE:
November 2, 2011
ACTION: X INFORMATION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS: Yes
REVIEWED BY:
BACKGROUND:
At the September 7, 2011 Board meeting, the Board unanimously approved the recommendations in the Local
Climate Action Planning Process (LCAPP) Report (Attachment A). The Board also rescinded the Resolution
supporting the Cool Counties Climate Stabilization Declaration and directed staff to create new programmatic goals
guided by the LCAPP Report and tailored to the specific needs of Albemarle County. With that guidance, staff utilized
the LCAPP Report to develop a draft “Albemarle County Environmental Stewardship Strategic Plan” (The Plan)
(Attachment B) for Board consideration.
DISCUSSION:
The Plan begins with vision and mission statements that have been adapted from the LCAPP Report’s
Recommended Principles. The five principles contained in the LCAPP Report are used to create the following Vision
and Mission statements:
Vision: To enable the Albemarle County community to reap the health, economic and environmental benefits
of sound energy-based decisions by recognizing the Local Climate Action Planning Process Report of 2011
as a guiding document upon which to build a multi-year program.
Mission: To continue to demonstrate leadership in energy reductions at the local level; to build on existing
synergies by continued collaboration with all community partners; to integrate the role of energy conservation
and carbon emissions in projects and planning; and to equip the community at all levels to make informed
decisions about impacts of energy efficiencies.
The Goals and Objectives have been created using the LCAPP Five-Part Framework action strategies and include
internal and external components. All goals and objectives are voluntary efforts and do not contain any mandates or
regulatory actions. Staff has included in this summary the Goals and a few condensed objectives.
Goal 1: Reduce energy demand in all County owned buildings and promote energy conservation throughout
the County.
Objective 1.1: Pursuit of Energy Management and Conservation in County owned facilities. This
objective includes a target of 40% total energy reduction by 2017 from the baseline year of 2005.
Objective 1.2: Supporting Governor McDonnell’s 2010 Virginia Energy Plan to reduce electricity
demand in the Commonwealth by 10% by 2022 through conservation and efficiency.
Goal 2: Improve travel efficiencies to reduce energy consumption and emissions.
Objective2.1: Reduce fuel consumption in County owned vehicles by 20% by fiscal year 2017 and by
2020 have 25% of fleet operating on alternative fuels.
Objective2.3: Encourage fuel reduction within the community and promote alternatives and options
for the community to reduce fuel usage.
Goal 3: Promote and pursue the reduction of waste that goes to the landfill.
Objective3.1: Decrease the volume of materials generated by the County and sent to landfill by 2%
each year for 10 years.
Objective 3.2: Increase awareness and opportunities within the community to increase the recycling
rate in Albemarle County.
AGENDA TITLE: Albemarle County Environmental Stewardship Strategic Plan
November 2, 2011
Page 2
If the Vision and Mission statements and the Goals and Objectives meet the Board’s approval, staff will immediately
begin to develop an action plan to be completed and in place for Fiscal Year 2013.
Staff will provide biennial progress reports to the Board of Supervisors.
BUDGET IMPACT:
All funds to support the Plan would be submitted for approval each fiscal year as part of the General Services
Operating and CIP budgets after action plans have been developed. The Plan will be clearly identified for Board
review and enable the opportunity for discussion during the budget process.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends that the Board: 1) approve the proposed “Albemarle County Environmental Stewardship Strategic
Plan”; and 2) direct staff to develop an action plan for FY 2013.
ATTACHMENTS
A – LCAPP Report
B – Albemarle County Environmental Stewardship Strategic Plan
Return to agenda
LCAPP
Local Climate Action Planning Process Report
August 2011
Cover and page 3 graphics by Andrew Greene
Report layout by Susan Elliott
Presented to:
Planning and Coordination Council Technical Committee (PACC Tech) – August 4, 2011
Planning and Coordination Council (PACC) – August 18, 2011
Charlottesville City Council – September 6, 2011
Albemarle County Board of Supervisors – September 7, 2011
August 2011
Dear Elected Officials and the Community at Large,
We, the members of the Local Climate Action Planning Process (LCAPP) Steering Committee, are very
pleased with the outcome of this year and a half long process. The Steering Committee itself was balanced
in terms of its members, including full participation by the University of Virginia. The Working Groups were
made up of local subject matter experts, whose understanding of barriers and opportunities also helped
inform this report.
When viewed through the climate change lens, the Charlottesville-Albemarle community is a community
to be celebrated for:
• its many efforts to build and develop sustainably
• its passionate residents whose commitment to living sustainably supports many local
businesses and farms
• improving the quality of life for its residents through trails, parks and the protection of open space
• providing safe and inexpensive public transportation
• following through on its Cool Counties and Mayor’s Climate Agreement commitments by
forming LCAPP in the first place and doing so cooperatively
If we learned anything during this process, we learned that we want to take a positive approach to
suggesting ways for lowering our community’s energy consumption and thus greenhouse gas emissions.
Ultimately, who will disagree with the following?
• saving money and creating jobs by making our buildings more energy efficient is a good thing
• all of us would like to spend less time in our cars and more time with our friends and families
• new technologies that can help us create energy with less pollution are important to support
• in general, the old adage of ‘waste not, want not’ is probably true when it comes to the things
we buy, use and potentially throw away
• wise conservation of our natural infrastructure is necessary to ensure desired environmental
services and benefits continue to be provided
Our community is moving towards a positive vision, and we deliberately steered clear of governmental
regulatory mandates or demands that it get there this way and by this time. We do believe the
recommendations made in this report should be incorporated into the respective comprehensive plans of
the City and the County – if we agree on the outline of this vision, it will take effort and coordination over
time to get there.
Local Climate Action Planning Process
Still, get there we must. While there was clearly a continuum of opinion in terms of the severity of climate
change impacts from Committee member to Committee member, in the end the community vision engendered
by the practical solutions for mitigating climate change was one we all felt would benefit our citizens and
businesses. It underscores what is special about our area and the people who live here: we are smart, caring
and committed to improving our community now and into the future.
With hope and support,
The LCAPP Steering Committee
______________________________
Cynthia Adams
Local Energy Alliance Program (LEAP)
______________________________
Buck Kline
Virginia Department of Forestry
______________________________
David Brown, LCAPP Chair
Charlottesville City Council
______________________________
Christopher Lee
Piedmont Virginia Companies, Inc.
______________________________
John Cruickshank
Sierra Club, Piedmont Group
______________________________
Ann Mallek
County of Albemarle Board of Supervisors
______________________________
Bill Edgerton
The Oak Hill Fund; formerly with the
County of Albemarle Planning Commission
______________________________
David Neuman
University of Virginia
Office of the Architect
______________________________
Tom Frederick
Rivanna Water and Sewer and
Solid Waste Authorities
______________________________
Mike Osteen
City of Charlottesville Planning Commission
______________________________
Bill Greenleaf
Richmond Regional Energy Alliance; formerly
with William McDonough + Partners
______________________________
Hank Shugart
University of Virginia
Department of Environmental Sciences
______________________________
Tim Hulbert
Charlottesville Regional Chamber of
Commerce
______________________________
Jay Willer
formerly with Blue Ridge Home
Builders Association
LCAPP Report ES-1
E xE cutivE Summary
Energy use in all aspects of our lives—how we travel, how we live, how we care for our urban and rural landscapes
and how we produce the energy we use—is directly related to greenhouse gas emissions. With unstable energy costs
foreseen well into the future, communities and businesses that are pro-active in reducing their reliance on fossil fuels
will be poised to capture the significant competitive advantage of being innovators. Sustained economic development
and resiliency for all members of our community will be well-served by investments and actions that increase energy
efficiency and reduce emissions; the related cost savings will help keep financial resources in the local community.
Motivated by the prospective benefits of taking action on these issues, senior executives from the City of Charlottesville
and the County of Albemarle extended an invitation in May 2009 to local community representatives to serve on a
multidisciplinary Steering Committee leading a Local Climate Action Planning Process (LCAPP). Over an 18-month
period the LCAPP Steering Committee, supported by a network of more than 50 local subject matter experts, local
business representatives and other interested parties, examined best practices to assess their appropriateness and
effectiveness for our community. Through this process, a Five-Part Framework for Our Community Energy Profile was
crafted identifying guidelines to inform planning and programs. Further detailed recommendations were formulated
into a set of Framework Action Strategies, which represent opportunities for win-win efforts that can contribute to
community well-being in economic, health and environmental terms. The Steering Committee purposefully embraced
a voluntary approach and offers this report as a guide to the City, County and UVa in considering a broad range of
options. The potential benefits of each of the recommended Action Strategies can be evaluated in creating a vision
that best meets the needs of their respective communities.
The wrap-up of the LCAPP in August 2011 marks an important
milestone in an evolving process. The City, the County and the
University of Virginia have each demonstrated leadership in reducing
emissions related to their own facilities, vehicles and activities.
However, regional City/County baseline emissions data indicate
that, together, local government entities contribute only about 4% to
overall community greenhouse gas emissions. The recommended
Action Strategies therefore can serve as guidelines not only for City,
County and UVa but also for the wider community regarding options
to reduce energy use in buildings, transportation, materials use and
energy generation. These recommendations can help individuals, businesses, nonprofit organizations, educational
institutions, medical facilities, public sector entities—indeed all members of our combined region—to make informed
choices as we continue, along with other leading communities around the nation, to adopt practices that will contribute
to reducing our community’s emissions.
The following report documents the LCAPP process and provides examples of existing efforts by the City, County and
University to reduce energy use and emissions. A report such as this cannot do justice to the enthusiastic and creative
implementation of related projects by institutions, businesses and individuals throughout our community. While
existing efforts are inspiring and illustrative of how effective many of the Action Strategies can be, our communities
will nevertheless need to continue their concerted efforts in promoting adoption of these principles and practices on
a broader scale.
The recommended Action
Strategies can serve as guidelines
not only for City, County and UVa
but also for the wider community
regarding options to reduce energy
use in buildings, transportation,
materials use and energy generation.
ES-2 LCAPP Report
The LCAPP Steering Committee encourages the City, County and UVa to take tangible and measureable action
consistent with the following Recommended Principles and Recommended Next Steps:
Recommended Principles
• To continue to demonstrate leadership in energy and carbon reductions at the local level;
• To build on existing synergies by continued collaboration of City, County, University of Virginia and community partners;
• To integrate the role of energy and carbon emissions in projects and planning;
• To equip the community at all levels to make informed decisions about the impacts of carbon emissions and
energy; and
• To identify and promote actions that enable the community to reap the health, economic and environmental
benefits that accompany sound energy-based decisions.
Recommended Next Steps
1. Act on existing commitments to further address carbon and energy considerations in planning and operations of
the City, County and University of Virginia.
a. Use the Five-Part Framework for Our Community Energy Profile to inform Comprehensive and other planning efforts;
b. Utilize the Framework Action Strategies to develop an Action Plan for each entity to enhance planning for and
knowledge about emissions reduction opportunities and identify near-term reduction goals;
c. Provide regular public updates on progress toward reducing emissions and energy use in internal programs
and operations as well as on the results of periodic tracking of community baseline emissions.
2. Build on stakeholder involvement developed through the Local Climate Action Planning Process to expand information
exchange on carbon and energy-related issues.
a. Provide learning and engagement opportunities for the wider community including celebration of local successes
in the private sector;
b. Adapt the Framework Action Strategies into a Community Toolkit containing local guidance and case studies
aimed at community members wishing to save energy and reduce their individual emissions;
c. Facilitate continual improvement of all participants by bringing senior management and project leaders together
annually to share and learn from each other’s projects and experiences in reducing carbon emissions and
energy use in operations and facilities; increase related training and outreach targeting employees;
d. Invite community members to become actively engaged in efforts to develop tailored Action Plans for the City
and the County.
LCAPP Report 1
1.0 i ntroduction and B ackground
Climate change is understood to be a global phenomenon with
serious local implications. Scientists from the U.S. Climate
Change Science Program and the Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change (IPCC) have reviewed robust scientific evidence
indicating that human-induced climate change is occurring.
Their findings present evidence that, although the effects of
climate change are macro in scale, actions on a smaller, local
scale will be essential to effectively address them. Numerous
professional organizations from disciplines as diverse as the
American Public Health Association (APHA), the American
Public Works Association (APWA) and the American Society of
Civil Engineers (ASCE) have likewise expressed concern about
the related impacts of climate change on health, emergency
preparedness, economic development, infrastructure, planning
and community resiliency.
The City of Charlottesville, the County of Albemarle and the
University of Virginia have demonstrated concern for greenhouse
gas emissions and have begun to tackle the challenge as
evidenced by public statements that target greenhouse gas
reductions. The three entities have publically recognized the
importance of environmental stewardship in improving our
quality of life and have a history of planning and implementing
programs and actions consistent with this philosophy. A
significant step in addressing these commitments consisted of
each entity establishing a baseline of its current greenhouse
gas emissions. The baseline reports of the City, County and
University can form the basis for each entity to undertake
informed discussion toward setting goals related to significant
emissions reductions.
On June 10, 2011, the University of
Virginia Board of Visitors approved a
sustainability commitment affirming the
University’s support for sustainability
and specifically identifying a
greenhouse gas emissions reduction
target of 25% below 2009 levels by 2025.
On July 17, 2006, the Charlottesville
City Council unanimously passed a
Resolution endorsing the U.S. Mayors
Climate Protection Agreement.
Following a July 11, 2007 presentation
of the U.S. Cool Counties Climate
Stabilization Declaration, the Albemarle
County Board of Supervisors
unanimously approved a Cool County
Resolution on December 5, 2007.
Entity Baseline Year Total eCO2 Emissions
(Metric Tons)
Charlottesville 2000 868,952
Albemarle 2000 1,503,163
UVa and UVa Health System 2009 330,900
2 LCAPP Report
In recognition of the need for cooperation and collaboration
among numerous stakeholders to work in concert to reduce
emissions, in May 2009 senior executives from the City of
Charlottesville and the County of Albemarle invited community
representatives to serve on the Steering Committee for
a Local Climate Action Planning Process (LCAPP). The
Steering Committee was established to collect diverse input, to
demonstrate local leadership and to recommend strategies for
reducing our region’s greenhouse gas emissions. The LCAPP
Steering Committee was initially convened in August 2009,
thereby officially launching the process.
At this time, the City, County and University are each at different
points with respect to formally setting and adopting near-term and
long-term reduction goals (e.g., 80% by 2050). The combined
regional (City/County) emissions baseline data demonstrate,
however, that City and County operations contribute only
a small fraction—approximately 4%—to emissions for the
community as a whole. Therefore, while the City and the
County have demonstrated leadership in reducing emissions in
their internal operations, this can have only a marginal impact
on the community’s overall greenhouse gas emissions profile.
The University is also playing a leadership role as evidenced
by the Environmental Footprint Reduction Plans and the 2011
Sustainabilty Resolution, which was endorsed by the Faculty
Senate and Student Council and was approved by the Board of
Visitors in June 2011.
The Local Climate Action Planning Process has identified
Action Strategies that can help the wider community work
toward creating specific targets and adopting concrete actions
to attain emissions reduction goals. The recommendations of
the LCAPP Steering Committee are a guide for the City, County
and University of Virginia to utilize in pursuing their own Action
Plans to establish the scope and scale at which each entity
is committed to engage. Such Action Plans will enable each
institution to set its own goals and determine the selection and
implementation timeline for steps intended to pursue emissions
reductions targets. Continued involvement of stakeholders
in determining specific roles and responsibilities will remain
necessary for adoption of actions with measurable impact.
Governor McDonnell’s 2010 Virginia
Energy Plan set a voluntary goal to reduce
Virginia’s electricity use by 2022 through
conservation and efficiency by an amount
equal to 10 percent of 2006 electricity use.
The graph of combined City and County
emissions data highlights the proportionally
small contribution to the community’s over-
all emissions - approximately 4% - that can
be attributed to local government operations.
Data related to the University’s emissions are
included in the “commercial” section.
LCAPP Report 3
The Steering Committee embraced a voluntary approach to guide the City, County and UVa in considering the range
of opportunities and benefits of each of the recommended Action Strategies in creating a vision that best meets
the needs of their respective communities. A report such as this cannot do justice to the enthusiastic and creative
implementation of related strategies by institutions, businesses and individuals throughout our community. While
these existing efforts are inspiring and illustrative of how effective many of the recommended strategies can be,
our communities will nevertheless need to continue their concerted efforts to support businesses, individuals and
government institutions in promoting adoption of these principles and practices on a broader scale.
Energy use in all aspects of our lives—how we
travel, how we live, how we care for our urban
and rural landscapes and how we produce
the energy we use—is directly related to
greenhouse gas emissions. The U.S. Energy
Information Administration reports that 87% of
U.S. greenhouse gas emissions are related to
energy consumption. Examining these issues
through a concerted and collaborative effort of
local governments, business leaders, scientists,
residents and environmental advocates has
provided our community a unique chance to
explore the benefits of actions that can result in
cost-savings, health improvements, job creation,
economic development and environmental
protection through a common lens.
1 MT eCO2
Metric Ton = 1,000 kg
= 2,205 lbs
Equivalent CO2Measure of CO2 and other
gases that contribute to
global warming expressed
in terms of Carbon Dioxide
3460 miles
1740 miles
3.3 years
15.2 years13 watts
24h/7d
60 watts
24h/7d
33 mpg
City/Hwy
16 mpg
City/Hwy
x
x
x
x =
=
=
=
0
50,000
100,000
150,000
200,000
250,000
300,000
350,000
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
Scope 3 Emissions: Faculty, Staff & Student Commuting + Transmission Losses
Scope 2 Emissions: Purchased Electricity
Scope 1 Emissions: On-Site Combustion + UVa Fleet + Refrigerants
Metric Tons of Equivalent CO2 EmissionsUniversity of Virginia Greenhouse Gas Emissions at a Glance
Emissions from 2000 - 2009 by Scope
Who’s Included?
This inventory includes greenhouse gas emissions resulting from operations on the main grounds of the University of Virginia and the UVa Health
System. Emissions from UVa’s College at Wise, the UVa Foundation, and multiple UVa field stations are not included.
What’s Included?
Emissions are categorized into three scopes:
Total UVa emissions have increased over the past 10 years due to significant growth in population and buildings.
How Are Emissions Measured?
Emissions are typically measured in metric tons (MT) of equivalent Carbon Dioxide (eCO2) emissions. One MTeCO2 results from the following:
Scope 1 Emissions
Direct emissions generated by
University-owned equipment and
activities. Includes: heating plants,
fleet, University Transit Service, jet,
fertilizer application & refrigerants.
Scope 2 Emissions
Emissions generated
through the production of
electricity purchased by
the University.
Scope 3 Emissions
Emissions generated from indirect
sources as a consequence of University
operation. Includes: commuting,
electricity transmission losses, solid
waste & wastewater.
On for 15.2 yearsOn for 3.3 years 112 Gallons of Gas $200 in Electricity1 MT eCO2 =
LCAPP Report 5
2.0 t hE L ocaL c L imat E a ction P L anning P rocESS (L caPP)
LCAPP grew out of a joint effort of the City, County and UVa, who have each taken stock of their overall energy use
and established greenhouse gas emissions inventories and baselines. A proposal to collaborate on these issues was
presented by the City and the County to the Planning and Coordination Council Technical Committee (PACC Tech)
in January 2009 and received their endorsement. The three entities agreed to work together examining potential
strategies by which overall emissions could be reduced and established a Steering Committee of local community
representatives to provide leadership for this process.
The multidisciplinary LCAPP Steering Committee was supported by a network of over 50 local subject matter experts,
local business representatives and other interested parties serving in advisory Working Groups. Underlying themes that
emerged from the discussions emphasized: celebration of local successes; ongoing engagement with all community
members to enable them to make informed choices that will collectively contribute to reduction of the community’s
emissions; and the need for clear goals and transparent tracking of progress, including continual examination of the
most effective ways in which the challenge can be tackled.
Over an 18-month period, best practices from around the
nation were collected and examined for their appropriateness
and effectiveness for adoption in our community. The
Working Groups were organized according to the following
sectors: Energy Conservation in the Built Environment,
Energy and Mobility, Energy Sourcing, Embodied Energy
(materials use and waste), Carbon Sequestration (landscape
and agriculture) and Public Education and Outreach. Within
these categories, several high level strategies—the Five
Part Framework for Our Community Energy Profile—were
identified to guide future action planning. The Five-Part
Framework developed through in-depth discussion and debate
within the Steering Committee and the affiliated Working
Groups carries with it enormous promise that can only be
achieved by deliberate and substantive actions. These high-
level strategies are accompanied by detailed recommendations
in the Framework Action Strategies. The Action Strategies are
intended to guide discussion related to public policies, planning
and programs.
A Community Workshop—Carbon, Our Energy Future and You—held in February 2011 drew solid attendance numbers.
In preparing for the Workshop, Steering Committee members recognized the importance of translating the Five-Part
Framework and the more detailed Framework Action Strategies into related benefits for the community. Display
posters and factsheets illustrating relevant, everyday examples of energy efficiency options and benefits provided an
opportunity for community discussion of these proposals.
LCAPP Steering Committee in discussion with
the Carbon Sequestration Working Group
6 LCAPP Report
The community real-time survey indicated wide support for climate initiatives among those present at the workshop.
It was also, however, noticeable that many of those in attendance were already actively engaged with environmental
concerns, a valuable insight as we learned that this process has its work cut out for it in reaching the rest of the
community. One theme that consequently runs through the LCAPP Recommended Next Steps is the importance of
actively engaging community stakeholder groups via those groups’ own channels (newsletters, events, meetings),
recognizing that concerted community outreach efforts can create greater involvement of citizens of the City and
County as well as UVa students/faculty/staff in consideration of future commitments and actions toward reducing the
community’s energy consumption.
Carbon, Our Energy Future and You Community Workshop
February 24, 2011
Attendees at the Community Workshop. Members of the
Steering Committee and the Working Groups were on
hand to answer questions.
Community Workshop presentations,
COB McIntire Auditorium
Interactive Community Survey results
LCAPP Report 7
Adaptation
“Exploring Adaptation” was the focus of an LCAPP Workshop on March 15, 2010. Participants separated into
four breakout sessions to discuss: community health and emergency preparedness; economic impacts on
energy and business; natural resources; and infrastructure, including transportation and utilities. Each group
was asked to consider adaptation options based on a careful assessment of efficacy, risks and costs.
In particular, changes in weather patterns, including hotter summers and winters with greater than average
snowfall, will potentially impact all sectors of the community. Agriculture may be affected by drought conditions
while stormwater infrastructure can become overwhelmed with unusually heavy rainfall. Severe storms can
create vulnerabilities in the energy sector, threatening power supply to homes and businesses as well as to
medical facilities.
Fuel and energy prices are foreseen to continue to increase, making investment in energy efficient building
design and retrofits and transition to more fuel-efficient vehicles particularly advisable. Investments such as
these are often considered “no regrets” decisions, because reduced fuel use and reduced costs for gasoline
and utilities are a benefit no matter what fluctuations occur in the price of oil or natural gas.
The unknown outcomes of changes in weather as well as fluctuations in fuel costs and availability make
planning and preparation especially important. Whether related to emergency preparedness or to less acute
but widespread public health matters, such as responding to the needs of the young, ill or elderly in times of
heat waves or during severe winter weather, communities around the country are spending greater effort on
reviewing current plans and procedures to ensure they can be prepared.
8 LCAPP Report
Community Co-Benefits
Communities that address challenges related to reducing energy use place themselves at the cutting edge of
innovation and preparedness to adapt to fluctuating costs and availability of fossil fuels. While the U.S. is endowed
with an abundance of natural resources, including coal, natural gas and oil, it is the use of these as fuels to drive
our economy that creates numerous environmental impacts: acid rain that threatens national parks around the
country, including the Shenandoah National Park; ozone alerts in Virginia cities such as Richmond and Hampton
Roads on days when extremely hot weather intensifies chemical reactions from auto exhaust to create noxious
urban smog; asthma from particulates and chemicals in the air from tailpipes, furnaces and boilers fueled by oil,
coal and gasoline; mercury and other pollutants that enter our soils and waterways, ending up in the foods we
eat. These costs to human and environmental health are often not included in the ledger of economic impacts
from continuing to utilize oil, natural gas and coal as energy sources for electrical generation and for fueling
our transportation systems. The unknown costs of fluctuating fuel prices and future regulations designed to
reduce polluting emissions only add to the uncertainties regarding the long term costs—both environmental and
economic—of continued reliance on fossil fuels.
How will addressing energy use affect our daily lives?
Many changes in our daily behavior can contribute to reducing our community’s overall carbon footprint while
providing added benefits for our health and well-being. In the process we not only help the environment, we can
help lower fuel costs, reduce time spent in traffic congestion, get our kids walking to schools and families out
enjoying quiet walks and bike rides on safe bikeways and trails. All of these are amenities our community can
pride itself on, and we can enjoy these benefits every day.
Integrating energy efficiency into our methods of constructing and retrofitting new and existing buildings will
provide economic benefits to occupants well into the future. Efficient buildings harbor less moisture and leaky air
passages that allow mold and allergens to infiltrate our living and working spaces. Building a workforce prepared
to help us renovate and renew our communities can be a source of business and job creation for localities that
take the long view and invest in training and business incentive programs to support green enterprises. Taking
small steps in our everyday lives and large steps in how we design our communities can provide healthy and cost-
effective solutions to many of our energy needs.
Business Benefits
Business owners can reap savings by taking basic energy efficiency steps, such as making sure all lights, computers
and other office equipment are turned off at the end of the day and especially on weekends and longer holiday
breaks. Restaurants, health clubs and beauty shops can benefit, for example, from better water management, as
the cost to heat water is a significant percentage of the overall utility use of these establishments. Coffee shops
and retail outlets can utilize day-lighting to create a more pleasant ambience. Pleasant, green working conditions
are also known to attract and help in retaining a committed workforce. Most people spend nearly 90% of their
time indoors, making air quality both a comfort and a health issue. For businesses, poor air quality or thermal
comfort issues can increase employee absenteeism and reduce employee productivity. Ensuring that the building
is energy efficient provides cost savings on utilities but also reduces related productivity losses.
LCAPP Report 9
Health Benefits
According to the Centers for Disease Control only 13% of children walk to school today compared with
66% in 1970. Some studies estimate that nearly 25% of morning traffic can be attributed to parents driving
their children to school. With childhood respiratory and obesity problems on the rise, more kids walking to
schools would help clear the air by reducing morning traffic congestion, would provide more exercise
for youngsters (and their parents who walk with them to and from school) and would reduce our fuel costs.
Similarly, carpooling to work or school reduces the costs of maintaining the family car, not to mention saving
on gasoline. Transportation costs can amount to 20% of a family’s monthly expenses; savings from reduced
vehicle use become, in effect, additional income for local residents. This added expendable income will most
likely be spent at local businesses, creating a virtuous circle of economic benefit for the whole community.
www.saferoutestoschools.org/about.html; www.completestreets.org/webdocs/factsheets/cs-individuals.pdf; www.
americawalks.org/resources/walking-facts/; www.ceosforcities.org/work/chicagos_green_dividend
School and University Benefits
Schools and universities can take advantage of longer breaks, for example, to reduce their annual utility bill.
One university (in Kentucky) saved over $100,000 over winter break by having the Facilities Management
Energy Management Team set back thermostats in buildings, turn off all lighting except for safety lights,
unplug vending machines and water fountains, and turn off water heaters and all other unnecessary energy
draws. Faculty and staff were asked to turn off computers, unplug electronics and appliances, and turn off
office lights before leaving for the break, a protocol students in university housing have been following for years.
www.wku.edu/news/releases09/january/shutdown.html
Fuel Savings Benefits
Businesses that regularly use vehicle fleets for their operations can realize significant savings by instituting
no-idling policies, and managing delivery routes to minimize distance travelled, and especially to minimize
time spent in rush hour traffic. An idling vehicle gets zero miles per gallon! The California Energy
Commission Consumer Energy Center recommends turning off the engine if a vehicle will be parked for
more than 30 seconds. Ten seconds of idling can use more fuel than turning off the engine and restarting it.
www.consumerenergycenter.org/myths/idling.html
Creating Viable Futures: A Case Example from the Jefferson Area Board for Aging (JABA)
Charlottesville, Virginia
Urban agriculture projects and related local food initiatives can promote the development of community food
centers, offer healthy, fresh produce options for low-income families, and support the Buy Fresh, Buy Local
initiative by providing market opportunities for local farmers.
LCAPP Report 11
3.0 LcaPP o utcomES
The LCAPP provided an important reminder and recognition of the many initiatives currently underway such as those
related to land use and transportation, those related to implementing comprehensive energy efficiency throughout
the community [e.g., the Local Energy Alliance Program (LEAP)], those related to the integration of cleaner energy
sourcing, and those related to proactive management of trees and forests. City, County and UVa energy management
efforts addressing building performance, fleet efficiency, recycling and related programs demonstrate the benefits of
integrating the role of energy into short-term and long-term planning processes. These existing policies, practices
and projects can serve as leadership examples of choices that individuals and businesses in the community can also
consider adopting.
• Energy efficiency in new construction as well as in retrofits of existing buildings owned and managed by each
of the three institutions can serve as models for adoption in the private sector. This can include selection
of energy efficient lighting and water fixtures, motion and daylight sensors for interior/exterior lighting
requirements and adoption of renewable energy technology as feasible. These measures can demonstrate
energy efficiency options and cost savings.
• Fleet procurement policies for City, County and UVa take into consideration selection of fuel efficient, hybrid
and alternative fuel vehicles. Each entity can support educational efforts for staff to promote fuel efficient
driving practices such as: anti-idling policies, routing deliveries by shortest distance, bundling of delivery and
service trips and limiting, to the extent feasible, travel during peak traffic hours. These measures can serve
to model behavior and demonstrate cost savings.
Alongside the planning process that is the primary focus of this report, several exciting initiatives were launched that
are not only consistent with the intent of local climate action planning, but illustrate implementation strategies for
some of the opportunities that were discussed and presented through the process. These initiatives are specifically
focused on engaging and assisting the community’s residential and commercial sectors in efforts related to energy
management, which can provide cost savings as well as other quality of life benefits. Both LEAP and the Better
Business Challenge involve many local partners and have benefited from the commitment and enthusiasm of many of
LCAPP’s Steering Committee and Working Group members.
12 LCAPP Report
The Local Energy Alliance Program (LEAP) is a community-based nonprofit serving Albemarle, Fluvanna,
Greene, Louisa and Nelson Counties and the City of Charlottesville. Leveraging and bundling existing
incentives from all levels of government and local utilities, LEAP provides local residents and property owners
with a one-stop shop for information on options, energy service providers, financing and financial assistance
for residential and commercial energy efficiency retrofits that create more comfortable, healthy and affordable
homes and buildings.
Established in the fall of 2009, LEAP’s mission is to lead the effort in our local community to conserve water
and energy in buildings to promote cost savings, job creation, local economic development and environmental
stewardship. The initial funding for the organization came from a $500,000 competitive grant awarded to the
City of Charlottesville and the County of Albemarle from the Southeast Energy Efficiency Alliance (SEEA).
LEAP has since been awarded a number of additional grants from the Department of Energy. These grants
have allowed it to expand its program services to include commercial and low income multifamily residents
by providing cash rebates to building owners to help lower the cost of the energy improvements. LEAP also
works with the City of Charlottesville and County of Albemarle to implement their energy assessment rebate
programs for residents.
LEAP’s alliance model is central to its community service ethic.
Partnerships with local government, utilities, financing institutions,
other nonprofits and contractors inform its campaigns and outreach.
One good example of how this team approach manifests is
ecoREMOD, the location of LEAP’s offices. A historic home that
had fallen into serious disrepair, ecoREMOD was purchased by the
City and restored in 2010 though a partnership effort of the City, the
University of Virginia, LEAP and numerous private sponsors. At
ecoREMOD, LEAP hosts school field trips, contractor trainings and
residential seminars and workshops that bring to life in a relevant and
interactive manner the smart, healthy and cost-saving investments
of a home—no matter what the age or condition of the property.
The design of ecoREMOD and the pursuit of EarthCraft and LEED
certification involved a team of architecture and architectural history
students from the UVa. A team of UVa engineering students designed
and installed a monitoring system at ecoREMOD to track energy
use, temperature, humidity and other environmental conditions.
As the area’s Home Performance with ENERGY STAR sponsor, LEAP is especially pleased to offer residents the
pre-qualified contractors, work guidelines and third party quality assurance that make this Certificate meaningful.
More information can be obtained
at www.leap-va.org
LCAPP Report 13
The Charlottesville Area Better Business Challenge, launched in
2011, is a collaborative effort of City, County, UVa, local nonprofits
LEAP and Better World Betty, along with other community partners.
The project—a friendly competition—has the support of the
Charlottesville Regional Chamber of Commerce as well as funding
from a local community foundation.
Partnerships such as this harness multiple streams of public and
private funding to create outreach programs and trainings to engage
the local business community in adopting processes and practices
that can enhance their bottom line. This initiative is intended to serve as the entry point for the community’s
commercial sector to learn innovative ways to incorporate more efficient and sustainable practices, to set and
achieve goals tailored to business needs and to gain recognition for these efforts.
An informational website provides numerous resources to help local businesses learn how other firms have
made environmentally conscious business decisions. Challenge scoring categories include: energy use,
water use, waste reduction, transportation options for both business and employee travel and procurement
policies that give preference to local products and services. As currently designed, the Charlottesville Area
Better Business Challenge provides opportunities for business owners to take a leadership role in helping
fellow businesses through needs assessment and review of applicable options to reduce their environmental
footprint while practicing corporate environmental stewardship.
More information can be obtained at www.cvillebetterbiz.org
Shown to the left is a “sample scorecard” from
the Better Business Challenge. A sampling of
items taken from the six scorecards (Energy,
Transportation, Waste Reduction, Water,
Purchasing, and Leadership), it pulls some
of the easier action items from each category
to provide an idea of what it might take for a
business to achieve Certification. Actions were
selected because businesses could begin taking
action on them today.
All participating businesses could receive the
Certified, Certified Plus, or Winner’s Circle
achievement award by earning points on the
scorecard. Some businesses would receive
additional honors with the Better Business
Champion, KiloWatt Crackdown, Biggest Loser,
Green Leader, and Top Innovator awards.
14 LCAPP Report
3.1 FivE-Part FramEwork For our community EnErgy ProFiLE
The Local Climate Action Planning Process has been an important step in an ongoing process. This report is not the
end product; its primary value is in the numerous recommendations that can give direction toward further action. It is
intended to inform and to set the foundational context for planning, decision-making and implementation. Community
representatives and subject matter experts spent valuable time and effort reviewing practices from around the country
and considering their appropriateness for the Charlottesville-Albemarle community.
Through a process of presentation, debate and discussion within the LCAPP Steering Committee, the range of actions
and policies recommended by the Working Groups were aggregated into two formats:
• High-level organization of themes considered in the process. The Five-Part Framework for Our Community
Energy Profile can inform each entity’s development of its own Action Plan after consideration of community input.
• Recommended implementation strategies. The Framework Action Strategies compiled from the numerous
recommendations brought forward by the Working Groups can serve to inform the next phase of implementation.
3.2 F ramE work a ction StratE giES
Communities and businesses being pro-active in reducing their energy use are poised to capture the competitive
advantage of being on the innovative edge. The Charlottesville-Albemarle area is well established as a competitive
region; to remain so will require commitment and support for businesses, individuals and government institutions to
seize opportunities to reap benefits of taking the long view. Stable, sustained economic development and resiliency
for all members of the community will be well-served by investments and actions that contribute to reducing reliance
on fossil fuels and improving operational efficiencies.
The Framework Action Strategies set the stage for discussion within each of the three entities to decide upon the
discrete actions each wishes to adopt. The Action Strategies should not be seen as limiting or all-inclusive. The
Steering Committee and Working Groups set out to provide the wider community with a range of potential concrete
steps toward reducing our carbon footprint. Many of the concepts and ideas listed in the Action Strategies are already
being widely implemented in our community. The hope is that this menu of choices will inspire our community to
engage in careful examination of the feasibility and benefits of each option, or others that may be brought forward in
the course of these discussions.
LCAPP Report 15
Five-Part Framework for Our Community Energy Profile
Energy & the Built Environment
• Reduce Energy Demand in Existing Buildings
• Increase Energy Efficiency Performance of New Buildings
• Enable Building to Green Building Standards and Practices
Energy & Mobility
• Focus Land Use and Transportation Planning on Density and Infill
• Improve Travel Efficiency
• Encourage Alternatives to Single Occupancy Vehicle Use
Energy Sourcing
• Promote Adoption of Cleaner Sources of Electrical Energy
• Promote Adoption of Cleaner Sources of Energy for Heating and Cooling
• Promote Adoption of Hybrid Electric and Biodiesel Vehicles and Fuels
Energy & Materials
• Promote Zero Waste Principles of Waste Reduction and Minimization
• Consider Impacts of Purchasing Decisions; Prioritize Local Procurement
• Reuse and/or Repurpose Existing Buildings
Energy & the Landscape
• Maintain Existing Tree Canopy and Forestland Base
• Expand Forest Cover
• Manage Existing Tree Canopy and Forests to Promote Health and Diversity
16 LCAPP Report | Framework Action Strategies
Greening our Buildings
2008: LEED-GOLD certification for Downtown Transit Station
PLUS…
CAT BaseSmith Aquatic Center
Fontaine Fire Station (in design)
Greening our Buildings
It goes beyond new construction…
Police Dept locker room
renovation – using recycled
content steel and a combo
cork/rubber flooring with
high recycled content
Use of low toxicity interior paints
and cleaners
Interior Bamboo strategy for
screening needs at the DTSEnergy & the Built EnvironmentReduce Energy Use and Demand in Existing Buildings
• Increase awareness and adoption of low and no cost measures to reduce energy use in buildings
(target both property owners and tenants)
• Encourage and assist property owners to benchmark their buildings’ energy use and/or to get a
building energy label/score
• Implement a City- and/or County-owned water and gas utility on-bill repayment option for financing
energy efficiency improvements in buildings
Increase Energy Efficiency Performance of New Buildings
• Review existing green building policies for commitment to LEED certification for new municipal/
academic construction
• Incorporate ‘green roofs’ and ‘cool roofs’ into existing and new municipal/academic construction
and promote their use in private projects
• Continually examine and adjust barriers to green building practices (e.g., zoning and other codes
and ordinances)
Incentivize and Enable Building to Green Standards and Practices
for New Construction, Remodeling and Retrofits
• Develop and implement incentives for builders and developers to pursue ENERGY STAR/LEED/
EarthCraft certifications and for existing property owners to pursue similar certifications related to
improved energy efficiency
• Support green building training and education for developers, builders, code officials and property owners
• Create a community goal for a voluntary energy efficiency standard; incentivize higher local
standards for energy code
LCAPP Report 17
Charlottesville Area Transit Base
The City is increasingly incorporating energy efficiency into its new
building projects such as the Charlottesville Area Transit Base, which
opened in June 2010. Enhanced energy performance is achieved
through the use of major systems such as ground source heat pumps as
well as lighting levels that are controlled by occupancy and ambient light
sensors, window glazing and fixed sun screens to reduce heat gain. The
large windows in the building allow occupants to utilize natural daylight
thereby limiting the amount of electrical energy needed for overhead
lighting. In addition, the windows can be opened and closed to enable
a cool breeze to pass through the workspace, thus eliminating the need
for an air conditioning system.
The Delta Force Team at the University of Virginia
In 2008, the University of Virginia launched the Delta Force, a cross-functional team-based approach to
retrocommissioning existing buildings with a focus on energy and water conservation. Each building’s Delta Force
Team includes UVa staff members and external support professionals with expertise in commissioning and HVAC
system testing and balancing. The Delta Force Team has prioritized energy-intensive facilities, starting with older
research labs and dining halls. Retrocommissioning each building takes approximately 12-15 months. Through
May 2011, the Delta Force Team has realized cumulative energy cost savings of over $2.3 million.
Green Building and Sustainability in the Comprehensive Plan
In July 2007, the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors unanimously approved the Green Building and
Sustainability amendment to the Natural Resources and Cultural Assets chapter of the Comprehensive Plan.
The amendment includes strategies that target green building and energy efficiencies for the County’s internal
operations and management as well as advancing green building in the development community. At that time,
the development community was already engaged in the green building industry through LEED, EarthCraft, and
ENERGY STAR certification programs. The County’s goal with this amendment was to support and encourage
the efforts of its partners in the development community as well as to remove obstacles within the County’s
planning and zoning operations that would prohibit or minimize green building. Many major residential and
commercial development projects have pursued, proffered and marketed components of green building designs,
LEED certifications and EarthCraft homes in Albemarle County.
For internal operations, the County adopted an Energy Management and Conservation policy in February 2008
and set a reduction target of 30% from 2007 energy use levels by the end of 2012 for its two county office buildings
(McIntire and 5th St.) and the Court Square building. The County also joined the ENERGY STAR program. Both
office buildings have achieved ENERGY STAR program certification, which means the buildings perform better
than at least 75% of similar buildings nationwide. As of June 2011, the County has reduced energy consumption
in those three buildings by 23%.
18 LCAPP Report | Framework Action Strategies
Focus Land Use and Transportation Planning on Density and Infill
• Utilize infill and redevelopment to focus new growth within existing growth area boundaries
• Develop and apply mechanisms to regularly quantify emissions implications of planning decisions
• Promote mixed-use development to reduce travel distance/time to work, school, shopping and recreation
Improve Travel Efficiency by Combining Trips, Preferred Parking
for Carpool Vehicles, Tele-Commuting Options
• Encourage employers to adopt and promote transportation demand management
principles (e.g., high-visibility parking incentives for carpool and/or high-efficiency vehicles;
tele-commuting options)
• Significantly increase carpooling and vanpooling, especially in areas of Albemarle County not served
by other transportation alternatives
• Establish minimum fuel economy standards for fleet vehicles; expand use of car sharing for fleet vehicles
Encourage Alternatives to Single Occupancy Vehicle Use
Including Public Transit, Biking, Walking
• Explore creation of long-distance transit service for remote population center commuters; establish
transit priority routes
• Promote availability of employer-offered transit benefits; continue CAT/UTS fare reciprocity program
• Implement long-distance paved commuter multi-use trails; prioritize connected bicycle lanes above
on-street parkingEnergy & Mobility
LCAPP Report 19
Incentives to Increase Travel Efficiency
Launched in August of 2008, the University of Virginia Cavpool
program created an incentives package for UVa employees
carpooling or vanpooling with other UVa employees that included a
discount on the price of their parking permit based on the number
of riders in the carpool, free Occasional Parking Permits, and
enrollment in the region’s Guaranteed Ride Home Program. Permit
price discounts are 25% with two riders, 40% with three riders, and
100% for four or more riders. With the launch of the Zipcar program
in late 2009, Cavpool members received an additional incentive in
the form of a driving credit bonus for the Zipcar program.
To further encourage use of transportation alternatives, UVa launched the NuRide online ride matching and
commuter reward program in September 2010 to the entire Charlottesville Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA)
and made available at no cost to virtually all commuters in the MSA, not just UVa students and staff. NuRide
allows users to sign up for free, create an online profile, set their commuting origin, destination and preferences,
and post their desired commute trips to the NuRide database.
Neighborhood Model for Land Use
The Land Use Plan provides direction for physical development in Albemarle County and relies heavily on the
Neighborhood Model that was appended to the Comprehensive Plan in 2001. The Land Use Plan provides
guidance for development that will be harmonious with the natural and man-made environments and consistent
with the County’s Growth management goals, which are to channel development into designated Development
Areas while conserving the balance of the County as rural areas. Some principles outlined in the Neighborhood
Model include: pedestrian orientation, preserving open space, adapting to natural topography, emphasizing re-
use of sites, varying density and mixtures of residential/non-residential uses. Since the 2001 approval, the County
has now seen many successful projects designed and implemented using the Neighborhood Model.
Encouraging Safety and Bicycle Ridership
Bicycle infrastructure improvements along the East/West Corridor have been
strengthened and slated for further improvements to increase safety and
bicycle ridership. The Corridor stretches through the City of Charlottesville,
several commercial centers, and connects to the County of Albemarle and
University of Virginia. A variety of tools are being utilized: bicycle lanes,
detection cameras at traffic signals, and sharrows. Sharrows (image to the right)
mark the pavement to help drivers and cyclists understand how to share the road.
20 LCAPP Report | Framework Action Strategies
Promote Wider Awareness and Adoption of Cleaner Sources
of Electrical Energy (e.g., solar photovoltaic, co-generation,
biomass, wind)
• Compile a best-practices guide and cost estimation tool for renewable distributed electricity
generation users
• Promote creation of combined heat and power facilities
• Design marketing and recognition programs for businesses, institutions and residents using solar PV
Promote Wider Awareness and Adoption of Cleaner Sources of
Energy for Heating/Cooling Systems (e.g., solar thermal, geothermal)
• Expand natural gas distribution to population centers not currently served
• Compile a best-practices guide and cost estimation tool for geothermal and/or solar thermal energy users
• Explore creation of district geothermal systems in areas of dense demand
Promote Wider Awareness and Adoption of Hybrid, Electric and
Biodiesel Vehicles and Fuels
• Increase availability and use of renewable fuels in vehicles
• Expand use of biodiesel and other alternative fuels in municipal vehicles and other fleets
• Develop municipal and private sector guidelines for electric vehicle charging, parking and incentivesEnergy Sourcing
LCAPP Report 21
Converting Conventional to Electric
RideForward is an interdisciplinary research project at UVa focusing on sustainable transportation. The project
focuses on the conversion of conventional vehicles to electric drive, the installation of solar panel systems to
offset the electricity usage of the vehicles, the construction of charging stations, and educational awareness
initiatives in the community. Converted vehicles are used by the University and local government in place of
standard internal combustion vehicles. In February 2010, RideForward installed a 1.2 kW solar panel charging
system on the bus shelter at the Emmet/Ivy Garage.
Geothermal Technology for Heating and Cooling
Three recently constructed facilities in Charlottesville
incorporate the use of ground source (geothermal)
technology. This type of heating and cooling system takes
advantage of the relatively constant temperature of the
Earth’s surface and reduces the energy needed to heat or
cool a building. The Downtown Transit Station has 18 closed-
loop ground source geothermal wells (12 wells are 300 feet
deep; 6 wells are 600 feet deep) that contribute to the
energy efficiency of the building as well as eliminate the noise
and visual impacts of a traditional roof-mounted cooling tower.
The payback period for this system is estimated to be about
9.4 years and, along with other energy efficiency measures that were incorporated in this project, the building was
designed to achieve a 33% energy cost reduction compared to a standard building. Both Smith Aquatic Center
and the Charlottesville Area Transit Base also incorporate geothermal systems, using alternative approaches that
offered further cost savings due to the increased effectiveness and reduced numbers of wells required.
Hybrid and Biodiesel Vehicles and Fuels
The purchase and use of hybrid gas-electric vehicles in both
the City of Charlottesville and the Albemarle County fleets have
increased over the last several years. Currently the County has
10 gas-electric hybrid vehicles in its fleet. The County has also
experimented with the use of biodiesel fuel in school buses and
Fire and Rescue vehicles. Charlottesville has been incorporating
hybrid vehicles into its fleet since 2002 and they now comprise
nearly 18% of the City’s passenger fleet. The University of Virginia
has created Zipcar memberships for departments, allowing
employees to use Zipcars for University-related travel. All UVa
Zipcars are EPA SmartWay or SmartWay Elite Certified and half
are hybrids.
Greening our Fleet
Anti-Idling Policy in place
Alternatively fueled and efficient vehicles (~42
hybrids, 2 compressed natural gas buses, 4 all-
electric low-speed truck)
Hybrid-electric buses – first 2 are now in
service; with plans to convert the whole fleet
over the next 10 years.
Seasonal biodiesel used
(transit buses, school buses and others)
Participating in a R&D project related to
electric vehicles and fast-charge technology
22 LCAPP Report | Framework Action Strategies
Promote and Pursue Zero Waste Principles of Waste Reduction
and Minimization
• Establish additional drop-off recycling centers where curbside pickup is unavailable or limited
• Develop, implement and promote organics composting and vegetative waste management
programs (target schools, residential, institutional and commercial sectors)
• Increase e-waste recycling capabilities
Consider Environmental Impacts of Purchasing Decisions;
Preference Local Procurement
• Integrate source reduction strategies in home, school and business to eliminate waste
(minimize packaging; reduce use of disposable products; reuse materials; support reuse
programs and services)
• Adopt environmentally preferable purchasing policies (e.g., recycled content; ENERGY STAR
appliances/electronics; safer cleaning products; water efficient fixtures, low/no VOC materials)
• Select local goods and services to reduce transport-related emissions and enhance the local
economy (e.g., Buy Fresh, Buy Local; Shop Charlottesville)
Reuse and/or Repurpose Existing Buildings
• Assess current space usage of municipal/academic buildings; identify underutilized space that can
be shared across departments
• Increase awareness of cost savings opportunities associated with renovation and rehabilitation of
existing buildings versus new construction
• Promote incentives for building owners to invest in existing building improvements (e.g., City’s tax
abatement program for housing improvements)
Greening our Buildings
2008: LEED-GOLD certification for Downtown Transit Station
PLUS…
CAT BaseSmith Aquatic Center
Fontaine Fire Station (in design)Energy & Materials
LCAPP Report 23
Environmentally Preferable Purchasing Practices
The City of Charlottesville has implemented several Environmentally Preferable Purchasing practices. These
practices include specifying products that have high-recycled content (e.g, 35% recycled content paper) or are
made of materials that can be recycled, are durable and long-lasting, conserve energy and resources during
their manufacture and operation and have the fewest toxic compounds used in their production. For those major
building projects pursing LEED certification, specifying regional sources for materials has been a consistently
manageable element to incorporate and demonstrate.
Repurpose Existing Buildings and Invest in Building Improvements
Albemarle County has utilized existing buildings to meet the needs of County operations. Two examples of this
strategy can be seen in the County Office Buildings (McInitre and 5th Street). The “original” Lane High School
built in 1939 has been the main County Office Building since 1981. Albemarle purchased the building and property
from Charlottesville and renovated it to house County operations that were spread across different locations.
Albemarle County also purchased the Wachovia Operation Facility on 5th Street Extended in 2002 to address
space needed for current and long term operations. The $7 million purchase provided 100,000 square feet of
space that had been identified in the ongoing 3-year space needs analysis. The purchase and renovation costs
were estimated to be at least $10 million less than new construction alternatives to address the needs over the
next 25 years.
The City and County have jointly pursued similiar building reuse projects such as the J&DR Courthouse, the
Jessup Building and the Levy Building.
“Green” Dining Materials
In an initial move to reduce the negative environmental effects of disposable
products, UVa replaced styrofoam and plastic materials with compostable cups and
other “green” materials. Given the lack of compost collection outside of dining halls,
this initiative provided only a partial solution. Compostable products end up either
in landfill trash or improperly in recycling bins, which threatens contamination of the
recycling stream. To address these issues, UVa Dining returned to using #1 plastics,
a high-value plastic that is recyclable in all UVa and City recycling streams, for
beverage and other appropriate containers. Compostable containers remain where a
recyclable alternative is not available. To further address disposable products, UVa
Dining introduced a reusable to-go container program in fall 2009, one of the first
large institutions to do so. After use, participants return their dirty containers to a
residential or participating retail location in exchange for a token.
24 LCAPP Report | Framework Action Strategies
Maintain Existing Forest Base and Urban Tree Canopy
• Establish permanent conservation easements on forested landscapes
• Protect large areas of forests to support their health and production
• Incentivize retention of existing forested lands (e.g., assess impacts of land use tax structure)
Expand Forest Cover to Increase Carbon Storage
• Promote and expand existing programs that link funding sources to landowners to enhance forest
protection, afforestation and reforestation opportunities
• Generate funding sources (including voluntary contributions) for forest protection and expansion
• Conduct stream restoration and water quality improvements with forest components
(e.g., vegetated buffers)
Manage Existing Tree Canopy and Forests in City, County and
University Grounds to Promote Health and Diversity
• Continue funding urban forest management programs to provide habitat, shade, urban heat island
reduction and urban forest resiliency
• Eliminate and manage invasive species and implement other strategies that promote forest health
and diversity
• Expand the use of sustainable forestry management and stewardship practices
Energy & the Landscape
LCAPP Report 25
Acquisition of Conservation Easements (ACE) Program
In 2000 Albemarle County initiated the Acquisition of Conservation
Easements (ACE) program to provide a financial incentive for
landowners in Albemarle County to protect valuable farms and
forests. The landowner is provided a fair market value determined
by the difference between highest yields of land development versus
no development due to the conservation easement. The County
recognizes the benefits to all citizens in protecting farms and forest
lands with co-benefits of cleaner air and water, more diverse wildlife
habitats, a stronger community and protection of rural character. As of
2009 the program acquired 37 conservation easements and protected
7,224 acres through approximately $10.5 million in appropriations.
Albemarle County also has a tax deferment program that allows land owners to take advantage of reduced
property taxes on agricultural, horticultural, forested and open space land uses. The Land Use Program currently
has 4919 parcels registered with 252,000 acres. The current enrollment represents $17 million in taxes deferred
and $2.3 billion in value deferred.
Urban Tree Canopy Management
In the last 3 years, over 500 trees have been planted in parks
and along roadways making travel more pleasant, adding shaded
places to areas where citizens and visitors walk and recreate and
replacing trees lost through storm damage. A strategic Urban Forest
Management Plan was adopted by Charlottesville in 2009 to provide
a framework for ensuring that the trees and forests of the City
are appropriately cared for according to community goals. The 2009
canopy coverage was calculated to be nearly 47% with the most
extensive forest areas being found in McIntire and Pen Parks. The
two top goals of the Plan are Preservation and Protection of existing
forested areas and trees and Enhancement and Restoration of
forest quality.
26 LCAPP Report
4.0 LcaPP r E commE ndationS
The wrap-up of the LCAPP in 2011 marks an important milestone in a process that will continue to evolve and will depend
on engaged participation of the community. The Steering Committee encourages the City, County and UVa to take
tangible and measureable action consistent with the following Recommended Principles and Recommended Next Steps:
Recommended Principles
• To continue to demonstrate leadership in energy and carbon reductions at the local level;
• To build on existing synergies by continued collaboration of City, County, University of Virginia and community partners;
• To integrate the role of energy and carbon emissions in projects and planning;
• To equip the community at all levels to make informed decisions about the impacts of carbon emissions and
energy; and
• To identify and promote actions that enable the community to reap the health, economic and environmental benefits
that accompany sound energy-based decisions.
Recommended Next Steps
1. Act on existing commitments to further address carbon and energy considerations in planning and operations of
the City, County and University of Virginia.
a. Use the Five-Part Framework for Our Community Energy Profile to inform Comprehensive and other planning efforts;
b. Utilize the Framework Action Strategies to develop an Action Plan for each entity to enhance planning for and
knowledge about emissions reduction opportunities and identify near-term reduction goals;
c. Provide regular public updates on progress toward reducing emissions and energy use in internal programs
and operations as well as on the results of periodic tracking of community baseline emissions.
2. Build on stakeholder involvement developed through the Local Climate Action Planning Process to expand information
exchange on carbon and energy-related issues.
a. Provide learning and engagement opportunities for the wider community including celebration of local successes
in the private sector;
b. Adapt the Framework Action Strategies into a Community Toolkit containing local guidance and case studies
aimed at community members wishing to save energy and reduce their individual emissions;
c. Facilitate continual improvement of all participants by bringing senior management and project leaders together
annually to share and learn from each other’s projects and experiences in reducing carbon emissions and
energy use in operations and facilities; increase related training and outreach targeting employees;
d. Invite community members to become actively engaged in efforts to develop tailored Action Plans for the City
and the County.
LCAPP Report 27
S t EEring c ommittEE F or LocaL c L imatE action PL anning ProcESS (LcaPP)
• Cynthia Adams, Local Energy Alliance Program (LEAP)
• David Brown, Charlottesville City Council
• John Cruickshank, Sierra Club, Piedmont Group
• Bill Edgerton, The Oak Hill Fund; formerly with the County of Albemarle Planning Commission
• Tom Frederick, Rivanna Water and Sewer and Solid Waste Authorities
• Bill Greenleaf, Richmond Regional Energy Alliance; formerly with William McDonough + Partners
• Tim Hulbert, Charlottesville Regional Chamber of Commerce
• Buck Kline, Virginia Department of Forestry
• Chris Lee, Piedmont Virginia Companies, Inc.
• Ann Mallek, County of Albemarle Board of Supervisors
• David Neuman, University of Virginia, Office of the Architect
• Mike Osteen, City of Charlottesville Planning Commission
• Hank Shugart, University of Virginia, Deptartment of Environmental Sciences
• Jay Willer, formerly with Blue Ridge Home Builders Association
Ex Officio Members
Susan Elliott (County of Albemarle)
Andrew Greene (University of Virginia)
Andy Lowe (County of Albemarle)
Nancy Quirk (City of Charlottesville)
Kristel Riddervold (City of Charlottesville)
Sarah Temple (formerly with County of Albemarle)
City of Charlottesville Emissions Baseline Report (2008)
http://www.agreencity.org
http://www.charlottesville.org/Index.aspx?page=2142
County of Albemarle Baseline Emissions Report (2009; 2011 revision)
http://www.albemarle.org/department.asp?department=envmgt&relpage=3018
Sustainability at the University of Virginia
http://www.virginia.edu/sustainability/
Albemarle County Environmental Stewardship Strategic Plan
Fiscal Years 2013 through 2020
Vision: To enable the Albemarle County community to reap the health, economic and environmental
benefits of sound energy-based decisions by recognizing the Local Climate Action Planning Process
Report of 2011 as a valid document to build upon a multi-year program.
Mission: To continue to demonstrate leadership in energy reductions at the local level; to build on
existing synergies by continued collaboration with all community partners; to integrate the role of
energy conservation and carbon emissions in projects and planning; to equip the community at all levels
to make informed decisions about impacts of energy efficiencies.
Goal 1: Reduce energy demand in all County owned buildings and promote energy conservation
throughout the County.
Objective 1.1: Build upon our current energy conservation program with additional
goals. Beginning in January, 2013 pursue an Energy Management and Conservation
Program for all County owned facilities that will reduce energy consumption by an
additional 10% by December 2017 for a total energy reduction of 40% since the baseline
year 2005.
Objective 1.2: Promote the dissemination of energy efficiency information for homes
and businesses within the County. Continue to utilize local organizations such as LEAP
to reach all aspects of the community. Support Governor McDonnell’s 2010 voluntary
Virginia Energy Plan to reduce Virginia’s electricity demand by 10% by 2022 through
conservation and efficiency.
Objective 1.3: Encourage the use of green building standards and practices for retro-
fitting existing buildings and new construction by working with the building and business
communities in offering choices of design for better efficiency.
Goal 2: Improve travel efficiencies to reduce energy consumption and emissions.
Objective 2.1: Reduce fuel consumption used in County owned vehicles by 20% by fiscal
year 2017; by fiscal year 2020 have a fleet of vehicles where 25% operate on alternative
fuel and the balance has an average fuel rating of 28 mpg.
Objective 2.2: Continually analyze and adjust the County’s fleet of vehicles to an
appropriate level necessary to conduct the business of the County. Purchase vehicles
that have multi-use ability. Reduce to the extent possible the use of private owned
vehicles in conducting County business. The goal is to reduce the County fleet 25% from
the 2010 baseline by fiscal year 2017.
Objective 2.3: Encourage all employers within the County to consider incentives for
their employees to reduce fuel consumption. The County will continue to research and
work with the City, UVA and local transportation services to identify and compile
options for the community; encourage HOV travel; select local goods and services
whenever economically feasible to reduce transport-related costs and enhance the local
economy; and the use of telecommunication technology to reduce travel.
Goal 3: Promote and pursue the reduction of waste that goes to landfill.
Objective 3.1: Decrease the volume of materials generated by the County and sent to
landfill by 2% each year for 10 years by adopting the “reduce, reuse and recycle”
practice; adopt environmentally preferable purchasing policies as allowed by the
Virginia Public Procurement Act.
Objective 3.2: Increase awareness of and opportunities for business and residents to
recycle their used goods.
Objective 3.3: Communicate awareness of cost savings opportunities associated with
renovation and rehabilitation of existing buildings versus new construction.
Return to exec summary
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
ZTA 2010-00005 Sign Ordinance Zoning Text
Amendments
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Public Hearing - Proposed Sign Ordinance Zoning Text
Amendments
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Messrs: Foley, Elliott, Davis, Kamptner, Graham, Higgins
and Wright; and Ms. McCulley and Ms. Maliszewski
LEGAL REVIEW: Yes
AGENDA DATE:
November 2, 2011
ACTION: X INFORMATION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS: Yes
REVIEWED BY:
BACKGROUND:
The Planning Commission held a public hearing on September 13, 2011 on the proposed Zoning Text Amendment
(ZTA) to amend the sign regulations (Attachment A) and voted to recommend adoption of the ZTA to the Board with
no changes.
DISCUSSION:
The September 13, 2011 Planning Commission staff report is attached (Attachment B). This staff report provides
more detailed information about the background and the specifics of the proposed changes before the Board, as well
as the sign ZTA process.
Since the Planning Commission public hearing, staff has made three minor non-substantive changes so that the
language in this ordinance is consistent with the language in other sections of the County Code. Two of the changes
on pages 3 and 5 of the ordinance changed “of the” to “after” so that they read “within X days after Y.” The other
change on page 5 inserts the word “temporary” before “sign permit” in the introduction to section 4.15.4(c). These
changes are highlighted in the proposed ZTA.
BUDGET IMPACT:
The proposed changes are expected to reduce the amount of review time currently required by staff, the Planning
Commission, the Architectural Review Board and the Board of Supervisors, thereby reducing the cost to the County
and the applicants.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
After the public hearing, staff and the Planning Commission recommend that the Board adopt the proposed ZTA as
presented in Attachment A.
ATTACHMENTS
A: Proposed Ordinance to amend the sign regulations, dated October 24, 2011
B. Staff Executive Summary for the September 13, 2011 Planning Commission Public Hearing
C. Board of Supervisors May 12, 2010 Resolution of Intent
Planning Commission minutes of September 13, 2011
Return to agenda
Draft: 10/24/11
1
ORDINANCE NO. 11-18( )
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND CHAPTER 18, ZONING, ARTICLE II, BASIC REGULATIONS, AND
ARTICLE III, DISTRICT REGULATIONS, OF THE CODE OF THE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE,
VIRGINIA
BE IT ORDAINED By the Board of Supervisors of the County of Albemarle, Virginia, that Chapter 18, Zoning,
Article II, Basic Regulations, and Article III, District Regulations, are hereby amended and reordained as
follows:
By Amending:
Sec. 4.15.1 Purpose and intent
Sec. 4.15.2 Definitions
Sec. 4.15.4 Signs authorized by sign permit
Sec. 4.15.6 Signs exempt from the sign permit requirement
Sec. 4.15.7 Prohibited signs and sign characteristics
Sec. 4.15.8 Regulations applicable in the MHD, RA, VR, R-1 and R-2 zoning districts
Sec. 4.15.9 Regulations applicable in the R-4 and R-6 zoning districts
Sec. 4.15.11 Regulations applicable in the PUD, DCD and NMD zoning districts
Sec. 4.15.12 Regulations applicable in the C-1 and CO zoning districts
Sec. 4.15.13 Regulations applicable in the HC, PD-SC and PD-MC zoning districts
Sec. 4.15.14 Regulations applicable in the HI, LI and PD-IP zoning districts
Sec. 4.15.15 Regulations applicable in the entrance corridor overlay district
Sec. 30.6.4 Certificates of appropriateness
Sec. 30.6.5 Development exempt from requirement to obtain certificate of appropriateness
By Adding:
Sec. 4.15.4A Signs authorized by temporary sign permit
Chapter 18. Zoning
Article II. Basic Regulations
Sec. 4.15.1 Purpose and intent
The purpose and intent of this section 4.15 include, but are not limited to, the following:
a. The board of supervisors finds that signs are a separate and distinct use of the property upon which they
are located and affect the uses and users of adjacent streets, sidewalks and other areas open to the
public; that signs are an important means of communication for businesses, organizations, individuals
and government; and that the unregulated erection and display of signs constitute a public nuisance
detrimental to the health, safety, convenience and general welfare of the public. Therefore, the purpose
of this section 4.15 is to establish reasonable regulations pertaining to the time, place and manner in
which outdoor signs and window signs may be erected and maintained in order to:
1. Promote the general health, safety and welfare, including the creation of an attractive and
harmonious environment;
2. Protect the public investment in the creation, maintenance, safety and appearance of its streets,
highways and other areas open to the public;
Draft: 10/24/11
2
3. Improve pedestrian and vehicular safety by avoiding saturation and confusion in the field of
vision that could otherwise result if such signs were not regulated as provided herein; and
4. Protect and enhance the county's attractiveness to tourists and other visitors as sources of
economic development.
b. The board of supervisors finds that the regulations in this section 4.15 advance the significant
governmental interests identified herein and are the minimum amount of regulation necessary to achieve
them.
c. Signs are classified and regulated in this section 4.15 by their purpose (e.g., bonus tenant panel),
physical type (e.g., freestanding sign), location (e.g., off-site sign) and characteristics (e.g., illuminated
sign). By classifying and regulating signs by their purpose, the board of supervisors does not intend to
regulate their content and, more specifically, any particular viewpoint, but rather intends to create a
reasonable classification by which to regulate the time, place and manner of signs.
cd. The regulations in this section 4.15 shall apply to all outdoor signs and window signs. Each sign subject
to this section 4.15 shall comply with all regulations applicable to that sign.
d. Signs are classified and regulated in this section 4.15 by their purpose (e.g., anchor sign), physical type
(e.g., freestanding sign), location (e.g., off-site sign) and characteristics (e.g., illuminated sign). Each
sign subject to this section 4.15 shall comply with all regulations applicable to that sign.
(12-10-80; 7-8-92, § 4.15.01; Ord. 01-18(3), 5-9-01)
State law reference – Va. Code § 15.2-2280.
Sec. 4.15.2 Definitions
The following definitions shall apply in the interpretation and implementation of this section 4.15:
. . .
(2) Anchor sign. The term “anchor sign” means a sign that identifies any specific business within a
shopping center.
(8.1) Bonus tenant panel: The term “bonus tenant panel” means an additional sign permitted for individual
tenants in shopping centers or planned developments when added to the freestanding sign for the
shopping center or planned development.
. . .
(14.1) Cornice line. The term “cornice line” means the location of a cornice along the top of a wall; or, for a
wall that has no cornice, the corresponding horizontal line along the top of a wall where a cornice would
traditionally be located. In all cases, the “cornice line” applies to the main walls of a building and does
not apply to features that extend above the top of the main walls of a building.
. . .
Draft: 10/24/11
3
(16) Electric message sign. The term “electric message sign” means a sign on which the copy can be
changed or altered by electric, electro-mechanical or electronic means.
. . .
(35) Off-site sign. The term “off-site sign” means: (i) within a zoning district other than a planned
development, a sign that is not located on the same lot with the use to which it pertains, but does not
include a sign located in a public right-of-way; or (ii) within a planned development zoning district, a
sign that is not located within the area depicted on the application plan approved for the planned
development, but does not include a sign located in a public right-of-way.
. . .
(12-10-80; 7-8-92, § 4.15.03; Ord. 01-18(3), 5-9-01; Ord. 05-18(4), 3-16-05; Ord. 10-18(1), 1-13-10; Ord. 10-
18(3), 5-5-10; Ord. 10-18(5), 5-12-10)
State law reference – Va. Code § 15.2-2280.
Sec. 4.15.4 Signs authorized by sign permit
Except as provided in sections 4.15.6 (exempt signs) and 4.15.24 (nonconforming signs) Except for temporary
signs subject to the permitting requirements of section 4.15.4A, signs exempt from this section under section
4.15.6 or nonconforming signs subject to section 4.15.24, a sign permit shall be required for each sign erected
on the same lot with the principal use to which it pertains, prior to its erection, alteration, replacement or
relocation, as provided herein:
a. Application. An application for a sign permit shall be submitted to the department of building code and
zoning services community development, together with payment of the fee required for the application
pursuant to section 35.0 35.1 of this chapter. A complete application shall consist of the following:
1. A fully completed application form, provided to the applicant by the zoning administrator;
2. A schematic legibly drawn to scale and sufficiently detailed showing the location and dimen-
sions of the sign; and
3. Any plans, specifications and details pertaining to, among other things, the sign materials, the
methods of illumination, methods of support, components, and the condition and age of the
sign, as determined by the zoning administrator to be necessary for the review of the
application.
b. Application review and permit issuance. A sign permit application shall be reviewed and acted upon by
the zoning administrator only as provided herein:
1. Timing of application. An application for a sign permit may be filed at any time, and if a
special use permit for the sign is required under section 4.15.5 or a certificate of appropriateness
for the sign is required under section 4.15.15 and section 30.6 of this chapter, the application
may be filed with or any time after the application for the special use permit or certificate of
appropriateness is filed.
12. Action on application. Within thirty (30) days of the after receipt of a complete sign permit
application, or within seven (7) days of the receipt of a complete sign application for a
temporary sign, the zoning administrator shall review the application and either: (i) approve the
Draft: 10/24/11
4
application; (ii) deny the application; or (iii) refer the application to the applicant for more
information as may be required by subsection 4.15.4(Aa)(3); (iv) refer the application to the
board of zoning appeals because the applicant must obtain a special use permit pursuant to
section 4.15.5; and/or (v) refer the application to the architectural review board because the
proposed sign will be located within the entrance corridor overlay district and a certificate of
appropriateness is required. An application shall be denied only if the proposed sign is a
prohibited sign, or does not comply with the regulations set forth in this section 4.15 or, a
required special use permit or certificate of appropriateness for the sign was not granted. If the
application is denied, the reasons shall be specified in writing.
23. Failure to timely act. If the zoning administrator fails to take one of the actions described herein
within thirty (30) days of receipt of a complete sign permit application, or within seven (7) days
of the receipt of a complete sign application for a temporary sign, the permit shall be deemed
approved as received.
c. Administration, generally. Except for permits issued for temporary signs, which are subject to the
regulations in subsection (D), the following regulations shall apply to the administration of sign permits:
1. A sign permit shall become null and void if the use to which the sign permit pertains is not
commenced within six (6) months after the date the sign permit, special use permit or certificate
of appropriateness is issued, whichever is later or, if the sign contains exclusively
noncommercial copy, the sign is not erected within six (6) months after the date the sign permit
is issued. Upon written request by the permittee and upon good cause shown, the zoning
administrator may grant an extension of the six (6)-month period.
2. The zoning administrator shall revoke a sign permit if the sign does not comply with any
applicable regulation of this section 4.15.
d. Administration, permits for temporary signs. The following regulations shall apply to the
administration of sign permits issued for temporary signs:
1. A temporary sign that is a portable sign shall be stabilized so as not to pose a danger to public
safety. Prior to the sign being erected, the zoning administrator shall approve the method of
stabilization.
2. No more than four (4) permits for temporary signs shall be issued by the zoning administrator to
the same establishment in any calendar year.
3. Each permit for a temporary sign shall be valid for a period not to exceed fifteen (15)
consecutive days after the erection of the sign.
(12-10-80; 7-8-92, §§ 4.15.09, 4.15.09.1, 4.15.09.2, 4.15.09.3; Ord. 01-18(3), 5-9-01)
State law reference – Va. Code §§ 15.2-2280, 15.2-2286.
Sec. 4.15.4A Signs authorized by temporary sign permit
A permit shall be required for each temporary sign (hereinafter, a “temporary sign permit”), prior to its erection,
alteration, replacement or relocation, as provided herein:
Draft: 10/24/11
5
a. Application. An application for a temporary sign permit shall be submitted to the department of
community development, together with payment of the fee required for the application pursuant to
section 35.1 of this chapter, and comply with the application requirements of subsection 4.15.4(a).
b. Application review and permit issuance. A temporary sign permit application shall be reviewed and
acted upon by the zoning administrator only as provided herein:
1. Action on application. Within seven (7) days after receipt of a complete application, the zoning
administrator shall either: (i) approve the application; (ii) deny the application; or (iii) refer the
application to the applicant for more information as may be required by section 4.15.4(a)(3).
An application shall be denied only if the proposed temporary sign is a prohibited sign or does
not comply with the regulations set forth in this section 4.15. If the application is denied, the
reasons shall be specified in writing.
2. Failure to timely act. If the zoning administrator fails to take one of the actions described
herein within seven (7) days after receipt of a complete sign application for a temporary sign,
the permit shall be deemed approved as received.
c. Administration. The following regulations shall apply to the administration of temporary sign permits:
1. Number of permits. No more than six (6) temporary sign permits shall be issued by the zoning
administrator to the same establishment in any calendar year.
2. Period of validity. Each temporary sign permit shall be valid for a period not to exceed fifteen
(15) consecutive days after the erection of the sign, provided that a temporary sign permit issued
while a permanent sign is being made may be valid for longer than fifteen (15) days until the
permanent sign is erected.
3. Aggregate duration for temporary signs in calendar year. Temporary signs shall not be erected
at an establishment for more than sixty (60) days, in the aggregate, in a calendar year.
4. Portable signs; stabilization. A temporary sign that is a portable sign shall be stabilized so as
not to pose a danger to public safety. Prior to the sign being erected, the zoning administrator
shall approve the method of stabilization.
d. Exemptions. A temporary sign permit is not required for a sign exempt from the sign permit requirement
under section 4.15.6 or nonconforming signs subject to section 4.15.24.
Sec. 4.15.6 Signs exempt from the sign permit requirement
The following signs are exempt from the sign permit requirement set forth in to obtain a sign permit under
section 4.15.4 and a temporary sign permit under section 4.15.4A, provided that they comply with the
regulations set forth below and all other applicable regulations of this section 4.15:. A sign exempt from the
requirements to obtain permits under sections 4.15.4 and 4.15.4A is not exempt from the requirement to obtain a
special use permit under section 4.15.5 if required.
. . .
(7) Home occupation class B or major home occupation sign. A home occupation class B or major home
occupation sign that does not exceed four (4) square feet in sign area.
. . .
Draft: 10/24/11
6
(18) Window sign. A permanent window sign, provided that it does not exceed twenty-five percent (25%) of
the total area of the window or door on which it is located, and the aggregate area of all window signs
on each window or door does not exceed twenty-five percent (25%) fifty percent (50%) of the total area
of the window and or door; and further provided that if a permanent window sign will be on a structure
within the entrance corridor overlay district and the window sign is visible from an entrance corridor
overlay street, that the aggregate area of all window signs shall not exceed nine (9) square feet per
business and that a certificate of appropriateness for the window sign is obtained as provided in section
4.15.15. (Amended 3-16-05)
. . .
(12-10-80; 7-8-92, § 4.15.04; Ord. 01-18(3), 5-9-01; Ord. 05-18(4), 3-16-05; Ord. 10-18(4), 5-5-10)
State law reference – Va. Code § 15.2-2280.
Sec. 4.15.7 Prohibited signs and sign characteristics
Notwithstanding any other provision of this section 4.15, the following signs and sign characteristics are
prohibited in all zoning districts:
. . .
b. Signs with characteristics that create a safety hazard or are contrary to the general welfare. Signs
whose construction, design, location or other physical characteristic create a safety hazard or are
contrary to the general welfare, as follows:
. . .
7. Sign that obstructs vision. A sign that obstructs free or clear vision, or otherwise causes a safety
hazard for vehicular, bicycle, or pedestrian traffic due to its location, shape, illumination or
color; and window signs whose aggregate area on a window or door exceed twenty-five percent
(25%) fifty percent (50%) of the total area of the window or door. (Amended 3-16-05)
. . .
(12-10-80; 7-8-92, § 4.15.06; Ord. 01-18(3), 5-9-01; Ord. 05-18(4), 3-16-05)
State law reference – Va. Code § 15.2-2280.
Sec. 4.15.8 Regulations applicable in the MHD, RA, VR, R-1 and R-2 zoning districts
The following regulations pertaining to the number of signs permitted per lot or establishment, the sign area,
sign height, and setback requirements shall apply to each sign for which a sign permit is required within the
Monticello Historic District (MHD), Rural Areas (RA), Village Residential (VR) and Residential (R-1 and R-2)
zoning districts:
Sign Type Number of Signs Allowed Sign Area
(Maximum)
Sign Height
(Maximum)
Sign Setback
(Minimum)
Directory 1 or more per establishment,
as authorized by zoning administrator 24 square feet, aggregated 6 feet 10 5 feet
Freestanding
1 per street frontage, or 2 per entrance, per lot
with 100 or more feet of continuous street
frontage, plus 1 per lot if the lot is greater than
24 square feet, aggregated;
if more than 1 sign, no
single sign shall exceed 12
10 feet 10 5 feet
Draft: 10/24/11
7
4 acres and has more than 1 approved entrance
on its frontage
square feet
Subdivision 2 per entrance per subdivision 24 square feet, aggregated,
per entrance 6 feet 5 feet
Temporary 1 per street
frontage per establishment 24 square feet
10 feet, if freestanding
sign; 20 feet, if wall
sign, but not to exceed
the top of the fascia or
mansard
10 5 feet
Wall
As calculated pursuant to section 4.15.20
40 square feet, aggregated
in the RA zoning district;
20 square feet, aggregated,
in other zoning districts
20 feet
Same as that
applicable to
structure
(12-10-80; 7-8-92, § 4.15.12.1; Ord. 01-18(3), 5-9-01; Ord. 05-18(5), 6-8-05)
State law reference – Va. Code § 15.2-2280.
Sec. 4.15.9 Regulations applicable in the R-4 and R-6 zoning districts
The following regulations pertaining to the number of signs permitted per lot or establishment, the sign area,
sign height, and setback requirements shall apply to each sign for which a sign permit is required within the
Residential (R-4 and R-6) zoning districts:
Sign Type Number of Signs Allowed Sign Area
(Maximum)
Sign Height
(Maximum)
Sign Setback
(Minimum)
Directory 1 or more per establishment,
as authorized by zoning administrator 24 square feet, aggregated 6 feet 10 5 feet
Freestanding
1 per street frontage, or 2 per entrance, per lot
with 100 or more feet of continuous street
frontage plus 1 per lot if the lot is greater than
4 acres and has more than 1 approved entrance
on its frontage
24 square feet, aggregated;
if more than 1 sign, no
single sign shall exceed 12
square feet
10 feet 10 5 feet
Projecting 1 per street frontage 24 square feet
20 feet, but not to
exceed the top of the
fascia or mansard
Not applicable
Subdivision 2 per entrance per subdivision 24 square feet, aggregated,
per entrance 6 feet 5 feet
Temporary 1 per street
frontage per establishment 24 square feet
10 feet, if freestanding
sign; 20 feet, if wall
sign, but not to exceed
the top of the fascia or
mansard
10 5 feet
Wall As calculated pursuant to section 4.15.20 20 square feet, aggregated 20 feet
Same as that
applicable to
structure
(12-10-80; 7-8-92, § 4.15.12.2; Ord. 01-18(3), 5-9-01)
State law reference – Va. Code § 15.2-2280.
Sec. 4.15.11 Regulations applicable in the PUD, DCD and NMD zoning districts
The following regulations pertaining to the number of signs permitted per lot or establishment, the sign area,
sign height, and setback requirements shall apply to each sign for which a sign permit is required within the
Planned Unit Development (PUD), Downtown Crozet (DCD) and Neighborhood Model (NMD) zoning
districts:
Sign Type Number of Signs Allowed Sign Area
(Maximum)
Sign Height
(Maximum)
Sign Setback
(Minimum)
Directory 1 or more per establishment,
as authorized by zoning administrator 24 square feet, aggregated 6 feet 5 feet
1 per street frontage, or 2 per entrance, per lot 24 32 square feet, 12 feet 5 feet
Draft: 10/24/11
8
Freestanding
with 100 or more feet of continuous street
frontage plus 1 per lot if the lot is greater than
4 acres and has more than 1 approved entrance
on its frontage
aggregated, plus bonus
tenant panels as provided
in section 4.15.16(b); if
more than 1 sign, no single
sign shall exceed 12 square
feet
Projecting 1 per street frontage 24 square feet
30 feet, but not to
exceed the top of the
fascia or mansard
Not applicable
Subdivision 2 per entrance per subdivision 24 square feet, aggregated,
per entrance 6 feet 5 feet
Temporary 1 per street
frontage per establishment 24 square feet
12 feet, if freestanding
sign; 20 feet, if
residential wall sign;
or 30 feet if
nonresidential wall
sign, but not to exceed
the top of the fascia or
mansard cornice line
5 feet
Wall
As calculated pursuant to section 4.15.20
1 square foot 1.5 square
feet per 1 linear foot of
establishment structure
frontage, not to exceed 32
square feet if residential
wall sign, or 100 square
feet if nonresidential wall
sign
20 feet, if residential
wall sign; or 30 feet if
nonresidential wall
sign
Not to exceed the
cornice line
Same as that
applicable to
structure
Within the DCD, oOne (1) sandwich board sign is permitted for each establishment, subject to the following: (1)
the sign shall not exceed four (4) feet in height, two (2) feet in width or eight (8) square feet of area per sign
face; (2) if the sign is placed on a sidewalk or any other public pedestrian right-of-way, it shall be placed in a
location that provides a contiguous and unobstructed pedestrian passageway at least three (3) feet wide; (3) the
sign shall not be located in any required off-street parking space, driveway, access easement, alley or fire lane;
(4) the sign shall not be illuminated; (5) the sign shall be removed during non-business hours; and (6) if the sign
is located on county-owned right-of-way, prior to placement of the sign the owner shall agree to indemnify and
hold harmless the county against any claim or liability arising from the placement of the sign, and the agreement
shall be in a form and have a substance approved by the county attorney. Sandwich board signs shall be exempt
from review and approval under section 30.6 subject to the requirements of section 4.15.16(i).
(12-10-80; 7-8-92, § 4.15.12.4; Ord. 01-18(3), 5-9-01; Ord. 03-18(2), 3-19-03; Ord 10-18(1), 1-13-10)
State law reference – Va. Code § 15.2-2280.
Sec. 4.15.12 Regulations applicable in the C-1, and CO and HC zoning districts
The following regulations pertaining to the number of signs permitted per lot or establishment, the sign area,
sign height, and setback requirements shall apply to each sign for which a sign permit is required within the
Commercial (C-1), and Commercial Office (CO) and Highway Commercial (HC) zoning districts:
Sign Type Number of Signs Allowed Sign Area
(Maximum)
Sign Height
(Maximum)
Sign Setback
(Minimum)
Directory 1 or more per establishment,
as authorized by zoning administrator 24 square feet, aggregated 6 feet 5 feet
Freestanding
1 per street frontage, or 2 per entrance, per lot
with 100 or more feet of continuous street
frontage plus 1 per lot if the lot is greater than
4 acres and has more than 1 approved entrance
on its frontage
32 square feet, aggregated,
plus bonus tenant panels as
provided in section
4.15.16(b); if more than 1
sign at an entrance, no
single sign shall exceed 16
square feet
12 feet 5 feet
Projecting* 1 per street frontage 32 square feet 30 feet, but not to
exceed the top of the Not applicable
Draft: 10/24/11
9
fascia or mansard
Temporary 1 per street
frontage per establishment 32 square feet
12 feet, if freestanding
sign; 30 feet if wall
sign, but not to exceed
the top of the fascia or
mansard cornice line
5 feet
Wall* As calculated pursuant to section 4.15.20
1 square foot 1.5 square
feet per 1 linear foot of
establishment structure
frontage, not to exceed 100
square feet
30 feet Not to exceed
the cornice line
Same as that
applicable to
structure
*Each establishment may have both a projecting sign and a wall sign, provided that the aggregate sign area of
the two signs shall not exceed thirty-two (32) square feet. If the establishment has both such signs, the allowed
sign area of the wall sign shall be reduced by the sign area of the projecting sign (which may not exceed thirty-
two (32) square feet).
(12-10-80; 7-8-92, § 4.15.12.5; Ord. 01-18(3), 5-9-01)
State law reference – Va. Code § 15.2-2280.
Sec. 4.15.13 Regulations applicable in the HC, PD-SC and PD-MC zoning districts
The following regulations pertaining to the number of signs permitted per lot or establishment, the sign area,
sign height, and setback requirements shall apply to each sign for which a sign permit is required within the
Highway Commercial (HC), Planned Development-Shopping Center (PD-SC) and Planned Development-Mixed
Commercial (PD-MC) zoning districts:
Sign Type Number of Signs Allowed Sign Area
(Maximum)
Sign Height
(Maximum)
Sign Setback
(Minimum)
Directory 1 or more per establishment,
as authorized by zoning administrator 24 square feet, aggregated 6 feet 5 feet
Freestanding
1 per street frontage, or 2 per entrance, per lot
with 100 or more feet of continuous street
frontage plus 1 per lot if the lot is greater than
4 acres and has more than 1 approved entrance
on its frontage
32 square feet, aggregated,
plus bonus tenant panels as
provided in section
4.15.16(b); if more than 1
sign at an entrance, no
single sign shall exceed 16
square feet
12 16 feet 5 feet
Projecting* 1 per street frontage 32 square feet
30 feet, but not to
exceed the top of the
fascia or mansard
Not applicable
Temporary 1 per street
frontage per establishment 32 square feet
12 feet, if freestanding
sign; 30 feet if wall
sign, but not to exceed
the top of the fascia or
mansard cornice line
5 feet
Wall* As calculated pursuant to section 4.15.20
1.5 square feet per 1 linear
foot of establishment
structure frontage, not to
exceed 200 square feet
30 feet Not to exceed
the cornice line
Same as that
applicable to
structure
*Each establishment may have both a projecting sign and a wall sign, provided that the aggregate sign area of
the two signs shall not exceed thirty-two (32) square feet. If the establishment has both such signs, the allowed
sign area of the wall sign shall be reduced by the sign area of the projecting sign (which may not exceed thirty-
two (32) square feet.
One (1) sandwich board sign is permitted for each establishment, subject to the requirements of section
4.15.16(i).
Draft: 10/24/11
10
(12-10-80; 7-8-92, § 4.15.12.6; Ord. 01-18(3), 5-9-01)
State law reference – Va. Code § 15.2-2280.
Sec. 4.15.14 Regulations applicable in the HI, LI and PD-IP zoning districts
The following regulations pertaining to the number of signs permitted per lot or establishment, the sign area,
sign height, and setback requirements shall apply to each sign for which a sign permit is required within the
Heavy Industry (HI), Light Industry (LI) and Planned Development-Industrial Park (PD-IP) zoning districts.
Sign Type Number of Signs Allowed Sign Area
(Maximum)
Sign Height
(Maximum)
Sign Setback
(Minimum)
Directory
1 or more per establishment,
as authorized by zoning administrator 24 square feet, aggregated 6 feet 5 feet
Freestanding
1 per street frontage, or 2 per entrance, per lot
with 100 or more feet of continuous street
frontage plus 1 per lot if the lot is greater than
4 acres and has more than 1 approved entrance
on its frontage
32 square feet, aggregate,
plus bonus tenant panels as
provided in section
4.15.16(b); if more than 1
sign at an entrance, no
single sign shall exceed 16
square feet
12 feet 5 feet
Projecting* 1 per street frontage 32 square feet
30 feet, but not to
exceed the top of the
fascia or mansard
5 feet
Temporary 1 per street
frontage per establishment 32 square feet
12 feet, if freestanding
sign; 30 feet if wall
sign, but not to exceed
the top of the fascia or
mansard cornice line
5 feet
Wall* As calculated pursuant to section 4.15.20
1.5 square feet per 1 linear
foot of establishment
structure frontage, not to
exceed 200 square feet
30 feet Not to exceed
the cornice line
Same as that
applicable to
structure
*Each establishment may have both a projecting sign and a wall sign, provided that the aggregate sign area of
the two signs shall not exceed thirty-two (32) square feet. If the establishment has both such signs, the allowed
sign area of the wall sign shall be reduced by the sign area of the projecting sign (which may not exceed thirty-
two (32) square feet).
Within the PD-IP zoning district, one (1) sandwich board sign is permitted for each establishment, subject to the
requirements of section 4.15.16(i).
(12-10-80; 7-8-92, § 4.15.12.7; Ord. 01-18(3), 5-9-01)
State law reference – Va. Code § 15.2-2280.
Sec. 4.15.15 Regulations applicable in the entrance corridor overlay district
In addition to all other regulations set forth in this section 4.15, the following regulations shall apply within the
entrance corridor overlay zoning district:
a. Certificate of appropriateness required. Prior to the erection of a sign that would be visible from an
entrance corridor street, including a sign erected on or visible through a window on a structure, the
owner or lessee of the lot on which the sign will be located shall obtain a certificate of appropriateness
for that sign unless the sign is exempt under section 30.6.5(d).
Draft: 10/24/11
11
b. Authority and procedure for acting upon application for certificate of appropriateness. The authority
and procedure for acting upon an application for a certificate of appropriateness for a sign shall be as set
forth in section 30.6.
c. Opaque backgrounds. All internally illuminated box-style and cabinet-style signs shall have an opaque
background.
(12-10-80; 7-8-92, § 4.15.12.8; Ord. 01-18(3), 5-9-01; Ord. 10-18(5), 5-12-10)
State law reference – Va. Code §§ 15.2-2280, 15.2-2286.
Sec. 4.15.16 Regulations applicable to certain sign types
In addition to all other regulations set forth in this section 4.15, the following regulations apply to the sign types
identified herein:
. . .
b. Anchor signs Bonus tenant panels. In each shopping center exceeding one hundred thousand (100,000)
fifty thousand (50,000) square feet in gross floor area: (i) one (1) freestanding anchor sign bonus tenant
panel shall be permitted for each one hundred thousand (100,000) fifty thousand (50,000) square feet in
gross floor area, not to exceed four (4) anchor signs bonus tenant panels at the shopping center; and (ii)
each anchor sign no bonus tenant panel shall not exceed six (6) eight (8) square feet in sign area.
. . .
i. Wall signs. In order to be eligible to have a wall sign, the establishment shall have an exterior wall.
Sandwich board signs. Sandwich board signs shall be subject to the following: (1) the sign shall not
exceed four (4) feet in height, two (2) feet in width or eight (8) square feet of area per sign face; (2) if
the sign is placed on a sidewalk or any other public pedestrian right-of-way, it shall be placed in a
location that provides a contiguous and unobstructed pedestrian passageway at least three (3) feet wide;
(3) the sign shall not be located in any required off-street parking space, driveway, access easement,
alley or fire lane; (4) the sign shall not be illuminated; (5) the sign shall be removed during non-business
hours; and (6) if the sign is located on county-owned right-of-way, prior to placement of the sign, the
owner shall agree to indemnify and hold harmless the county against any claim or liability arising from
the placement of the sign, and the agreement shall be in a form and have a substance approved by the
county attorney.
j. Signs using rare gas illumination. Signs using exposed rare gas illumination, and signs within the
entrance corridor overlay district visible from an entrance corridor overlay street that use rare gas
illumination covered by a transparent material, shall not have a brightness that exceeds thirty (30)
milliamps. Brightness shall be determined by the zoning administrator, who shall consider information
provided by the sign manufacturer, the rated size of the sign’s transformer, and any other relevant
information deemed appropriate. (Added 3-16-05)
k. Wall signs. In order to be eligible to have a wall sign, the establishment shall have an exterior wall.
(12-10-80; 7-8-92, § 4.15.12; Ord. 01-18(3), 5-9-01; Ord. 05-18(4), 3-16-05)
State law reference – Va. Code § 15.2-2280.
Draft: 10/24/11
12
Article III. District Regulations
Sec. 30.6.4 Certificates of appropriateness
The architectural review board is authorized to issue certificates of appropriateness for any structure, and
associated improvements, or any portion thereof, that are visible from the EC street to which the parcel is
contiguous, as follows:
. . .
b. Types of certificates of appropriateness. The architectural review board is authorized to issue the
following types of certificates of appropriateness:
1. Specific developments. For specific developments associated with one or more building permits
or a single site plan.
2. Signs in a new multi-business complex or shopping center. For all of the signs in a new multi-
business complex or shopping center, where the architectural review board first conducts a
comprehensive sign review. Once a certificate of appropriateness for signs in a new multi-
business complex or shopping center is issued, the director of planning is authorized to
determine whether a particular sign satisfies the conditions of the certificate of appropriateness.
3. County-wide certificates of appropriateness. County-wide certificates of appropriateness may
be issued for classes of structures, sites, improvements, or architectural elements, subject to the
applicable design criteria and procedures, as follows:
a. Categories of structures, sites, improvements, or architectural elements eligible for
county-wide certificates of appropriateness. The following categories of structures,
sites, improvements, or architectural elements shall be eligible for county-wide
certificates of appropriateness:
1. Structures located seven hundred fifty (750) feet or more from an EC street that
are not more than five (5) stories tall.
2. Structures that are proposed to be located behind another structure that fronts an
EC street as viewed from the EC street, where the rear structure is no more than
twice the height of the front structure.
3. Personal wireless service facilities.
4. Wall signs proposed for structures having a single occupant Signs.
5. Safety fencing and screening fencing.
6. New or replacement rooftop-mounted or ground-mounted equipment.
7. Additions to structures or improvements for which a certificate of
appropriateness was issued, where the design of the addition to the structure or
improvement is consistent with the architectural design approved with the
certificate of appropriateness.
8. New structure or site lighting or changes to existing structure or site lighting.
Draft: 10/24/11
13
9. Minor amendments to site plans and architectural plans.
10. Building permits for which the proposed change occupies fifty (50) percent or
less of the altered elevation of an existing structure.
11. Permits classified in sections 5-202, 5-203, 5-204 and 5-208(A) not otherwise
exempt under section 30.6.5(k).
. . .
(§ 30.6.4, 10-3-90; § 30.6.4.1, 10-3-90; 5-18-94; § 30.6.4.2, 10-3-90; §30.6.5(formerly § 30.6.3.2, 7-8-92; Ord.
01-18(3), 5-9-01); § 30.6.4, Ord. 10-18(5), 5-12-10)
Sec. 30.6.5 Development exempt from requirement to obtain certificate of appropriateness
The following development is exempt from the requirements of section 30.6:
. . .
d. Agricultural product signs, political signs, public signs, sandwich board signs, temporary signs, and
sandwich board signs window signs and signs exempt from the sign permit requirement under section
4.15.6.
. . .
(§ 30.6.6, 10-3-90; § 30.6.6.1, 10-3-90; § 30.6.6.2, 10-3-90, 6-14-00; § 30.6.6.3, 5-18-94; § 30.6.5; Ord. 10-
18(5), 5-12-10)
(Formerly SIGNS, Now see 30.6.4, 5-12-10)
Return to exec summary
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE: ZTA 2010-00005 Proposed Sign
Ordinance Zoning Text Amendments
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Public Hearing – Proposed Sign Ordinance Zoning
Text Amendments
STAFF: Greg Kamptner, Ron Higgins, Stewart
Wright, Margaret Maliszewski
PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC
HEARING DATE: September 13, 2011
BACKGROUND and ORIGIN:
On January 6, 2010, the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors adopted a “2010 Albemarle County Action Plan” (see
Attachment B) which included as item #6 the following:
“Sign Ordinances – The sign ordinances need to be re-examined to ensure they do not overly restrict
economic vitality of area businesses. Staff should work with local retailers to develop new ordinances
that will help promote good business practices as well as maintaining quality aesthetic values.”
The Board of Supervisors adopted a Resolution of Intent on the Sign zoning text amendments (ZTA) on May 12, 2010
(see Attachment C). Throughout this process we hosted three roundtable discussions to seek input from those in the sign
industry, business community, local elected and appointed officials and various other groups, to hear what they had to say
about the present sign ordinance and sign permit approval process and, finally, to comment on the proposed ordinance
draft.
On August 16, 2010 we held a work session on the Potential Sign ZTAs with the ARB. They were asked to comment on
a number of items, including: the predictability of the sign review process in the entrance corridors; improvements in sign
application materials and application process; changes in sign regulations for planned developments; making some
standards more consistent (e.g. wall sign allowances, freestanding sign setbacks); window sign regulations and
applicability; review of sign packages and coordination with site plans; entrance corridor guidelines, and; increased
heights for wall signs. The ARB supported changes and suggested that regulations be simplified in most cases.
We brought the results of the roundtables, ARB discussions and other comments to you for discussion at your work
session on October 19, 2010. At that session we presented a number of proposed changes and received comments and
guidance on those. The proposed sign ordinance changes reflect that guidance.
DISCUSSION:
As you will recall, we heard more about the sign review and approval process than about sign standards throughout the
discovery process. It was evident in the discussions with various stakeholders that the perception was that the process
took too much time and effort on the applicant’s part. To this end the staff and ARB has implemented a number of efforts
to streamline the approval process, including: better coaching of applicants on what to provide to get a speedy review;
county-wide administrative ARB approval standards, and; improvement to the sign application and materials to better
2
Planning Commission Public Hearing, September 13, 2011
2
guide applicants. This has resulted in significant reductions in the time it takes to review and approve sign permits , as we
reported at your October 19, 2010 Work Session.
Regarding the sign ordinance changes, we heard that these should be limited and result in simplifications and
improvements in process that save time for applicants, boards and staff. All of the text amendments proposed are
intended to do that. It was important to not develop amendments that would increase staff time in an era of reduced
staffing levels. For example, eliminating reviews for special permits for off-site signs in planned developments saves staff
time in developing a report to the Board of Zoning Appeals, saves the Board time in reviewing such applications and
saves applicants time and money by permitting an administrative review without the costly application fee and advertising
fees. Not requiring a permit or review for window signs reduces staff time and the standard simplifies enforcement of the
regulations by Code Enforcement Officers.
PROPOSED SIGN ORDINANCE CHANGES:
The changes that are represented in the Proposed Ordinance to amend sign regulations include the following, along with
some reference corrections and clarifications (see Attachment A):
Planned Developments and shopping centers:
--The “site” has been redefined to include the entire planned development in order to address the
issue of “off-site” signs in unified developments, thus no longer requiring an SP for these.
--The size for a freestanding sign for planned developments and shopping centers has been increased to allow
for up to 54 sq. ft. maximum if “bonus tenant panel” signs are to be included within the primary sign. The
current ordinance limits this to 32 sq. ft. in some districts and 24 sq. ft. in other districts. Currently, in shopping
centers with at least 100,000 sq. ft. in gross floor area you can have one anchor sign at 6 sq. ft. for each
100,000 sq. ft. This provision has been eliminated and replaced with the “bonus tenant panel” sign type.
--The anchor sign provision has been eliminated and replaced with a “bonus tenant panel” definition and
provision which eliminates multiple freestanding tenant signs.
Freestanding and monuments signs:
--Setbacks have been made consistent (e.g. all 5’ instead of some at 5’ and some at 10’ as the current regulations
require).
Wall Signs:
--The area maximum has been made the same in all commercial and planned districts (e.g. 1½ sq. ft. of
area for each 1 linear foot of wall)? Currently it is 1:1 in some and 1½ :1 in other areas.
--The height would now be allowed to be above the current 30’ maximum in non-residential development for
buildings that are taller. This is now defined as “not to exceed the cornice line and the “cornice line” has been
defined.
Temporary Signs:
--The number per year has been increase from the current limit of four to six.
--The length of time they are up remains the current limit of 15 days. However this can be done in any
combination of time periods as long as the aggregate does not exceed the current calendar year limit of sixty
(60) days.
--The fifteen day limit does not apply to a temporary sign erected while a permanent sign is being made.
However, the sixty day calendar year limit would still apply to such signs.
--Sandwich board signs would now be allowed in all planned development districts as they currently are in the
Downtown Crozet district.
3
Planning Commission Public Hearing, September 13, 2011
3
Window Signs:
--Window signs would not be subject to permits or ARB approvals.
--Window signs would now have a 50% maximum coverage area per window.
--Window signs that exceed 50% coverage would now be prohibited signs.
PUBLIC PURPOSE TO BE SERVED:
As stated earlier, all of the changes would result in more clarity for applicants, reduced staff and board time and reduced
cost to the applicants. The changes would not have an adverse impact on aesthetic values present in the county.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend to the Board of Supervisors, approval of the proposed
Ordinance to amend various sign regulations in the Zoning Ordinance as found in Attachment A.
ATTACHMENTS:
A: Proposed Ordinance to amend the sign regulations, dated 8/29/2011
B: Board of Supervisors “2010 Albemarle County Action Plan”
C: Board of Supervisors May 12, 2010 Resolution of Intent
D: Current Schedule for the Sign ZTA process
Return to exec summary
Draft: 08/29/11
1
ORDINANCE NO. 11-18( )
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND CHAPTER 18, ZONING, ARTICLE II, BASIC REGULATIONS, AND
ARTICLE III, DISTRICT REGULATIONS, OF THE CODE OF THE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE,
VIRGINIA
BE IT ORDAINED By the Board of Supervisors of the County of Albemarle, Virginia, that Chapter 18, Zoning,
Article II, Basic Regulations, and Article III, District Regulations, are hereby amended and reordained as
follows:
By Amending:
Sec. 4.15.1 Purpose and intent
Sec. 4.15.2 Definitions
Sec. 4.15.4 Signs authorized by sign permit
Sec. 4.15.6 Signs exempt from the sign permit requirement
Sec. 4.15.7 Prohibited signs and sign characteristics
Sec. 4.15.8 Regulations applicable in the MHD, RA, VR, R-1 and R-2 zoning districts
Sec. 4.15.9 Regulations applicable in the R-4 and R-6 zoning districts
Sec. 4.15.11 Regulations applicable in the PUD, DCD and NMD zoning districts
Sec. 4.15.12 Regulations applicable in the C-1 and CO zoning districts
Sec. 4.15.13 Regulations applicable in the HC, PD-SC and PD-MC zoning districts
Sec. 4.15.14 Regulations applicable in the HI, LI and PD-IP zoning districts
Sec. 4.15.15 Regulations applicable in the entrance corridor overlay district
Sec. 30.6.4 Certificates of appropriateness
Sec. 30.6.5 Development exempt from requirement to obtain certificate of appropriateness
By Adding:
Sec. 4.15.4A Signs authorized by temporary sign permit
Chapter 18. Zoning
Article II. Basic Regulations
Sec. 4.15.1 Purpose and intent
The purpose and intent of this section 4.15 include, but are not limited to, the following:
a. The board of supervisors finds that signs are a separate and distinct use of the property upon which they
are located and affect the uses and users of adjacent streets, sidewalks and other areas open to the
public; that signs are an important means of communication for businesses, organizations, individuals
and government; and that the unregulated erection and display of signs constitute a public nuisance
detrimental to the health, safety, convenience and general welfare of the public. Therefore, the purpose
of this section 4.15 is to establish reasonable regulations pertaining to the time, place and manner in
which outdoor signs and window signs may be erected and maintained in order to:
1. Promote the general health, safety and welfare, including the creation of an attractive and
harmonious environment;
2. Protect the public investment in the creation, maintenance, safety and appearance of its streets,
highways and other areas open to the public;
Draft: 08/29/11
2
3. Improve pedestrian and vehicular safety by avoiding saturation and confusion in the field of
vision that could otherwise result if such signs were not regulated as provided herein; and
4. Protect and enhance the county's attractiveness to tourists and other visitors as sources of
economic development.
b. The board of supervisors finds that the regulations in this section 4.15 advance the significant
governmental interests identified herein and are the minimum amount of regulation necessary to achieve
them.
c. Signs are classified and regulated in this section 4.15 by their purpose (e.g., bonus tenant panel),
physical type (e.g., freestanding sign), location (e.g., off-site sign) and characteristics (e.g., illuminated
sign). By classifying and regulating signs by their purpose, the board of supervisors does not intend to
regulate their content and, more specifically, any particular viewpoint, but rather intends to create a
reasonable classification by which to regulate the time, place and manner of signs.
cd. The regulations in this section 4.15 shall apply to all outdoor signs and window signs. Each sign subject
to this section 4.15 shall comply with all regulations applicable to that sign.
d. Signs are classified and regulated in this section 4.15 by their purpose (e.g., anchor sign), physical type
(e.g., freestanding sign), location (e.g., off-site sign) and characteristics (e.g., illuminated sign). Each
sign subject to this section 4.15 shall comply with all regulations applicable to that sign.
(12-10-80; 7-8-92, § 4.15.01; Ord. 01-18(3), 5-9-01)
State law reference – Va. Code § 15.2-2280.
Sec. 4.15.2 Definitions
The following definitions shall apply in the interpretation and implementation of this section 4.15:
. . .
(2) Anchor sign. The term “anchor sign” means a sign that identifies any specific business within a
shopping center.
(8.1) Bonus tenant panel: The term “bonus tenant panel” means an additional sign permitted for individual
tenants in shopping centers or planned developments when added to the freestanding sign for the
shopping center or planned development.
. . .
(14.1) Cornice line. The term “cornice line” means the location of a cornice along the top of a wall; or, for a
wall that has no cornice, the corresponding horizontal line along the top of a wall where a cornice would
traditionally be located. In all cases, the “cornice line” applies to the main walls of a building and does
not apply to features that extend above the top of the main walls of a building.
. . .
Draft: 08/29/11
3
(16) Electric message sign. The term “electric message sign” means a sign on which the copy can be
changed or altered by electric, electro-mechanical or electronic means.
. . .
(35) Off-site sign. The term “off-site sign” means: (i) within a zoning district other than a planned
development, a sign that is not located on the same lot with the use to which it pertains, but does not
include a sign located in a public right-of-way; or (ii) within a planned development zoning district, a
sign that is not located within the area depicted on the application plan approved for the planned
development, but does not include a sign located in a public right-of-way.
. . .
(12-10-80; 7-8-92, § 4.15.03; Ord. 01-18(3), 5-9-01; Ord. 05-18(4), 3-16-05; Ord. 10-18(1), 1-13-10; Ord. 10-
18(3), 5-5-10; Ord. 10-18(5), 5-12-10)
State law reference – Va. Code § 15.2-2280.
Sec. 4.15.4 Signs authorized by sign permit
Except as provided in sections 4.15.6 (exempt signs) and 4.15.24 (nonconforming signs) Except for temporary
signs subject to the permitting requirements of section 4.15.4A, signs exempt from this section under section
4.15.6 or nonconforming signs subject to section 4.15.24, a sign permit shall be required for each sign erected
on the same lot with the principal use to which it pertains, prior to its erection, alteration, replacement or
relocation, as provided herein:
a. Application. An application for a sign permit shall be submitted to the department of building code and
zoning services community development, together with payment of the fee required for the application
pursuant to section 35.0 35.1 of this chapter. A complete application shall consist of the following:
1. A fully completed application form, provided to the applicant by the zoning administrator;
2. A schematic legibly drawn to scale and sufficiently detailed showing the location and dimen-
sions of the sign; and
3. Any plans, specifications and details pertaining to, among other things, the sign materials, the
methods of illumination, methods of support, components, and the condition and age of the
sign, as determined by the zoning administrator to be necessary for the review of the
application.
b. Application review and permit issuance. A sign permit application shall be reviewed and acted upon by
the zoning administrator only as provided herein:
1. Timing of application. An application for a sign permit may be filed at any time, and if a
special use permit for the sign is required under section 4.15.5 or a certificate of appropriateness
for the sign is required under section 4.15.15 and section 30.6 of this chapter, the application
may be filed with or any time after the application for the special use permit or certificate of
appropriateness is filed.
12. Action on application. Within thirty (30) days of the receipt of a complete sign permit
application, or within seven (7) days of the receipt of a complete sign application for a
temporary sign, the zoning administrator shall review the application and either: (i) approve the
Draft: 08/29/11
4
application; (ii) deny the application; or (iii) refer the application to the applicant for more
information as may be required by subsection 4.15.4(Aa)(3); (iv) refer the application to the
board of zoning appeals because the applicant must obtain a special use permit pursuant to
section 4.15.5; and/or (v) refer the application to the architectural review board because the
proposed sign will be located within the entrance corridor overlay district and a certificate of
appropriateness is required. An application shall be denied only if the proposed sign is a
prohibited sign, or does not comply with the regulations set forth in this section 4.15 or, a
required special use permit or certificate of appropriateness for the sign was not granted. If the
application is denied, the reasons shall be specified in writing.
23. Failure to timely act. If the zoning administrator fails to take one of the actions described herein
within thirty (30) days of receipt of a complete sign permit application, or within seven (7) days
of the receipt of a complete sign application for a temporary sign, the permit shall be deemed
approved as received.
c. Administration, generally. Except for permits issued for temporary signs, which are subject to the
regulations in subsection (D), the following regulations shall apply to the administration of sign permits:
1. A sign permit shall become null and void if the use to which the sign permit pertains is not
commenced within six (6) months after the date the sign permit, special use permit or certificate
of appropriateness is issued, whichever is later or, if the sign contains exclusively
noncommercial copy, the sign is not erected within six (6) months after the date the sign permit
is issued. Upon written request by the permittee and upon good cause shown, the zoning
administrator may grant an extension of the six (6)-month period.
2. The zoning administrator shall revoke a sign permit if the sign does not comply with any
applicable regulation of this section 4.15.
d. Administration, permits for temporary signs. The following regulations shall apply to the
administration of sign permits issued for temporary signs:
1. A temporary sign that is a portable sign shall be stabilized so as not to pose a danger to public
safety. Prior to the sign being erected, the zoning administrator shall approve the method of
stabilization.
2. No more than four (4) permits for temporary signs shall be issued by the zoning administrator to
the same establishment in any calendar year.
3. Each permit for a temporary sign shall be valid for a period not to exceed fifteen (15)
consecutive days after the erection of the sign.
(12-10-80; 7-8-92, §§ 4.15.09, 4.15.09.1, 4.15.09.2, 4.15.09.3; Ord. 01-18(3), 5-9-01)
State law reference – Va. Code §§ 15.2-2280, 15.2-2286.
Sec. 4.15.4A Signs authorized by temporary sign permit
A permit shall be required for each temporary sign (hereinafter, a “temporary sign permit”), prior to its erection,
alteration, replacement or relocation, as provided herein:
Draft: 08/29/11
5
a. Application. An application for a temporary sign permit shall be submitted to the department of
community development, together with payment of the fee required for the application pursuant to
section 35.1 of this chapter, and comply with the application requirements of subsection 4.15.4(a).
b. Application review and permit issuance. A temporary sign permit application shall be reviewed and
acted upon by the zoning administrator only as provided herein:
1. Action on application. Within seven (7) days after receipt of a complete application, the zoning
administrator shall either: (i) approve the application; (ii) deny the application; or (iii) refer the
application to the applicant for more information as may be required by section 4.15.4(a)(3).
An application shall be denied only if the proposed temporary sign is a prohibited sign or does
not comply with the regulations set forth in this section 4.15. If the application is denied, the
reasons shall be specified in writing.
2. Failure to timely act. If the zoning administrator fails to take one of the actions described
herein within seven (7) days of the receipt of a complete sign application for a temporary sign,
the permit shall be deemed approved as received.
c. Administration. The following regulations shall apply to the administration of sign permits:
1. Number of permits. No more than six (6) temporary sign permits shall be issued by the zoning
administrator to the same establishment in any calendar year.
2. Period of validity. Each temporary sign permit shall be valid for a period not to exceed fifteen
(15) consecutive days after the erection of the sign, provided that a temporary sign permit issued
while a permanent sign is being made may be valid for longer than fifteen (15) days until the
permanent sign is erected.
3. Aggregate duration for temporary signs in calendar year. Temporary signs shall not be erected
at an establishment for more than sixty (60) days, in the aggregate, in a calendar year.
4. Portable signs; stabilization. A temporary sign that is a portable sign shall be stabilized so as
not to pose a danger to public safety. Prior to the sign being erected, the zoning administrator
shall approve the method of stabilization.
d. Exemptions. A temporary sign permit is not required for a sign exempt from the sign permit requirement
under section 4.15.6 or nonconforming signs subject to section 4.15.24.
Sec. 4.15.6 Signs exempt from the sign permit requirement
The following signs are exempt from the sign permit requirement set forth in to obtain a sign permit under
section 4.15.4 and a temporary sign permit under section 4.15.4A, provided that they comply with the
regulations set forth below and all other applicable regulations of this section 4.15:. A sign exempt from the
requirements to obtain permits under sections 4.15.4 and 4.15.4A is not exempt from the requirement to obtain a
special use permit under section 4.15.5 if required.
. . .
(7) Home occupation class B or major home occupation sign. A home occupation class B or major home
occupation sign that does not exceed four (4) square feet in sign area.
. . .
Draft: 08/29/11
6
(18) Window sign. A permanent window sign, provided that it does not exceed twenty-five percent (25%) of
the total area of the window or door on which it is located, and the aggregate area of all window signs
on each window or door does not exceed twenty-five percent (25%) fifty percent (50%) of the total area
of the window and or door; and further provided that if a permanent window sign will be on a structure
within the entrance corridor overlay district and the window sign is visible from an entrance corridor
overlay street, that the aggregate area of all window signs shall not exceed nine (9) square feet per
business and that a certificate of appropriateness for the window sign is obtained as provided in section
4.15.15. (Amended 3-16-05)
. . .
(12-10-80; 7-8-92, § 4.15.04; Ord. 01-18(3), 5-9-01; Ord. 05-18(4), 3-16-05; Ord. 10-18(4), 5-5-10)
State law reference – Va. Code § 15.2-2280.
Sec. 4.15.7 Prohibited signs and sign characteristics
Notwithstanding any other provision of this section 4.15, the following signs and sign characteristics are
prohibited in all zoning districts:
. . .
b. Signs with characteristics that create a safety hazard or are contrary to the general welfare. Signs
whose construction, design, location or other physical characteristic create a safety hazard or are
contrary to the general welfare, as follows:
. . .
7. Sign that obstructs vision. A sign that obstructs free or clear vision, or otherwise causes a safety
hazard for vehicular, bicycle, or pedestrian traffic due to its location, shape, illumination or
color; and window signs whose aggregate area on a window or door exceed twenty-five percent
(25%) fifty percent (50%) of the total area of the window or door. (Amended 3-16-05)
. . .
(12-10-80; 7-8-92, § 4.15.06; Ord. 01-18(3), 5-9-01; Ord. 05-18(4), 3-16-05)
State law reference – Va. Code § 15.2-2280.
Sec. 4.15.8 Regulations applicable in the MHD, RA, VR, R-1 and R-2 zoning districts
The following regulations pertaining to the number of signs permitted per lot or establishment, the sign area,
sign height, and setback requirements shall apply to each sign for which a sign permit is required within the
Monticello Historic District (MHD), Rural Areas (RA), Village Residential (VR) and Residential (R-1 and R-2)
zoning districts:
Sign Type Number of Signs Allowed Sign Area
(Maximum)
Sign Height
(Maximum)
Sign Setback
(Minimum)
Directory 1 or more per establishment,
as authorized by zoning administrator 24 square feet, aggregated 6 feet 10 5 feet
Freestanding
1 per street frontage, or 2 per entrance, per lot
with 100 or more feet of continuous street
frontage, plus 1 per lot if the lot is greater than
24 square feet, aggregated;
if more than 1 sign, no
single sign shall exceed 12
10 feet 10 5 feet
Draft: 08/29/11
7
4 acres and has more than 1 approved entrance
on its frontage
square feet
Subdivision 2 per entrance per subdivision 24 square feet, aggregated,
per entrance 6 feet 5 feet
Temporary 1 per street
frontage per establishment 24 square feet
10 feet, if freestanding
sign; 20 feet, if wall
sign, but not to exceed
the top of the fascia or
mansard
10 5 feet
Wall
As calculated pursuant to section 4.15.20
40 square feet, aggregated
in the RA zoning district;
20 square feet, aggregated,
in other zoning districts
20 feet
Same as that
applicable to
structure
(12-10-80; 7-8-92, § 4.15.12.1; Ord. 01-18(3), 5-9-01; Ord. 05-18(5), 6-8-05)
State law reference – Va. Code § 15.2-2280.
Sec. 4.15.9 Regulations applicable in the R-4 and R-6 zoning districts
The following regulations pertaining to the number of signs permitted per lot or establishment, the sign area,
sign height, and setback requirements shall apply to each sign for which a sign permit is required within the
Residential (R-4 and R-6) zoning districts:
Sign Type Number of Signs Allowed Sign Area
(Maximum)
Sign Height
(Maximum)
Sign Setback
(Minimum)
Directory 1 or more per establishment,
as authorized by zoning administrator 24 square feet, aggregated 6 feet 10 5 feet
Freestanding
1 per street frontage, or 2 per entrance, per lot
with 100 or more feet of continuous street
frontage plus 1 per lot if the lot is greater than
4 acres and has more than 1 approved entrance
on its frontage
24 square feet, aggregated;
if more than 1 sign, no
single sign shall exceed 12
square feet
10 feet 10 5 feet
Projecting 1 per street frontage 24 square feet
20 feet, but not to
exceed the top of the
fascia or mansard
Not applicable
Subdivision 2 per entrance per subdivision 24 square feet, aggregated,
per entrance 6 feet 5 feet
Temporary 1 per street
frontage per establishment 24 square feet
10 feet, if freestanding
sign; 20 feet, if wall
sign, but not to exceed
the top of the fascia or
mansard
10 5 feet
Wall As calculated pursuant to section 4.15.20 20 square feet, aggregated 20 feet
Same as that
applicable to
structure
(12-10-80; 7-8-92, § 4.15.12.2; Ord. 01-18(3), 5-9-01)
State law reference – Va. Code § 15.2-2280.
Sec. 4.15.11 Regulations applicable in the PUD, DCD and NMD zoning districts
The following regulations pertaining to the number of signs permitted per lot or establishment, the sign area,
sign height, and setback requirements shall apply to each sign for which a sign permit is required within the
Planned Unit Development (PUD), Downtown Crozet (DCD) and Neighborhood Model (NMD) zoning
districts:
Sign Type Number of Signs Allowed Sign Area
(Maximum)
Sign Height
(Maximum)
Sign Setback
(Minimum)
Directory 1 or more per establishment,
as authorized by zoning administrator 24 square feet, aggregated 6 feet 5 feet
1 per street frontage, or 2 per entrance, per lot 24 32 square feet, 12 feet 5 feet
Draft: 08/29/11
8
Freestanding
with 100 or more feet of continuous street
frontage plus 1 per lot if the lot is greater than
4 acres and has more than 1 approved entrance
on its frontage
aggregated, plus bonus
tenant panels as provided
in section 4.15.16(b); if
more than 1 sign, no single
sign shall exceed 12 square
feet
Projecting 1 per street frontage 24 square feet
30 feet, but not to
exceed the top of the
fascia or mansard
Not applicable
Subdivision 2 per entrance per subdivision 24 square feet, aggregated,
per entrance 6 feet 5 feet
Temporary 1 per street
frontage per establishment 24 square feet
12 feet, if freestanding
sign; 20 feet, if
residential wall sign;
or 30 feet if
nonresidential wall
sign, but not to exceed
the top of the fascia or
mansard cornice line
5 feet
Wall
As calculated pursuant to section 4.15.20
1 square foot 1.5 square
feet per 1 linear foot of
establishment structure
frontage, not to exceed 32
square feet if residential
wall sign, or 100 square
feet if nonresidential wall
sign
20 feet, if residential
wall sign; or 30 feet if
nonresidential wall
sign
Not to exceed the
cornice line
Same as that
applicable to
structure
Within the DCD, oOne (1) sandwich board sign is permitted for each establishment, subject to the following: (1)
the sign shall not exceed four (4) feet in height, two (2) feet in width or eight (8) square feet of area per sign
face; (2) if the sign is placed on a sidewalk or any other public pedestrian right-of-way, it shall be placed in a
location that provides a contiguous and unobstructed pedestrian passageway at least three (3) feet wide; (3) the
sign shall not be located in any required off-street parking space, driveway, access easement, alley or fire lane;
(4) the sign shall not be illuminated; (5) the sign shall be removed during non-business hours; and (6) if the sign
is located on county-owned right-of-way, prior to placement of the sign the owner shall agree to indemnify and
hold harmless the county against any claim or liability arising from the placement of the sign, and the agreement
shall be in a form and have a substance approved by the county attorney. Sandwich board signs shall be exempt
from review and approval under section 30.6 subject to the requirements of section 4.15.16(i).
(12-10-80; 7-8-92, § 4.15.12.4; Ord. 01-18(3), 5-9-01; Ord. 03-18(2), 3-19-03; Ord 10-18(1), 1-13-10)
State law reference – Va. Code § 15.2-2280.
Sec. 4.15.12 Regulations applicable in the C-1, and CO and HC zoning districts
The following regulations pertaining to the number of signs permitted per lot or establishment, the sign area,
sign height, and setback requirements shall apply to each sign for which a sign permit is required within the
Commercial (C-1), and Commercial Office (CO) and Highway Commercial (HC) zoning districts:
Sign Type Number of Signs Allowed Sign Area
(Maximum)
Sign Height
(Maximum)
Sign Setback
(Minimum)
Directory 1 or more per establishment,
as authorized by zoning administrator 24 square feet, aggregated 6 feet 5 feet
Freestanding
1 per street frontage, or 2 per entrance, per lot
with 100 or more feet of continuous street
frontage plus 1 per lot if the lot is greater than
4 acres and has more than 1 approved entrance
on its frontage
32 square feet, aggregated,
plus bonus tenant panels as
provided in section
4.15.16(b); if more than 1
sign at an entrance, no
single sign shall exceed 16
square feet
12 feet 5 feet
Projecting* 1 per street frontage 32 square feet 30 feet, but not to
exceed the top of the Not applicable
Draft: 08/29/11
9
fascia or mansard
Temporary 1 per street
frontage per establishment 32 square feet
12 feet, if freestanding
sign; 30 feet if wall
sign, but not to exceed
the top of the fascia or
mansard cornice line
5 feet
Wall* As calculated pursuant to section 4.15.20
1 square foot 1.5 square
feet per 1 linear foot of
establishment structure
frontage, not to exceed 100
square feet
30 feet Not to exceed
the cornice line
Same as that
applicable to
structure
*Each establishment may have both a projecting sign and a wall sign, provided that the aggregate sign area of
the two signs shall not exceed thirty-two (32) square feet. If the establishment has both such signs, the allowed
sign area of the wall sign shall be reduced by the sign area of the projecting sign (which may not exceed thirty-
two (32) square feet).
(12-10-80; 7-8-92, § 4.15.12.5; Ord. 01-18(3), 5-9-01)
State law reference – Va. Code § 15.2-2280.
Sec. 4.15.13 Regulations applicable in the HC, PD-SC and PD-MC zoning districts
The following regulations pertaining to the number of signs permitted per lot or establishment, the sign area,
sign height, and setback requirements shall apply to each sign for which a sign permit is required within the
Highway Commercial (HC), Planned Development-Shopping Center (PD-SC) and Planned Development-Mixed
Commercial (PD-MC) zoning districts:
Sign Type Number of Signs Allowed Sign Area
(Maximum)
Sign Height
(Maximum)
Sign Setback
(Minimum)
Directory 1 or more per establishment,
as authorized by zoning administrator 24 square feet, aggregated 6 feet 5 feet
Freestanding
1 per street frontage, or 2 per entrance, per lot
with 100 or more feet of continuous street
frontage plus 1 per lot if the lot is greater than
4 acres and has more than 1 approved entrance
on its frontage
32 square feet, aggregated,
plus bonus tenant panels as
provided in section
4.15.16(b); if more than 1
sign at an entrance, no
single sign shall exceed 16
square feet
12 16 feet 5 feet
Projecting* 1 per street frontage 32 square feet
30 feet, but not to
exceed the top of the
fascia or mansard
Not applicable
Temporary 1 per street
frontage per establishment 32 square feet
12 feet, if freestanding
sign; 30 feet if wall
sign, but not to exceed
the top of the fascia or
mansard cornice line
5 feet
Wall* As calculated pursuant to section 4.15.20
1.5 square feet per 1 linear
foot of establishment
structure frontage, not to
exceed 200 square feet
30 feet Not to exceed
the cornice line
Same as that
applicable to
structure
*Each establishment may have both a projecting sign and a wall sign, provided that the aggregate sign area of
the two signs shall not exceed thirty-two (32) square feet. If the establishment has both such signs, the allowed
sign area of the wall sign shall be reduced by the sign area of the projecting sign (which may not exceed thirty-
two (32) square feet.
One (1) sandwich board sign is permitted for each establishment, subject to the requirements of section
4.15.16(i).
Draft: 08/29/11
10
(12-10-80; 7-8-92, § 4.15.12.6; Ord. 01-18(3), 5-9-01)
State law reference – Va. Code § 15.2-2280.
Sec. 4.15.14 Regulations applicable in the HI, LI and PD-IP zoning districts
The following regulations pertaining to the number of signs permitted per lot or establishment, the sign area,
sign height, and setback requirements shall apply to each sign for which a sign permit is required within the
Heavy Industry (HI), Light Industry (LI) and Planned Development-Industrial Park (PD-IP) zoning districts.
Sign Type Number of Signs Allowed Sign Area
(Maximum)
Sign Height
(Maximum)
Sign Setback
(Minimum)
Directory
1 or more per establishment,
as authorized by zoning administrator 24 square feet, aggregated 6 feet 5 feet
Freestanding
1 per street frontage, or 2 per entrance, per lot
with 100 or more feet of continuous street
frontage plus 1 per lot if the lot is greater than
4 acres and has more than 1 approved entrance
on its frontage
32 square feet, aggregate,
plus bonus tenant panels as
provided in section
4.15.16(b); if more than 1
sign at an entrance, no
single sign shall exceed 16
square feet
12 feet 5 feet
Projecting* 1 per street frontage 32 square feet
30 feet, but not to
exceed the top of the
fascia or mansard
5 feet
Temporary 1 per street
frontage per establishment 32 square feet
12 feet, if freestanding
sign; 30 feet if wall
sign, but not to exceed
the top of the fascia or
mansard cornice line
5 feet
Wall* As calculated pursuant to section 4.15.20
1.5 square feet per 1 linear
foot of establishment
structure frontage, not to
exceed 200 square feet
30 feet Not to exceed
the cornice line
Same as that
applicable to
structure
*Each establishment may have both a projecting sign and a wall sign, provided that the aggregate sign area of
the two signs shall not exceed thirty-two (32) square feet. If the establishment has both such signs, the allowed
sign area of the wall sign shall be reduced by the sign area of the projecting sign (which may not exceed thirty-
two (32) square feet).
Within the PD-IP zoning district, one (1) sandwich board sign is permitted for each establishment, subject to the
requirements of section 4.15.16(i).
(12-10-80; 7-8-92, § 4.15.12.7; Ord. 01-18(3), 5-9-01)
State law reference – Va. Code § 15.2-2280.
Sec. 4.15.15 Regulations applicable in the entrance corridor overlay district
In addition to all other regulations set forth in this section 4.15, the following regulations shall apply within the
entrance corridor overlay zoning district:
a. Certificate of appropriateness required. Prior to the erection of a sign that would be visible from an
entrance corridor street, including a sign erected on or visible through a window on a structure, the
owner or lessee of the lot on which the sign will be located shall obtain a certificate of appropriateness
for that sign unless the sign is exempt under section 30.6.5(d).
Draft: 08/29/11
11
b. Authority and procedure for acting upon application for certificate of appropriateness. The authority
and procedure for acting upon an application for a certificate of appropriateness for a sign shall be as set
forth in section 30.6.
c. Opaque backgrounds. All internally illuminated box-style and cabinet-style signs shall have an opaque
background.
(12-10-80; 7-8-92, § 4.15.12.8; Ord. 01-18(3), 5-9-01; Ord. 10-18(5), 5-12-10)
State law reference – Va. Code §§ 15.2-2280, 15.2-2286.
Sec. 4.15.16 Regulations applicable to certain sign types
In addition to all other regulations set forth in this section 4.15, the following regulations apply to the sign types
identified herein:
. . .
b. Anchor signs Bonus tenant panels. In each shopping center exceeding one hundred thousand (100,000)
fifty thousand (50,000) square feet in gross floor area: (i) one (1) freestanding anchor sign bonus tenant
panel shall be permitted for each one hundred thousand (100,000) fifty thousand (50,000) square feet in
gross floor area, not to exceed four (4) anchor signs bonus tenant panels at the shopping center; and (ii)
each anchor sign no bonus tenant panel shall not exceed six (6) eight (8) square feet in sign area.
. . .
i. Wall signs. In order to be eligible to have a wall sign, the establishment shall have an exterior wall.
Sandwich board signs. Sandwich board signs shall be subject to the following: (1) the sign shall not
exceed four (4) feet in height, two (2) feet in width or eight (8) square feet of area per sign face; (2) if
the sign is placed on a sidewalk or any other public pedestrian right-of-way, it shall be placed in a
location that provides a contiguous and unobstructed pedestrian passageway at least three (3) feet wide;
(3) the sign shall not be located in any required off-street parking space, driveway, access easement,
alley or fire lane; (4) the sign shall not be illuminated; (5) the sign shall be removed during non-business
hours; and (6) if the sign is located on county-owned right-of-way, prior to placement of the sign, the
owner shall agree to indemnify and hold harmless the county against any claim or liability arising from
the placement of the sign, and the agreement shall be in a form and have a substance approved by the
county attorney.
j. Signs using rare gas illumination. Signs using exposed rare gas illumination, and signs within the
entrance corridor overlay district visible from an entrance corridor overlay street that use rare gas
illumination covered by a transparent material, shall not have a brightness that exceeds thirty (30)
milliamps. Brightness shall be determined by the zoning administrator, who shall consider information
provided by the sign manufacturer, the rated size of the sign’s transformer, and any other relevant
information deemed appropriate. (Added 3-16-05)
k. Wall signs. In order to be eligible to have a wall sign, the establishment shall have an exterior wall.
(12-10-80; 7-8-92, § 4.15.12; Ord. 01-18(3), 5-9-01; Ord. 05-18(4), 3-16-05)
State law reference – Va. Code § 15.2-2280.
Draft: 08/29/11
12
Article III. District Regulations
Sec. 30.6.4 Certificates of appropriateness
The architectural review board is authorized to issue certificates of appropriateness for any structure, and
associated improvements, or any portion thereof, that are visible from the EC street to which the parcel is
contiguous, as follows:
. . .
b. Types of certificates of appropriateness. The architectural review board is authorized to issue the
following types of certificates of appropriateness:
1. Specific developments. For specific developments associated with one or more building permits
or a single site plan.
2. Signs in a new multi-business complex or shopping center. For all of the signs in a new multi-
business complex or shopping center, where the architectural review board first conducts a
comprehensive sign review. Once a certificate of appropriateness for signs in a new multi-
business complex or shopping center is issued, the director of planning is authorized to
determine whether a particular sign satisfies the conditions of the certificate of appropriateness.
3. County-wide certificates of appropriateness. County-wide certificates of appropriateness may
be issued for classes of structures, sites, improvements, or architectural elements, subject to the
applicable design criteria and procedures, as follows:
a. Categories of structures, sites, improvements, or architectural elements eligible for
county-wide certificates of appropriateness. The following categories of structures,
sites, improvements, or architectural elements shall be eligible for county-wide
certificates of appropriateness:
1. Structures located seven hundred fifty (750) feet or more from an EC street that
are not more than five (5) stories tall.
2. Structures that are proposed to be located behind another structure that fronts an
EC street as viewed from the EC street, where the rear structure is no more than
twice the height of the front structure.
3. Personal wireless service facilities.
4. Wall signs proposed for structures having a single occupant Signs.
5. Safety fencing and screening fencing.
6. New or replacement rooftop-mounted or ground-mounted equipment.
7. Additions to structures or improvements for which a certificate of
appropriateness was issued, where the design of the addition to the structure or
improvement is consistent with the architectural design approved with the
certificate of appropriateness.
8. New structure or site lighting or changes to existing structure or site lighting.
Draft: 08/29/11
13
9. Minor amendments to site plans and architectural plans.
10. Building permits for which the proposed change occupies fifty (50) percent or
less of the altered elevation of an existing structure.
11. Permits classified in sections 5-202, 5-203, 5-204 and 5-208(A) not otherwise
exempt under section 30.6.5(k).
. . .
(§ 30.6.4, 10-3-90; § 30.6.4.1, 10-3-90; 5-18-94; § 30.6.4.2, 10-3-90; §30.6.5(formerly § 30.6.3.2, 7-8-92; Ord.
01-18(3), 5-9-01); § 30.6.4, Ord. 10-18(5), 5-12-10)
Sec. 30.6.5 Development exempt from requirement to obtain certificate of appropriateness
The following development is exempt from the requirements of section 30.6:
. . .
d. Agricultural product signs, political signs, public signs, sandwich board signs, temporary signs, and
sandwich board signs window signs and signs exempt from the sign permit requirement under section
4.15.6.
. . .
(§ 30.6.6, 10-3-90; § 30.6.6.1, 10-3-90; § 30.6.6.2, 10-3-90, 6-14-00; § 30.6.6.3, 5-18-94; § 30.6.5; Ord. 10-
18(5), 5-12-10)
(Formerly SIGNS, Now see 30.6.4, 5-12-10)
I, Ella W. Jordan, do hereby certify that the foregoing writing is a true, correct copy of an Ordinance duly
adopted by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, by a vote of _____ to _____, as recorded
below, at a regular meeting held on _________________________.
__________________________________
Clerk, Board of County Supervisors
Aye Nay
Mr. Boyd ____ ____
Mr. Dorrier ____ ____
Ms. Mallek ____ ____
Mr. Rooker ____ ____
Mr. Snow ____ ____
Mr. Thomas ____ ____
RESOLUTION OF INTENT
WHEREAS, the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance includes regulations pertaining to the
location, size, height, number and, along entrance corridors, the design, of signs; and
WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors’ “2010 Albemarle County Action Plan,” dated January
6, 2010, included as one of its objectives the re-examination of the County’s sign regulations “to
ensure they do not overly restrict economic vitality of area businesses” with the goal of developing
new regulations that “will help promote good business practices as well as maintaining quality
aesthetic values;” and
WHEREAS, the issues identified for study and action include the sign review and approval
process, regulations pertaining to temporary signs, sign height, and signs within business centers,
industrial parks and business parks, and definitions; and
WHEREAS, it may be desired to amend the County’s sign regulations to address the issues
identified above and other related issues pertaining to the regulation of signs.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT for purposes of public necessity,
convenience, general welfare and good zoning practices, the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors
hereby adopts a resolution of intent to consider amending Albemarle County Code § 18-4.15, Signs,
and any other sections of the Zoning Ordinance deemed to be appropriate to achieve the purposes
described herein; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT the Planning Commission will hold a public hearing
on the zoning text amendment proposed pursuant to this resolution of intent, and make its
recommendations to the Board of Supervisors at the earliest possible date.
* * * * *
Return to PC staff report
SIGN ZTA SCHEDULE/Actions
Date Action Status
Dec./7/09 - - ARB discussion of Planned Dev. signs w/Stewart Completed
Jan./4/10 - - Stewart presented “Anchor Signs” ideas to ARB Completed
Jan./6/10 -- BOS adoption of “2010 Albemarle County Action Plan” Adopted
Feb-Apr ’10 - - Meet with BOS members on sign ord. issues & Plan item Completed
Mar./23/10 - - Have staff group meeting on Sign ZTAs & BOS Plan item Completed
Apr./2/10 - - Secure meeting space for roundtable(s) Completed
Apr./16/10 - - Assemble mailing list (sign makers, business groups, others) Completed
Apr./20/10 - - Develop Background materials for 1st Roundtable Completed
Apr./30/10 - - Send out Roundtable #1 invitations w/info Completed
May/7/10 - - Prepare PPT for Roundtable Completed
May/12/10 - - Resolution of intent to BOS Completed
May/13/10 - - Roundtable #1 to solicit comments and ideas on sign regs.-4:00pm/Room 235 Completed
June/15/10 -- Assemble mailing/A-mail list for 2nd roundtable Completed
June/16/10 -- Place Sign ZTA link on website Completed
June /16/10 -- Send out Roundtable #2 invitations w/info Completed
June/29/10 -- Roundtable #2 to solicit comments and ideas on sign regs.-5:30pm/Room 241 Completed
July/2010 -- Compile ideas and comments from roundtables Completed
Aug./16 /10 - - ARB Work Session Completed
Oct./19/10 - - PC Work Session (w/decision points) Completed
June/1/11 - - Draft ZTA ready Completed
June/2011 - - Send out Roundtable #3 invitations Completed
June/30/11 - - Roundtable #3 to present proposed draft ZTA -4:30pm/Room 241 Scheduled
Sept./2011 - - Staff report for PC Completed
Sept./13/11 - - PC Public Hearing Scheduled
T.B.D. - - Executive Summary for BOS
T.B.D. - - BOS Public Hearing T.B.D
RESOLUTION OF INTENT
WHEREAS, the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance includes regulations pertaining to the
location, size, height, number and, along entrance corridors, the design, of signs; and
WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors’ “2010 Albemarle County Action Plan,” dated January
6, 2010, included as one of its objectives the re-examination of the County’s sign regulations “to
ensure they do not overly restrict economic vitality of area businesses” with the goal of developing
new regulations that “will help promote good business practices as well as maintaining quality
aesthetic values;” and
WHEREAS, the issues identified for study and action include the sign review and approval
process, regulations pertaining to temporary signs, sign height, and signs within business centers,
industrial parks and business parks, and definitions; and
WHEREAS, it may be desired to amend the County’s sign regulations to address the issues
identified above and other related issues pertaining to the regulation of signs.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT for purposes of public necessity,
convenience, general welfare and good zoning practices, the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors
hereby adopts a resolution of intent to consider amending Albemarle County Code § 18-4.15, Signs,
and any other sections of the Zoning Ordinance deemed to be appropriate to achieve the purposes
described herein; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT the Planning Commission will hold a public hearing
on the zoning text amendment proposed pursuant to this resolution of intent, and make its
recommendations to the Board of Supervisors at the earliest possible date.
* * * * *
Return to exec summary
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – SEPTEMBER 13, 2011
DRAFT MINUTES (PARTIAL) – ZTA-2010-00005 SIGNS
Albemarle County Planning Commission
September 13, 2011
The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a regular meeting on Tuesday, September 13, 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, Don Franco, Russell (Mac) Lafferty and Calvin Morris, Vice
Chair. Commission members absent were Thomas Loach, Linda Porterfield, and Ed Smith. Julia
Monteith, AICP, Senior Land Use Planner for the University of Virginia was absent.
Other officials present were Claudette Grant, Senior Planner; Steward Wright, Permits Planner; Ron
Higgins, Chief of Zoning; Elaine Echols, Principal Planner; David Benish, Chief of Zoning; Wayne
Cilimberg, Director of Planning; and Greg Kamptner, Deputy County Attorney.
Call to Order and Establish Quorum:
Mr. Zobrist, Chair, called the regular meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. and established a quorum.
Public Hearing:
ZTA 2010-00005 Signs – Amend Secs. 4.15.1, Purpose and intent, 4.15.2, Definitions, 4.15.4, Signs
authorized by sign permit, 4.15.6, Signs exempt from the sign permit requirement, 4.15.7, Prohibited
signs and sign characteristics, 4.15.8, Regulations applicable in the MHD, RA, VR, R -1 and R-2 zoning
districts, 4.15.9, Regulations applicable in the R-4 and R-6 zoning districts, 4.15.11, Regulations
applicable in the PUD, DCD and NMD zoning districts, 4.15.12, Regulations applicable in the C -1 and CO
zoning districts, 4.15.13, Regulations applicable in the HC, PD-SC and PD-MC zoning districts, 4.15.14,
Regulations applicable in the HI, LI and PD-IP zoning districts, 4.15.15, Regulations applicable in the
entrance corridor overlay district, 30.6.4, Certificates of appropriateness, and 30.6.5, Development
exempt from requirement to obtain certificate of appropriateness, and add Sec. 4.15.4A, Signs authorized
by temporary sign permit, of Chapter 18, Zoning, of the Albemarle County Code. This ordinance would
amend the stated purpose and intent of the sign regulations (4.15.1), add and amend definitions (4.15.2),
amend the procedures for obtaining sign permits and permits for temporary signs (4.15.4, 4.15.4A),
increase the number of permits for temporary signs allowed in a calendar year from 4 to 6 and allow the
60 day period to be aggregated among the several permits (4.15.4A), amend the scope of home
occupation and window signs that are exempt from the sign permit requirement (4.15.6), increase the
area of a window or door covered by signs from 25% to 50% before they are considered prohibited signs
that obstruct vision (4.15.7), amend the sign regulations applicable to the several zoning districts by
increasing the maximum size of freestanding signs from 24 to 32 sq. ft. and allow bonus panel signs in
some districts, reducing the minimum sign setback for directory and temporary signs in certain districts
from 10 to 5 feet, amending the maximum height of temporary and wall signs in some districts,
standardizing the method for calculating the permitted area of a wall sign (1.5 sq. ft. per linear foot of
structure frontage), allowing sandwich board signs in the commercial and planned industrial zoning
districts, and having the Highway Commercial district be subject to the sign regulations in section 4.15.12
rather than section 4.15.13 (4.15.8, 4.15.9, 4.15.11 through 4.15.14), eliminate the requirement of a
certificate of appropriateness for a window sign or a sign visible through a window (4.15.15), add
standards for bonus panel signs and sandwich board signs (4.15.16), allow all signs, rather than just walls
signs, to be eligible for a countywide certificate of appropriateness (30.6.4), and amend the class of signs
exempt from the requirement for a certificate of appropriateness (30.6.5). A copy of the full text of the
ordinance is on file in the office of the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors and in the Department of
Community Development, County Office Building, 401 McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia.
(Ron Higgins)
Ron Higgins presented a Power-Point presentation and summarized the executive summary for ZTA-
2010 -0005 Signs.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – SEPTEMBER 13, 2011
DRAFT MINUTES (PARTIAL) – ZTA-2010-00005 SIGNS
BACKGROUND and ORIGIN:
On January 6, 2010, the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors adopted a “2010 Albemarle County
Action Plan” (see Attachment B) which included as item #6 the following: “Sign Ordinances – The sign
ordinances need to be re-examined to ensure they do not overly restrict economic vitality of area
businesses. Staff should work with local retailers to develop new ordinances that will help promote good
business practices as well as maintaining quality aesthetic values.”
The Board of Supervisors adopted a Resolution of Intent on the Sign zoning text amendments (ZTA) on
May 12, 2010 (see Attachment C). Throughout this process we hosted three roundtable discussions to
seek input from those in the sign industry, business community, local elected and appointed officials and
various other groups, to hear what they had to say about the present sign ordinance and sign permit
approval process and, finally, to comment on the proposed ordinance draft.
On August 16, 2010 we held a work session on the Potential Sign ZTAs with the ARB. They were asked
to comment on a number of items, including: the predictability of the sign review process in the entrance
corridors; improvements in sign application materials and application process; changes in sign regulations
for planned developments; making some standards more consistent (e.g. wall sign allowances,
freestanding sign setbacks); window sign regulations and applicability; review of sign packages and
coordination with site plans; entrance corridor guidelines, and; increased heights for wall signs. The ARB
supported changes and suggested that regulations be simplified in most cases.
We brought the results of the roundtables, ARB d iscussions and other comments to you for discussion at
your work session on October 19, 2010. At that session we presented a number of proposed changes
and received comments and guidance on those. The proposed sign ordinance changes reflect that
guidance.
DISCUSSION:
As you will recall, we heard more about the sign review and approval process than about sign standards
throughout the discovery process. It was evident in the discussions with various stakeholders that the
perception was that the process took too much time and effort on the applicant’s part. To this end the
staff and ARB has implemented a number of efforts to streamline the approval process, including: better
coaching of applicants on what to provide to get a speedy review ; county-wide administrative ARB
approval standards, and; improvement to the sign application and materials to better guide applicants.
This has resulted in significant reductions in the time it takes to review and approve sign permits, as we
reported at your October 19, 2010 Work Session.
Regarding the sign ordinance changes, we heard that these should be limited and result in simplifications
and improvements in process that save time for applicants, boards and staff. All of the text amendments
proposed are intended to do that. It was important to not develop amendments that would increase staff
time in an era of reduced staffing levels. For example, eliminating reviews for special permits for off -site
signs in planned developments saves staff time in developing a report to the Board of Zoning Appeals,
saves the Board time in reviewing such applications and saves applicants time and money by permitting
an administrative review without the costly application fee and advertising fees. Not requiring a per mit or
review for window signs reduces staff time and the standard simplifies enforcement of the regulations by
Code Enforcement Officers.
PROPOSED SIGN ORDINANCE CHANGES:
The changes that are represented in the Proposed Ordinance to amend sign regulat ions include the
following, along with some reference corrections and clarifications (see Attachment A):
Planned Developments and shopping centers:
--The “site” has been redefined to include the entire planned development in order to address the
issue of “off-site” signs in unified developments, thus no longer requiring an SP for these.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – SEPTEMBER 13, 2011
DRAFT MINUTES (PARTIAL) – ZTA-2010-00005 SIGNS
--The size for a freestanding sign for planned developments and shopping centers has been
increased to allow for up to 54 sq. ft. maximum if “bonus tenant panel” signs are to be included within the
primary sign. The current ordinance limits this to 32 sq. ft. in some districts and 24 sq. ft. in other districts.
Currently, in shopping centers with at least 100,000 sq. ft. in gross floor area you can have one anchor
sign at 6 sq. ft. for each 100,000 sq. ft. This provision has been eliminated and replaced with the “bonus
tenant panel” sign type.
--The anchor sign provision has been eliminated and replaced with a “bonus tenant panel”
definition and provision which eliminates multiple freestanding tenant signs.
Freestanding and monuments signs:
--Setbacks have been made consistent (e.g. all 5’ instead of some at 5’ and some at 10’ as the
current regulations require).
Wall Signs:
--The area maximum has been made the same in all commercial and planned districts (e.g. 1½
sq. ft. of area for each 1 linear foot of wall)? Currently it is 1:1 in some and 1½:1 in other areas.
--The height would now be allowed to be above the current 30’ maximum in non -residential
development for buildings that are taller. This is now defined as “not to exceed the cornice line and the
“cornice line” has been defined.
Temporary Signs:
--The number per year has been increase from the current limit of four to six.
--The length of time they are up remains the current limit of 15 days. However this can be done
in any combination of time periods as long as the aggregate does not exceed the current calendar year
limit of sixty (60) days.
--The fifteen day limit does not apply to a temporary sign erected while a permanent sign is being
made. However, the sixty day calendar year limit would still apply to such signs.
--Sandwich board signs would now be allowed in all planned development districts as they
currently are in the Downtown Crozet district.
Window Signs:
--Window signs would not be subject to permits or ARB approvals.
--Window signs would now have a 50% maximum coverage area per window.
--Window signs that exceed 50% coverage would now be prohibited signs.
PUBLIC PURPOSE TO BE SERVED:
As stated earlier, all of the changes would result in more clarity for applicants, reduced staff and board
time and reduced cost to the applicants. The changes would not have an adverse impact on aesthetic
values present in the county.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend to the Board of Supervisors, approval of
the proposed Ordinance to amend various sign regulations in the Zoning Ordinance as found in
Attachment A.
Stopped 654
Mr. Zobrist invited questions for staff.
Mr. Lafferty asked that they go back to the Kohl’s sign. He asked if it was two signs or a temporary sign.
Mr. Higgins replied that the place available sign is a real estate sign, which is exempt from the sign
ordinance and only allowed because it is advertising space.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – SEPTEMBER 13, 2011
DRAFT MINUTES (PARTIAL) – ZTA-2010-00005 SIGNS
Mr. Kamptner noted that a real estate sign would be exempt.
Mr. Lafferty suggested that it might be helpful if they had examples of worst cases.
Mr. Higgins replied that he had a picture of Central Park in Spotsylvania County, but he did not have it at
the meeting. That sign might be 2,000 square feet and have 50 signs on it that are unreadable from the
stoplight. He felt that having a certain limit was helpful.
Mr. Lafferty noted what he meant was worse case given the ordinance that they are trying to pass.
Mr. Zobrist noted that it would be the worse looking sign they can come up with based on the new
ordinance.
Mr. Higgins pointed out the biggest sign they could come up with in Albemarle County would be about ½
the size of the Rio Hills sign, which would be 64 square feet. If they look at the Kohl’s and Hollymead
Town Center that is 32 square feet. It would be another 32 square feet added to that, which would be the
worst case scenario.
Mr. Lafferty said in Stonefield with the multi-story buildings they will be able to put sign at the top.
Mr. Higgins replied yes, it would be up just below the cornice. He suggested the hotel might want to do
that. The ARB has already looked at some of the preliminary designs and started to anticipate that on
that project.
Mr. Lafferty said they will be out of the loop pretty much.
Mr. Higgins replied that they would be out of the loop on the sign to the extent that they would be looking
at the design of the building and where the signs would go. The ARB would have some input on that at
that level. However, they would issue the permits if they met the standards.
Mr. Kamptner said that the six-story or so bank at Pantops is an example where the sign is higher. They
had to go through the Board of Zoning Appeals to get a variance for that. They recognize that with taller
buildings on the way they needed to deal with the issue legislatively.
Mr. Morris noted the Commission received an email late this afternoon from Ben Foster requesting that
they ask about the use of digital, electronic signs. He asked if staff had any input on that.
Mr. Higgins replied that he discussed this with Mr. Foster at length. The director, zoning administrator
and he had communicated with him about this. That is an issue that other localities are looking at across
the state and United States with very mixed results at this time. Our position is two levels. That can be
done now in Albemarle County with a special use permit because it is called an electronic message sign.
That fits within that definition. Mr. Foster does not want to have to get a special use permit because he
feels that is the same as a no. Although he feels they are better than the special us e permit that they get
for electronic LED signs. The other part of that answer is that the Federal Highway Administration is
conducting a very extensive study right now, which will look at the safety of these signs in a more
comprehensive fashion. Until that comes back they are going to stay on the safe side and not suggest
any new regulations for that right now. Somewhere down the line there may be room for that.
Mr. Zobrist noted that they have very few of those signs in the county that are flashing and moving.
Mr. Higgins said that there is one sign like that at the corner of Rio. McDonalds had wanted that type of
sign because they felt it was well worth the cost for one sign. The jury is out on that. Mr. Foster has sent
staff various studies. He has looked at all of them for the past year and a half. There is also a study that
was done by various professionals consisting of planners, engineers, and sign makers and they were
somewhat inconclusive. Mr. Graham has felt that it would be better just to see what the FHA says will
work and use that as a spring board one way or the other to look at it. At this point they are not going to
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – SEPTEMBER 13, 2011
DRAFT MINUTES (PARTIAL) – ZTA-2010-00005 SIGNS
do anything until the Board of Supervisors reviews the ordinance amendment. Staff is looking at the
issue.
Mr. Zobrist noted there were many such signs in Las Vegas, which made traveling the roads very
dangerous.
Mr. Higgins pointed out that staff has some information on that if the Commission is interested.
Mr. Zobrist opened the public hearing and invited public comment.
Morgan Butler, speaking for The Southern Environmental Law Center, made the following comments.
This past January Charlottesville Tomorrow hosted Ed McMahon, a land use expert for the Urban
Land Use Institute. Mr. McMahon gave an excellent presentation on the connection between
economic vitalit y and community character. He offered several examples of how communities
with high development standards maintain a unique character and a quality of life that are huge
economic assets. Albemarle’s unique character and quality of life are certainly two of our area’s
best economic assets. The development standards they have in place are vital in protecting the
assets. While they should be on the lookout for reasonable ways to make our development
standards easier to administer they should proceed with changes carefully, especially with
something that affects the visual character of a community as much as signs do. Many of the
proposed changes before them tonight are fair improvements to the sign ordinance.
He thanked staff for their work on this and for their efforts to seek public input and answer
questions. However, they remain concerned that a number of the proposed changes go too far.
They would like to recommend some changes before this goes before the Board of Supervisors.
For example, as Mr. Higgins explained wall signs are currently limited to a height of either 20’ or
30’ in all zoning districts. Under the proposed changes this height limit would be raised all the
way to the cornice line at the top of the building’s walls in all commercial and planned districts.
While it may occasionally make sense to allow a higher wall sign in an individual case, such as
when one building partially blocks a façade of another, they think those isolated cases could be
better dealt with by individually allowing for a variation or modification rather than enacting a
sweeping change that would essentially eliminate the height restriction altogether. Second, the
proposed changes would also double the potential size of window signs and eliminate certificates
of appropriateness for window signs in Entrance Corridors. There needs to be some safe guard
against store fronts becoming de-facto billboards especially along our Entrance Corridors. At the
very least a certificate of appropriateness should continue to be required for window signs visible
from an Entrance Corridor when they are above a certain size.
As a third example, they think the proposed switch from anchor signs to bonus tenant panels at
shopping centers could hold promise if it results in consolidating signs in one central location.
However, the idea losing force if shopping centers that are too small to qualify to put up anchor
signs under the current ordinance would now qualify to put up tenant panels under the proposed
changes. In that case they are not consolidating but just allowing new signs that were not
allowed before. That is what is being proposed here. Instead the s hopping center square footage
thresholds that currently apply to anchor signs should be the same thresholds that would apply to
the bonus tenant panels under the changes. In closing, thank you for considering their concerns
and suggestions and remembering that preserving our community’s character is a key factor in
the county’s long term economic prosperity.
Neil Williamson, with The Free Enterprise Forum, said this was the second time through with the sign
ordinance. He was involved with the 2004 sign review. They continue to make what he considers
refinements and improvements. There is a line in the ordinance now that recognizes that s igns are an
important part of customers finding businesses. Mr. Butler raised a concern that they need to restrict
abilities to see those signs as preserving community character. He did not believe those were mutually
exclusive. He believed that staff has found a way to go somewhat to hit the middle of road here with this
ordinance. There is more that he would like to see. He did not think that window signs should be
regulated at all. He thought that they should be over 100 percent of the window. Now someone raised a
safety concern. He might suggest that if the shop has 100 percent coverage and they don’t want the
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – SEPTEMBER 13, 2011
DRAFT MINUTES (PARTIAL) – ZTA-2010-00005 SIGNS
police to see in what point is it for the government to tell them that they should allow the police to see in.
There have been studies on this. The Southland Corporation did a study about ten years ago. He
believed that 50 percent of all window covering and window availability is a reasonable approach. The
groceries stores he goes to have great big windows over the top of their entrance way. Those windows
are for light and to put up the weekly special. Those window signs do not meet the 50 percent criteria.
However, there are huge windows in the fronts of most of these grocer y stores. That would be 50 percent
of the total window covering. He accepts the 50 percent and thinks it is a reasonable compromise. He
applauds staff for working through these. He thinks the bonus tenant panel provision as written i s a
positive one and could really improve some signs. There are a number of signs that are grandfathered
right now that under the current ordinance could not be erected without modifying in a manner that is in
conflict with folk’s contracts with their tenants. The tenant bonus provision may provide a way to allow
those signs to be brought up to date and look better along the Entrance Corridor and throughout the
county.
There being no further public comment, the public hearing was closed and the matter before the Planning
Commission.
Mr. Zobrist asked how they handle the big painted trucks that become surrogate signs that they are
putting up along Route 29.
Mr. Higgins replied that there is a current provision for that. Staff is actually enforcing two right now that
have basically parked themselves as what is called in the county ordinance an advertising vehicle. They
are doing civil penalties. In enforcing they provide a notice of violation and give them a certain amount of
time to remove it. Then they will start fining them. It is covered now. The provision is if it is not parked in
an approved parking space and it is not an operable vehicle, which would not have current license and
inspection. There is a little gray area there, but they still try to pursue them.
Mr. Zobrist suggested that they work on that to get it black and white.
Mr. Franco said Mr. Butler raised the question about anchor signs for shopping centers below 100,000
square feet.
Mr. Higgins replied that he forgot to mention that. They actually reduced the 100,000 to 50,000 square
feet. They still have not more than four for a shopping center, but only one sign is permitted per 50,000
square feet now. The other thing is those are bonus tenant panels only. They have r emoved the tenant
anchor sign completely from the ordinance. They will no longer be able to do the freestanding anchor
signs and only be able to do the bonus tenant panel if it is added to an approved freestanding sign for the
shopping center. They have limited it thinking that it will probably be a better way to deal with that need.
Motion for ZTA-2010-00005:
Motion: Mr. Morris moved and Mr. Franco seconded to forward a recommendation of approval of ZTA-
2010-00005 Signs as presented by staff of the proposed ordinance to amend various sign regulations in
the Zoning Ordinance as outlined in Attachment A.
The motion passed by a vote of 4:0.
Mr. Zobrist noted ZTA-2010-00005, Signs would be forwarded with a recommendation of approval to the
Board of Supervisors to a date to be determined.
(Recorded and transcribed by Sharon C. Taylor, Clerk to Planning Commission & Planning Boards)
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – SEPTEMBER 13, 2011
DRAFT MINUTES (PARTIAL) – ZTA-2010-00005 SIGNS
ZTA-2010-00005 Signs – Recommendations
Attachment A of Staff Report
Draft: 08/29/11 1 ORDINANCE NO. 11-18( )
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND CHAPTER 18, ZONING, ARTICLE II, BASIC REGULATIONS, AND
ARTICLE III, DISTRICT REGULATIONS, OF THE CODE OF THE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA
BE IT ORDAINED By the Board of Supervisors of the County of Albemarle, Virginia, that Chapter 18,
Zoning, Article II, Basic Regulations, and Article III, District Regulations, are hereby amended and
reordained as follows:
By Amending:
Sec. 4.15.1 Purpose and intent
Sec. 4.15.2 Definitions
Sec. 4.15.4 Signs authorized by sign permit
Sec. 4.15.6 Signs exempt from the sign permit requirement
Sec. 4.15.7 Prohibited signs and sign characteristics
Sec. 4.15.8 Regulations applicable in the MHD, RA, VR, R-1 and R-2 zoning districts
Sec. 4.15.9 Regulations applicable in the R-4 and R-6 zoning districts
Sec. 4.15.11 Regulations applicable in the PUD, DCD and NMD zoning districts
Sec. 4.15.12 Regulations applicable in the C-1 and CO zoning districts
Sec. 4.15.13 Regulations applicable in the HC, PD-SC and PD-MC zoning districts
Sec. 4.15.14 Regulations applicable in the HI, LI and PD-IP zoning districts
Sec. 4.15.15 Regulations applicable in the entrance corridor overlay district
Sec. 30.6.4 Certificates of appropriateness
Sec. 30.6.5 Development exempt from requirement to obtain certificate of appropriateness
By Adding:
Sec. 4.15.4A Signs authorized by temporary sign permit
Chapter 18. Zoning
Article II. Basic Regulations
Sec. 4.15.1 Purpose and intent
The purpose and intent of this section 4.15 include, but are not limited to, the following:
a. The board of supervisors finds that signs are a separate and distinct use of the property upon which
they are located and affect the uses and users of adjacent streets, sidewalks and other areas open to the
public; that signs are an important means of communication for businesses, organizations, individuals
and government; and that the unregulated erection and display of signs constitute a public nuisance
detrimental to the health, safety, convenience and general welfare of the public. Therefore, the purpose of
this section 4.15 is to establish reasonable regulations pertaining to the time, place and manner in which
outdoor signs and window signs may be erected and maintained in order to:
1. Promote the general health, safety and welfare, including the creation of an attractive and ha rmonious
environment;
2. Protect the public investment in the creation, maintenance, safety and appearance of its streets,
highways and other areas open to the public;
Draft: 08/29/11 2
3. Improve pedestrian and vehicular safety by avoiding saturation and confusion in the field of vision that
could otherwise result if such signs were not regulated as provided herein; and
4. Protect and enhance the county's attractiveness to tourists and other visitors as sources of economic
development.
b. The board of supervisors finds that the regulations in this section 4.15 advance the significant
governmental interests identified herein and are the minimum amount of regulation necessary to achieve
them.
c. Signs are classified and regulated in this section 4.15 by their purpose (e.g., bonus tenant panel),
physical type (e.g., freestanding sign), location (e.g., off-site sign) and characteristics (e.g., illuminated
sign). By classifying and regulating signs by their purpose, the board of supervisors does not intend to
regulate their content and, more specifically, any particular viewpoint, but rather intends to create a
reasonable classification by which to regulate the time, place and manner of signs.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – SEPTEMBER 13, 2011
DRAFT MINUTES (PARTIAL) – ZTA-2010-00005 SIGNS
The regulations in this section 4.15 shall apply to all outdoor signs and window signs. Each sign subject
to this section 4.15 shall comply with all regulations applicable to that sign.
d. Signs are classified and regulated in this section 4.15 by their purpose (e.g., anchor sign), physical
type (e.g., freestanding sign), location (e.g., off-site sign) and characteristics (e.g., illuminated sign). Each
sign subject to this section 4.15 shall comply with all regulations applicable to that sign.
(12-10-80; 7-8-92, § 4.15.01; Ord. 01-18(3), 5-9-01)
State law reference – Va. Code § 15.2-2280.
Sec. 4.15.2 Definitions
The following definitions shall apply in the interpretation and implementation of this section 4.15:
. . .
(2) Anchor sign. The term “anchor sign” means a sign that identifies any specific business within a
shopping center.
(8.1) Bonus tenant panel: The term “bonus tenant panel” means an additional sign permitted for individual
tenants in shopping centers or planned developments when added to the freestanding sign for the
shopping center or planned development.
. . .
(14.1) Cornice line. The term “cornice line” means the location of a cornice along the top of a wall; or, for
a wall that has no cornice, the corresponding horizontal line along the top of a wall where a cornice would
traditionally be located. In all cases, the “cornice line” applies to the main walls of a building and does not
apply to features that extend above the top of the main walls of a building.
. . .
Draft: 08/29/11 3
(16) Electric message sign. The term “electric message sign” means a sign on which the copy can be
changed or altered by electric, electro-mechanical or electronic means.
. . .
(35) Off-site sign. The term “off-site sign” means: (i) within a zoning district other than a planned
development, a sign that is not located on the same lot with the use to which it pertains, but does not
include a sign located in a public right-of-way; or (ii) within a planned development zoning district, a sign
that is not located within the area depicted on the application plan approved for the planned development,
but does not include a sign located in a public right-of-way.
. . .
(12-10-80; 7-8-92, § 4.15.03; Ord. 01-18(3), 5-9-01; Ord. 05-18(4), 3-16-05; Ord. 10-18(1), 1-13-10; Ord.
10-18(3), 5-5-10; Ord. 10-18(5), 5-12-10)
State law reference – Va. Code § 15.2-2280.
Sec. 4.15.4 Signs authorized by sign permit
Except as provided in sections 4.15.6 (exempt signs) and 4.15.24 (nonconforming signs) Except for
temporary signs subject to the permitting requirements of section 4.15.4A, sign s exempt from this section
under section 4.15.6 or nonconforming signs subject to section 4.15.24, a sign permit shall be required for
each sign erected on the same lot with the principal use to which it pertains, prior to its erection,
alteration, replacement or relocation, as provided herein:
a. Application. An application for a sign permit shall be submitted to the department of building code and
zoning services community development, together with payment of the fee required for the application
pursuant to section 35.0 35.1 of this chapter. A complete application shall consist of the following:
1. A fully completed application form, provided to the applicant by the zoning administrator;
2. A schematic legibly drawn to scale and sufficiently detailed showing the location and dimensions of the
sign; and
3. Any plans, specifications and details pertaining to, among other things, the sign materials, the methods
of illumination, methods of support, components, and the condition and age of the sign, as dete rmined by
the zoning administrator to be necessary for the review of the application.
b. Application review and permit issuance. A sign permit application shall be reviewed and acted upon by
the zoning administrator only as provided herein:
1. Timing of application. An application for a sign permit may be filed at any time, and if a special use
permit for the sign is required under section 4.15.5 or a certificate of appropriateness for the sign is
required under section 4.15.15 and section 30.6 of this chapter, the application may be filed with or any
time after the application for the special use permit or certificate of appropriateness is filed.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – SEPTEMBER 13, 2011
DRAFT MINUTES (PARTIAL) – ZTA-2010-00005 SIGNS
12. Action on application. Within thirty (30) days of the receipt of a complete sign permit application, or
within seven (7) days of the receipt of a complete sign application for a temporary sign, the zoning
administrator shall review the application and either: (i) approve the
Draft: 08/29/11 4
application; (ii) deny the application; or (iii) refer the applic ation to the applicant for more information as
may be required by subsection 4.15.4(Aa)(3); (iv) refer the application to the board of zoning appeals
because the applicant must obtain a special use permit pursuant to section 4.15.5; and/or (v) refer the
application to the architectural review board because the proposed sign will be located within the
entrance corridor overlay district and a certificate of appropriateness is required. An application shall be
denied only if the proposed sign is a prohibited sign, or does not comply with the regulations set forth in
this section 4.15 or, a required special use permit or certificate of appropriateness for the sign was not
granted. If the application is denied, the reasons shall be specified in writing.
23. Failure to timely act. If the zoning administrator fails to take one of the actions described herein within
thirty (30) days of receipt of a complete sign permit application, or within seven (7) days of the receipt of a
complete sign application for a temporary sign, the permit shall be deemed approved as received.
c. Administration, generally. Except for permits issued for temporary signs, which are subject to the
regulations in subsection (D), the following regulations shall apply to the administration of sign permits:
1. A sign permit shall become null and void if the use to which the sign permit pertains is not commenced
within six (6) months after the date the sign permit, special use permit or certificate of appropriateness is
issued, whichever is later or, if the sign contains exclusively noncommercial copy, the sign is not erected
within six (6) months after the date the sign permit is issued. Upon written request by the permittee and
upon good cause shown, the zoning administrator may grant an extensio n of the six (6)-month period.
2. The zoning administrator shall revoke a sign permit if the sign does not comply with any applicable
regulation of this section 4.15.
d. Administration, permits for temporary signs. The following regulations shall apply to the administration
of sign permits issued for temporary signs:
1. A temporary sign that is a portable sign shall be stabilized so as not to pose a danger to public safety.
Prior to the sign being erected, the zoning administrator shall approve the metho d of stabilization.
2. No more than four (4) permits for temporary signs shall be issued by the zoning administrator to the
same establishment in any calendar year.
3. Each permit for a temporary sign shall be valid for a period not to exceed fifteen (15 ) consecutive days
after the erection of the sign.
(12-10-80; 7-8-92, §§ 4.15.09, 4.15.09.1, 4.15.09.2, 4.15.09.3; Ord. 01-18(3), 5-9-01)
State law reference – Va. Code §§ 15.2-2280, 15.2-2286.
Sec. 4.15.4A Signs authorized by temporary sign permit
A permit shall be required for each temporary sign (hereinafter, a “temporary sign permit”), prior to its
erection, alteration, replacement or relocation, as provided herein:
Draft: 08/29/11 5
a. Application. An application for a temporary sign permit shall be submitted to the department of
community development, together with payment of the fee required for the application pursuant to section
35.1 of this chapter, and comply with the application requirements of subsection 4.15.4(a).
b. Application review and permit issuance. A temporary sign permit application shall be reviewed and
acted upon by the zoning administrator only as provided herein:
1. Action on application. Within seven (7) days after receipt of a complete application, the zoning
administrator shall either: (i) approve the application; (ii) deny the application; or (iii) refer the application
to the applicant for more information as may be required by section 4.15.4(a)(3). An application shall be
denied only if the proposed temporary sign is a prohibited sign or does not comply with the regulations set
forth in this section 4.15. If the application is denied, the reasons shall be specified in writing.
2. Failure to timely act. If the zoning administrator fails to take one of the actions described herein within
seven (7) days of the receipt of a complete sign application for a temporary sign, the permit shall be
deemed approved as received.
c. Administration. The following regulations shall apply to the administration of sign permits:
1. Number of permits. No more than six (6) temporary sign permits shall be issued by the zoning
administrator to the same establishment in any calendar year.
2. Period of validity. Each temporary sign permit shall be valid for a period not to exceed fifteen (15)
consecutive days after the erection of the sign, provided that a temporary sign permit issued while a
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – SEPTEMBER 13, 2011
DRAFT MINUTES (PARTIAL) – ZTA-2010-00005 SIGNS
permanent sign is being made may be valid for longer than fifteen (15) days until the permanent sign is
erected.
3. Aggregate duration for temporary signs in calendar year. Temporary signs shall not be erected at an
establishment for more than sixty (60) days, in the aggregate, in a calendar year.
4. Portable signs; stabilization. A temporary sign that is a portable sign shall be stabilized so as not to
pose a danger to public safety. Prior to the sign being erected, the zoning administrator shall approve the
method of stabilization.
d. Exemptions. A temporary sign permit is not required for a sign exempt from the sign permit requirement
under section 4.15.6 or nonconforming signs subject to section 4.15.24.
Sec. 4.15.6 Signs exempt from the sign permit requirement
The following signs are exempt from the sign permit requirement set forth in to obtain a sign permit under
section 4.15.4 and a temporary sign permit under section 4.15.4A, provided that they comply with the
regulations set forth below and all other applicable regulations of this section 4.15:. A sign exempt from
the requirements to obtain permits under sections 4.15.4 and 4.15.4A is not exempt from the requirement
to obtain a special use permit under section 4.15.5 if required.
. . .
(7) Home occupation class B or major home occupation sign . A home occupation class B or major home
occupation sign that does not exceed four (4) square feet in sign area.
. . .
Draft: 08/29/11 6
(18) Window sign. A permanent window sign, provided that it does not exceed twenty-five percent (25%)
of the total area of the window or door on which it is located, and the aggregate area of all window signs
on each window or door does not exceed twenty-five percent (25%) fifty percent (50%) of the total area of
the window and or door; and further provided that if a permanent window sign will be on a structure within
the entrance corridor overlay district and the window sign is visible from an entrance corridor overlay
street, that the aggregate area of all window signs shall not exceed nine (9) square feet per business and
that a certificate of appropriateness for the window sign is obtained as provided in section 4.15.1 5.
(Amended 3-16-05)
. . .
(12-10-80; 7-8-92, § 4.15.04; Ord. 01-18(3), 5-9-01; Ord. 05-18(4), 3-16-05; Ord. 10-18(4), 5-5-10)
State law reference – Va. Code § 15.2-2280.
Sec. 4.15.7 Prohibited signs and sign characteristics
Notwithstanding any other provision of this section 4.15, the following signs and sign characteristics are
prohibited in all zoning districts:
. . .
b. Signs with characteristics that create a safety hazard or are contrary to the general welfare. Signs
whose construction, design, location or other physical characteristic create a safety hazard or are
contrary to the general welfare, as follows:
. . .
7. Sign that obstructs vision. A sign that obstructs free or clear vision, or otherwise causes a safety
hazard for vehicular, bicycle, or pedestrian traffic due to its location, shape, illumination or color; and
window signs whose aggregate area on a window or door exceed twenty-five percent (25%) fifty percent
(50%) of the total area of the window or door. (Amended 3-16-05)
. . .
(12-10-80; 7-8-92, § 4.15.06; Ord. 01-18(3), 5-9-01; Ord. 05-18(4), 3-16-05)
State law reference – Va. Code § 15.2-2280.
Sec. 4.15.8 Regulations applicable in the MHD, RA, VR, R-1 and R-2 zoning districts
The following regulations pertaining to the number of signs permitted per lot or establishment, the sign
area, sign height, and setback requirements shall apply to each sign for which a sign permit is required
within the Monticello Historic District (MHD), Rural Areas (RA), Village Residential (VR) and Residential
(R-1 and R-2) zoning districts:
Sign Type Number of Signs Allowed Sign Area
(Maximum)
Sign
Height
(Maximum)
Sign
Setback
(Minimum)
Directory 1 or more per establishment,
as authorized by zoning
24 square feet,
aggregated
6 feet 10 5 feet
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – SEPTEMBER 13, 2011
DRAFT MINUTES (PARTIAL) – ZTA-2010-00005 SIGNS
administrator
Freestanding 1 per street frontage, or 2 per
entrance, per lot with 100 or more
feet of continuous street frontage,
plus 1 per lot if the lot is greater
than
24 square feet,
aggregated; if more
than 1 sign, no single
sign shall exceed 12
10 feet 10 5 feet
Draft: 08/29/11 7
4 acres and has more than 1 approved
entrance on its frontage
square feet
Subdivision 2 per entrance per
subdivision
24 square feet,
aggregated, per entrance
6 feet 5 feet
Temporary 1 per street
frontage per
establishment
24 square feet 10 feet, if freestanding
sign; 20 feet, if wall sign,
but not to exceed the top
of the fascia or mansard
10 5 feet
Wall As calculated
pursuant to
section 4.15.20
40 square feet,
aggregated in the RA
zoning district; 20 square
feet, aggregated, in other
zoning districts
20 feet Same as that
applicable to
structure
(12-10-80; 7-8-92, § 4.15.12.1; Ord. 01-18(3), 5-9-01; Ord. 05-18(5), 6-8-05)
State law reference – Va. Code § 15.2-2280.
Sec. 4.15.9 Regulations applicable in the R-4 and R-6 zoning districts
The following regulations pertaining to the number of signs permitted per lot or establishment, the sign
area, sign height, and setback requirements shall apply to each sign for which a sign permit is r equired
within the Residential (R-4 and R-6) zoning districts:
Sign Type Number of Signs Allowed Sign Area
(Maximum)
Sign Height
(Maximum)
Sign
Setback
(Minimum)
Directory 1 or more per establishment,
as authorized by zoning
administrator
24 square feet,
aggregated
6 feet 10 5 feet
Freestanding 1 per street frontage, or 2 per
entrance, per lot with 100 or
more feet of continuous street
frontage plus 1 per lot if the
lot is greater than 4 acres and
has more than 1 approved
entrance on its frontage
24 square feet,
aggregated; if
more than 1 sign,
no single sign
shall exceed 12
square feet
10 feet 10 5 feet
Projecting 1 per street frontage 24 square feet 20 feet, but not to
exceed the top of
the fascia or
mansard
Not
applicable
Subdivision 2 per entrance per
subdivision
24 square feet,
aggregated, per
entrance
6 feet 5 feet
Temporary 1 per street
frontage per establishment
24 square feet 10 feet, if
freestanding sign;
20 feet, if wall sign,
but not to exceed
the top of the
fascia or mansard
10 5 feet
Wall As calculated pursuant to
section 4.15.20
20 square feet,
aggregated
20 feet Same as that
applicable to
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – SEPTEMBER 13, 2011
DRAFT MINUTES (PARTIAL) – ZTA-2010-00005 SIGNS
structure
(12-10-80; 7-8-92, § 4.15.12.2; Ord. 01-18(3), 5-9-01)
State law reference – Va. Code § 15.2-2280.
Sec. 4.15.11 Regulations applicable in the PUD, DCD and NMD zoning districts
The following regulations pertaining to the number of signs permitted per lot or establishment, the sign
area, sign height, and setback requirements shall apply to each sign for which a sign permit is required
within the Planned Unit Development (PUD), Downtown Crozet (DCD) and Neighborhood Model (NMD)
zoning districts:
Sign Type Number of Signs Allowed Sign Area
(Maximum)
Sign
Height
(Maximum)
Sign
Setback
(Minimum)
Directory 1 or more per establishment,
as authorized by zoning
administrator
24 square feet,
aggregated
6 feet 5 feet
1 per street frontage, or 2 per
entrance, per lot
24 32 square feet, 12 feet 5 feet
Draft: 08/29/11 8
Freestanding with 100 or more feet of continuous
street frontage plus 1 per lot if the lot
is greater than 4 acres and has more
than 1 approved entrance on its
frontage
aggregated, plus bonus tenant panels
as provided in section 4.15.16(b); if
more than 1 sign, no single sign shall
exceed 12 square feet
Projecting 1 per street
frontage
24 square feet 30 feet, but not to
exceed the top of the
fascia or mansard
Not applicable
Subdivision 2 per entrance
per subdivision
24 square feet,
aggregated, per
entrance
6 feet 5 feet
Temporary 1 per street
frontage per
establishment
24 square feet 12 feet, if freestanding
sign; 20 feet, if
residential wall sign;
or 30 feet if
nonresidential wall
sign, but not to exceed
the top of the fascia or
mansard cornice line
5 feet
Wall As calculated
pursuant to
section 4.15.20
1 square foot 1.5
square feet per 1 linear
foot of establishment
structure frontage, not
to exceed 32 square
feet if residential wall
sign, or 100 square feet
if nonresidential wall
sign
20 feet, if residential
wall sign; or 30 feet if
nonresidential wall
sign
Not to exceed the
cornice line
Same as that
applicable to
structure
Within the DCD, oOne (1) sandwich board sign is permitted for each establishment, subject to the
following: (1) the sign shall not exceed four (4) feet in height, two (2) feet in width or eight (8) square feet
of area per sign face; (2) if the sign is placed on a sidewalk or any other public pedestrian right-of-way, it
shall be placed in a location that provides a contiguous and un obstructed pedestrian passageway at least
three (3) feet wide; (3) the sign shall not be located in any required off -street parking space, driveway,
access easement, alley or fire lane; (4) the sign shall not be illuminated; (5) the sign shall be removed
during non-business hours; and (6) if the sign is located on county-owned right-of-way, prior to placement
of the sign the owner shall agree to indemnify and hold harmless the county against any claim or liability
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – SEPTEMBER 13, 2011
DRAFT MINUTES (PARTIAL) – ZTA-2010-00005 SIGNS
arising from the placement of the sign, and the agreement shall be in a form and have a substance
approved by the county attorney. Sandwich board signs shall be exempt from review and approval under
section 30.6 subject to the requirements of section 4.15.16(i).
(12-10-80; 7-8-92, § 4.15.12.4; Ord. 01-18(3), 5-9-01; Ord. 03-18(2), 3-19-03; Ord 10-18(1), 1-13-10)
State law reference – Va. Code § 15.2-2280.
Sec. 4.15.12 Regulations applicable in the C-1, and CO and HC zoning districts
The following regulations pertaining to the number of signs per mitted per lot or establishment, the sign
area, sign height, and setback requirements shall apply to each sign for which a sign permit is required
within the Commercial (C-1), and Commercial Office (CO) and Highway Commercial (HC) zoning districts:
Sign Type Number of Signs Allowed Sign Area
(Maximum)
Sign Height
(Maximum)
Sign
Setback
(Minimum)
Directory 1 or more per establishment,
as authorized by zoning
administrator
24 square feet,
aggregated
6 feet 5 feet
Freestanding 1 per street frontage, or 2 per
entrance, per lot with 100 or
more feet of continuous street
frontage plus 1 per lot if the lot
is greater than 4 acres and
has more than 1 approved
entrance on its frontage
32 square feet,
aggregated, plus bonus
tenant panels as
provided in section
4.15.16(b); if more than
1 sign at an entrance, no
single sign shall exceed
16 square feet
12 feet 5 feet
Projecting* 1 per street frontage 32 square feet 30 feet, but
not to exceed
the top of the
Not
applicable
Draft: 08/29/11 9
fascia or mansard
Temporary 1 per street
frontage per
establishment
32 square feet 12 feet, if freestanding
sign; 30 feet if wall sign,
but not to exceed the top
of the fascia or mansard
cornice line
5 feet
Wall* As calculated
pursuant to
section 4.15.20
1 square foot 1.5 square
feet per 1 linear foot of
establishment structure
frontage, not to exceed
100 square feet
30 feet Not to exceed the
cornice line
Same as that
applicable to
structure
*Each establishment may have both a projecting sign and a wall sign, provided that the aggregate sign
area of the two signs shall not exceed thirty-two (32) square feet. If the establishment has both such
signs, the allowed sign area of the wall sign shall be reduced by the sign area of the projecting sign
(which may not exceed thirty-two (32) square feet).
(12-10-80; 7-8-92, § 4.15.12.5; Ord. 01-18(3), 5-9-01)
State law reference – Va. Code § 15.2-2280.
Sec. 4.15.13 Regulations applicable in the HC, PD-SC and PD-MC zoning districts
The following regulations pertaining to the number of signs permitted per lot or establishment, the sign
area, sign height, and setback requirements shall apply to each sign for which a sign permit is required
within the Highway Commercial (HC), Planned Development-Shopping Center (PD-SC) and Planned
Development-Mixed Commercial (PD-MC) zoning districts:
Sign Type Number of Signs
Allowed
Sign Area
(Maximum)
Sign Height
(Maximum)
Sign
Setback
(Minimum)
Directory 1 or more per
establishment,
as authorized by zoning
24 square feet,
aggregated
6 feet 5 feet
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – SEPTEMBER 13, 2011
DRAFT MINUTES (PARTIAL) – ZTA-2010-00005 SIGNS
administrator
Freestanding 1 per street frontage, or 2
per entrance, per lot with
100 or more feet of
continuous street frontage
plus 1 per lot if the lot is
greater than 4 acres and
has more than 1 approved
entrance on its frontage
32 square feet,
aggregated, plus bonus
tenant panels as
provided in section
4.15.16(b); if more than
1 sign at an entrance,
no single sign shall
exceed 16 square feet
12 16 feet 5 feet
Projecting* 1 per street frontage 32 square feet 30 feet, but not to
exceed the top of
the fascia or
mansard
Not
applicable
Temporary 1 per street
frontage per
establishment
32 square feet 12 feet, if
freestanding sign;
30 feet if wall sign,
but not to exceed
the top of the
fascia or mansard
cornice line
5 feet
Wall* As calculated pursuant to
section 4.15.20
1.5 square feet per 1
linear foot of
establishment structure
frontage, not to exceed
200 square feet
30 feet Not to
exceed the
cornice line
Same as
that
applicable to
structure
*Each establishment may have both a projecting sign and a wall sign, provided that the aggregate sign
area of the two signs shall not exceed thirty-two (32) square feet. If the establishment has both such
signs, the allowed sign area of the wall sign sha ll be reduced by the sign area of the projecting sign
(which may not exceed thirty-two (32) square feet.
One (1) sandwich board sign is permitted for each establishment, subject to the requirements of section
4.15.16(i).
Draft: 08/29/11 10
(12-10-80; 7-8-92, § 4.15.12.6; Ord. 01-18(3), 5-9-01)
State law reference – Va. Code § 15.2-2280.
Sec. 4.15.14 Regulations applicable in the HI, LI and PD-IP zoning districts
The following regulations pertaining to the number of signs permitted per lot or establishment, the sign
area, sign height, and setback requirements shall apply to each sign for which a sign permit is required
within the Heavy Industry (HI), Light Industry (LI) and Planned Development-Industrial Park (PD-IP)
zoning districts.
Sign Type Number of Signs
Allowed
Sign Area
(Maximum)
Sign Height
(Maximum)
Sign
Setback
(Minimum)
Directory 1 or more per
establishment,
as authorized by zoning
administrator
24 square feet,
aggregated
6 feet 5 feet
Freestanding 1 per street frontage, or 2
per entrance, per lot with
100 or more feet of
continuous street frontage
plus 1 per lot if the lot is
greater than 4 acres and
has more than 1 approved
entrance on its frontage
32 square feet,
aggregate, plus bonus
tenant panels as
provided in section
4.15.16(b); if more than
1 sign at an entrance,
no single sign shall
exceed 16 square feet
12 feet 5 feet
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – SEPTEMBER 13, 2011
DRAFT MINUTES (PARTIAL) – ZTA-2010-00005 SIGNS
Projecting* 1 per street frontage 32 square feet 30 feet, but not to
exceed the top of
the fascia or
mansard
5 feet
Temporary 1 per street
frontage per
establishment
32 square feet 12 feet, if
freestanding sign;
30 feet if wall sign,
but not to exceed
the top of the
fascia or mansard
cornice line
5 feet
Wall* As calculated pursuant to
section 4.15.20
1.5 square feet per 1
linear foot of
establishment structure
frontage, not to exceed
200 square feet
30 feet Not to
exceed the
cornice line
Same as
that
applicable to
structure
*Each establishment may have both a projecting sign and a wall sign, provided that the aggregate sign
area of the two signs shall not exceed thirty-two (32) square feet. If the establishment has both such
signs, the allowed sign area of the wall sign shall be reduced by the sign area of the projecting sign
(which may not exceed thirty-two (32) square feet).
Within the PD-IP zoning district, one (1) sandwich board sign is permitted for each establishment, subject
to the requirements of section 4.15.16(i).
(12-10-80; 7-8-92, § 4.15.12.7; Ord. 01-18(3), 5-9-01)
State law reference – Va. Code § 15.2-2280.
Sec. 4.15.15 Regulations applicable in the entrance corridor overlay district
In addition to all other regulations set forth in this section 4.15, the following regulations shall apply within
the entrance corridor overlay zoning district:
a. Certificate of appropriateness required. Prior to the erection of a sign that would be visible from an
entrance corridor street, including a sign erected on or visible through a window on a structure, the owner
or lessee of the lot on which the sign will be located shall obt ain a certificate of appropriateness for that
sign unless the sign is exempt under section 30.6.5(d).
Draft: 08/29/11 11
b. Authority and procedure for acting upon application for certificate of appropriateness. The authority and
procedure for acting upon an application for a certificate of appropriateness for a sign shall be as set forth
in section 30.6.
c. Opaque backgrounds. All internally illuminated box-style and cabinet-style signs shall have an opaque
background.
(12-10-80; 7-8-92, § 4.15.12.8; Ord. 01-18(3), 5-9-01; Ord. 10-18(5), 5-12-10)
State law reference – Va. Code §§ 15.2-2280, 15.2-2286.
Sec. 4.15.16 Regulations applicable to certain sign types
In addition to all other regulations set forth in this section 4.15, the following regulations apply to the sign
types identified herein:
. . .
b. Anchor signs Bonus tenant panels. In each shopping center exceeding one hundred thousand
(100,000) fifty thousand (50,000) square feet in gross floor area: (i) one (1) freestanding anchor sign
bonus tenant panel shall be permitted for each one hundred thousand (100,000) fifty thousand (50,000)
square feet in gross floor area, not to exceed four (4) anchor signs bonus tenant panels at the shopping
center; and (ii) each anchor sign no bonus tenant panel shall not exceed six (6) eight (8) square feet in
sign area.
. . .
i. Wall signs. In order to be eligible to have a wall sign, the establishment shall have an exterior wall.
Sandwich board signs. Sandwich board signs shall be subject to the following: (1) the sign shall not
exceed four (4) feet in height, two (2) feet in width or eight (8) square feet of area per sign face; (2) if the
sign is placed on a sidewalk or any other public pedestrian right-of-way, it shall be placed in a location
that provides a contiguous and unobstructed pedestrian passageway at least three (3) feet wide; (3) the
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – SEPTEMBER 13, 2011
DRAFT MINUTES (PARTIAL) – ZTA-2010-00005 SIGNS
sign shall not be located in any required off-street parking space, driveway, access easement, alley or fire
lane; (4) the sign shall not be illuminated; (5) the sign shall be removed during non-business hours; and
(6) if the sign is located on county-owned right-of-way, prior to placement of the sign, the owner shall
agree to indemnify and hold harmless the county against any claim or liability arising from the placem ent
of the sign, and the agreement shall be in a form and have a substance approved by the county attorney.
j. Signs using rare gas illumination. Signs using exposed rare gas illumination, and signs within the
entrance corridor overlay district visible from an entrance corridor overlay street that use rare gas
illumination covered by a transparent material, shall not have a brightness that exceeds thirty (30)
milliamps. Brightness shall be determined by the zoning administrator, who shall consider informat ion
provided by the sign manufacturer, the rated size of the sign’s transformer, and any other relevant
information deemed appropriate. (Added 3-16-05)
k. Wall signs. In order to be eligible to have a wall sign, the establishment shall have an exterior wa ll.
(12-10-80; 7-8-92, § 4.15.12; Ord. 01-18(3), 5-9-01; Ord. 05-18(4), 3-16-05)
State law reference – Va. Code § 15.2-2280.
Draft: 08/29/11 12
Article III. District Regulations
Sec. 30.6.4 Certificates of appropriateness
The architectural review board is authorized to issue certificates of appropriateness for any structure, and
associated improvements, or any portion thereof, that are visible from the EC street to which the parcel is
contiguous, as follows:
. . .
b. Types of certificates of appropriateness. The architectural review board is authorized to issue the
following types of certificates of appropriateness:
1. Specific developments. For specific developments associated with one or more building permits or a
single site plan.
2. Signs in a new multi-business complex or shopping center. For all of the signs in a new multi-business
complex or shopping center, where the architectural review board first conducts a comprehensive sign
review. Once a certificate of appropriateness for signs in a ne w multi-business complex or shopping
center is issued, the director of planning is authorized to determine whether a particular sign satisfies the
conditions of the certificate of appropriateness.
3. County-wide certificates of appropriateness. County-wide certificates of appropriateness may be issued
for classes of structures, sites, improvements, or architectural elements, subject to the applicable design
criteria and procedures, as follows:
a. Categories of structures, sites, improvements, or architectural elements eligible for county-wide
certificates of appropriateness. The following categories of structures, sites, improvements, or
architectural elements shall be eligible for county-wide certificates of appropriateness:
1. Structures located seven hundred fifty (750) feet or more from an EC street that are not more than five
(5) stories tall.
2. Structures that are proposed to be located behind another structure that fronts an EC street as viewed
from the EC street, where the rear structure is no more than twice the height of the front structure.
3. Personal wireless service facilities.
4. Wall signs proposed for structures having a single occupant Signs.
5. Safety fencing and screening fencing.
6. New or replacement rooftop-mounted or ground-mounted equipment.
7. Additions to structures or improvements for which a certificate of appropriateness was issued, where
the design of the addition to the structure or improvement is consistent with the architectural design
approved with the certificate of appropriateness.
8. New structure or site lighting or changes to existing structure or site lighting.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – SEPTEMBER 13, 2011
DRAFT MINUTES – SUBMIT FOR APPROVAL
17
Draft: 08/29/11 13
9. Minor amendments to site plans and architectural plans.
10. Building permits for which the proposed change occupies fifty (50) percent or less of the altered
elevation of an existing structure.
11. Permits classified in sections 5-202, 5-203, 5-204 and 5-208(A) not otherwise exempt under section
30.6.5(k).
. . .
(§ 30.6.4, 10-3-90; § 30.6.4.1, 10-3-90; 5-18-94; § 30.6.4.2, 10-3-90; §30.6.5(formerly § 30.6.3.2, 7-8-92;
Ord. 01-18(3), 5-9-01); § 30.6.4, Ord. 10-18(5), 5-12-10)
Sec. 30.6.5 Development exempt from requirement to obtain certificate of appropriateness
The following development is exempt from the requirements of section 30.6:
. . .
d. Agricultural product signs, political signs, public signs, sandwich board signs, temporary signs, and
sandwich board signs window signs and signs exempt from the sign permit requirement under section
4.15.6.
. . .
(§ 30.6.6, 10-3-90; § 30.6.6.1, 10-3-90; § 30.6.6.2, 10-3-90, 6-14-00; § 30.6.6.3, 5-18-94; § 30.6.5; Ord.
10-18(5), 5-12-10)
(Formerly SIGNS, Now see 30.6.4, 5-12-10)
I, Ella W. Jordan, do hereby certify that the foregoing writing is a true, correct copy of an Ordinance duly
adopted by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, by a vote of _____ to _____, as
recorded below, at a regular meeting held on _________________________.
__________________________________ Clerk, Board of County Supervisors
Aye Nay
Mr. Boyd ____ ____
Mr. Dorrier ____ ____
Ms. Mallek ____ ____
Mr. Rooker ____ ____
Mr. Snow ____ ____
Mr. Thomas ____ ____
County of Albemarle
MEMORANDUM
TO: Members of the Board of Supervisors
FROM: Meagan Hoy, Senior Deputy Clerk
DATE: November 2, 2011
RE: Vacancies on Boards and Commissions
Attached please find an updated listing of vacancies on boards and commissions
through December 2011 provided for informational purposes only.
The following Boards and Commissions have been advertised and applications were
received as follows:
Charlottesville-Albemarle Regional Transportation Advisory Committee: One vacancy.
No applications received.
Crozet Community Advisory Council: One vacancy.
No applications received.
Jefferson Area Disability Services Board: One vacancy, business representative.
No applications received.
Pantops Community Advisory Council: One vacancy.
Richard McGrain
Places 29 Community Advisory Council: One vacancy.
No applications received.
Rivanna Solid Waste Authority Citizens Advisory Committee: One vacancy, joint
City/County Chair.
No applications received.
Social Services Board: One vacancy.
Jack Jouett District, no applications received.
The following reappointments require action by the Board:
CHART:
Russell Lafferty (Planning Commission Representative)
Joint Airport Commission:
Richard Venerus
MEMBER
TERM
EXPIRES
ACE Appraisal Review Committee Joseph Samuels 12/31/2011
ACE Appraisal Review Committee Ross Stevens 12/31/2011
ACSA James Colbaugh 12/31/2011
ACSA Bill Kittrell 12/31/2011
ACSA Clarence Roberts 12/31/2011
Board of Building Code Appeals Raymond Gaines 11/21/2011
CHART Brad Sheffield 4/3/2014
CHART Russell (Mac) Lafferty
Crozet Community Advisory Council Charles Mitchell 3/31/2013
Commission on Children and Families Carolyn Lawlor 6/30/2011
Commission on Children and Families Janette Martin 6/30/2011
Commission on Children and Families Amy Skilnick 6/30/2011
Equalization Board Alan Collier 12/31/2011
Equalization Board David Cooke II 12/31/2011
Equalization Board Virginia Gardner 12/31/2011
Equalization Board Rosa Hudson 12/31/2011
Equalization Board William Rich 12/31/2011
Equalization Board John C. Lowry 12/31/2011
Fire Prevention Board of Appeals Raymond Gaines 11/21/2011
Housing Committee Valerie L'Herrou 12/31/2011
Housing Committee David Oakland 12/31/2011
Housing Committee Sarah Collie 12/31/2011
Housing Committee Kurt Keesecker 12/31/2011
Jefferson Area Disability Services Board Amber Capron 6/30/2013
Joint Airport Commission Richard Venerus 12/1/2011
Natural Heritage Committee John Foster 9/30/2011
Natural Heritage Committee Diana Foster 9/30/2011
Natural Heritage Committee Anne Bedarf 9/30/2011
Natural Heritage Committee Phil Stokes 9/30/2011
Natural Heritage Committee Mike Erwin 9/30/2013
Pantops Community Advisory Council Richard Jennings 6/30/2011
Planning Commission Duane Zobrist 12/31/2011
Planning Commission Linda Porterfield 12/31/2011
Planning Commission Calvin Morris 12/31/2011
Planning Commission Tom Locah 12/31/2011
PRFA A. Bruce Dotson 12/13/2011
PRFA Joseph Henley 12/13/2011
Rivanna Solid Waste Authority Cit. Adv. Comm.Jeffery Greer 12/31/2010
Social Services Board Mary Lou Folwer 12/31/2011
Social Services Board Lincoln Lewis 12/31/2011
Social Services Board Wanda Kucera 12/31/2011
Social Services Board Claude Foster 12/31/2011
Revised 10/26/11
NEW TERM
EXPIRES
WISH TO BE
RE-APPOINTED?
DISTRICT IF
MAGISTERIAL
APPOINTMENT
12/31/2012 Ineligible No Action Required
12/31/2012 Eligible No Action Required
12/31/2015 Eligible, (Scottsville)No Action Required
12/31/2015 Eligible, (White Hall)No Action Required
12/31/2015 Eligible, (Rivanna) No Action Required
11/21/2016 Eligible No Action Required
Resigned Advertised, No applications recv'd
4/3/2014 Yes Action Required
Resigned Advertised, No applications recv'd
6/30/2014 Eligible No Action Required
6/30/2014 Eligible No Action Required
6/30/2012 No To be advertised
12/31/2012 Eligible, (Rivanna)No Action Required
12/31/2012 Eligible, (Jack Jouett)No Action Required
12/31/2012 Eligible, (White Hall)No Action Required
12/31/2012 Eligible, (Scottsville) No Action Required
12/31/2012 Eligible, (Rio) No Action Required
12/31/2012 Eligible, (Samuel Miller)No Action Required
11/21/2016 Eligible No Action Required
12/31/2014 Ineligible To be advertised
12/31/2014 Eligible No Action Required
12/31/2014 Eligible No Action Required
12/31/2014 Eligible No Action Required
Resigned Advertised, No applications recv'd
12/1/2014 Yes Action Required
9/30/2015 Eligible No Action Required
9/30/2015 Eligible No Action Required
9/30/2015 Eligible No Action Required
9/30/2015 Eligible No Action Required
Resigned To be advertised
6/30/2013 No Advertised, 1 application recv'd
12/31/2013 Eligible, (At-large)No Action Required
12/31/2015 Eligible, (Scottsville)No Action Required
12/31/2015 Eligible, (Rivanna)No Action Required
12/31/2015 Eligible, (White Hall)No Action Required
12/31/2014 Eligible No Action Required
12/31/2014 Eligible No Action Required
12/31/2012 Ineligible, Joint City/County Advertised, No applications recv'd
Resigned, (Jack Jouett)Advertised, No applications recv'd
12/31/2015 Eligible, (Rivanna)No Action Required
12/31/2015 Eligible, (Scottsville)No Action Required
12/31/2015 Eligible, (White Hall)No Action Required
Page 1 of 5
Culpeper District
Albemarle County Monthly Report
November, 2011
Special Issues
Nothing of significance to report.
Preliminary Engineering
PROJECT LAST
MILESTONE NEXT MILESTONE AD DATE
Route 691, Jarman’s Gap
Bike lanes and sidewalk
improvement
Construction
Underway
Construction Complete –
September 2012 January 2011
Route 53 Safety Project –
Shoulder Widening 0.4 Mi E. of
Monticello Loop Road
Preliminary
Design
Design Public Hearing –
January 2012 February 2013
Route 53 Safety Project –
Shoulder Widening 0.06 Mi E.
of Monticello Loop Road
Preliminary
Design
Design Public Hearing –
January 2012 February 2013
Route 53 Safety Project –
Intersection Improvements at
Route 20
Preliminary
Design
Design Public Hearing –
January 2012 February 2013
Route 708, Dry Bridge Road
Bridge Replacement over RR
Design Public
Hearing
Right of Way – January
2012 May 2013
Route 53 Safety Project –
Intersection Improvements at
Route 729
Survey Preliminary Design Winter
2011/12 October 2013
Route 616, Black Cat Road
Bridge Replacement over RR Survey Preliminary Design –
Winter 2012 March 2014
Route 677, Broomley Road
Bridge Replacement over RR Survey Preliminary Design –
Winter 2012 December 2014
Page 2 of 5
Albemarle County
Monthly Report Continued
November, 2011
Preliminary Engineering-continued
PROJECT LAST
MILESTONE NEXT MILESTONE AD DATE
Route 637, Dick Woods Road
Bridge Replacement over Ivy
Creek
Project Scoping Survey – Fall 2011 December 2014
Route 250, Bridge replacement
over Little Ivy Creek Project Kick-off Survey – Spring 2012 January 2018
Route 762, Rose Hill Church
Lane, Unpaved Road Project Scoping Environmental Clearance Spring 2012
Route 704, Fortune Lane,
Unpaved Road -- Project Scoping – Fall 2011 *
Route 672, Blufton Road,
Unpaved Road -- Project Scoping – Fall 2011 *
Route 608, Happy Creek Road,
Unpaved Road -- Project Scoping – Fall 2011 *
Brocks Mill Road, Rural
Addition -- Project Scoping – Spring
2012 *
Route 774, Bear Creek Road,
Unpaved Road -- Project Scoping –2016 *
Route 703, Pocket Lane,
Unpaved Road -- Project Scoping –2016 *
*Dates to be determined following evaluation of Scoping Team comments.
CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE:
PROJECT LAST
MILESTONE NEXT MILESTONE AD DATE
Jefferson Park Avenue Bridge
Replacement
Construction
Underway
Construction Complete –
Summer 2012 August 2010
Page 3 of 5
Albemarle County
Monthly Report Continued
November, 2011
Construction Activities
Georgetown Road (NFO) 0656-002-254, C501
Scope: 5’ wide Pedestrian Facility with Crossing and Resurfacing with Refuge Islands
Next Major Milestone: Complete pending correction of punch list items.
Contract Completion Date: September 23, 2011
McIntire Road U000-104-102, C501
Scope: Construct New Two Lane Road and Pedestrian Path
Next major Milestone: Clearing complete. Scheduled to install work bridge and begin grade work by the
first of November.
Contract Completion: June 10, 2013
Meadow Creek Parkway 0631-002-128, C502, B612, B613, B657
Scope: Grade, Drain, Asphalt, Utilities, Signals, Landscaping and Bridges.
Next Major Milestone: Complete with final acceptance on October 13.
Contract Completion: October 14, 2011
I-64 Eastbound Shadwell Exit (FO) 0064-002-815, N501
Scope: Widen Ramps and Improve Signals.
Next Major Milestone: Project complete pending final resolution of Notice of Intent to File Claim.
Contract Completion Date: December 2, 2010
JPA Bridge Replacement U000-104-V09, C501
Scope: replace Bridge over railroad and approaches.
Next Major Milestone: Pedestrian bridge complete. Demolition of existing bridge is scheduled to be
completed by December.
Contract Completion Date: August 24, 2012
Jarmans Gap Road (NFO)0691-002-258, C501
Scope: Grade, Drain, Asphalt Pave, Planting and Utilities.
Next Major Milestone: Road closed beginning September 12 for 60 days to facilitate box culvert
installation. Contractor is on schedule to have road reopened by November 12.
Contract Completion: September 21, 2012
Bridge Deck Repair and Polymer Overlay (NFO) 0029-002-044, N501, N502
Scope: Patch decks and epoxy overlay on the Route 29 Bypass over Route 29.
Next Major Milestone: Work suspended on project due to unsuitable weather conditions to apply epoxy.
Work will resume next year.
Contract Completion Date: August 20, 2011
Bridge Repairs (NFO) BRDG-967-040, N501
Scope: Bridge Repairs - District Wide (Term 2).
Next Major Milestone: Completion of Term 2 Work
Contract Completion Date: February 7, 2012.
Plant Mix Schedule (NFO) PM7A-967-F11, P401; PM7B-967-F11, P401
Scope: Plant Mix Southern Culpeper District.
Next Major Milestone: Contract completion
Contract Completion Date: December 1, 2011.
Page 4 of 5
Albemarle County
Monthly Report Continued
November, 2011
Construction Activities—continued
Plant Mix Schedule PM7K-967-F11, P401
Scope: Plant Mix (Secondary Routes in Albemarle, Greene, and Louisa Counties) Southern Culpeper
District.
Next Major Milestone: Contract completion
Contract Completion Date: December 1, 2011.
Pipe Rehabilitation (NFO) BRDG-967-045, N501; BRDG-967-062, N501
Scope: Pipe Rehab in (Culpeper, Louisa, Madison, Albemarle, Fauquier, Orange, and Rappahannock
Counties) Northern Culpeper District.
Next Major Milestone: Contract completion
Contract Completion Date: April 29, 2012.
Guardrail Repair GR07-967-096, N501
Scope: Guardrail repairs – District wide.
Next Major Milestone: Begin work
Contract Completion date: July 1, 2012
Latex Modified Schedule (NFO) LM7A-967-F11, P401
Scope: Latex Modified Schedule various routes in Albemarle, Greene, Louisa, Madison and Orange
Counties.
Next Major Milestone: Contract completion
Contract Completion Date: October 1, 2011
Traffic Engineering Studies
Completed
Route 601 (Garth Rd) from Route 654 (Barracks Rd) to Route 601 (Free Union Rd) –
Review of roadway to determine potential for installation of “Share the Road” signs complete;
sign installation pending.
Route 614 from Route 601 (Free Union Rd) to Route 810 (Browns Gap Rd) – Review of
roadway to determine potential for installation of “Share the Road” signs complete; sign
installation pending.
Route 676 (Owensville Rd) from Route 676 (Tilman Rd) to Route 614 (Garth Rd) – Review
of roadway to determine potential for installation of “Share the Road” signs complete; sign
installation pending.
Albemarle County
Page 5 of 5
Monthly Report Continued
November, 2011
Traffic Engineering Studies--continued
Route 678 (Owensville Rd) from Route 250 (Ivy Rd) to Route 676 (Tilman Rd) – Review of
roadway to determine potential for installation of “Share the Road” signs complete; sign
installation pending.
Route 601 (Garth Rd) at Route 658 (Barracks Farm Rd) – Intersection safety review study
complete. Sign installation pending.
Routes 1670 (Ashwood Blvd), 1675 (Kendalwood), 1723 (Crosstimbers), 1737 (Watercrest)
& 1720 (Timberwood Pkwy) – Crosswalk study at multiple locations; subject of citizen
request. Awaiting installation.
Routes 1765/1769, 1770/1769 & 1770/1771 Intersections in Fontana Subdivision - Multi-
way stop studies complete. Study also includes review of Routes 1765 (Fontana Dr) and Route
1771 (Verona Dr) for centerline and edge line pavement markings. Multi-stop not
recommended. Centerline and edge markings installed.
Route 29 from Route 1575 (Austin Dr) to Route 763 (Dickerson Dr) – Sign evaluation
complete; awaiting installation.
Under Review
Route 706, Dudley Mtn Road from Route 631 (Old Lynchburg Rd) to Route 708 (Red Hill
Rd) – Speed study – DRAFT complete.
Route 866 (Greenbriar Dr) at Route 1427 (Hillsdale Dr) – Multi-way stop study. Received
DRAFT study from consultant. Comments sent consultant; revisions pending.
Route 631(E Rio Road) at Route 768 (Penn Park Rd.) – Study to review the addition of
pedestrian phasing to the traffic control signal at the intersection. In Progress.
Maintenance Activities
Routine maintenance activities-nothing of significance to report at this time.
David Crim Virginia Department of Transportation
Charlottesville Residency Administrator 701 VDOT Way
Charlottesville, VA 22911
RESOLUTION OF INTENT
MEADOW CREEK PARKWAY
WHEREAS, the construction of the County’s portion of the Meadow Creek Parkway has
been completed at a cost of approximately thirty-four million dollars, and is ready to be opened
for the benefit of the traveling public; and
WHEREAS, this road has been identified as a priority project in the County for over forty
years and is a key element of a successfully functioning road network for the greater
community; and
WHEREAS, the current temporary traffic signal at the entrance to Dunlora necessitated
by the closure of Meadow Creek Parkway is causing both inconvenience and a potential safety
hazard by creating a traffic backup during peak travel times; and
WHEREAS, the construction of the Treesdale apartments and other planned and current
development along Rio Road will continue to exacerbate this traffic congestion; and
WHEREAS, opening the parkway will provide local residents with access to the forty
acre park and pedestrian/bike trail system linking the City and the County which are valuable
and important amenities that are currently not able to be utilized; and
WHEREAS, leaving the road dormant for additional time now that it is complete will lead
to its deterioration over time resulting in the need for additional maintenance and repair at
taxpayer expense.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Albemarle County Board of
Supervisors does hereby request that the Virginia Department of Transportation open this
needed road to the public as soon as it is safe to travel.
Return to agenda
1
RESOLUTION
WHEREAS, a task force of community members was convened by Dennis Rooker, the
Jack Jouett District representative of the Board of Supervisors, to provide input to VDOT
engineers on the design and construction of the Route 29 Western Bypass; and
WHEREAS, the Virginia Department of Transportation intends to issue on November 8,
2011 an amendment to the Route 29 Western Bypass design and build RFP (the RFP
Amendment”); and
WHEREAS, the task force has concluded its study and discussion of certain issues
related to the RFP Amendment; and
WHEREAS, the task force has identified the below recommendations to be included in
the RFP Amendment that the committee considers to be critical to protecting the community;
and
WHEREAS, those recommendations are outlined as follows:
1) Design Speed – The design speed will be 50 MPH.
2) Stoplights – No stoplights or u-turns on 250 Bypass at southern terminus
interchange.
3) Traffic Noise – Include in RFP $5 million separate allowance for noise reduction
measures above minimum FHWA and VDOT standards. All neighborhoods and schools shall
be protected from sound either by berms or sound barrier walls. Use berms and plantings, road
depression and sound barrier walls to mitigate traffic noise. Where the bypass roadway is not
sufficiently suppressed to provide adequate sound mitigation, bridges shall have lightweight
sound absorbing barriers on both sides to reduce noise pollution projecting into schools and
neighborhoods. Reduced noise pavement material shall be used for the length of the bypass.
4) Construction Noise – Construction noise shall be limited to 80 db and shall not
exceed 70 db for more than 15 minutes in any hour as measured at the closest property lines.
There shall be multiple sound level meters at nearby property lines during construction and
VDOT will monitor sound on a continual basis.
5) Construction Times – No 24 hour construction. Limits on duration and time (7:00
a.m. – 7:00 p.m.) that construction can occur. No construction on Sundays and holidays.
6) Blasting – No crushing or grinding of rock on site. Contractor shall notify
adjacent neighborhoods 24 hours in advance of blasting activities, specifying date and time of
blasts. Best available techniques will be used to minimize blasting noise and impacts. Using
noise meters, the contractor shall monitor noise and percussion impacts of blasting activities on
neighborhoods and schools within 1500 feet from blast site.
7) Grades – No part of the bypass shall exceed 4 ½% maximum grade, excluding
ramps.
8) Landscaping – Include in RFP $1.2 million allowance specifically for landscaping.
Use mixed broadleaf and evergreen plantings that will grow quickly. Large earth berms planted
with trees and shrubs along the roadway shall be included to protect the Colonnades and all
2
other impacted neighborhoods and schools from light, noise and visual impacts from the
bypass.
9) Lighting – Where lighting is necessary, use shielded lighting on roads or bridges.
Use on-road lighting instead of elevated lighting.
10) Bridge Aesthetics – Include in RFP $6 million allowance specifically for bridge
aesthetics. It is highly recommended that the Maryland Department of Transportation
Guidelines for Bridge Aesthetics be followed.
11) Bridge Capacities – All temporary and permanent bridges over the bypass will be
sufficient to give access to fully loaded fire trucks and emergency vehicles.
12) Public Input – VDOT and the contractor shall provide for multiple public input
opportunities and public meetings (not just committee meetings). Between the time of the RFP
award and final design, the contractor shall provide an opportunity for public input on the
preliminary/conceptual drawings for the project including the contractor’s proposals for noise
abatement measures, lighting, landscaping and bridge aesthetics.
13) Southern Interchange – Consistent with maintaining a level of service of at least
C for the design year 2036, the southern interchange and the relocation of the Rt. 250 Bypass
will be designed to minimize impacts on the Canterbury Hills neighborhood, the St. Anne’s
Belfield School campus, the Colonnades senior living facilities, the Darden School, the UVA
Law School and Leonard Sandridge Road. Specifically, we prefer the diverging diamond
interchange design to the previous 1999 design** that included a flyover ramp for northbound
traffic from US250E Bypass to the US29N Bypass. Further, we recommend that (1) the
US250E Bypass be relocated no farther north than the location shown in the 1999 design**, (2)
both the north and south bound lanes of the main road of the new US29 Bypass (north of the
Southern Interchange) be located as shown on the 1999 drawings** and (3) the south-bound
ramp from the US29 Bypass to US250W Bypass be located as close as possible to the main
lanes of the US29 Bypass. All roads and ramps north of the Southern Interchange should be
located in one cut through the hill between St. Anne’s-Belfield and the Canterbury Hills
Neighborhood. ** VDOT Route 29 Bypass, Design Plan, 6029-002-F22 PE101, ROVA-002-
101 PE 101, Albemarle County, dated 8/31/1999.
14) Lambs Road Area – In the Lambs Road area, the bypass shall go below grade.
The bridge to be constructed on Lambs Road will go over the bypass at approximately the
natural ground grade. As the bypass proceeds south from Lambs Road, it shall remain below
grade with earth berms placed to prevent projection of noise and light pollution into homes in the
Ivy Ridge, Ivy Farms, Lambs Road, Roslyn Heights and Roslyn Ridge neighborhoods and
Albemarle High School, Jack Jouett Middle School, Greer Elementary School, and Ivy Creek
School. The median in this area shall be minimized or eliminated.
15) Greer School Athletic Field – In accordance with the July 21, 2011 letter from the
Albemarle County School Board and the County Superintendent of Schools to the Board of
Supervisors and the MPO, the contractor will be responsible for relocating the disrupted athletic
field at Greer Elementary School.
16) Roslyn Ridge – Bypass shall be depressed and located in such a way to take
maximum advantage of the hill at the entrance to Roslyn Ridge in order to protect the
neighborhood from noise. The bypass shall be located as close as possible to Hydraulic Road
3
as it goes through Roslyn Ridge to avoid taking as much of the hillside and knoll as possible
since they provide some natural sound and visual barrier from the bypass for the neighborhood.
17) Fill Material – No fill material used shall be toxic or hazardous.
18) Old Ivy Road Access – Access to Old Ivy Road and Faulconer Drive from the 250
Bypass shall be maintained during and after construction.
19) Soil and Erosion Control Measures – Newly adopted DCR regulations concerning
soil and erosion control shall be met or exceeded during construction and with respect to the
final condition and operation of the bypass. Specific measures previously committed to with
respect to protection of the South Fork Rivanna reservoir shall be adhered to.
20) Soil and Erosion Control Inspections – During construction, VDOT shall require
the inspection of all erosion and sediment controls by qualified inspectors on at least a weekly
basis to make certain the controls are fully functional and meeting all requirements.
21) Closure of Roads – Best efforts shall be made to minimize closures/one laning of
affected roads (i.e. Barracks Road, Lambs Road, Roslyn Ridge Road, Earlysville Road, and
Woodburn Road) during construction.
22) Minimize Construction Time and Impacts – Best efforts shall be made to
minimize impacts and inconveniences to neighborhoods and schools. During the construction
process, areas of construction will be closed as quickly as possible to avoid long drawn out
periods of construction impacts on neighborhoods and schools.
23) Pedestrian and Bicycle – Pedestrian walkways and bicycle paths shall be
constructed or maintained on all roads crossing over or under the bypass. Pathways for citizens
to safely walk or bicycle through, around, across, or under existing and new roadways, including
the proposed bridge in the southern interchange over the Rt. 250 Bypass, shall be included in
design and construction of bypass project.
24) Wells – Significant efforts shall be taken to prevent damage to existing wells
during construction and to prevent contamination of private wells from road run-off and spills
during and after construction. VDOT or the Contractor shall test all private wells within ¼ mile of
the bypass right-of-way before and after construction. If any wells are impacted by construction,
VDOT or the Contractor shall pay for their repair or replacement.
25) Utility Services – If there are power outages for homes, schools or businesses
caused by construction or movement of utilities, these disruptions shall be kept to the absolute
minimum, and residents shall be notified at least 24 hours in advance of the service interruption
and the anticipated length of time of the interruption. Power to schools will not be interrupted
during school hours.
26) Toll Free Number – Contractor shall provide a local or toll free number for receipt
of complaints and questions throughout construction. A person who can address issues, not an
answering machine or service, shall answer the calls.
27) Rt. 29 Widening Project – The RFP shall make it clear that Route 29 is being
widened between the South Fork Rivanna River bridge and Hollymead Town Center, and the
bypass project will be designed and constructed to tie into that project.
4
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Board of Supervisors endorses the
above recommendations and strongly encourages VDOT to accept these recommendations as
part of the November 8 amendment to the RFP for the Route 29 Western Bypass, so long as
these recommendations can be implemented while maintaining a design year Level of Service
of no less than C.
I, Ella W. Jordan, do hereby certify that the foregoing writing is a true and correct copy of
a Resolution duly adopted by the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors by a vote of ______
to ______, as recorded below, at a meeting held on _________________________.
_________________________________
Clerk, Board of County Supervisors
Aye Nay
Mr. Boyd ____ ____
Mr. Dorrier ____ ____
Ms. Mallek ____ ____
Mr. Rooker ____ ____
Mr. Snow ____ ____
Mr. Thomas ____ ____
Return to agenda