HomeMy WebLinkAbout2006-04-12
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
FIN A L
APRIL 12, 2006
COUNTY OFFICE BUILDING
II
3:00 P.M., MEETING ROOM 235
~
1. Call to Order.
2. Work Sessions:
a. FY 2007-2010 Strategic Plan - Session #4.
b. Rural Areas Implementation, Phasing, Clustering and Family Division.
3. Recess.
6:00 P.M., MEETING ROOM 241
4. Call to Order.
5. Pledge of Allegiance.
6. Moment of Silence.
7. From the Public: Matters Not Listed on the Agenda.
8. Consent Agenda (on next page).
9. Recognitions:
a. Fair Housing Month Proclamation.
10. Public hearing to receive comments on Albemarle County's Annual Plan for the administration of the Housing
Choice Voucher Program.
11. SP-2005-032. Rosewood Villaae Assisted Livina at Hollvrnead Town Center (Siems #8.34). PROPOSED:
Request for special use permit to allow for 70,000 sq ft assisted living facility on 1.25 acres. ZONING
CATEGORY/GENERAL USAGE: PD-MC Planned Development Mixed Commercial -large-scale commercial
uses; & residential by special use permit (15 units/acre); EC Entrance Corridor Overlay District. SECTION:
25A.2.2.1 which allows assisted living facilities by special use permit in PDMC. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND
USE/DENSITY: Town Center: designates compact, higher density area containing a mixture of businesses,
services, public facilities, residential areas & public spaces, attracting activities of all kinds. LOCATION: Tax Map
32 Parcel 41 D. The property is located approx 1,500 feet from US Rt 29 along Timberwood Boulevard in the
Hollymead Town Center. MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Rio.
12. Adopt FY 2006/07 Capital and Operating Budgets.
13. Adopt Calendar Year 2006 Tax Levy Resolution.
14. From the Board: Committee Reports and Matters Not Listed on the Agenda.
15. Adjourn.
CONSENT AGENDA
FOR APPROVAL:
8.1 Approval of Minutes: November 2, 2005.
8.2 Authorize Lease of County-Owned Office Space to the Charlottesville-Albemarle Commission on Children
and Families (CCF).
8.3 Letter to legislators supporting gubernatorial amendments to HB 1290 and SB 270, re: changes in
language definition of "idle" equipment.
FOR INFORMATION:
8.4 2005 Annual Report of the Board of Zoning Appeals.
ACTIONS
Board of Supervisors of April 12, 2006
3:00 P.M., Room 235
Mav 9, 2006
AGENDA ITEM/ACTION ASSIGNMENT
1. Call to Order.
. Meeting was called to order at 3:07 p.m. by the
Chairman, Mr. Rooker. All BOS members were
present. Also present were Bob Tucker, Larry
Davis, Tom Foley, Mark Graham, Lori
Allshouse, Ron White and Ella Carey.
2a. Work Session: FY 2007-2010 Strategic Plan-
Session #4.
. HELD.
2b. Work Session: Rural Areas Implementation, David Benish: Provide additional information on
Phasing, Clustering and Family Division. next available agenda.
. HELD.
. REQUESTED additional information on
phasing, combining phasing and clustering,
central water and septic systems, family
divisions and hardships.
NonAgenda.
. Paul Wright expressed concern about the
availability of ARB staffing to review
applications that will be coming forward for
Albemarle Place. Mark Graham responded that
staff and the developer have worked out a
solution.
. Discussed Board's prior action of April 5th
regarding the Ruckersville Turnpike. AGREED
to the transportation modeling with a
Ruckersville Parkway, but would not include a
Ruckersville Parkway with the land use
alternatives. Ms. Thomas suggested she
discuss at the MPO with VDoT the implications
of the Board takinQ this action.
3. Recess.
. The Board recessed at 5:45 p.m.
ACTIONS
Board of Supervisors of April 12 2006
6:00 P.M., Room 241
AGENDA ITEM/ACTION ASSIGNMENT
4. Call to Order.
. Meeting was called to order at 6:05 p.m. by the
Chairman, Mr. Rooker. All BOS members were
present. Also present were Bob Tucker, Larry
Davis, Mark Graham, David Benish and Ella
Carey.
7. From the Public: Matters Not Listed on the Agenda. Bob Tucker: Will look at alternatives to address
. William West and Lance Fjeseth, residents of the situation.
Commonwealth Drive, expressed concerns
about late night activities occurring in the area.
They asked that the County do something
about the situation. They also asked that a
barrier be erected between the residential and
commercial area.
8.2 Authorize Lease of County-Owned Office Space to County Attorney's office: Forward copy of fully
the Charlottesville-Albemarle Commission on executed lease to Clerk's office for files.
Children and Families (CCF). (Attachment 1)
. APPROVED rental of surplus space at
the County Office Building-5th Street and
AUTHORIZED the County Executive to
execute the lease on behalf of the County
for the space.
8.3 Letter to legislators supporting gubernatorial Clerk: Fax and mail to legislators.
amendments to HB 1290 and SB 270, re: changes
in language definition of "idle" equipment.
. APPROVED.
9. Recognition: Fair Housing Month Proclamation. (Attachment 2)
. Chairman read and presented proclamation to
Ron White.
10. Public hearing to receive comments on Albemarle Clerk: Forward to Ron White after County
County's Annual Plan for the administration of the Executive's signature.
Housing Choice Voucher Program.
. AUTHORIZED County Executive to execute
Certifications of Compliance for submission with
the Plan.
11 . SP-2005-032. Rosewood Villaae Assisted Livina Clerk: Set out conditions of approval.
at Hollvmead Town Center (Sians #8,34). (Attachment 3)
. APPROVED SP-2005-032, by a vote of 6:0,
subject to the four conditions recommended by
the Planning Commission.
12. Adopt FY 2006/07 Capital and Operating Budgets. Clerk: Forward resolution to Finance and OMD.
. ADOPTED the attached resolution. (Attachment 4)
13. Adopt Calendar Year 2006 Tax Levy Resolution. Clerk: Forward resolution to Finance and OMD.
. ADOPTED the attached resolution. (Attachment 5)
14. From the Board: Committee Reports and Matters
Not Listed on the Agenda.
David Wyant:
. Announced the Farm Bureau's picnic on Friday,
April 21st. Board members and their spouses
are invited.
. Ongoing discussion with AI Reaser, School
Transportation, and others about minimizing the
number of lights on Route 250.
Sally Thomas:
. Mentioned invitation to the Virginia Transit
Association meeting to be held on May 10-12,
2006. She used to serve as President of the
organization. The group provides valuable
information, and she encouraged Board
members to attend if they are able.
Ken BOYd:
. Discussed increasing monies to expand master
planning into additional areas. Mr. Tucker
responded that staff is working on a plan of
action; the issue is not funding.
. Suggested the Board look at setting a rate/
growth expectation for building budgets.
David Slutzky:
. Clarified the Board's prior discussion on the
Ruckersville Parkway.
2
· Received email from citizen about pavement of
Hillsdale Drive which created logistic problems
for people getting in and out of parking areas.
Concerned because they did not receive prior
notice of the paving.
Dennis Rooker:
· There is a lot of pavement breakage on the
edge of Rio Road, east from the entrance at
Pen Park Drive to the new curve.
15. Adjourn.
· The meetinQ was adiourned at 7:06 p.m.
/djm
Attachment 1 - Commission on Children and Families Lease
Attachment 2 - Fair Housing Month Proclamation
Attachment 3 - Conditions of Approval
Attachment 4 - Budget Resolution
Attachment 5 - Tax Levy Resolution
3
ATTACHMENT 1
AGREEMENT OF LEASE
THIS LEASE AGREEMENT is made as of January 4, 2007 by and between the COUNTY OF
ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA, Landlord, and the CHARLOTTESVILLE/ ALBEMARLE COMMISSION ON
CHILDREN AND FAMILIES, Tenant.
ARTICLE I. PREMISES AND IMPROVEMENTS
In consideration of the rents and covenants herein set forth, Landlord hereby leases to Tenant,
and Tenant hereby rents from Landlord, the premises described on Exhibit A attached hereto and made a
part hereof together with any and all improvements thereon (the "Leased Premises"). The Leased
Premises shall be occupied by the Charlottesville/Albemarle Commission on Children and Families.
ARTICLE II. TITLE: QUIET ENJOYMENT
So long as Tenant is not in default hereunder, Tenant shall have peaceful and quiet enjoyment,
use and possession of the Leased Premises without hindrance on the part of the Landlord or anyone
claiming by, through, or under Landlord.
ARTICLE III. TERM
Section 3.1. Commencement and Expiration. The term of this Lease shall commence on
October 25, 2004 (the "Date of Commencement") and shall expire October 24, 2009. All references to
the "term" of this Lease shall, unless the context indicates a different meaning, be deemed to be a
reference to the term described herein.
Section 3.2. Renewal. This Lease may be renewed for an additional period as may be mutually
agreed by the Landlord and Tenant. If renewal is not agreed upon by the Landlord and Tenant, this
Lease shall expire upon expiration of the initial term.
ARTICLE IV. RENT
Section 4.1. Annual Rent. Commencing upon the Date of Commencement, during the first year
of this Lease, Tenant agrees to pay to Landlord annual rent of $5.00 per gross square foot, payable in
equal monthly installments, in advance, on the first day of each month during the term hereof. During the
second year of this Lease, Tenant agrees to pay to Landlord annual rent of $8.60 per gross square foot,
payable in equal monthly installments, in advance, on the first day of each month during the term hereof.
During the third year of this Lease, Tenant agrees to pay to Landlord annual rent of $12.00 per gross
square foot, payable in equal monthly installments, in advance, on the first day of each month during the
term hereof. During the fourth year of this Lease, Tenant agrees to pay to Landlord annual rent of $16.00
per gross square foot, payable in equal monthly installments, in advance, on the first day of each month
during the term hereof. During the fifth year of this Lease, Tenant agrees to pay to Landlord annual rent
of $18.00 per gross square foot, payable in equal monthly installments, in advance, on the first day of
each month during the term hereof. Gross square feet shall be calculated within the perimeter of the area
to be used solely by the Charlottesville/Albemarle Commission on Children and Families.
After the fifth year of this Lease, the rent for any subsequent term of the Lease shall be indexed
for inflation and shall be calculated by first establishing a fraction, the numerator of which shall be the
level of the CPI Index (as defined herein) as of the first day of that month which is two months before the
month in which the Date of Commencement occurs in the subsequent years, and the denominator of
which shall be the level of the CPI Index as of the first day of that month which is two months before the
initial Date of Commencement. The resulting fraction shall be multiplied by the rent agreed upon or
established for the first year of the term of the Lease to determine the annual rent due for the year. The
rental figure shall be revised each year based upon this formula. The CPI Index shall be the U.S. Bureau
of Labor Statistics Consumer Price Index (all items, all urban consumers, 1982-1984 = 100). If the CPI
Index shall be discontinued, Landlord shall designate an appropriate substitute index or formula having
4
the same general acceptance as to use and reliability as the CPI Index and such substitute shall be used
as if originally designated herein. Notwithstanding the foregoing, in no event shall the rent due for any
lease year decrease below the rent payable for the first year.
Section 4.2. Address for Rent Payment. All payments of rent due Landlord pursuant to Section
4.1 shall be made to Landlord at the address specified in Section 15.3, or to such other party or at such
other address as hereinafter may be designated by Landlord by written notice delivered to Tenant at least
ten (10) days prior to the next ensuing monthly rental payment date.
ARTICLE V. UTILITIES AND SERVICES
Landlord shall provide water, sewer, electricity, heating and cooling, trash collection and janitorial
services at no additional cost to Tenant. Tenant shall provide telephone and all other services.
ARTICLE VI. USE OF PROPERTY
Section 6.1. Permitted Use. Tenant shall have use of the Leased Premises for offices. Tenant
shall also have use of the lunchroom, restrooms, elevators and main entry corridors, which areas will not
be calculated in the gross square footage for rental purposes.
Section 6.2. ParkinQ. Tenant shall be entitled to the use of parking spaces in the parking lot and
an access easement to the Leased Premises.
ARTICLE VII. ALTERATIONS, IMPROVEMENTS, FIXTURES AND SIGNS
Section 7.1. Installation by Tenant.
(a) Tenant may, from time to time, make or cause to be made any interior non-structural
alterations, additions or improvements which do not damage or alter the Leased Premises, provided that
Landlord's consent shall have first been obtained in writing, and provided that Tenant shall obtain all
required governmental permits for such alterations, additions or improvements.
(b) Tenant may, from time to time, make interior structural alterations, additions or
improvements, only with Landlord's prior written consent to plans and specifications therefore, which
consent shall not be unreasonably withheld. Upon the expiration or sooner termination of this Lease,
Landlord shall have the option (exercisable upon sixty (60) days notice to Tenant except in the case of a
termination of this Lease due to a default by Tenant, in which case no such notice shall be required) to
require Tenant to remove at Tenant's sole cost and expense any and all improvements made by Tenant
to the Leased Premises or to elect to keep such improvement as Landlord's property. In the event Tenant
is required to remove any improvements, (i) Tenant shall be responsible for the repair of all damage
caused by the installation or removal thereof, and (ii) if Tenant fails to properly remove such
improvements or provide for the repair of the Leased Premises, Landlord may perform the same at
Tenant's cost and expense.
Section 7.2. SiQns. Tenant shall have the right to place signs on the interior or exterior of the
Leased Premises with the prior written approval of Landlord.
ARTICLE VIII. MAINTENANCE OF LEASED PREMISES
Section 8.1. Maintenance. Landlord shall be responsible for all repairs and maintenance for the
Leased Premises, whether ordinary or extraordinary, structural or non-structural, foreseen or unforeseen,
including, but not limited to, plumbing, heating, electrical, air conditioning, plate glass and windows.
Notwithstanding the foregoing, Tenant shall be responsible for all maintenance and repairs necessitated
by the negligence of Tenant, its employees and invitees.
Section 8.2. Surrender of Leased Premises. At the expiration of the tenancy hereby created,
Tenant shall surrender the Leased Premises and all keys for the Leased Premises to Landlord at the
place then fixed for the payment of rent and shall inform Landlord of all combinations on locks, safes and
vaults, it any, which Landlord has granted permission to have left in the Leased Premises. At such time,
5
the Leased Premises shall be broom clean and in good condition and repair, commensurate with its age.
If Tenant leaves any of Tenant's personal property in the Leased Premises, Landlord, at its option, may
remove and store any or all of such property at Tenant's expense or may deem the same abandoned
and, in such event, the property deemed abandoned shall become the property of Landlord.
ARTICLE IX. INSURANCE
Section 9.1. Liability Insurance of Tenant. Tenant covenants and agrees that it will, at all times
during the term of this Lease, keep in full force and effect a policy of public liability and property damage
insurance with respect to the Leased Premises and the business operated by Tenant and any sub-
tenants of Tenant on the Leased Premises in which the limits of public liability for bodily injury and
property damage shall not be less than One Million Dollars ($1,000,000) per accident, combined single
limit. The policy shall name Landlord as additional insured. The policy shall provide that the insurance
thereunder shall not be cancelled until thirty (30) days after written notice thereof to all named insured.
Section 9.2. Fire and Extended Coveraoe. Landlord agrees that it will, during the initial and any
renewal term of this Lease, insure and keep insured, for the benefit of Landlord and its respective
successors in interest, the Leased Premises, or any portion thereof then in being. Such policy shall
contain coverage against loss, damage or destruction by fire and such other hazards as are covered and
protected against, at standard rates under policies of insurance commonly referred to and known as
"extended coverage," as the same may exist from time to time. Landlord agrees to name Tenant as an
additional insured on such policy, as its interest may appear.
Section 9.3. Evidence of Insurance. Copies of policies of insurance (or certificates of the
insurers) for insurance required to be maintained by Tenant and Landlord pursuant to Sections 9.1 and
9.2 shall be delivered by Landlord or Tenant, as the case may be, to the other upon the issuance of such
insurance and thereafter not less than thirty (30) days prior to the expiration dates thereof.
Section 9.4. Waiver of Subrooation. Landlord and Tenant each hereby releases the other from
any and all liability or responsibility to itself or anyone claiming through or under it by way of subrogation
or otherwise for any loss or damage to property caused by fire or any of the extended coverage or
supplementary contract casualties, even if such fire or other casualty results from the negligence of itself
or anyone for whom it may be responsible, provided, however, that this release shall be applicable and in
force and effect only with respect to loss or damage occurring during such time as any such release shall
not adversely affect or impair the releasor's policies or insurance or prejudice the right of the releasor to
recover thereunder.
ARTICLE X. WASTE. NUISANCE. COMPLIANCE WITH
GOVERNMENTAL REGULATIONS
Section 10.1. Waste or Nuisance. Tenant shall not commit or suffer to be committed any waste
or any nuisance upon the Leased Premises.
Section 10.2. Governmental ReQulations. During the term of this Lease, Tenant shall, at
Tenant's sole cost and expense, comply with all of the requirements of all county, municipal, state, federal
and other applicable governmental authorities, now in force, or which may hereafter be in force,
pertaining to the Leased Premises or Tenant's use and occupancy thereof.
ARTICLE XI. FIRE OR OTHER CASUALTY
If the Leased Premises shall be damaged so as to render two-thirds (2/3) or more of the Leased
Premises untenantable by fire or other casualty insured against under the insurance required to be
carried by Landlord pursuant to Section 9.2, Landlord may elect to either terminate this Lease as of the
date of damage or repair the Leased Premises. Unless Landlord elects to terminate this Lease, such
damage or destruction shall in no way annul or void this Lease except that Tenant shall be entitled to a
proportionate reduction of the rent payable under Article IV while such repairs are being made, such
proportionate reduction to be based upon the proportion of the Leased Premises rendered untenantable
as a result of such damage. Notwithstanding the foregoing, if any damage or destruction from any cause
whatsoever has not been repaired and such repairs have not commenced within one hundred eighty
6
(180) days of the date thereof, Tenant may, as its exclusive remedy, terminate this Lease upon thirty (30)
days written notice to Landlord.
ARTICLE XII. CONDEMNATION
If the whole or any part of the Leased Premises shall be taken under the power of eminent
domain, then this Lease shall terminate as to the part so taken on the day when Tenant is required to
yield possession thereof, the Landlord shall make such repairs and alterations as may be necessary in
order to restore the part not taken to useful condition; and the rent payable under Article IV shall be
reduced proportionately as to the portion of the Leased Premises so taken. If the amount of the Leased
Premises so taken is such as to impair substantially the usefulness of the Leased Premises for the
purposes for which the same are hereby leased, then either party shall have the option to terminate this
Lease as of the date when Tenant is required to yield possession.
ARTICLE XIII. DEFAULT OF TENANT
Section 13.1. Default. The occurrence of any of the following shall be deemed a "default" under
this Lease:
(a) Tenant fails to pay when due any amount of rent, additional rent or other monies due under
this Lease, including Articles IV and V, and such payment is not received by Landlord within ten (10)
days after written notice of such failure is received by Tenant; or
(b) a default in any of the other provisions of this Lease, and such default continues uncured for
a period of thirty (30) days after written notice thereof from Landlord.
Section 13.2. Remedies. In the event of any default or breach hereof by Tenant, Landlord shall
have the right (in addition to all other rights and remedies provided by law) to terminate this Lease or to
re-enter and take possession of the Leased Premises, peaceably or by force, and to remove any property
therein without liability for damage to and without obligation to store such property, but may store the
same at Tenant's expense, and to collect from Tenant all rent then due and which would accrue for the
unexpired portion of the term hereof, together with reasonable attorney's fees. In addition, in the event of
a failure to pay rent, additional rent or other money within five (5) days of its due date, Tenant shall pay to
Landlord the greater of Twenty-Five and no/100 Dollars ($25.00) or one half (1/2) of one percent (1%) of
such sum for each day after the fifth day such rent or other money is late.
ARTICLE XIV. HOLDING OVER. SIGNS, SUCCESSORS
Section 14.1. HoldinQ Over. Any holding over after the expiration of the term hereof, with the
consent of Landlord, shall be construed to be a tenancy from month-to-month at the same rent herein
specified (prorated on a monthly basis) and shall otherwise be on the terms and conditions herein
specified as far as applicable.
Section 14.2. Showinq the Leased Premises. During the last ninety (90) days of the term hereof,
Tenant shall allow Landlord, or its agents, to show the Leased Premises to prospective tenants or
purchasers at such times as Landlord may reasonably desire.
Section 14.3. Successors. All rights and liabilities herein given to, or imposed upon the
respective parties hereto, shall extend to and bind the heirs, executors, administrators, successors and
permitted assigns of the parties. All covenants, representations and agreements of Landlord shall be
deemed the covenants, representations and agreements of the fee owner from time to time of the Leased
Premises and Landlord shall be automatically released of all liability under this Lease from and after the
date of any sale by Landlord of the Leased Premises. All covenants, representations and agreements of
Tenant shall be deemed the covenants, representations, and agreements of the occupant or occupants of
the Leased Premises.
ARTICLE XV. BROKER'S FEES
Tenant and Landlord hereby warrant that there are no brokerage commissions due in connection
7
with this Lease.
ARTICLE XVI. NO ASSIGNMENT
Tenant shall not assign this Lease or sublet all or any portion of the Leased Premises, either
directly or indirectly, without the prior written consent of Landlord. No assignment, sublease or transfer of
this Lease by Tenant shall (i) be effective unless and until the assignee, subtenant or transferee expressly
assumes in writing Tenant's obligations under this Lease, or (ii) relieve Tenant of its obligations
hereunder, and Tenant shall thereafter remain liable for the obligations of the Tenant under this Lease
whether arising before or after such assignment, sublease or transfer.
ARTICLE XVII. SUBORDINATION OF LEASE
This Lease and all rights of Tenant hereunder are and shall be subject and subordinate in all
respects to (1) any mortgages, deeds of trust and building loan agreements affecting the Leased
Premises, including any and all renewals, replacements, modifications, substitutions, supplements and
extensions thereof, and (2) each advance made or to be made thereunder. In confirmation of such
subordination, Tenant shall promptly upon the request of Landlord execute and deliver an instrument in
recordable form satisfactory to Landlord evidencing such subordination; and if Tenant fails to execute,
acknowledge or deliver any such instrument within ten (10) days after request therefore, Tenant hereby
irrevocably constitutes and appoints Landlord as Tenant's attorney-in-fact, coupled with an interest, to
execute, acknowledge and deliver any such instruments on behalf of Tenant. Tenant further agrees that
in the event any such mortgagee or lender requests reasonable modifications to this Lease as a condition
of such financing, Tenant shall not withhold or delay its consent thereto.
ARTICLE XVIII. MISCELLANEOUS
Section 18.1. Waiver. The waiver by landlord or Tenant of any breach of any term, covenant or
condition contained herein shall not be deemed to be a waiver of such term, covenant, or condition or any
subsequent breach of the same or any other term, covenant, or condition contained herein. The
subsequent acceptance or payment of rent hereunder by Landlord or Tenant, respectively, shall not be
deemed to be a waiver of any breach by Tenant or Landlord, respectively, of any term, covenant or
condition of this Lease regardless of knowledge of such breach at the time of acceptance or payment of
such rent. No covenant, term, or condition of this Lease shall be deemed to have been waived by Tenant
or Landlord unless the waiver be in writing signed by the party to be charged thereby.
Section 18.2. Entire AQreement. This Lease, and the Exhibits attached hereto and forming a part
hereof, set forth all the covenants, promises, agreements, conditions and understandings between
Landlord and Tenant concerning the Leased Premises; and there are no covenants, promises,
agreements, conditions or understandings, either oral or written, between them other than as herein set
forth. Except as herein otherwise provided, no subsequent alteration, amendment, change or addition to
this Lease shall be binding upon Landlord or Tenant unless reduced in writing and signed by them.
Section 18.3. Notices. Any notice, demand, request or other instrument which may be, or are
required to be given under this Lease, shall be in writing and delivered in person or by United States
certified mail, postage prepaid, and shall be addressed:
(a) if to Landlord, at
County of Albemarle
County Executive's Office
401 Mcintire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902
or at such other address as Landlord may designate by written notice;
(b) if to Tenant, at
Charlottesville/Albemarle Commission on Children and Families
1600 Fifth Street
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902
or at such other address as Tenant shall designate by written notice.
8
Section 18.4. Captions and Section Numbers. The captions and section numbers appearing in
this Lease are inserted only as a matter of convenience and in no way define, limit, construe or describe
the scope or intent of such sections of this Lease nor in any way do they affect this Lease.
Section 18.5. Partial Invalidity. If any term, covenant or condition of this Lease, or the application
thereof, to any person or circumstance shall to any extent be invalid or unenforceable, the remainder of
this Lease, or the application of such term, covenant, or condition to persons or circumstances other than
those as to which it is held invalid or unenforceable, shall not be affected thereby and each term,
covenant, or condition of this Lease shall be valid and be enforced to the fullest extent permitted by law.
Section 18.6. Recordinq. Upon request of either party, a memorandum of lease will be executed
and recorded. Such memorandum shall contain any provisions of this Lease which either party requests
except for the provisions of Article IV, which shall not be included. The cost of recording such
memorandum of lease or a short form hereof shall be borne by the party requesting such recordation.
Section 18.7. Governinq Law. This Agreement shall be governed by and construed in
accordance with the laws of the Commonwealth of Virginia.
Section 18.8. Counterparts This Agreement may be executed simultaneously in two or more
counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original, but all of which together shall constitute one and
the same instrument.
Section 18.9. This lease is subject to annual appropriations by the Board of Supervisors of
Albemarle County, Virginia.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this instrument as of the day and
year first above written.
TENANT
CHARLOTTESVILLE/ALBEMARLE COMMISSION ON
CHILDREN AND FAMILIES
By:
Print Name: Gretchen Ellis
Title: Director
LANDLORD
This Lease is executed on behalf of the County of Albemarle by Robert W. Tucker, Jr., County
Executive, following a duly-held public hearing, and pursuant to a Resolution of the Albemarle County
Board of Supervisors.
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA
By:
Print Name:
Title:
9
ATTACHMENT 2
FAIR HOUSING MONTH
WHEREAS, April 2006, marks the thirty-eighth anniversary of the passage of the Fair Housing Act of
1968, which sought to eliminate discrimination in housing opportunities and to
affirmatively further housing choices for all Americans; and
WHEREAS, the ongoing struggle for dignity and housing opportunity for all is not the exclusive
province of the Federal government; and
WHEREAS, vigorous local efforts to combat discrimination can be as effective, if not more so, than
Federal efforts; and
WHEREAS, illegal barriers to equal opportunity in housing, no matter how subtle, diminish the rights
of all;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOL VED,
that in the pursuit of the shared goal and responsibility of providing equal housing
opportunities for all men and women, the Board of County Supervisors of Albemarle
County, Virginia, does hereby join in the national celebration by proclaiming
APRIL, 2006
as
FAIR HOUSING MONTH
and encourages all agencies, institutions and individuals, public and private, in Albemarle
County to abide by the letter and the spirit of the Fair Housing law.
Signed and sealed this 12th day of April, 2006.
10
ATTACHMENT 3
SP-2005-032. Rosewood Villaae Assisted Livina at Hollvmead Town Center (Sians #8.34).
PROPOSED: Request for special use permit to allow for 70,000 sq ft assisted living facility on 1.25 acres.
ZONING CATEGORY/GENERAL USAGE: PD-MC Planned Development Mixed Commercial-large-
scale commercial uses; & residential by special use permit (15 units/acre); EC Entrance Corridor Overlay
District. SECTION: 25A.2.2.1 which allows assisted living facilities by special use permit in PDMC.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE/DENSITY: Town Center: designates compact, higher density area
containing a mixture of businesses, services, public facilities, residential areas & public spaces, attracting
activities of all kinds. LOCATION: Tax Map 32 Parcel 41 D. The property is located approx 1,500 feet
from US Rt 29 along Timberwood Boulevard in the Hollymead Town Center. MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT:
Rio.
1. Maximum usage is limited to ninety-six residents (96) residents in the facility;
2. No part of the assisted living facility site may be utilized for any activities other than those directly
related to the adult care residence;
3. The special use permit authorizes only an adult care residence which provides an assisted living
level of service, as defined by 22VAC40-71 as provided under the Virginia Administrative Code;
and
4. Neither a preliminary or final site plan, building permit, Certificate of Occupancy or any other
permit shall be approved or issued for this project if the Zoning Administrator determines that the
owners of Area C are in violation of proffer 2.F. for Area C (ZMA-2001-009).
11
BUDGET RESOLUTION
ATTACHMENT 4
BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, that the
County budget for the Fiscal Year beginning July 1, 2006 be approved as follows:
Administration
Judicial
Public Safety
General Services
Human Development (including PVCC)
Parks, Recreation, and Cultural
Community Development
Refunds
City/County Revenue Sharing
General Government Capital Projects
Storm Water Improvements
General Government Debt Service
Education - Capital Projects
Education - Debt Service
Education - School Operations
Education - Self-Sustaining Funds
Special Revenue Fund Operations
Less: Interfund Transfers
Contingency Reserves
TOTAL
12
FY 06/07 ADOPTED
$10,159,767
3,528,917
25,723,789
3,827,382
16,183,339
5,759,627
7,564,410
146,590
10,134,816
25,009,173
650,000
2,254,274
13,375,000
11,532,726
141,732,877
14,830,310
16,630,703
(11,779,949)
1,539,583
$298,803,334
ATTACHMENT 5
RESOLUTION
BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, does
hereby set the County Levy for the Calendar Year 2006 for General County purposes at
Seventy-Four Cents ($0.74) on every One Hundred Dollars of assessed value of real estate; at
Seventy-Four Cents ($0.74) on every One Hundred Dollars of assessed value of manufactured
homes; at Seventy-Four Cents ($0.74) on every One Hundred Dollars of assessed value of
public service assessments; at Four Dollars and Twenty-Eight Cents ($4.28) on every One
Hundred Dollars of assessed value of personal property; and at Four Dollars and Twenty-Eight
Cents ($4.28) on every One Hundred Dollars of assessed value of machinery and tools; and
FURTHER orders that the Director of Finance of Albemarle County assess and collect
the taxes on all taxable real estate and all taxable personal property.
13
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
FY 07 - FY 10 Strategic Plan Work Session #4
AGENDA DATE:
April 12, 2006
SUBJECT/PROPOSALlREQUEST:
To obtain further guidance regarding the
FY 07 - FY 10 Strategic Plan affordable housing
priority
ACTION: X
INFORMATION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION:
INFORMATION:
STAFF CONTACnS):
Tucker, Foley, White, Davis, White
LEGAL REVIEW: Yes
REVIEWED BY:
~
(
ATTACHMENTS: Yes
BACKGROUND:
On September 9,2005, the Board initiated the County's FY 07 - FY1 0 strategic plan. The Board 1) reviewed the County's
Vision and Mission statements, 2) identified five goals for inclusion in the FY 07 - FY 10 Strategic Plan, and 3) identified
and voted on top priorities for this time period.
On November 2, 2005, the Board reviewed the results of the retreat and made several suggestions to clarify further their
priorities for staff. On December 6, the Board received an updated Executive Summary that included the
recommendations made by the Board during their November 2nd meeting.
To finalize the upcoming Strategic Plan, staff has scheduled work sessions with the Board to provide additional analysis on
the priority issues and to receive more specific direction as necessary. The purpose of these efforts is to make the FY 07 -
FY 10 Strategic Plan statements clear, actionable, and results-oriented in order to best focus and drive staffs strategic
efforts in the years ahead.
On January 11, 2006 and February 8, 2006, staff held work sessions with the Board to discuss and review staff's
recommendations regarding the Board's conservation easements, transportation, and education-related strategic priorities.
After the work session and additional Board input, modifications have been made to these priority statements. These
updated statements have been included in the updated strategic plan framework. (See Attachment A).
On AprilS, a third work session was held in order for the Board to provide direction to staff regarding natural resources,
with a special emphasis on water resources. In addition, the Board was asked to provide guidance regarding the Strategic
Plan priorities regarding the Master Plan Schedule and the Rural Area Plan Implementation as part of the Community
Development Department's work plan work session on AprilS.
STRATEGIC PLAN:
Development of the FY 07 - FY 10 Strategic Plan
DISCUSSION:
The April 12 work session will focus on the following priority statement identified at the Board's September 05 Strategic
Plan Retreat:
Goal: Enhance the Quality of Life
Priority: Develop and implement a housing policy that works.
The attached white paper outlines the County's current efforts regarding affordable housing, as well as challenges the
County faces, and opportunities the County is pursuing, regarding this complex issue. It also provides staff's
recommendation regarding an approach to affordable housing to be undertaken in the upcoming strategic plan.
AGENDA TITLE:
FY 07 - FY 10 Strategic Plan Work Session #4
April 12, 2006
Page 2
The draft FY 07 - FY 10 strategic plan is slated to be completed by June. There will be a 30 day public review period prior
to the Board considering the plan for approval in July 06.
BUDGET IMPACT:
The Board's identified strategic priorities provide direction to the County during the budget cycle.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends:
The Board 1) review the attached white paper on affordable housing, 2) discuss and provide guidance regarding
affordable housing and 3) approve the inclusion of the following statement in the draft FY 07 - FY 10 Strategic Plan:
Working in partnership with others, increase affordable housing opportunities for those who work and/or live in
Albemarle County.
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment A - Updated StrateQic Plan Framework
Attachment B- White Paper: Affordable Housing
06.051
<(
--(0
530
EN
..c T'"""
u
co 'C
:t:: c..
<(<(
~
L-
a
~
(])
E
co
L-
LL
c::
co
a..
(,)1'--
'0>0
(])>-
roLL
L-
+-'
C/)
o
T"""
>-
LL
I
~
co
L-
o
~ Gl
.=.
e ~ -
::::: .=.
~ ~ 1
III
t: ~ -
C
III .1Il Gl
~)., ~ -
1/1
l: t: 'c;;
:::! :::! c
o 0 0
UU U
Gl
III III u
.t:oS '~
j..;;" Gl
...: i 1/1
e .~
i: III ::is
~ ::I
,! ca.
...
:::="1:) 0
-i: Ii
~ 0 >
~ i .!!
-
~~ 1/1
Gl
.=.
l:l Dl
:c
5 e Gl
U,2l .=.
-
III III ...
t:~ o 1/1
...: c'tl
o C
. 16 ~ ,- ::I
~ t: 1/1...
_o~ 'S: u
~1~! 0:=
z ...,c
0 ca.::1
Gl ca.
oe-s~ Ui .=....
- 0
- e III ~ .=. Gl
U) 0 III III
S (,). .Q :! DlI/I
::I ::I
...~- 0_
t:t::;:: ... c
III :::! ~ .=. Gl
bO~ -'tl
1/1 ::I
~U_ C ...
:::! III Gl ca.
lilt: ,t::!
-
!:I::: '(3
lll~ (ij
III III
" t: ...
t:1 0
...
Ill... ~
lllS
.... III
"2 e ...
0
:!5,8 :>.
~ :t:=
- (ij
~j ::I
r:r
~ >. 'tl
Ill'" C
.!! ~ III
Dl
:::=,! c
l_ 'ij
~e ~
t: ~ Ii
:::! III 3=
8 t: Gl
.=.
~i -
Gl
.. III u
III III C
e III III
III e .=.
c
:S :::! Gl
q: ~ 0
~ I-
r---
is
c: ~
:Ie>
Q)
.5 ~
"0..2
C:I!
I!
tIJ
'i
o
C)
.2
0)
CLI
10
..
-
U'J
'"
~ ~
~ ~ ~
V) :g ~
812<(2
""~20",
&2~Y'"g
c.....t:~lD
.Q~~s<
~ ~ 0 0
o'::::;.(J
a ',) f;
o o.-t:
>-- E~
1/1
Gl
;;
'C
o
'C
D.
. ..c:..c:
iJ!~i
'V . .., t,II 0
c:: ..c 01 ... ...
"uc-fa
-;:~~~:
=~A."::I...
! .. ~ ii: 8 ..
WI E u Ii ..
w.!...tifi
A. ~ ... ....
.5 ::E 0
~ E
::I ..
_ a: ""
~~-:
c..,:c
~ .5 'j
.. .
'i..! ;
.5 :' ii:
~ ..
... ..
.. ...
.<
......
. c:
1;""0
~;~
E - .. ·
... A."'a II
!c;i1
.. .. E.?:
. E ... t
..c .. t,I f9
.. ....c:
l ~ ~
::I ..
... E
..
Ii .
~;!
.. 1:: ..
II 2 E
::I .. ..
~ = >
)0 C !
f ~ t
l .2 .-
ii:
e
~ !
- 0
~ ~
....a:
~
1/1
Gl
;::;
i:
o
i:
D.
Ec. ';.2
:>-1;lo..lI-=
~ot::>.e"1::
... .- :> ::J.c 1ft c: 0
A.~.5 U A.-a! A.
~J!~l!''!~a~
~f:.!!~"':.2t!
.c.t_~Sa:
ci:5=v~~.f
U .....c: c: 4ft c Q..
S;.i! c:
..
o ~ ~ ~-+-..001'~
-...
ii...o M.
i~~!:'.~!Clfi
~ "1l.E~.?: "_:'~A.
i'=.i.~~t::sc
_...~>. ._Otli
~~::: ...c'i.C=e
coo C "0 .. ... .. ... ..
:U--;.!!~~!c'" aa
"''If'''':>A. "EN.!ftS
g < f ~ $ 0 ~ E ; li
"'CI)A.o..u.....! E
.E:tt::l,," ::40
a:.. II .5
l'--''', 'S-- c.~ ~-..l ~
~-lI<<nll.~
..
1$ .g~;
OOGl"1;
:i! ::'7 ~ ;:
;"'c1>>'V
~~~A.;
i:~i:
E'io'O~ ..
.! 41 '"" :s f
a."A.o.!
.5:: E
..
~ 1 ::ejil ;!!=. ~ .. "
. c: E
Q.l C>>1:l'E1:l~ o"5!::S! E .- .. .E
L-- S -s.l! ~ ~~~'5"'.!!}1 .!!~i!: 0
..J 1/1 4000 .. c:
~ ~ lD .. ID ii- ~ 8a-
Q) ..... Gl e.5~.....-s lD E..c: ;r:
0 ;; ."~=..;:l..Xl~ - . .. " .=
(,) ...-.. .. .. ..
'C .....lIDo.. BelD ;.....c:
c: ~ 0 lil ,. '" :.!: = I: e.." .... ~i ';
a, 'C ~~- -- Q-:' A.'!~
.- c~! ~t! g ~Ol-E-= 00= .. 0
.c: - D. .;'V~_l1j_E a)lD .l!io lD E
a,
ai ~ >-iQ ~EJ!", DolDQ B I :> A. f
. c: A.
() =0 S..Ej.!'!l Q ..
= lD -= CD
1/1
Gl
;::;
i:
o
i:
D.
.. ~- .-
.. . .. ~ ~
o~=..;r:o.
~:;i~:S-S"iill
~1i"'IlI'OIL~4o
oc:..Ec:......c:
l")~1!~.!!.....~
!:'~.!:!~;~
::I"'1::.4oll..:o
''!o''Eo..4o
~~::~g-=::~
-0 .-.
:: ~~b
1/1
Gl
E!
...
o
i:
D.
.5 << ~!
o~. 'U.22~.~
~Olll C:;]i~ A.
~.".."...1:o :SO"'"
..~l!A.M!r::.
~=~:i~~~.t~:~
~ =-: E:: E~'!;;:i;
:s:c:'~:ii.!~i.
...,...:;; u::s-f!!a
li'.5 ~ 0- :. :: .E
" .. ..
::I
Attachment B
Board Identified Strategic Priority
Sept 9, 2005
Develop and Implement a Housing Policy that works
White Paper
Backaround
What is "affordable housing?"
HUD definition:
According to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), housing is
considered "affordable" when a household pays 30% or less of their monthly income towards
housing costs.
County's definition for homeownershio:
In Albemarle County, the County's Office of Housing developed and the Board approved an
"affordable mortgage value" calculation for homeownership based on the HUD affordable
housing definition. The Office of Housing uses this calculation to monitor the sales of homes
in the County using information provided by the Charlottesville Area Association of Realtors
(CAAR). This "affordability" number changes each year and is based on the following
information:
"A purchase price for a house is considered "affordable" in the County when a household
whose income is 80% of the area median income (based on the most recent information
published by HUD) pays 30% or less of their household income for housing costs. The
formula is based on a 30 year fixed mortgage and the recent mortgage rate percentages. In
2005, the maximum mortgage value that would be "affordable" was considered to be
$192,050.
What does Census data tell us about affordable housing in Albemarle County?
Albemarle County Home Owners:
According to the 2000 U.S. Census data, 19% of the Albemarle County home owners paid
more than 30% of their monthly income towards housing costs. This situation means that in
1999, of the 16,376 home owner households in the County, 3, 111_of the County's
homeowner households reported living in housing situations that are in the unaffordable
range, This includes housing in all price ranges.
It is important to note that this percentage is similar to our peer counties and throughout the
state. Twenty-one percent of Stafford County homeowners, 22% of James City County
homeowners, 19% of Henrico homeowners, 17% of Hanover homeowners, and 20% of all
the homeowners in the state reported paying more than 30% of their monthly income
towards their housing costs in the 2000 Census.
Albemarle County renters:
According to the 2000 Census, 38% of the 10,089 rental households in Albemarle County
reported paying over 30% of their household incomes on housing. This situation means that,
in 1999, 3,833 of the families and individuals who rent in Albemarle County could be
classified as living in "unaffordable" rental units.
1
Again, this statistic is similar to many of our peer counties and throughout the state. For
example, 32% of rental occupants paid more than 30% of their income for their housing in
Stafford, 42% in James City County, 33% in Henrico County, 32% in Hanover and 34% of
the renters paid over 30% of their income for housing statewide.
The 2000 Census data also tells us that of the households (both renters and homeowners)
who are classified to be in the lowest income category at 30% of Median Family Income
(MFI), 87% or 546 of these households reported that they are living in unaffordable units.
What do recent home sales tell us about affordable housing in the County?
According to the Housing Office, housing sales in Albemarle County were at a record high of
1,816 in 2005 with the median sales price increasing 7% from $266,125 to $285,000
between 2004 and 2005. Of these, 416 units (23%) sold in 2005 were considered
"affordable" according to the County's criteria, A notable change in 2005 was the increase in
the number of condominiums sold. Sixty percent of the 412 "affordable sales" were
condominiums. The percentage of affordable existing housing (resales) as a percentage of
all resales remained fairly consistent since last year, between 26% and 28%. The number of
affordable new units (under $192,000) sold in 2005 was 9 units, down from 12 in 2004,
The Charlottesville/Albemarle County region is not unique in increasing housing sales prices.
The Virginia Association of Realtors notes that many regions across the state have posted
record median sales price increases in recent years,
County has recently increased its emphasis on affordable housing
Providing affordable homeownership opportunities was identified as a focus for the County in
the FY 03/04 - FY 05/06 Strategic Plan. Work groups, committees, advisory groups, and
focus groups were convened to make recommendations to address the issue. The
Albemarle County Housing Committee has taken an active role in studying this issue and
promoting affordable housing.
County established a housing policy in 2004
Both the City of Charlottesville and County of Albemarle developed policies on affordable
housing, with Albemarle's policy adopted as a part of the Comprehensive Plan in February
2004. The Policy further defined affordable housing as follows:
"In general terms affordable housing means safe, decent housing where housing costs do
not exceed 30% of the gross household income. Housing costs for homeowners shall
include principal, interest, real estate taxes, and homeowner's insurance (PITI). Housing
costs for tenants shall be tenant-paid rent and tenant-paid utilities with maximum allowances
for utilities to be those adopted by the Housing Office for the Housing Choice Voucher
Program."
Albemarle County's Policy, as adopted, states:
It shall be the policy of Albemarle County to support affordable housing for
those who live and/or work in the County. In particular, the County will provide
guidance, resources, and incentives to the nonprofit and for-profit development
and financing communities to increase the supply of affordable housing (both
rental and homeownership) for households with incomes between 0 and 80% of area
median income by
2
· Promoting safe, decent, and affordable housing options for low- to moderate-
income residents of Albemarle County and those working in, and desiring to
reside in, Albemarle County;
· Insuring variety/choice in housing and equal housing opportunities;
· Creating and preserving safe, high quality and sustainable neighborhoods;
· Understanding diverse housing needs and special needs of various
populations; and,
· Directing assistance to those populations least able to attain safe, affordable
housing through the private sector alone.
The County should encourage the preservation of all existing affordable housing
units Countywide and the development of new housing in a manner consistent
with the County's Growth Management Policy. The provision of affordable
housing should be focused on the designated Development Areas to be
consistent with the Growth Management Policy and to provide homes where a
higher level of services and facilities (both public and private) are available to
support residents. Affordable housing may be provided in the designated Rural
Area consistent with rural area policy and regulations.
Current situation
In 2005, Albemarle County appropriated approximately $960,000 in local funds to support a
variety of housing initiatives for the fiscal year ending June 30, 2006. These funds leveraged
over $3.5 million in additional assistance. In addition, developers have recently begun to
proffer substantial amounts of funding and affordable housing units. Examples of the
County's current initiatives include:
1) Assistance to Renters who are most in need - Housinq Choice Voucher (Section 8)
proqram: The Housing Office administers a $2,5 million annual federally funded
program which assists 420 households each year. The program is targeted for renter
households who are at the 50% of the Area Median Income (AMI) or below, with 75%
of the funds targeted to those who are at 30% AMI. 12 of these vouchers are used to
support elderly individuals who live at Parkview in South Pantops, The cost to the
County is approx $200,000 to administer the program (support for Housing Office).
2) Assistance to Renters - Woods Edqe Subsidy: The County expends $40,000 per
year to subsidize 30 units for the elderly whose incomes are below 50% AMI.
3) Assistance to Renters - Fundinq to the Albemarle Housinq Improvement Proqram
(AHIP): The County provided one time funding to assist AHIP in acquiring the 96-unit
Whitewood Village Apartments preserving all 96 units in the affordable housing stock.
4) Assistance to First Time Homebuyer: The County allocates $250,000 annually in
down payment assistance to assist first time homebuyers to purchase their first
homes. This is a program that assists renters who are at 60 to 80% AMI. In addition,
Piedmont Housing Alliance leverages additional funds by providing these individuals
access to low interest mortgages. This program assisted 18 individuals since May
2005 who would have not been able to afford a market rate mortgage in purchasing
their first homes.
5) Assistance to Homebuyers - Proffered Units: Currently, developers have proffered
units that can be purchased at a set rate that would be affordable to a smaller
segment of the population. At this time, approximately 500 affordable housing units
3
(including accessory-type apartments) have been proffered. These units will become
available as these developments are built over the years ahead.
6) Assistance for various needs - Cash Proffers: Currently, $750,000 in cash proffers to
support affordable housing in the County has been promised to the County's Housing
Fund. These funds could be used for down payment assistance, incentives or to
develop affordable housing. These funds mostly will be received in future years when
building permits are received or the developments approved with these proffers.
7) Partnerships: The County partners with several non-profit agencies such as
Piedmont Housing Alliance, AHIP, and JABA, state and federal agencies, individuals
and developers to provide a variety of housing opportunities to Albemarle County
citizens.
Categories of Direct Assistance:
Income Level Example of who Estimate of Program or Funding
Family of is served number served Incentive
Four
o - $33,350 Rental: Family 420 per year HUD Rental $2.5 million
receiving public Assistance
assistance and/or vouchers
o to 50% AMI on fixed incomes Federal funds
$26,675 - Rental: Families 30 units Woods Both assisted $40,000 per year
$40,000 who rent and/or edge housing and - Woods Edge
rental housing for 96 units - Parks unassisted
elderly Edge housing and Local funds
non-profit
efforts AHIP support
Approx 40% to State/Federal
60% AMI funds
$40,000 - Homeownership: 18 First time Affordable $250,000 in
$53,350 Low/Moderate homebuyers per Housing Fund Down Payment
income families year Assistance
Local funds
Proffered
affordable
60% to 80% housing
AMI
4
ProDosed:
Staff proposes adding this fourth category of assistance so that affordable housing could be
made available to those with moderate income levels.
Income Level Example of Estimate of Program or Funding
Family of Four who is served number served Incentive
$53,350 - Proposal: Proposal: Proposal:
$73,150 Provide To be Proffered Allow moderate
assistance to determined affordable income families
moderate housing to be eligible to
income families also purchase
to purchase affordable
80% to 120% housing housing
AMI proffered by
developers,
without the
County
contributing
down payment
assistance
No local costs
ChallenQes/lssues
1) Market Forces: It is difficult to intervene in a market that is dictated by supply and
demand. Increasing land costs in the County make affordable housing more difficult to
develop. In order to create an affordable unit to sell at $190,000, a rule of thumb is that the
developed lot should cost no more than $45,000. In Albemarle, developable lots currently
cost between $70,000 and $120,000 for townhouse size parcels. Single-family detached
housing lots are often much higher. Buyers also influence the market. It is apparent, based
on current market conditions, that many buyers prefer larger units, with more upgrades and
amenities, than was preferred in the past. Buyers also may choose to pay more than 30% of
their monthly income for housing, or choose to live outside of the County.
2) Challenges for Developers to create new affordable housing units: The creation of
new affordable housing could prove to be costly for builders. A builder would be required to
give up the potential for increased profit on each unit of affordable housing sold at $190,000
versus a market-rate unit selling for $250,000. The potential loss in profits increases if the
$190,000 unit sold actually costs more than the selling price to produce.
3) Enabling Authority: Advocates who support local government actions to create
affordable housing often point to the actions of other jurisdictions both in Virginia and other
states, Many states provide authority to local government to require some level of
contribution to affordable housing. We do not have that authority in Virginia. Even trying to
compare Albemarle to two Virginia localities that have achieved some level of commitment to
affordable housing seems to be a dissimilar comparison. The localities are Fairfax and
Loudoun. The difference is that developers are seeking densities much greater than allowed
by current zoning in these Northern Virginia counties and are willing to provide some
affordable units in exchange. In Albemarle, developers often are not requesting the
maximum density allowed in the Comp Plan for their developments.
5
4) Incentives: If a developer does not request additional density, there needs to be
incentives or a package of incentives to offer in seeking the inclusion of affordable housing in
new developments. Our affordable housing inclusion policies should not create a negative
financial impact on the builder and developer.
5) Resources: Even though the County's Office of Housing works diligently to leverage
additional funds and opportunities, resources are finite.
6) Current approach for purchasing proffered units may restrict opportunities: A police
officer, firefighter, teacher, and family support worker at mid-range would exceed 80% of the
area median income (AMI) for one-person and two-person households. Therefore, they
would exceed the County's criteria to purchase an "affordable unit" developed through
proffers. Suppose that a police officer is married to an Office Associate III and the couple
has two children. With both at mid-range, this family would exceed 80% AMI and, again, not
be eligible to purchase an "affordable unit" developed under a proffer. Another example of a
family exceeding 80% AMI is a bus driver whose wife is a food service associate and the
couple has one child. If these are examples of families the County is trying to help, the policy
must be modified to expand the target population to at least 100% AMI and potentially as
high as 120%.
7) Affordable Rental Units Limited: Affordability is also a factor for those who rely on rental
housing. The Office of Housing completed a rental survey last fall and compiled rental rate
information representing over 6000 rental units. A comparison of rents for a two-bedroom
apartment with what households at various income levels could afford indicated that
approximately 2/3rds of the available rental units are affordable to households at or above
50%AMI. However, no units were found to be affordable to households below 30% AMI.
Recommendations
The County realizes that it will not resolve Albemarle's affordable housing issues, regardless
of the amount of resources invested or the implementation strategies undertaken, because
housing is significantly impacted by market forces beyond the County's control.
To maximize the County's impact, therefore, the County should continue to provide a range
of programs, to expand its ability to partner with others, and take a multi-focused approach to
maximize affordable housing opportunities.
Recommended Statement for the FY 07 - FY 10 Strategic Plan:
Working in partnership with others, increase affordable housing opportunities for those who
work and/or live in Albemarle County.
Specific strategies could include:
· Extending the availability of proffered units to those with moderate incomes
· Expanding existing partnerships and creating new alliances with the private sector
· Seeking additional resources from the state and federal government
· Promoting long-term affordability of units to protect direct monetary investment of public
resources
· Emphasizing housing rehabilitation as a prevention measure
· Encourage tax credit projects for affordable rental housing
6
The Albemarle County Housing Committee plans to present a report to the Board in May and
will expand further on this topic and these recommendations. Specific outcome measures will
be developed in the future.
7
4/;2-c2000fA)
...".... ".- --"., "...,-.---
02.~
Bu~
1
"\ ~ J~ ,I'}.' ".;P/'?, .... " 1. 9 ~. ~.... ' '. . ?',
VVnaL ~S arrOrCIS!i.Oije nOUSijng ~
. H : Housing is "affordable" when a
household pays 30% or less of their monthly income
towards housing costs.
. : Purchase price is "affordable" when:
a household, whose income is 80% of the area median
income, pays 30% or less of their household income
towards housing costs.
Based on 30 year fixed mortgage and current rate
in 2005, affordable unit = $192,000
HUD estimates:
@ 2005 Median family income = $66,700
2
What Does the Data Show?
Of the rental units in Albemarle, 38% of occupants paid
more that 30% of their income for the rental unit. This
rate is higher than the statewide average of 34%
Stafford 32%
James City 42%
Henrico 33%
Hano~r 32%
Albemarle 38%
Virginia 34%
Source: 2000
U.S. Census
3
4
County's Affordab~e Housijng POUcy
@ Who:
Those who live andlor work in the County - focus on
households with income between 0 and 80% median income
@ vVhat:
Support affordable housing (rental and homeownership)
@ How:
Provide guidance, resources and incentives to increase the
supply of affordable housing by:
.. Safe, decent, affordable
.. Variety and choice
.. Safe, high quality neighborhoods
.. Diverse
.. Assistance for those least likely to attain safe, affordable housing
VVhat do we do novv?
111come Level! Examples of Number _or --
Family or 4 who is Served incentive
served
$0-33,350 Rental: Fixed 420 per year HUD Rental $25 million
income/ Public Assistance
0%-50% AMI assistance vouchers Federal Funds
$26,675-$40,000 Rental: Families 30 units - Assisted and $40,000 per year
who rent / Rental Woods edge unassisted Woods Edge
housing for the 96 - Whitewood housing and
elderly non-profits AHIP Support
-40%-60% AMI Local, State, and
Federal funds
$40.000-$53,350 Homeownership: 18 first time Affordable $250,000 in Down
Low/Moderate homebuyers per Housing Fund Payment Assistance
income families year
Local Funds
60%-80% AMI Proffered affordable
Housing
5
County contributes n(earr~y
$1 rnmij;on to\tvards af:[ordabl:e hCJIL.!ls~ng
Revolving Loan Down Payment
Fund Assistance
Housing Repairs AHIP
and Rehabilitation
$90,000 Support lending Piedmont Housing
activities
$200,000 Coordination Housing Office
Administers
- $3 million in
Federal funds
$250,000
$430,000
6
7
0""" '" ~1~, '. '......
· . pnon~
. Explore all potential development and
redevelopment opportunities (including county-
owned property)
. Provide additional $ for Affordable Housing Fund
- down payment assistance
. Expand housing initiatives to include moderate
income families
Examples or Number --
who is served Sorved
Rental: Fixed 420 per year HUD Rental $2.5 million
income! Public ASSistance
assistance vouchers Federal Funds
Rental: Families 30 units - Assisted and $40,000 per year Woods
who rent I Rental Woods edge unassisted housing Edge
housing for the 96 - Whitewood and non-profits
elderly AHIP Support
Local, State, and Federal
funds
Homeownership: 18 first time Affordable Housing $250,000 In Down Payment
Low/f'vloderate Income homebuyers per Fund ASSistance
families year
Local Funds
Proffered affordable HOUSing
$53,350-$73,150 HDrl''1<::oVJnt'rsr~ip: To be' PrOffCrf}d Allow moderate income
fvloder<lte in,come determined t\ffcrdZlble famHies to be 0ngjbk~ to
families Housing purchase 2ffordab~e
housing proffered by
developers
80% to 120':,. AI:I No lecal Cost
Income
leve!!
Family of 4
1':og"",m or
IncDrtiva
50-33,350
0% to 50% AMI
526,675-$40,000
-40% to 60% A~1I
$40,000-553,350
60% to 80% AMI
8
9
10
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
Rural Areas Implementation
AGENDA DATE:
April 12, 2006
SUBJECT/PROPOSAUREQUEST:
Planning Commission recommendation for RA lot
development, phasing, clustering, family division
regulations, and process for receiving public input
on proposed ordinances
ACTION: X
INFORMATION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION:
INFORMATION:
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Graham, Cilimberg, Benish, McDowell
ATTACHMENTS: Yes
LEGAL REVIEW: YES
REVIEWED BY:
~
(
BACKGROUND:
The Guiding Principles for the Rural Areas recognize eight defining principles that are important components of the RA:
agriculture, forestry resources, land preservation and conservation, water supply resources, natural resources, scenic
resources, and historical, archeological and cultural resources. When the Rural Areas section of the Comprehensive Plan
was adopted in 2005, residential development was identified as the greatest threat to the principles of the Rural Areas.
The RA Plan emphasizes the importance of implementing these principles and contains the goal to "Reduce the level and
rate of residential development in the Rural Areas and minimize the impacts of permitted development." The plan refers
directly to phasing and clustering (RPDs) as tools that the County should "aggressively pursue."
The Board of Supervisors identified priorities for implementation of the RA Plan at the time it was adopted. Each priority
was measured by its potential to lessen development pressure on the Rural Areas and by its potential to have the most
significant impact on what the Guiding Principles seek to achieve, both in the short term and in the long term. Phasing and
clustering were identified as the top two priorities for implementation, with phasing to be completed first. It was later
decided by the Board to implement phasing and clustering simultaneously.
On September 14, 2005, the Board held a joint work session with the Planning Commission. The Board determined that
the issues concerning implementation of phasing and clustering should be discussed in greater depth by the Commission
(see Attachment A - Work Session staff report). The Commission was also asked to recommend a public
informationlreview process to the Board. In addition, staff was directed to provide experiences of other localities concerning
phasing.
The Commission's deliberations since September have included guest speakers from Madison and Rockingham Counties
to share their extensive experiences with using phasing as a growth control measure. A copy of the minutes of that
discussion is attached as reference (Attachment B). In response to the Planning Commission's request for information
concerning impacts phasing may have on the acquisition of conservation easements, conservation easement specialists
from the Nature Conservancy and Piedmont Environmental Council were invited to attend a later work session. These
experts agreed that while it would be difficult to determine if there would be a reduction of easement donations, slowing
growth through phasing would provide a greater overall benefit to the Rural Areas.
On March 14, the Commission completed its discussion. This report includes the Commission's recommendations for a
framework for phasing, clustering and family divisions (Attachment C). An expedited public information/input process has
also been recommended and is included in this report.
STRATEGIC PLAN:
Goal 2.1: Protect and/or preserve the County's rural character.
Goal 2.2: Protect and/or preserve the County's natural resources.
AGENDA TITLE:
Rural Areas Implementation
April 12, 2006
Page 2
DISCUSSION:
The Planning Commission has addressed phasing and clustering concepts as both separate ordinances and ordinances
that work in unison. In addition, as family divisions were recommended for exemption from both phasing and clustering
ordinances, the Commission addressed the time of ownership both before and after subdivision.
Although the majority of the Commission agreed to the ordinance framework plan (Attachment C), not all items in the
framework received unanimous support. The following summary of the major framework criteria, issues, and impacts also
includes many of the concerns raised at the work sessions.
Phasina: Major framework standards, issues and impacts of phasing subdivisions are identified below.
· Phasing or time-release of subdivisions addresses the rate of subdivision; the number of division rights assigned in 1980
would not be affected by phasing, i.e., the ultimate potential of rural areas density would not be affected.
· Two new lots in ten-year increments is the recommended rate of subdivision; more lots and/or a shorter time period
would not effectively slow subdivision activity.
· While phasing could slow down future subdivision activity, it may not affect the number of building permits issued within
the Rural Areas in the foreseeable future, as there is a substantial inventory of existing lots: 10,571 parcels in the Rural
Areas are undeveloped (i.e., 2005 real estate improvements assessment < $25,000).
· A process to track used and remaining subdivision rights would need to be developed.
Clusterina: Major framework standards, issues and impacts with clustering of subdivision are identified below.
· Intended to provide a more effective land use pattern that preserves and protects the County's scenic, natural,
agricultural, and forestal resources. Clustering would not affect density of Rural Areas development.
· Clustering would be the mandated form of subdivision in the Rural Areas, with few exceptions.
· Current regulations for clustering (Rural Preservation Developments) provide an opportunity to improve land
development patterns, but its effectiveness is compromised because it is an optional form of subdivision.
· The identification and protection of resources would be the highest priority and residential lots would be located in area
with the least impact on resources.
· As many resources as feasible would be placed into a preservation parcel.
· All residential lots would be accessed from interior roads.
· A maximum lot size of two-acres for residential parcels (an additional acre would be possible to provide water/septic).
· Large lot subdivisions (greater than 2-acre lots) would no longer be permitted. The majority of the Commission agreed
that larger lots did not fulfill the intent of the Comprehensive Plan and would continue to erode rural lands.
· The identification of resources to protect the best location for the residential lots may be best achieved by subjective
means; ranking of resources may not achieve the desired results.
· Smaller lots for residential development could address some existing affordable housing issues.
Phasina and Clusterina Combined: Although both phasing and clustering could operate independently, they could be
modified to be implemented together. The following list provides some of the modifications and issues with combining the
two ordinances together.
· Phasing and mandated clustering operating together would be unique to Albemarle County in Virginia.
· The preservation parcel would be exempted from phasing and would be recorded with the first phase. A driveway to any
residence on the preservation parcel would be permitted.
· Road construction could be phased, in correlation with the number of lots permitted.
· The residue of the parent parcel would hold the unused development rights, if the cluster consisted of one parent parcel.
· If multiple parcels were combined into one cluster development, the unused development rights would be assigned by
the owners to one residue parcel.
· An approved preliminary subdivision plat may acquire vested rights and not be subject to future ordinance amendments
(Attachment D).
· Phasing/clustering would require ordinance amendments of other provisions: Agricultural/Forestal Districts
(phasing/clustering would be more restrictive), road standards, and family divisions.
Familv Divisions: Abuses of current family division regulations have not been identified; however, the County does not
have a monitoring program in place. As family divisions have been recommended for exemption from both phasing and
clustering ordinances, the Commission believed that these exemptions could lead to future abuses. Therefore, the
AGENDA TITLE:
Rural Areas Implementation
April 12, 2006
Page 3
majority of the Commission recommended that the ownership of family divisions be extended from the current requirement
of ownership of two years after the family division takes place to five years before subdivision and five years after the
subdivision. Prince William County requires ownership five years before the family division (all) and five years following (for
lots 10-acres or greater). Other Virginia counties require family ownership only after the subdivision occurs (see
Attachment A -last page).
Public Input Process:
The Commission agreed on a review process that contains levels or stages to provide early opportunities for public input on
the framework, before the formation of an ordinance. The process also includes two opportunities for public comment on
the framework for phasing and clustering combined and for family division provisions before it is transmitted to the Board.
· provide an opportunity for the Board to comment on the framework recommendations (April 12)
· conduct two Commission public input work sessions
· advise staff of changes to make
· County Attorney drafts ordinances
· conduct a Commission public hearing and direct any necessary changes
· review final draft at a public hearing
· ordinances transmitted to the Board
The following timeline is staff's best assessment for the review process. The timeframes are subject to changes should the
Planning Commission or County Board determine additional meetings are warranted during the process.
Timeline for RA Phasin & Clusterin 1m lementation
'i: >-
t ~
L.
C1l
.0 L.
- E C1l
III C1l .0
~ - 0
C) Q, _
~ C1l u
<C C/) 0
L.
C1l
.0
E
C1l
>
o
z
C1l
C
~
..,
>-
:i
..,
es
Remainina work:
In considering the Planning Commission's recommendation, staff believes it is important to note this is only a framework
and significant issues still need to be resolved before an ordinance amendment is brought before the Planning Commission
and Board. The following are a few examples of those issues:
· No other county in Virginia has attempted to combine phasing and clustering in this way. There are numerous
complications with this approach that still must be resolved. For example, does the applicant provide the
infrastructure for the entire subdivision with the initial phase? If so, the project could be financially impossible to
build, as the revenue from lots that will be created 10 to 20 years in the future is needed to pay for the
improvements. If not, then the County could potentially have substandard roads in the future that VDOT will not be
willing to accept for State maintenance.
· As described in Attachment 0, phasing could potentially vest preliminary plats for very long periods of time. If the
ordinance prohibits the property owner from developing more than two lots every ten years, does the vested
preliminary plat effectively give them the ability to develop those remaining lots at any time in the future? If there
was a future interest in stronger measures to limit development in the Rural Areas, that effort could be weakened
by a large number of phased preliminary plats that can sit for decades without creating all of the lots.
· Would the ordinance provide some relief for hardships? For example, could an estate create 4 lots for the heirs all
AGENDA TITLE:
Rural Areas Implementation
April 12, 2006
Page 4
· at the same time rather than only allow 2 lots within 10 years?
· How can family divisions be mixed into subdivisions? For example, the framework calls for lots to be no more than
2 acres in size, but could we allow a 4 acre lot that could be subdivided in the future for a family division? If so, is
that family division exempted or counted as one of the two lots every ten years?
· The ordinance will need to establish clearly delineated standards that staff will be able to apply in ministerial
reviews.
Staff raises these issues to make the Board aware there is still considerable work before the ordinance language can be
finalized and those issues can impact the effectiveness of the ordinance.
BUDGET IMPACT:
Property Value:
Staff has not determined how implementation of the proposed ordinance provisions will affect property values and finds this
a very complex analysis. To illustrate that complexity, phasing is intended to slow potential lot creation, possibly making
rural area lots scarcer and more valuable, increasing their valuation. On the other hand, phasing potentially decreases the
value of undeveloped land as it becomes more difficult and time consuming to realize the economic benefit of creating rural
area lots, decreasing its valuation. Similarly, clustering could significantly reduce land development costs, but the lots
created in cluster development may not be perceived as valuable as larger rural area lots which provide more privacy and
room for rural area amenities, such as enough land to keep horses on the property. Finally, it should be recognized the
County has little data that explains the motivations of people buying new houses in the rural area versus elsewhere.
Putting all of these factors together, staff has found it very difficult to definitively say how phasing and clustering will affect
property values.
Applicant Costs:
These changes will result in additional requirements for property owners seeking to subdivide their property. Plans are
anticipated to be considerably more complex to prepare and, given that complexity, more revisions to plans are anticipated,
especially as related to the cluster provisions. Staff does not believe those costs can be accurately quantified until the
ordinance specifics are drafted. At that point, working in cooperation with potential applicants, staff intends to develop
estimates of the additional costs for consideration with the ordinance amendment.
County Costs:
Both phasing and clustering are anticipated to require additional staff resources for review of applications and monitoring of
phasing. Clustering is anticipated to require significant environmental expertise to assist in the determination of the
appropriate location of clusters, which translates into additional training and more staff time spent on each application. The
extent of these additional resource requirements would be established once the ordinance language is finalized. For the
County's review of subdivisions, either additional fees or general fund revenues will be needed to fund the additional
resources required for the subdivision reviews. If this is funded by additional fees, that should be combined with the other
cost increases for applicants.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
The Planning Commission has recommended that the Board accept the framework for ordinance development
(Attachment C) and the public input process as described in this report. Staff is prepared to implement the outlined
process if the County Board finds this ordinance framework acceptable.
ATTACHMENTS
A September 14. 2005. Executive Summary
B Plan nino Commission Minutes for October 18, 2005
C Planninq Commission Recommendations for PhasinQ, Clusterino, Family Divisions Framework Plan
D Phased Cluster Subdivisions: Vested Riqhts
06.048
exec summary
Page 1 of5
Attachment A
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
Rural Areas (RA) Comprehensive Plan
Implementation Joint Work Session
AGENDA DATE:
September 14, 2005
SUBJECTlPROPOSAUREQUEST:
Review alternatives for advancing RA
implementation priorities
ACTION:
x
INFORMATION: .
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION:
INFORMATION:
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Tucker, Foley, Kamptner, Graham, Cilimberg,
Benish, McDowell
ATTACHMENTS: Yes
LEGAL REVIEW: Yes
REVIEWED BY:
BACKGROUND:
On March 2, 2005, the Board established implementation priorities for the Rural Areas (RA) section of the
Comprehensive Plan. The phasing zoning text amendment (ZTA) was to be done first (to be sent to the Planning
Commission for review by April 2006), followed by a ZTA to mandate the clustering of all new lots in the RA (ZTA
work to begin after completion of the phasing amendments-April 2006-and sent to the Planning Commission for
review by April 2007). The timing for undertaking and completing these text amendments was based on available
staff resources, existing and anticipated workload, and assumed that the normal public input for ordinance
amendment procedures would be followed. The Board has since expressed a desire to accelerate the phasing
and clustering zoning text amendments.
On July 6, 2005, the Board reviewed alternatives for advancing the Rural Areas implementation of the
Comprehensive Plan. At this meeting, the Board considered three proposals to expedite the RA implementation
zoning text amendment process: 1) contract with a consultant to work on specific projects; 2) contract for
temporary staff; or 3) hire additional full-time staff. The assumption in those proposals was that staff would
continue to work on the phasing provisions, while additional assistance/support would allow the clustering ZTA to
begin sooner. However, staff suggested that, before any decision was made on hiring additional support, staff
would provide the Board information on the scope of each text amendment. Staff suggested that more information
on the key issues in each amendment and on the key public input procedures would provide a better idea of the
time needed to bring a draft ordinance forward to the Planning Commission for review.
On July 6th, the Board directed staff to schedule a joint meeting with the Planning Commission in September, in
order for the Board and Commission to provide direction to staff. The intent of this direction is to assist staff in
determining how best to expedite the review of these implementation priorities.
STRATEGIC PLAN:
Goal 2.1: Protect and/or preserve the County's rural character.
Goal 2.2: Protect and/or preserve the County's natural resources.
DISCUSSION:
Staff has broken down the discussion into five major areas, which will help the Board provide direction to staff in
undertaking these ZTAs. These areas are: A) technical issues/focus points regarding each ZTA (information); B)
reconfirmation of implementation priorities (Board direction); C) implications of undertaking the phasing and
clustering separately (Board direction); D) the desired public input process (Board direction); and E) consultant or
contract assistance with work (Board direction).
http://boardreports/ESAttachments/BoS%20ex%20sum%20Sept%2014%202005.htm
4/6/2006
exec summary
Page 2 of5
A. Technicallssues/Focus Points Regarding Each ZTA:
Staff has researched phasing and clustering provisions of other localities. Many of the potential provisions for
phasing and clustering in Albemarle County attached to this report have origins in other localities (Attachments A,
B, and C). However, Albemarle is embarking on new territory by "mandating" clustering and combining it with
phasing. To the best of staffs knowledge, mixing these two implementation strategies together has not been
done by any other county in Virginia. This combining of phasing and mandated clustering, together with the way
density was allocated in 1980 (5 development rights and 21-acre divisions of the residue, rather than simple
minimum-lot-size zoning) presents challenges unique to Albemarle.
The key provisions and components of both ZTAs contained in the attachments are intended to be for information
only, at this time, to provide the Board with a sense for the complexity of issues that will need to be addressed in
the ZTA review. However, in an effort to expedite the amendment process, the Board may wish to 1) give
guidance to staff and the Commission regarding the amendments, as they have been presented here; and/or 2)
forward the text amendment information (Attachments A, B and C) to the Planning Commission without delay, for
the Commission to give staff direction and also for the Commission to be able to determine the appropriate
number and the appropriate type of public meetings. It should be cautioned that the information concerning the
clustering text amendment (Attachment C) is the result of initial discussions and research and should not be
considered complete. This guidance/direction would be beneficial to staff in evaluating the review process and
schedule, particularly if the Board has significant concerns with some aspect or direction of the ordinance outline
to date. If the Board determines that additional work sessions need to be held for the Board to further the review
of the phasing and clustering information, additional time should be allocated to the schedule.
Any Board comment is welcome at this time. In lieu of Board comment at this work session, Staff's
opinion is that forwarding the phasing and clustering text amendment outline/information that has been
developed to date to the Planning Commission now would provide an opportunity for the Commission to
give initial guidance on finalizing a draft ordinance for Commission and public review,
B. Reconfirmation of Implementation Priorities:
When the RA section of the Comprehensive Plan was adopted in March of this year, the Board determined that
phasing of development and rural preservation development (clustering), in that order, would be the primary
priority implementation tasks. The Board's intention for placing the phasing as the top priority was its desire to try
to control the rate of subdivision taking place in the Rural Areas. The phasing text amendment was perceived to
be comparatively simple and quick to complete, while the clustering amendment was considered to be more
complex and more time consuming to draft (in part, because by State law it must be an administrative review
process and, thereby, should include the design standards for reviewing clusters). If the clustering amendment
was developed first, additional time would pass before the County would be able to implement measures
(phasing) which would try to address the rate of subdivision occurring in the Rural Areas.
Staff has assumed that the rate of subdivision in the Rural Areas (addressed by phasing) remains the
Board's top issue to address in the Rural Areas, and the form of subdivision (addressed by clustering) to
be addressed second, The following section discusses both advantages and disadvantages of separate
reviews,
C. Implications of Undertaking Phasing ZTA and Clustering ZTA Separately:
As discussed in the previous section, the phasing ZTA was considered the highest priority and phasing has been
scheduled to be completed first. Addressing phasing first also includes the following advantages:
· potentially slowing the rate of subdivision through phasing would provide time to carry out other RA
Comprehensive Plan strategies, such as agricultural support initiatives and easement purchases, which
would also serve to slow subdivisions;
· addressing each of these text amendments separately would provide an opportunity for a more focused
public input on each text amendment (phasing first, then clustering).
Continuing the separate review of phasing and clustering should also include consideration of the following
potential disadvantages:
· would allow the continuation of large-lot subdivisions that may not protect natural, historic, and scenic
resources and would result in further reduction of agricultural and forestal land;
· may require later adjustments to the phasing regulations, in order for the two ordinances to be in concert;
· would not provide an opportunity to understand how the two amendments will work together when the
phasing ordinance is completed;
http://boardreports/ESAttachments/BoS%20ex%20sum%20Sept%20 14%202005 .htm
4/6/2006
exec summary
Page 3 of5
· would require that more time overall on public input processes, as each ZTA would require separate
roundtable meetings and/or public hearings;
· to carry out a major change to regulations in the RA zoning district for phasing, and then some time later
present another complex ZTA for clustering, may lead to more frustration for RA residents and landowners
than a single comprehensive ZTA that includes both phasing and clustering.
Staff's opinion is that, on balance, taking on the phasing ZTA concurrently with the clustering ZTA will be
more efficient in the long run, although it will likely extend the adoption of the phasing ZTA.
Understanding that the Board's highest priority is to address the rate of subdivision in the Rural Areas, is
concurrent review of both ZT As a desirable change in course to take or is it still the Board's preference to
adopt phasing amendments first?
D. Desired Public Input Process:
The standard process for developing zoning text amendments includes public input at several points. Specifically,
there are four points in time where the public can be involved in the ZTA process and three of these points allow
the opportunity for public comment. These points are: 1) review of draft ordinances by staff with focus groups
(roundtables) representing affected parties or groups, such as farmers and surveyors or engineers; 2) work
sessions of the Planning Commission (public comment typically is not taken at work sessions); 3) Planning
Commission public hearing; and 4) Board public hearing.
The focus group discussions with the impacted public (roundtables) are intended to help bring forward a proposed
ordinance to the Planning Commission, which has anticipated issues the public might have and has "debugged"
the ordinance of technical issues that typical users of the ordinance might find difficult to use. For example,
farmers from time-to-time have to subdivide their property for financing/business purposes other than for the sale
of and/or development of the land. How will phasing (and clustering), as drafted by staff, affect this aspect of agri-
business? This information can be obtained from focus group discussions prior to developing a final draft for
Planning Commission and public review.
The focus group discussion part of the ZTA process typically adds two or more months to the process. This time
is used to identify affected parties; notify individuals/groups; distribute proposed drafts; allow time for invitees to
review the draft; hold the roundtable meeting(s) and follow-up meetings, as necessary; allow 1-2 weeks for follow-
up written comments; and staff review of comments (that may include follow-up contacts, depending on
comments received). Focus group discussions account for a total of 6 months of total review process for bott! the
phasing and clustering amendment schedules.
Each ZTA (phasing and clustering), if done separately, will also require two public hearings (Planning
Commission and Board). Staff anticipated the possibility of the need for additional time for advanced public notice
and response to extensive questions from the public prior to public hearings, due to the significance and
complexity of the amendments that may be perceived by the general public. The need for an "open house"
meeting may also be necessary to better explain/educate the public about each ordinance. The public hearing
processes account for an additional two months to the total review schedule for completing both ordinances, if the
ZTAs are done separately. If the ZTAs were combined, only one public review process would be necessary, and
two months could be saved in the schedule.
The following options may be considered by the Board and the Commission in order to expedite the text
amendment process:
· eliminate early roundtable reviews/discussions and forward the draft text amendment to the
Commission for work sessions and public hearings. (However, it is important to add a note of caution
that this time could be lost later in the review process, if major issues are missed and additional work
sessions and public hearings are necessary). This option would allow the ZTAs to be brought forward to
the Commission sooner.
· reduce the total number of public hearings and possibly work sessions by the Commission by
consolidating the two text amendments.
Staffs work on the phasing ZTA is slightly ahead of schedule (roughly 1-2 months ahead of schedule). If the
focus group roundtables are eliminated from the ZTA process, staff could begin working on the clustering
ordinance within the next 1-2 months
http://boardreports/ESAttachments/BoS%20ex%20sum%20Sept%20 14%202005 .htm
4/6/2006
exec summary
Page 4 of5
Consolidating the text amendments would reduce the number of public hearings and work sessions,
Eliminating the early roundtable discussions also would expedite the text amendment process. Staff
estimates time savings of up to 8 months with these two measures, Does the Board want to consider a
condensed public input process?
E, Consultant or Contract Assistance
The purpose of this work session is to receive information/guidance from the Board and the Commission on the
key issues in each amendment and on the public input process to provide a better idea of the time needed to
bring the ordinances to the Commission for review. Once staff has an understanding of these points, it can better
determine how beneficial consultant services would be in advancing the projects. Staff's caution on advising on
the benefit of consultant services is that it is difficult to predict the true benefit of contractual support, particularly
consultant services. Staff has estimated that consultant support could theoretically advance the project by
approximately six months. However, the following should be noted:
· It may be difficult to find qualified consultants that are familiar with the state code and County regulations/
policies and processes.
· Procurement of consultant services is time consuming, requiring development of a scope of work and request
for proposal, advertisement time, interviews, and contract negotiations. Procurement can take 2-5 months to
complete.
· Staff time would still be required to manage the contract and work of the consultant, which can reduce the
overall benefit, in terms of time gained, to the project.
Staff's experience with using consultants for ordinance amendments is very limited. All text amendments in the
recent past have been developed by County staff. Therefore, staff's estimate of time savings is not based on a
significant amount of experience with using consultants for this purpose.
One aspect of amendment work where it may be beneficial to have consultant support would be in drafting the
development standards for the clustering provisions. The benefit of the consultant to the project would be in
providing additional design expertise and adding review hours to the project (potentially reducing the schedule).
The scope of this work and cost would be more limited than previously estimated (approximately $50,000). Staff
would not recommend funding of a consultant at this time until staff has fully developed an outline of the clustering
ordinance that has been reviewed with, and supported by, the Commission. At that time staff will have a better
understanding for need for additional support
Staff's opinion is that there are several approaches which have been suggested to reduce the schedule
for the ZTA's and that those should be pursued first to advance the ZTAs using existing staff. The need
for consultant support will be reconsidered as staff completes work on the clustering ordinance outline
BUDGET IMPACT:
Taking into consideration staff's preliminary work on the clustering amendment and the expedited outline for the
phasing ordinance, it is staff's opinion that consultant services are not required at this time. However, should the
Board determine that a consultant should be hired, the budget impact for consultanUtemporary staff services
would depend on the scope of work remaining for him/her to accomplish. However, the estimated cost would be
approximately $50,000, less than the amount of the projected $60,000 to $120,000 noted in the July 6th report.
There would not be any budget impact for the other options listed in staff's recommendations.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff believes that the advantages of combining the phasing and clustering amendments processes would provide
a greater opportunity to expedite the text amendment process and, ultimately, would provide for a more efficient
and effective review with the public. Staff also believes it can advance the delivery of a draft ordinance to the
Planning Commission by reducing the public input part of the ZTA process. Any additional public input processes
would be determined by the Planning Commission, as part of its review of the draft ordinance. These changes to
the process would reduce the schedule for completing both phasing and cluster provisions by 8 months, from
April 2007 (for clustering) to July 2006. Therefore, staff recommends:
· Forward the phasing amendment information (Attachments A and B) and the work done to date on the
cluster amendment (Attachment C) to the Planning Commission for a work session in October (without the
http://boardreports/ESAttachments/BoS%20ex%20sum%20Sept%20 14%202005 ,htm
4/6/2006
exec summary
Page 5 of 5
roundtables and the time needed to draft an ordinance) for initial review and direction;
· After the October Commission meeting, staff will begin more detailed work on developing the cluster
ordinance, with delivery of an outline for clustering provisions presented to the Planning Commission for review
and direction by May of 2006;
· Based on direction from the Commission in February, proceed with development of a draft ordinance for
both phasing and clustering to be delivered to the Planning Commission by July 2006.
The above recommendations would expedite the text amendment process as follows:
October 2005
May 2006
Phasing and clustering information to Planning Commission for guidance.
Clustering amendment outline/information to Planning Commission (and any proposed
adjustments
to the phasing component).
Draft phasing and clustering ordinance based on Planning Commission direction.
July 2006
ATTACHMENTS
A .. . POc:ising
B E:xc:in1ples OfSllPcliviSionPhasing
C gwalCILJster SLJPdiViSions
Return to regular agenda
http://boardreports/ESAttachments!BoS%20ex%20sum%20Sept%20 14%202005 .htm
4/6/2006
Attachment B
Albemarle County Planning Commission
October 18, 2005
The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a work session and meeting on Tuesday,
October 18, 2005, at 4:00 p.m., at the County Office Building, Room 235, Second Floor, 401
Mcintire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia. Members attending were William Rieley, Pete Craddock,
Rodney Thomas, Jo Higgins, Sill Edgerton, Chairman; and Marcia Joseph, Vice-Chair. Absent
was Calvin Morris and David J. Neuman, FAIA, Architect for University of Virginia.
Other officials present were Joan McDowell, Principal Planner; David Benish, Chief of Planning &
Community Development; Scott Clark, Senior Planner; Amy Arnold, Planner; Francis MacCall,
Senior Planner; Bill Fritz, Chief of Current Development; Mark Graham, Director of Community
Development; Greg Kamptner, Assistant County Attorney and John Shepherd, Manager of
Zoning Administration.
Call to Order and Establish Quorum:
Mr. Edgerton called the regular meeting to order at 4:02 p.m. and established that a quorum was
present.
Work Session:
Rural Areas Comprehensive Plan Implementation: A work session to discuss and receive
input on Phasing of Rural Area subdivisions. (Joan McDowell)
The Planning Commission held a work session to discuss and receive input on Phasing Area of
Rural Areas subdivisions. Guest speakers, who have had many years of experience with phasing
of subdivisions, included: Betty Grayson, Zoning Administrator and David Jones, Chair of the
Board of Supervisors from Madison County and Diana Stultz, Zoning Administrator, from
Rockingham County. Each guest speaker spoke on the experiences and challenges that their
localities have faced in the implementation of phasing of subdivisions. The Commission held a
discussion with the speakers, asked questions and provided comments.
Ms. McDowell: I am sure you will all remember that at a joint Board of Supervisors and Planning
Commission meeting on this issue that one of the things that was discussed was trying to gain a
little knowledge of what they were proposed to do as far as phasing and then clustering
happening in the rest of Virginia. So she looked at the survey that staff did quite a while ago on
other Counties that are actually doing the things that they want and was lucky enough to get the
best experience in Virginia. So they have Madison County and Rockingham County
representatives here. This is Diana Stultz from Rockingham County. She is the Zoning
Administrator. This is Beverly Grayson and she is the Zoning Administrator in Madison County.
Then they have the Honorable David Jones. He is the Chairman of the Board of Supervisors for
Madison County. She thought that they would get started with Betty and then move to David and
Diana to get their experiences. She understands that Betty started phasing in the 80's.
Ms. Betty Grayson: It was in 1989.
Ms. McDowell: It was in 1989. Diana started it in mid-1970. So they have a wealth of
experience to draw from. I've already asked them to brief us as to any precedence as they go
along. I've assured that this is a pretty informal work session and so they are all in tune with what
we are doing and realize that we are just talking about it now and want their comments. So they
will get started with Betty. They will have one-half an hour each.
Ms. Betty Grayson: Thank you all for inviting us to come and share what we do in Madison
County. Our original zoning and subdivision ordinances were adopted March 29, 1974. As time
went on they could see that they were being squeezed between Green County, Charlottesville
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - October 18, 2005
Draft Minutes Work session on Rural Areas Comprehensive Plan Implementation
and Culpeper to the north. So the Planning Commission actually broke up into some groups.
They talked about different ways of trying ways of trying to slow down the growth. Then we came
up with doing four lots in a four year time period. They actually enacted that June 29, 1989. The
way that works is according to each individual tax parcel that you own. If you were a farmer and
your farm was comprised of four tracts, then each one of those tracts was entitled to four division
rights in a four year time frame. And, of course, the residue would count as one of those four. So
really you could have three lots and a residue. So the three lots that you develop did not have any
division rights either for four years.
Mr. Edgerton: If you have a parcel and cut off four lots. Then you can't do any more subdivision
of those four lots until four years later.
Ms. Grayson: It would four years from the date that plat is recorded at the Circuit Court.
Mr. Edgerton: O.k. But, that is assuming that those four lots have additional development rights.
Ms. Grayson: At the end of four years, right. And, of course, a lot of that depends upon the
acreage of those lots as well. If you are in a conservation zoning our minimum lot size in
conservation is ten acres. Our minimum lot size in agricultural is three acres. Now I will just
clarify on those 4 lots in 4 years. If you have 100 acres and you do (4) four 25-acre tracts, then
that is fine. If you have 100 acres and you want to do (3) three 3-acre lots and the residue, then
you can only do 3 lots and the residue.
Mr. Rieley: You can't break off 4 lots?
Ms. Grayson: You can't do 4 lots and the residue. You can only do 3 lots and the residue.
Mr. Rieley: Before you get going again, can you remind me when this came into effect.
Ms. Grayson: June 29,1989 is when it went to the 4 lots in 4 years.
Mr. Rieley: Interesting, so you have 12 to 13 years of experience.
Ms. Grayson: Right. Then just last year, on February 4 they were getting squeezed pretty hard
and they could see that they did not like the direction that they were going in so they tried to
tighten that up some more. They actually changed that from 4 lots in 4 years to 4 lots in 10 years.
She felt that the Commission pushed around 12 years and 15 years, but they came up with 10
years. What they are seeing is that a lot of people are taking advantage of it since it is 10 years.
They are going ahead and doing their 3 lots now and keeping their residue so that they are on the
books counting so they can get three more when the 10 years is up. Of course, in our own
ordinance the family division is an exemption from the subdivision ordinance. So that does not
count towards your division rights with a family division.
Ms. Joseph: Is that the same acreage requirements?
Ms. Grayson: It is the same acreage requirements. Now with our family division we also put the
stipulation that family division has to stay in that person's name for a period of 3 years before you
could sell or transfer that to a different person.
Ms. Higgins: Could I ask one other very basic question. You mentioned subdivisions and the
conservation areas and then you have an agricultural area.
Ms. Grayson: Right.
Ms. Higgins: Some counties have gone to an A-1 or a Conservation/Agricultural zoning. Did you
happen to bring a map or do you have any idea of whether it is a whole lump of the county or
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - October 18, 2005
Draft Minutes Work session on Rural Areas Comprehensive Plan Implementation
2
certain areas of the County.
Ms. Grayson: The majority of our county is zoned agricultural, A-1. We have quite a bit in the
conservation zoning, but a lot of that is the Shenandoah National Park, which is 32,000 acres in
Madison.
Ms. Higgins: But, the majority is agricultural.
Ms. Grayson: The majority of our county is agricultural.
Ms. Higgins: Is the conservation 10 acre minimum in the minor areas.
Ms. Grayson: Right. The majority is the agricultural. They just have the one zoning in the
agricultural, A-1 zone. They don't have an A-2 or A-3. Another thing that they are finding that is
causing us a little bit of a problem in our county is when they allow people to do boundary
adjustments between their properties, as long as they don't create any additional building lots.
What they are finding is that if they have a pre-existing lot that they've acquired prior to the
adoption of our ordinance, like a 2 acre lot, and they have another 100 acre tract next to it, then
they are finding they are doing a boundary adjustment between that larger tract and the smaller
tract and then getting 3 lots and a residue out of each one of them. So they get more lots.
However, the Planning Commission is actually in the process right now of coming up with some
proposed wording to try to take care of that to close that gap. When they did the 4 lots in 4 years
and even the 4 lots in 10 years they had relatively not much opposition to it. They had a few
people there. But, once they found out that their farm was composed of more than one tax map,
parcel and that they had more division rights if they needed them it seemed to go over better.
Another thing that they have in their favor is that they only allow 4 lots on a private road. So if
you want to subdivide in our county regardless of what zoning you are in we only allow you to do
4 lots on a private road.
Ms. Joseph: So anything above 4 becomes a public road?
Ms. Grayson: It becomes a state road built to state standards. Another thing that we have on our
primary highways, which is Route 230,231 and 15, is that we only allow entrances every 600 feet
from the center line of one entrance to the center line of the next entrance. It has to be 600 feet.
Ms. Joseph: Could you name those roads again?
Ms. Grayson: Route 230,231 and 15.
Ms. Higgins: Are those scenic by ways?
Ms. Grayson: Route 231 is a scenic highway.
Ms. Higgins: When you went back to the 4 lot limit on private roads did that not preclude
someone just taking the frontage of their property and then they don't use it along the existing
state road.
Ms. Grayson: What we did with that, we use to have people that would do 2 on the front and 4 on
the back. They actually amended that ordinance to where you have to when you put the
subdivision street in that all lots touching that road have to use it.
Ms. Higgins. But, if they don't touch the road they can still drive on to the existing road. Did you
ever consider going to a larger minimum lot.
Ms. Grayson: In our conservation zoning it use to be a 5 acre minimum. What we were finding
was that a lot of our conservation zoning is up against and adjoins the Shenandoah National Park
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - October 18, 2005
Draft Minutes Work session on Rural Areas Comprehensive Plan Implementation
3
and it was getting harder to find the drain field locations of lots on the slopes, etc. They did
change that from 5 acres to 10 acres. They have talked about the agricultural zone several times
or either making a different zoning called AR, Agricultural Residential zoning. It has never gotten
off the ground, but they have discussed it before. To get back to the entrance regulations - and
then on Route 29 that runs through Madison County they have a 900 foot entrance regulation on
Route 29. Also, in our residential zoning we have tried to cut that down as well. They only allow
up to 14 lots total in that zoning classification. If you go to the 15th lot, then you do have to be on
public water and sewer. In Madison County, they don't have but a little public water and sewer
available.
Mr. Craddock arrived at 4:20 p.m.
Ms. Grayson: We just recently in November of last year adopted a new ordinance on non-
conventional drain fields. They have had a lot of them where it was not the traditional drain field
and they had to do a lot that they call unconventional. They adopted a new ordinance and
included that in both our zoning and subdivision ordinance.
Ms. Joseph: Was it to allow them?
Ms. Grayson: To allow them, but they have to be monitored like twice a year and the Health
Department has to inspect those regularly and have to hand in paperwork.
Mr. Edgerton: Could you give us some specifics of that on what sort of a field is it?
Ms. Grayson: There are so many different kinds. That is the reason you call them non-
conventional. It is anything that is not a traditional drain field is a non-conventional and through
the Health Department.
Mr. Edgerton: And the way that they are policing that is just through additional Health
Department inspection?
Ms. Higgins: Did you do that because of the pressure that they have become more accepted? Or
did you do it because people had so many unperked sites needing something? We need to get
something like that.
Ms. Grayson: We did it mainly because we felt that if the property owner was buying that lot they
should at least have the right to know that their system was going to be a non-conventional drain
field. So every plat that they approve that has one we require that be in writing on the plat when it
is signed and recorded in the Clerk's Office.
Mr. Edgerton: Has that been problematic?
Ms. Grayson: No, it has worked very well. It will soon be in effect for a year. That is the
highlights. Now they did change our density in the residential R-3 zoning. They use to allow 13
units per acre and now they only allow 8 units. They considered doing that in the residential R-2
and they still might do that. It just by the State Code of Virginia if they do that she felt that there is
a regulation if there is more than 25 property owners that it has affected you have to send
certified letters to every property owner. And, they have quite a bit of R-2 zoning around the town
of Madison and in our Brightwood area. And at $4.42 a letter that is a lot. Well, I guess they will
have to weigh and see if they are going to go with that or not.
Mr. Rieley: What was the impetus of the motivation for making that change to a larger lot size?
Ms. Grayson: In the conservation zoning?
Mr. Rieley: No, in the residential zones going from what he believed she said from 12 to 8 or
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - October 18, 2005
Draft Minutes Work session on Rural Areas Comprehensive Plan Implementation
4
something.
Ms. Higgins: That was 13 units.
Ms. Grayson: They use to allow 13 units for gross acreage and then they changed it to 8, which
slowed down the growth.
Mr. Rieley: Which means that it is a larger lot size, right?
Ms. Grayson: They decreased the number of units that they would allow on that acre.
Mr. Rieley: Right, that is a larger lot size, and if you have 8 units on an acre that is a lower
density.
Ms. Higgins: That is a eighth of an acre.
Ms. Grayson: Right. And right now in our R-2 zoning if it is not on private water and sewer you
would have to have an acre and a half minimum lot size.
Mr. Rieley: What was the impetus for that? What was the motivation for going to that change in
density to a lower density in that.
Ms. Grayson: They were trying to slow down the number of people.
Mr. Rieley: It was just to slow down growth.
Ms. Grayson: Yes, just to slow down growth.
Mr. Edgerton: It was both steps in the phasing, which once again was trying to slow down the
growth.
Mr. Rieley: Have you all done any monitoring of the effect of this since it has been enough time
since 1989 to at least look at the rate of subdivision. Obviously, there are all kinds of intersecting
forces at work.
Ms. Grayson: Well, in 2003 when it was still 4 lots in 4 years we had a total of 51 subdivisions or
lots approved that year. In 2004 from the time they changed the ordinance to the end of the year
they had 81. Then so far this year they have had 68 new lots created.
Mr. Rieley: That is not dramatic. That is interesting. Did you think that the 81 was a result of
getting in over the wire?
Ms. Grayson: It could have triggered it a little bit. But she felt that people just got scared of the
changes. Again, they had to do something right away to get their feet in there and get their 3 lots
so that they could have 3 more lots in 10 years. But, she felt that it was a wave. Sometimes they
get scared and they want to do something right away. They have a couple of developers in the
county that are looking at every option to get the most they can get out of a piece of property.
Honestly, they are trying to target and do something so that maybe it will go somewhere else.
Ms. Joseph: Do you know what your growth rate is annually?
Ms. Grayson: Not off the top of my head.
Mr. David Jones: In the 90's they were 4.1 percent for 10 years. We've picked up a little bit since
then, but they were still below Rappahannock. They were still going to be in that 5 to 6 percent
range. He thinks everybody has seen the unprecedented increase in prices. It seems like since
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - October 18, 2005
Draft Minutes Work session on Rural Areas Comprehensive Plan Implementation
5
9/11 the stores have gone crazy. They have been getting a lot of pressure from there. People
want to be able to get out if all of that breaks loose in DC and want somewhere to go that is as
near normal that they can find. They have seen a lot of that. The school population has been flat
for years. Taylor Murphy has finally stopped dropping us a couple of percent every year.
Actually they peaked in school population in 1974 or 1975. They have 2,600 children in the area
under the age of 18.
Ms. Higgins: So with all of these houses being built and lots being created you are not seeing
more children.
Ms. Grayson: There are a lot of elderly couples.
Mr. Jones: They are not seeing the children.
Mr. Edgerton: Are a lot of the lots vacant? You mentioned that people are trying to have a place
to go to get away.
Mr. Jones: Some of them are for retirement. Some are for commuting and second homes. It has
a mixed bag. The question on the alternative drain fields - they have learned more about
alternative drain fields than they would ever want to know. A lot of them require constant use to
function. That was one of the things. A lot of people did not even know that they had them. We
had them in the county even before they realized that they were even in there. But, that is part of
it. In theory if they work right they are great things. But, if you don't maintain them and if you
don't service them, then they are not worth 2 cents on a plug nickel. That is what they were trying
to ensure that number 1; people knew what they were buying. Number 2, that somebody was
required by state law that if it was in there that it was provided on the end by right. They have to
provide service contracts and prove that they maintain them. Because if not you are no better off
than you were when you run the pipes into the creek 50 or 60 years ago. You have the same
regime because if they are not working right they are not working.
Ms. Higgins: Do you have any figures on when you are talking about farmers and agricultural
use? But, then the kind of growth that you are probably seeing is more for a second home or the
northern Virginia way or whatever you want to call it. Do you have any feedback on how it has
affected the agricultural lands? Are you seeing farms affected? Our goal is to protect the
agricultural area, which are centered on less residential use. She did not know if they have any
official record on that.
Ms. Grayson: Our big farmers are still there. It has not affected them. The true farmer that was
there 30 years ago when she came is still in business. The smaller farms are being sold and right
now the market is hot. They have some 3 acre building lots selling for $150,000. For Madison
County people just can't imagine that. Three years ago you could have probably bought the
same lot for $25,000.
Ms. Higgins: I moved from Madison County in 1989.
Ms. Grayson: I thought that you looked familiar.
Ms. Higgins: I bred horses.
Ms. Grayson: I gave Joan a copy of our entire up to date ordinances so if anyone wants to see
them.
Ms. McDowell: It is very thick.
Ms. Joseph: Is it on line?
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - October 18, 2005
Draft Minutes Work session on Rural Areas Comprehensive Plan Implementation
6
Ms. Grayson: No, it is not. They do have it at the library or in our office. But, we don't have it on
line. But, these are all up to date. She may make copies of any portions that you want.
Mr. Craddock: Are you seeing the big developers come down like Ryan and those guys yet?
Ms. Grayson: Not in our county.
Mr. Jones: They are looking, but we don't have the public sewer. Actually, the last of the hook
ups were sold 30 days ago for the one sewer plant in Madison. Basically, if they want to do
anything they are going to have to go to the CRSA, which is a three county service authority.
They will have to build the plants to RSA's specifications. They are going to have to give it to
RSA and then they will have to pay hook up fees. They have been very leery of growing sewer.
Actually the county skewered the schools and rebuilt it on a force main size for the schools that
we had plus one school down the road to deliver them. So it would be no ability to hook on to it.
As long as you don't have excess sewer you are not going to have excess people.
Mr. Rieley: Wouldn't it be difficult to do a big subdivision with your 4 in 10 year regulation?
Mr. Jones: If you are going to subdivide you have to rezone. You have to go to one of the
residential zones to make it work. Anything over 14 lots has got to have public water and sewer.
It is required and RSW has to run it. In other words, it can't be a private system.
Ms. Higgins: But, if someone came in with 400 or 500 acres and wanted to get it rezoned into a
residential district and provide their own sewer plan that would be a nightmare that they would not
want to go through.
Ms. Grayson: Not necessarily.
Mr. Jones: But they couldn't. It is not allowed.
Ms. Higgins: They couldn't get a rezoning?
Mr. Jones: No, they can't build their own sewer system. RSA has got to run it.
Ms. Higgins: Typically they would build it and turn it over to RSA to operate.
Mr. Jones: If they wanted that size. But, they don't want that size. In other words, if they refuse
to take what they are submitting, it does not happen. We don't have to rezone it to start with.
Ms. Joseph: That is the key.
Ms. Higgins: Well, right. It just depends on what's in your Comp Plan. You don't really have the
defined development area either.
Mr. Jones: Not really, other than the land around the Town of Madison. But, basically agricultural
is the prime driver of what they are trying to keep open.
Ms. Higgins: Well if you look at it and if you want to call it northern Virginia even if it comes down
as far as Culpeper and then from Albemarle going north, that Madison seems to be in that half
way point where really it is a little bit far to commute given the place.
Mr. Jones: That was one of the things that concerned us with this base realignment. I don't know
if you noticed, but they moved about 17,000 defense workers from Crystal City to Fort Belvedere
because they could get the setbacks from the car bombs. What that did was open up eastern
Orange and Culpeper County in commuting for 17,000 to 18,000. Now the other federal agencies
are raising cane because their people are thankful enough that they want them out of there and
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - October 18, 2005
Draft Minutes Work session on Rural Areas Comprehensive Plan Implementation
7
get them into safer housing. If this trend continues, then the handwriting is on the wall.
Ms. Higgins: The centralization did affect some of the rural areas.
Mr. Jones: It is going to affect us all. It is just like the defense group here is talking about another
1,000 people. They are going to import 700 of them.
Ms. Joseph: Into Albemarle, too.
Mr. Jones: Yes. So they are going to build not necessarily all in Albemarle County. We are going
to see a spill over on some of them.
Mr. Rieley: Do you all have a cluster provision in your zoning?
Mr. Jones: To have clustering you've got to have water and sewer. To cross that out into the
middle of the county does not make any sense because if you have enough sewers to run to
them, then infilling is what kills you.
Ms. Higgins: Since you just adopted this in 2004, is there an expectation of how long this stays in
place, since this is somewhat political. Staff might not want to answer that question, not to put
you on the spot. But 1989 to 2004 is a pretty long time. Would it be the expectation that this may
stay in place for the same period.
Mr. Jones: I think that a lot of it depends on the pressure from prices of land. If you look at what
has happened in the last 5 to 6 years it is just about unprecedented in this part of the world. We
are still growing the value of land at 2 percent a month since our last reassessment 19 months
ago. That has slacked up a bit. But, for the three years before that it was 2 percent. They might
have to adjust it. But, when things get expensive enough people go to immense means to
circumvent the rules because it is worth their time.
Ms. Higgins: Do you have any programs similar to the ACE Program where development rights
are purchased or people give up their rights to develop their land?
Mr. Jones: We encourage the private people that are full of words and usually lacking in actions
to step up to the plate and put their money where their mouths are at. Madison County has
13,000 people. We've got the sixth smallest staff in the Commonwealth of Virginia as far as
County staff. If anybody has ever done business with us, they know that we are the tightest
bunch that ever walked God's green earth. If people want open space, the ones who want it
need to pay for it because we still have got a lot of working farms. For most of these people, their
equity in that land is their retirement. It is their inheritance. It makes a difference.
Ms. McDowell: David, tell them what you do in your life.
Mr. Jones: I am a dairy farmer. I have been a dairy farmer ever since I was 4. I went to
Blacksburg and majored in Dairy Science and minored in U.S. History. In this business, if you
don't appreciate history, then you are going to get run over and stomped. Because of what they
are talking about none of us knew if you looked at all of the natural areas down north of here.
They have been there and they have seen it. It was done before Long Islands went through it.
The area of the milk shed around New York City has been through it. There are variations on this
theme. But, basically you can keep open space and farms until you get to a certain point or a
certain pressure, then you are either going to have to buy people's rights, not steal them, but buy
them. Or they are just going to bailout and move because the infrastructure that keeps farmers
farming is not there. Just the pressure of the people that don't understand what you are doing
makes it difficult. But, he thought that it was a decision that people are going to have to make
that basically that raises the millions of dollars to buy these rights.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - October 18, 2005
Draft Minutes Work session on Rural Areas Comprehensive Plan Implementation
8
Ms. Higgins: Since you know everybody, which I know that you do.
Mr. Jones: Use to.
Ms. Higgins: Do you have any feedback on large land holders that have self imposed their own
conservation easements or Virginia Outdoor Foundation easements to get the tax break?
Mr. Jones: Basically the people who do that have a tax problem. Usually they have income other
than farming that drives that. If you're a true farmer usually a tax problem is the least of your
worries.
Ms. Higgins: Then you are not seeing a lot of that?
Mr. Jones: Not on a true farmer. The ones that are doing it are people who bought property. You
will see it on occasion if you have a very strong entity and they are trying to make it easier for the
transition from one generation to the next. Because if you put it into easement that way it takes
the IRS out of what the land is worth. You only have one value and that is the land use value.
You don't have this other garbage to go through. So it does simplify that if there is enough
interest and a strong enough will within the group. He thinks that there is a little realization that
these conservation easements to a certain group of buyers does not matter because they don't
want but one house anyway or two. They are not looking at development. That is the one thing
that has changed, Betty, within the last 10 to 15 years that instead of the 3 acre lot or the building
lot people want 10, 20, 30, or 40 acres. They want enough to have a few horses and a couple
head of cattle. They want elbow room. They will pay just about the same for an acre for that as
they will for a 3 acre lot. There was a farm sold 3 months ago in the county that is in the lower
end of the county. There are no mountain views and it was in a hole with 60 yards of road
frontage and 350 acres for $10,000 an acre. For Madison that is a lot of money.
Ms. Higgins: It is on 230.
Mr. Jones: No, it on Farmer's Mill. It is back in the bushes. We are talking of no views of the
mountains. You can't see, unless you don't want to see anybody. They are going to spec on it
and play with it. I don't want to cut into Betty's time.
Mr. Rieley: You can talk as long as you want to.
Mr. Jones: I have been on the Board of Supervisors for 18 years this year. I was on the Planning
Commission for 8 years before that. I came on right when the first Comprehensive Plan was
implemented in Madison. It was a unique experience in itself. As Betty said the zoning started in
1974. The best thing that ever happened to Madison County was the oil crisis in the 70's.
Basically, it just kicked everybody in the teeth and all of the developers that were there went
under. It just killed everything for a number of years with that bit of luck as far as zoning wise.
He was not talking about the luck of the 19 percent interest that he paid in the 70's. It was not
luck. It was a pain. It hit everybody. But, zoning wise we did not have the accumulation of inbuilt
lots that has been the pain for a lot of people. If you look at your neighbor in Green that is what
has killed them. It was the lots that they created in the 60's and the 70's. If you look at Loundon
County, in 1992 they had 125 people on the planning staff. They had a 6 million dollar planning
budget. They had 60,000 people in the County. And yet they had created enough residential for
another 40 million people, They had created and approved enough commercial that was bigger
than metro Richmond. And he asked one of the planners, why you don't all just go home. You
know just quit. If you don't do anything else you are looking at 300,000 people. You could save
the 6 million dollars a year. Of course, they didn't and they are not. But, who knows how big they
will get.
Mr. Rieley: You just described Albemarle County, too.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - October 18, 2005
Draft Minutes Work session on Rural Areas Comprehensive Plan Implementation
9
Ms. Joseph: Yes, you did.
Mr. Jones: And Culpeper and Orange. When we started zoning we had less than 1,000 lots and
most of them were not built on. They were Y:z acre lots up in the mountains. It takes 4 or 5 to
hope to get 1 lot. So we did not have the back log. Actually what they were facing was what he
called the pressure cooker type of situation. Has anyone of you ever run a pressure cooker?
Ms. Joseph: Yes.
Mr. Jones: You get the heat up and then what do you want to hear, that little hiss. That little hiss
is the building that you need to have to keep things going and not have a build up of demand that
will encourage somebody to put in a 500 acre subdivision. You've got to have enough building
going on to take care of your current needs. Madison historically has got a group of builders that
will build between 5 and 10 houses a year. People will sell a lot here and a lot there to meet their
needs or for family. And basically it is almost like having two zoning ordinances. One for us, and
then one for them. The us was the small builder that normally gets along and did very little to get
their money. The them was for the public water, the state roads, no sewer plans, and you know
did everything you can to throw in a monkey wrench. It worked well for years until the money got
up so high. Now it is a little harder than it use to be. I don't think anybody that is in zoning will
say that it is as easy now as it was 10 years ago. It's tough because of the knife that sets on that
edge and does not rock one way or the other. That is where the 4 and 4 originally came from. It
was to try to take care of the people that are here and the ones who need to sell a piece of land.
What made it sell was by putting it on a tax parcel rather than per farm because most farms have
at least a hand full of tax parcels. Some of them have a huge number. Some of them don't. But,
the people who just bought the land and created it, they only have one tax parcel. They are not
very happy with that. But, the person who have been there they will have several. That is what
made it palatable. And that is what made the 4 and 10 palatable. I think they could see the
growth coming, but they also realized that for most people, and especially for the lots of grain,
you could sell a lot or two and lose 6 acres and still farm and have a pot of money to work with.
The question was asked why we don't have a bigger lot. The neighbor to the north has had bigger
lots to use. Basically you have to have 25 acres to start.
Ms. Higgins: Is that Rappahannock?
Mr. Jones: That is Rappahannock. I have a cousin in Rappahannock and he had hit it very
sequentially. He said that that you are either rich and move to Rappahannock or poor and born
there. There is nothing in the middle. You have very little middle class with the cost of doing
business. You either were born there or you've got plenty of money and moved. We've been
blessed by having a very wide diversity in people. On our composite index there is a pile of rich
people in Madison. He was not one of them, but there are some somewhere running around.
The index has jumped up considerably in the last couple of years. But, they do have a wide
variation. That is one of the challenges that they are looking at now. They try to control growth.
They try to hold things back. It is what it has done to the cost of that initial house. They are not
the only ones. I am not preaching anything that you are not seeing everyday. It is how the
people that are born there and their children, unless they have got family or know somebody that
will cut them a break, do they get started. How do you justify spending $179,000 for a 1,000 foot
house that 25 years ago was a single-wide trailer. It had a roof put on it and then adds about 400
feet on .9 of an acre. It sold 6 months ago. It is a nice place. It is neat. It has a good view of the
mountains. But, the heart of it is a 25 year old single-wide trailer for $179,000. For starter homes,
they have got one group that builds with one design of house and that is all he has built for 10
years. You either like his house and foot design or you don't buy his house.
Mr. Edgerton: Is that $179,000, too?
Mr. Jones; I expect it is $175,000. It has not been that long ago that they were selling for
$35,000 and $40,000. But, I mean that is the two edged sword. But, what they have seen is
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - October 18, 2005
Draft Minutes Work session on Rural Areas Comprehensive Plan Implementation
10
where people supposedly made it a little bit looser where you could get more density and
affordable housing. But, it did not change the price of the house. It is still just as high as
everybody else's. It has just got more of them.
Ms. Joseph: Yes and the justification is that if you put in some affordable housing, then you have
to jack up the cost of all of the rest of the houses in the area.
Mr. Jones: So it is not really, so what are you accomplishing?
Ms. Joseph: I don't know.
Mr. Jones: Our, I guess, our thought on this is that basically everything that a County does you
think you are getting ahead, but basically you are on a treadmill. You might get a step on that
treadmill. Has anybody got an electric treadmill to walk on? You get your first step and you think
you have made some progress and then you settle in on the middle. The question is do you want
to walk on the treadmill or do you want to jog on the treadmill or do you want to run on that
treadmill. I am getting to the point in age that I like walking mostly. As we call it moseying. I am
not much on running anymore. That is just a question on the County. If you don't watch yourself,
because you are not going to get ahead anyway, the question is how hard you want to work to
save your land. We are trying to walk. That is our point and it has been for going on 25 years.
So we want to walk in Madison. We want a great place to live. It is going to change and it is
going to evolve, but I would rather have evolution and it sort of gradually change. We will adapt
to it rather than just quantum leaps that you get if you bring in 700 houses in one fell swoop. That
is what just drives you crazy. The other thing that you need to remember on these 4 and 10's
because after 10 years if you want to divide it up again you can do it. But, again it is another 10
years before you can do it again. For most speculators that is not real palatable. Some of the
people are planning ahead and have big enough lots that they can do it. But, with these public
roads it makes them think twice. Most of what they are seeing is people that are creating single
building lots in that 3 acre to 6 acre range. People are going out and trying to find land that
makes it work for that. And again, you've got to have some of that. In other words, there has got
to be some lots available. Because if you don't, and you just dry it up then you get in that
pressure cooker and then it explodes and you have a pile of houses going somewhere. The
boundary adjustments have been a problem. On family divisions if that is not the most
convoluted state law that was ever written from a planning perspective. It does not require but a
20 foot right-of-way. I mean it just is a nightmare to try to deal with. But, at the same time in
some cases it is the only way some young people are going to get a house. But, they did put the
three years on it. They have never been challenged. I know other County have either that or
more. So it is something that will drive you crazy.
Mr. Edgerton: Is it being abused by the developers?
Mr. Jones: Not so much the developers, but you have got individuals that are abusing it more so
than the developers. Because it is normally fairly small lots and they are playing games with it.
Some people are, but a lot of people are not. But some people do. It is like anything else, it is
not the 99 percent that you have to deal with, but it is that 1 percent that will make you pull your
hair out. The other thing on densities was that he would not be surprised if you don't see R-2 and
R-3 go down again.
Mr. Rieley: The lower density?
Mr. Jones: I would say probably somewhere between 4 and 6 in R-3 and probably 3 to 4 in R-2.
The reason on lot size again on the cost, at 25 acres a lot you are chewing up open space that is
going out of sight. I am not saying that they might not look at it afterwards, but, if they can chew
up 3 acres. Especially at the price that it is bringing now, people can sell a lot or two and still
farm. They really have not hurt that much. If they sell 2 lots at 25 acres, that is a chunk. That is
two big fields in Madison County. There are only two different agricultural soils. They don't have
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - October 18, 2005
Draft Minutes Work session on Rural Areas Comprehensive Plan Implementation
11
a real fine agric plan like Rockingham has. He does not happen to have any class one land in the
County and not a whole lot of class two. They have a lot of good honest land, but nothing that he
would call prime land. The conservation zone is basically driven by elevation and slope and soil
types. There are the lower soils types. It is 780, 680 or 700 feet in elevation. It is pretty steep
slopes. That is what drove the creation there. They also went up to an acre and a half in R-1.
They were at an acre at the beginning. But you go find that you get an acre here and you get
your well and septic and then you get a neighbor that puts his well and septic in. Then you get a
lot in between, and the guy put it in and puts his house in and hits a dry hole. Then he is
bouncing trying to find a way of getting a septic in and a well site. And, he does not have a
neighbor that can give him an easement. You've got troubles. So they tried an extra one-half of
an acre to just give a little bit more room to work with. They are quite a ways off from a lot of
sewer. I am sure it is going to come sooner or later. But, again they are going to try to live with
what we've got as far as individual well and septic or alternative drain fields. That is a Madison
nightmare in itself. There must be hundreds of permutations of it. Of course, you never know
what you are approving. The engineer signs off on it. But, until he comes back and gets the
permit you don't know exactly what he is putting in. It is a nightmare of again in the state of
Virginia one size fits all. You will pull your hair out, too, because they spent months on this. But,
again, it is not perfect although they have the former planner from Rappahannock County who is
looking at our zoning ordinances now. They are looking at mainly what do we need to change
that a lot of money will make invalid. Then Mr. Chandler in Richmond will look at his proposals.
Because when you are starting to pump out the money people are talking about it. It just
changes the ball park on some things. He thinks most of it that they have got will work. But,
again, it is just coming faster than anybody ever anticipated that it would have. We had a
meeting about six weeks ago with a person from George Mason. And he does labor statistics and
planning and feasibility studies for housing for all the labor or the new jobs that are being created
in northern Virginia in the next 20 years. But, he can't remember the numbers, but for every 4
jobs there will only be 1 house built. He just ran a feasibility study in southern Augusta and
northern Rockbridge for a major national homebuilder for a commute to DC up 81 and 66. So his
opinion is if the federal government continues to move federal employees out to safer housing
then where can we buy them. There is pressure in this particular area. What Charlottesville, the
Research Center and the Defense Center are doing he does not see any change except that the
pressure is going to get hotter. That is what he does for a living and if you take out a 100 pound
bag of salt and pinch as needed. With that he is about done.
Mr. Edgerton: His projection again, could you clarify that.
Mr. Jones: I can't remember the total jobs. But, the bottom line was that there was bunch of new
jobs being created. What they are going to find is that there are areas in northern Virginia that are
going to build out in the next 20 years.
Mr. Edgerton: So the new jobs are in the Washington Metropolitan area.
Mr. Jones: This is from Charlottesville to southern Maryland. But, basically you got a lot of areas
there that are about ready to build out as far as available housing. I am not even talking about
available housing. But, for every 4 new jobs created there has to be 1 house built on the current
zoning. The other thing that he found in the main service in southern Maryland, northern Virginia
and DC was that 10 years ago we had 4 percent of the houses sold for one-half a million dollars
or more. Last year it was 40 percent. He said that this year it would probably bust between 50
and 60 percent. What is happening is that everybody that earns what he called an honest living,
the firemen, the policemen, the school teachers, and the public servants have to move farther
and farther out so that they can afford a house they can call their own. And for us it is still too
much money, but it is less than they pay up there. We have met the new superintendent of
Shenandoah National Park and they have about given up on having a lot of in park housing. A
normal commute to them for a park ranger is one hour one way. That is the standard. If you get
above that, then you have to start providing housing. As long as you can find a house within one
hour of Shenandoah Park, which is crazy? But, that is what we are dealing with. But, it is just an
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - October 18, 2005
Draft Minutes Work session on Rural Areas Comprehensive Plan Implementation
12
interesting time to be in local government.
Ms. Joseph: Does Madison use agric/forest districts?
Mr. Jones: We have agricultural and forestall districts. This is the first reassessment that has
really cost us a bunch. In the past when they are talking $600 or $700 agric value and the last
reassessment was like $2,600 or $2,700. So it is not a whole lot of deferred money. We went
up to over $7,000 actual value of that. So we are looking at our adjusted rate without the forestry
and land use, which would have been .38 cents. We had to take it to .56 cents just to make the
deferral. It is a major chunk.
Ms. Higgins: Now can you explain that. Do you mean you raised the tax rate?
Mr. Jones: In order words you have to equalize your tax rate. When you reassess you can't
make a dime. In other words, if we raised a dollar on the old reassessment you can only raise a
dollar on the new reassessment. Without forestry and agricultural land use the adjusted rate
would have been .38 cents a hundred on real estate. But, because of the deferral we went from
150 million to over a 600 million deferral.
Ms. Higgins: Because more people put their land in land use?
Mr. Jones: No, because the value went from $2,600 to over $7,000.
Ms. Joseph: It was the value.
Ms. Higgins: Even though it was in the agric/forest. Oh, okay.
Mr. Jones: Because actually the value of agricultural land has gone down the last three times
from Blacksburg. Forestry has gone up, but agricultural land actually would have been $500 on
the top end in Madison this last time if they had not held it where it was. But, basically it took the
.38 cents to the .56 cents. It took .18 cents a hundred on the real estate rate to pay for the
deferral or in other words, to bring in that same one dollar of actual money this year. Then they
are going to reassess this spring. So they are looking at a 35 to 38 percent increase in value
since the last assessment 2 years ago. So you are going to look at another major deferral. Right
now they are deferring on average $43 an acre for county taxes that has land use. It is even more
than that if you are in forestry. So it may be that is something for you to look at, which we have
never gone. We had one agricultural district in the county years ago that a whole farm and
conservation would serve. So they got out of it. It really links the flexibility of the farmer especially
with the economics as they are. But, in looking down the road that might be something that is
going to be needed for land use and forestry use. Then you need to be in an agric district. Again,
at least that gives the county a window of time that you pretty well know that this piece is not
going to change. The other thing that they have been beating on, and the Farm Bureau does not
want to hear it, is the roll back instead of 7 years ought to be 15 years.
Ms. Higgins: You see we don't even look at that. We don't consider what the revenue of all
properties is. We promote agricultural forestall for more land to go in that deferred basis.
Mr. Jones: It is still cheap.
Ms. Joseph: What he is just saying is that it is a good thing if it goes in and it does change.
Mr. Rieley: What is our roll back?
Ms. Joseph: It is five years.
Mr. Jones: Well ours is seven years. But, as you get bigger and bigger deferrals, you are looking
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - October 18, 2005
Draft Minutes Work session on Rural Areas Comprehensive Plan Implementation
13
at a huge amount. You've got to remember now; we only got a 27 or a 29 million dollar budget.
That is everything. And a couple hundred thousand dollars to us is a lot. It did not take me long
to figure out when you talk to your legislators from Virginia never talk money. Because all we got
is pocket change if you use the whole budget of if you talk percentage of your budget. When tell
them that we are rehabilitating a high school that is going to cost us one-half of our annual budget
to rehab it that gets his attention pretty quick. But, you don't talk money.
Ms. Higgins: So if a lot of people or if more and more people in Madison seek to go in the
agric/forestall district, the tax rate is going to go up.
Mr. Jones: The tax rate is going to go up.
Ms. Higgins: We don't look at that aspect of it when people come in for agric/forestall districts.
Ms. Joseph: There is also the assessment of the property that goes up. You are getting more
taxes because the land is more valuable. They are assessing that.
Mr. Edgerton: Actually we don't have to go with the agric/forestall in the Albemarle County to get
your land use.
Mr. Jones: And we don't in Madison.
Mr. Edgerton: You have to cut hay once a year and take pictures.
Mr. Jones: But that is something that you might want to look at.
Ms. Higgins: Do you have land use?
Mr. Jones: Yes, it our agricultural and forestall land use. And some of it is abused. But, again
that is something that you might want to review. People do play with it. Developers do play with
it.
Mr. Edgerton: In Albemarle it has historically been used as a way of holding property for a period
of time until you are ready to develop it.
Mr. Jones: But, without it you would have a whole lot of people selling land. I can tell you that
right now. If you look at the numbers on what it cost for an acre of pasture land versus a house
on an acre, there is no comparison. That has not changed forever. Houses have never paid their
way. The last time I figured it, it took a half million dollar house to break even on one child. The
average house in Madison with 1.8 children is 55 years to pay for their education. So in other
words, you never catch up. There is no way for the average house. It is not saying that
everybody needs to have a half million dollar house. Something is wrong. But housing is nothing
but red ink and space. With that I am going to stop because I am crowding into somebody else's
time.
Ms. Diana Stultz: I want to thank you all for inviting me here this evening to explain a little bit
what they are doing in Rockingham County. They started in the 70's with having the waiting
periods in the agricultural district. At that time they only had one agricultural district and the
waiting period between divisions was 3 years. In 1985, they went to 2 agricultural districts, the
prime agricultural and the general agricultural districts. Then last year we redid our ordinance and
we kept both of the districts. Right now in the A-1 district we are allowed 1 division every 5 years.
The one thing they have in Rockingham County is a non-family division that the Board of
Supervisors has to approve. And right now they probably have between 5 and 10 non-family
divisions in '81 that our board has approved.
Ms. Joseph: What if their board won't approve them?
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - October 18, 2005
Draft Minutes Work session on Rural Areas Comprehensive Plan Implementation
14
Ms. Stultz: They will approve them if it is for farm workers that maybe had worked for you for a
long time and you want to give him an acre of land. They will approve it if you have a large parcel
or a large farm and you want to split your farm. But, for somebody just to come in and buy 42
acres of land, they will not approve it. Our minimum lot size in the A-1 district and AC district both
is an acre. In the A-1 if you have greater than 40 acres you can't go below 40 acres. It is saying
that it either has to be that you divide off greater than 40 acres and you keep the smaller amount
or you keep 40 acres and you divide off. You can do family divisions and boundary adjustments
and adjoining transfers. But, you can't do non-family transfers. You can't go below 40 acres. In
the A-2 district, we have 1 division every 3 years. The beginning minimum lot size is an acre. If
you are on public utilities, then it can be 20,000 square feet development lot size. In the A-2, any
parcel of land of 6 acres or less created after August of last year and no non-family divisions. In
the A-1 it is 40 acres and any parcel of land of less than 40 acres created after August of last year
and no non-family divisions.
Mr. Edgerton: No non-family divisions.
Ms. Stultz: It depends how you do it and where you do it. (inaudible)
Mr. Edgerton: Have you seen an increase in the size of families?
Ms. Stultz: No, actually (inaudible) it would be useful if they could allow (inaudible) the state of
Virginia alleges it is your spouse (inaudible) because they only use it to abuse it.
Mr. Edgerton: You can't do that now for your spouse. You can go vertically. You can go parents
or children.
Ms. Stultz: Yes, it includes parents, grandparents, children, grandchildren and siblings. But, not
spouses. We also allow with the A1 and A2 district only one grandparent subdivision. (inaudible)
It does not matter if you have 20 different parcels. You can choose (inaudible) again; they were
using that more to get around the Code and using it to put rental housing on it. Then they were
taking each parcel that they owned and dividing off an acre and creating a small house. In our
downgrade adjustments you can do that anytime, but if you get land in a boundary adjustment or
an adjoining transfer, in the A-2 that land that you got as a land transfer can't be part of the
division that came in. In the A-1 it can't be part of the original plat. You can sell your entire
parcel, but you can't use that to be part of the division. We did that because what they found
happening was that I own a piece of land and I made a division so I could not make another
division so I sold it to my neighbor and he turned around and sold it for me. Our rights of way, we
allow two parcels of land on a 20 foot right-of-way. It is a 20 foot right-of-way with a 12 foot road
bed. If you have more than that then you have to go to a 50 foot right-of-way with a 20 foot road
bed. The only exemption to that is on a single 20 foot right-of-way. (inaudible) They do require
that anything less than 5 acres has to perk and it has to have 100 percent septic reserve and it
has to be shown on the plat when it is done.
Mr. Edgerton: Did you have trouble with the 1 lot minimum size getting the 2 drain fields.
Ms. Stultz: We really have not had much trouble. (inaudible) As far as when we adopted these
and any problems that we are having, let me track back on that. We do allow the divisions to the
family members, If you have five children you can divide it off for all five children at the same
time. A-1 they have to keep it 5 years and in A-2 they have to keep it for 3 years. We have never
been challenged on that. Our County Attorney says that they have 2 or 3 attorneys in the town
and all of them use real estate and they all agree. So there is nobody to challenge us. We have
not had a lot of problem with any of it. When we redid our ordinance what we did was have a
group or a committee of farmers, some residential landowners, some large landowners and some
of the realtors to be a part of our committee. The committee helped draft up the ordinance. So
they have not found in the time I have been there to be a problem. The only people that they may
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - October 18, 2005
Draft Minutes Work session on Rural Areas Comprehensive Plan Implementation
15
have a problem with are ones that are moving into the lake. They can't understand why they
can't just turn around and sell their land if they want to. But, most of the people that have either
lived in Rockingham County for a long period of time or they have lived there all of their lives they
want to see agriculture stay for as long as they can keep it there. We debated in the A-1 whether
to go to a larger minimum lot size, but we figured if we did we would just be using up the
agricultural land and they want to keep it in agricultural. So if they go to 10 acres or 20 acres they
would just be taking more out of the farm. We've been real successful and as I say the people
are just relatively agreeable with it. I guess they have just gotten use to it after 10 years. Nobody
has tested it.
Mr. Craddock: With the new hospital going out where it is what is the plans for the land around it.
Particularly on Reservoir Road it looks like with that whole mess from University Boulevard over
to there and then Reservoir Road with all of those apartments, it looks like almost every month
they creep a little bit further out. So I am wondering with these division rights what is going to
happen to that farm land around that area. Currently they have the golf course and that big new
subdivision that came there on 33.
Ms. Stultz: I think what you will see happening in that area is that you will see some businesses
go in. You will have a lot of the doctors trying to get closer to the hospital once the roads are
brought up to what they are suppose to be. JMU has said that they are going to go to 25,000
students. When they do you are going to see more housing near the city part. Once water and
sewer is brought out there the area is going to be full.
Ms. Higgins: Aren't those more of the R zoning of R-2 or R-3.
Ms. Stultz: R-2 and R-3 or R-1 is the single family and you have to have a 12,000 square foot lot.
R-2 and R-3 you can have 10,000 square feet, and with a duplex unit you just split that. I think
that is what you will see. Instead duplexes, townhouses and those types of things going out
there. I think you will see all of that with the new business, commercial and townhouses.
Especially in the city I am sure it will be college students. As you go out into the county it will be
some other housing, too. Once the utilities are brought out there all of that will happen. But, that
is okay from a planning standpoint because the utilities are there. Once the utilities are there you
expect to see it developed.
Ms. Higgins: Didn't the county have a moratorium on the city utilities serving the county or has
that been relieved?
Ms. Stultz: It has sort of been relieved.
Ms. Higgins: You have water and sewer in the city that serves in the county.
Ms. Stultz: We do now. And they did put a moratorium on it in 1985. And that was up until last
year. The city did lift it last year, but they still have to approve each individual development and
see whether they want to do it. Some of them are approved and some of them are not. What it
was about was the hospital annexation. And now in the state of Virginia they say you can't do it.
And until 2010 the city cannot annex the county. That was done back in the early '80's and since
then three times the General Assembly has extended it. So right now the City of Harrisonburg
can't annex Rockingham County. So what is happening is that they are not bringing utilities in.
When our new Walmart went in on the south end of the town, the city would not approve utilities
to it. So the town said that they could do it. So now the city can't annex because it has county
and date issues. So that was part of the problem that they ran into with that. The one other thing
that she didn't mention, they do have land use taxation, but they do also have the
agricultural/forestall districts. There are several thousand acres in the County that are under
agricultural/forestall. In each of those the citizens that wanted to go into the agricultural/forestall
district put their own conditions into their district as to what they were going to allow to happen.
And in none of those districts are they allowing non-family divisions. So we are not going to let it
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - October 18, 2005
Draft Minutes Work session on Rural Areas Comprehensive Plan Implementation
16
develop. It is staying as farming and there are only agricultural related businesses in that area.
Mr. Edgerton: What if any benefits go back to them?
Ms. Stultz: None, they just want to preserve the agricultural.
Ms. Higgins: Do they get land use taxation?
Ms. Stultz: They would get it anyway.
Mr. Rieley: We have a 10 year opportunity for people to pull out of that. What is yours?
Mr. Stultz: Ours is 7 and 17. We just had the first ones that were done 10 years ago, which were
just renewed and then we had about 2 people to pull out and several more go into it. Some of the
people pull some of their smaller acreages out and left their larger acreages in. I believe we have
some people in it with 5 acres. So it has worked well.
Ms. Higgins: So basically what you said the city can annex.
Ms. Stultz: They cannot.
Ms. Higgins: Oh, they cannot. And that is why they do not want to serve the connecting utilities.
Ms. Stultz: The County thinks that is part of the reason.
Mr. Rieley: Have you found that the 3 lot cluster residue every 4 years has had an effect on
discouraging large scale subdivisions in the area.
Mr. Edgerton: That is for Madison County.
Ms. Stultz: We are 1 division in 3 years.
Mr. Rieley: I am sorry, I meant for in A-2 and 1 every 5 years. It is the same question if she had
found that had a substantial impact on subdivisions going in.
Ms. Stultz: We have, as I said, we have only about 5 to 10 non-family divisions in the A-1. And in
A-2 right now there may be 50 or 60. Most of our divisions are for family members or to adjoining
landowners. In the A-2 some of them are to non-family. They find that it is either about an acre
or it will go up to 2 acres in 15 years. In A-1 even the family divisions are going higher that. In
most of those what they are doing is dividing it for their children, but they continue to farm it. So
for anybody driving by nobody would even notice. The other thing that they have done in
agriculture, and this came about because our farmers wanted this, that you are allowed one
residence by right on a piece of property and to put a second house on it you need 15 acres and
a special use permit.
Ms. Joseph: And your farmers asked for that?
Ms. Stultz: Yes.
Mr. Rieley: And why did they think that was relative.
Ms. Stultz: People renting agriculture and putting rental houses on it and farm workers were
being removed.
Mr. Edgerton: The rental housing market was being supported by JMU.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - October 18, 2005
Draft Minutes Work session on Rural Areas Comprehensive Plan Implementation
17
Ms. Stultz: That is exactly right.
Ms. Higgins: Do you think that with the growth of JMU if the city is absorbing maybe the growth
that they are experiencing and it has not really gotten to the county. Or are there major rezonings
or major things proposed for the county that will absorb that protection of agricultural land.
Ms. Stultz: Yes, we are seeing more people moving. There for a while we would have a property
zoned residential and it would sit there. They did not do anything. Now they are finding that as
quick as they rezone it they are developing it as fast as the lots go on the market in the county.
Ms. Higgins: So you are absorbing it as rezonings and that is how you are protecting this.
Ms. Stultz: Yes.
Mr. Rieley: You are having exactly the effect that our Comprehensive Plan says that we should
have, except you are having more success with it. It seems like. What is the population?
Ms. Stultz: Around 72,000.
Mr. Rieley: It is amazing I mean Rockingham to a much greater extent than Madison is a very
parallel situation to ours, with the population of JMU and the city. Let me ask one more time to
make sure that I understand. You have 5 to 10 non-family divisions in A-1 per year.
Ms. Stultz: Yes.
Mr. Rieley: That is astonishing.
Ms. Higgins: It is under A-1 and A-2. You divided the county up. We just have one zone of
agricultural. You picked portions of the county.
Ms. Stultz: What we've done is look at the better farm land. We knew that if they wanted
Rockingham County to stay agriculture then they looked at the areas that were the best farm
areas.
Mr. Rieley: Do you have similar figures for A-2?
Ms. Stultz: A-2 is probably 80 to 90.
Ms. Higgins: How much land area is in A-1 versus A-2?
Ms. Stultz: There are probably, and I am not sure the acreage wise, it is probably about 1/3 as
much as in the A-1.
Ms. Higgins: So about 1/3 of the county is in A-1 and the rest is in A-2.
Ms. Stultz: There is a lot more A-2 than there is A-1. I think the one think in the A-1 that helps is
that the Board does not approve those divisions of land. What use to happen was that it use to
be that you had to have a special use permit to build a residence in A-1. And what they found out
was happening was that the developer was going out and buying an acre of land in the A-1 and
building his house. It is real hard after somebody owns the property to say no that you can't build
on it. So the Board said well we want to look at it before the division is made and see why the
person is dividing the land. We have had some A-1 when an elderly couple owned a farm and
then wanted to downsize their house and they have allowed them to make that division so that
they could build a smaller house. But, that has slowed it down a lot.
Mr. Edgerton: Is the designation by soil types or just the production of the land.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - October 18,2005
Draft Minutes Work session on Rural Areas Comprehensive Plan Implementation
18
Ms. Stultz: A little bit of both, and saying that we know that someone some day might not be able
to build at all. Rather than taking each individual farm you take an area.
Ms. Higgins: When did you divide the county up that way?
Ms. Stultz: In 1985.
Mr. Rieley: From the Board he presumed that she was talking about anything in excess of 1 lot
for every 5 years for anything. There is essentially no by right residential development in the A-1
district. It is zero.
Ms. Stultz: There is no non-family.
Mr. Jones: It is the same thing as Madison. The board rules on every division of land in the
county regardless of the zoning whether it is one lot or more.
Ms. Joseph: It sounds like you take your agricultural use very seriously.
Ms. Higgins: The smaller lots protect the larger farms. What is the total area involved?
Ms. Stultz: We have 7 towns incorporated in the county, but the county is still building schools for
them. We are going to need 3 new schools within the next 5 years.
Mr. Jones: That is really the dichotomy that you have with state law. It does not matter to the
towns because they see it as income because they don't provide the schools. A lot of them don't
provide the infrastructure. And yet the counties are eat up by the school children and there is no
way that you can stop them if they want to flood you with children, they are going to flood you with
children. Orange is going through it. The Town of Culpeper is just getting ready to blow
Culpeper County under water in the next couple of weeks because of that.
Ms. Higgins: How many towns do you have in Madison County?
Mr. Jones: We have got one and it is down to 200 people.
Ms. Joseph: What do we have, Scottsville?
Ms. Higgins: There seems to be a downswing in the chicken farms. There seems to be a lot of
farms where the poultry operations are on market. Is there anything on the horizon about those
regulations?
Ms. Stultz: I don't see it right now. But, I think that it might because of the (inaudible) the turkeys.
(Inaudible) We are looking at some of the older poultry houses that they can't obviously use for
poultry anymore of the different things that they do in those, such as storage. Several of those
have been turned into horse barns.
Ms. Higgins: There are such large numbers of them and they dot the country side. Do you have
any restrictions against manufactured and mobile homes?
Ms. Stultz: They can go in any of the agricultural districts and the RS-1 District. That is more like
our little communities that aren't really a town, but they may have a store and a post office. We
allow them there. Then in our recreational residential, which is a 2 % acre subdivision that would
manufactured homes.
Ms. Joseph: I am amazed. They have really made the decision that there are residential areas
and there are agricultural areas and they are not really mixing them up.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - October 18, 2005
Draft Minutes Work session on Rural Areas Comprehensive Plan Implementation
19
Ms. Higgins: We've talked about other counties before. Fluvanna has a conservation area. Do
you have conservation areas?
Ms. Stultz: We have a conservation list. (inaudible)
Ms. McDowell: One reminder that they are going to have another work session next Tuesday at
4:00 p.m. to go over some of the issues that they have pulled out at the joint PC/Board meeting.
If they need any other documentation or materials, please call or email staff. Staff will provide the
information as quickly as possible.
Mr. Rieley: Joan, do you know how many subdivisions we have in the rural area and the number
of lots.
Mr. Graham: There are probably about 230 to 250.
Mr. Benish: It is probably about 800 total lots in the County per year on average.
Ms. McDowell: Staff will look up that information and share it with the Commission at the next
meeting divided out by acres
A second work session is scheduled for October 25 at 4:00 p.m, to discuss some of the
other issues brought up at the joint PCIBoard meeting, including phasing, clustering and
public input issues, No formal action was taken,
The Planning Commission recessed at 5:30 p,m, and reconvened at 6:00 p,m, in Meeting
Room 241,
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - October 18, 2005
Draft Minutes Work session on Rural Areas Comprehensive Plan Implementation
20
Attachment C
Planning Commission Recommendations to the Board of Supervisors
Phasing, Clustering, Family Divisions Framework Plan
Phasing:
The following list contains the framework of the major components of the proposed text amendment that
would limit the rate of subdivision in the Rural Areas.
1. Subdivision rate: a maximum of two lots in ten years (not including the parent parcel).
2. No changes in the original assignment of development rights (as of December 1980).
3. Phasing time clock begins with first subdivision following the adoption of this ordinance.
4. Exceptions: family divisions; subdivisions for properties subject to conservation easements; lot
line adjustments that do not create a new lot.
Clustering:
The following list contains the framework of the major components of the proposed text amendments that
would address the design of the Rural Areas. This framework addresses clustering exclusively.
1. Clustering would be the mandated form of subdivision in the Rural Areas.
2. Exceptions: family divisions; properties that would not result in the preservation of a parcel too
small to further the goals of the Guiding Principles for the Rural Areas (Attachment D);
subdivisions of properties subject to conservation easements; lot line adjustments that do not
create a new lot.
3. The unfragmented preservation of resources identified in the Comprehensive Plan's first Guiding
Principle for Rural Areas are the primary considerations for defining the areas to be protected.
4. Pre-application conferences would be required to identify areas to be preserved (the no-build
areas).
5. As currently required, a sketch plan would be required to determine the actual number of potential
divisions with the preliminary subdivision (conventional subdivision sketch plan).
6. A maximum of one preservation parcel per cluster, unless it can be ascertained that one
additional preservation parcel would further the preservation of resources, as identified by the
Guiding Principles for Rural Areas.
7. All residential lots would be required to be accessed from interior roads.
8. Some areas to be preserved, such as critical slopes, could be located within residential lots, if left
undisturbed and where that location furthers the unfragmented preservation of resources.
9. One primary residential dwelling unit would be allowed on the preservation parcel; one secondary
residential unit, requiring the use of a development right and compliance with all zoning ordinance
regulations, also could be permitted on the preservation parcel, to serve a farm manager.
10. If it could established that the maximum 2-acre residential lot could not accommodate a well
and/or septic and that redesign of the subdivision would not reduce or eliminate the need for
additional acreage, administrative approval to achieve a maximum of one additional acre would
be available.
11. "Pods" or small clusters of lots in more than one area within the subdivision may be permitted, if it
can be established that these pods/small clusters would have a greater benefit to the resources
to be preserved.
12. Maximum lot size of 2-acres for residential parcels that would be required to be clustered together
to minimize fragmentation of preservation areas.
13. There would be no limit to the number of residential lots contained in a Rural Cluster subdivision.
14. Encourage the connectivity of conservation land wherever feasible by locating the conservation
easement adjacent to other conservation easement properties.
Phasing and Clustering Combined:
Combining phasing and clustering presents some unique considerations. In addition to the major
components of phasing and clustering (listed above), the following lists the major components related
to the simultaneous operation of both ordinances.
Phasing Clustering
Framework
80S April 12, 2006
Page 1 of 2
1. Preservation parcel would be recorded with the first phase, in order for the County to
determine links/connections to other potential preservation parcels and easements and
ensure the permanent protection of resources.
2. Preservation parcel would be exempt from phasing requirements.
3. First phase could include a minimum of four lots (parent parcel, two new residential lots, and
the preservation parcel), thereby, triggering a requirement for a public road standard.
4. Each parcel (created prior to December 1980) could use its phasing potential to locate into
one cluster development (as with current RPDs).
5. Future development rights would stay with the parent parcel.
Family Divisions:
If excluded from phasing and clustering regulations, the Commission recommends a concurrent ZTA to
extend the time of ownership to 5 years before and 5 years after the creation of a family division. The
current regulations do not have a time of ownership prior to the family division and require family
ownership for the two years following the division.
Phasing Clustering
Framework
BaS April 12, 2006
Page 2 of 2
Attachment D
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Albemarle County Planning Commission
Mark Graham, Director, Department of Community Development
Amelia McCulley, Director of Zoning and Current Development/Zoning Administrator
Wayne Cilimberg, Director of Planning
FROM:
Greg Kamptner, Deputy County Attorney
DATE:
March 13,2006
RE:
Phased Cluster Subdivisions; Vested Rights
This memorandum addresses the doctrine of vested rights as applied to a proposed program that
would require phased cluster subdivisions in the Rural Areas zoning district.
1. Introduction
Privately held land is subject to applicable local zoning ordinances whether enacted before or after
property is acquired. Generally, landowners have no property rights in anticipated uses of their land since
they have no vested property rights in the continuation ofthe land's existing zoning status. Board afZoning
Appeals of Bland County v. Caselin Systems, Inc., 256 Va. 206 (1998).
The doctrine of vested rights protects certain existing private property interests when zoning
regulations are changed. Thus, in limited circumstances, private landowners may acquire a vested right in
planned uses of their land that may not be prohibited or reduced by subsequent zoning legislation. Virginia
Code S 15.2-2307; Hollandv. Board of Supervisors of Franklin County, 247 Va. 286 (1994). A vested rights
analysis determines whether a previously approved use has ripened to the point that it should be allowed to
exist, even though it would not conform to new zoning regulations.
2. Three factors determine whether vested riehts exist
Virginia Code S 15.2-2307 identifies the three factors that must be established in order for a
landowner's rights to be deemed vested: (1) the owner obtains or is the beneficiary of a significant
affirmative governmental act that remains in effect allowing development of a specific project; (2) the owner
relies in good faith on the significant affirmative governmental act; and (3) the owner incurs extensive
obligations or substantial expenses in diligent pursuit of the specific project in reliance on the significant
affirmative governmental act.
Section 3 focuses on the significant affirmative governmental act. Section 4 addresses the issue of
determining whether a landowner has incurred extensive obligations or substantial expenses in diligent
pursuit of the project. The second factor - good faith reliance - is presumed and will not be addressed in this
memorandum.
3. The proposed phased cluster subdivision proeram under a vested riehts analvsis
Virginia Code S 15.2-2307 delineates a number of the affirmative governmental acts that are deemed
to be significant, and those acts include: (1) the County's approval of a preliminary subdivision plat for the
period during which it remains in effect (see section 3(B)), where the applicant diligently pursues approval of
the final plat within a reasonable period of time under the circumstances; and (2) the County's approval of a
final subdivision plat, also for the period during which it remains in effect.
As currently proposed, the phased cluster subdivision program would allow a landowner to create 4
lots in the first phase - 2 cluster lots, the preservation parcel, and the residue. All future cluster lots would be
created from the residue. In each subsequent 10-year phase, 2 additional cluster lots could be created from
the residue until all division rights were exhausted.
The creation of a phased cluster subdivision would proceed as follows:
A. The preliminary plat
The first governmental act in the development process for a phased cluster subdivision would be the
County's approval of a landowner's preliminary plat showing the ultimate division of the property (all
phases) and all improvements. This would be the first significant affirmative governmental act in a vested
rights analysis for a phased cluster subdivision. The preliminary plat would be valid for 5 years. Albemarle
County Code S 14-228, During the 5-year period, the landowner would have the right to develop the project
as approved on the preliminary plat, insulated from changes to the Zoning Ordinance, provided that the
landowner could establish that his or her rights have vested. Albemarle County Code S 14-227.
A landowner must submit to the County a final plat for all or part of the property within one year
after the approval of the preliminary plat. Albemarle County Code S 14-228. If a final plat is not timely
submitted, the County's approval ofthe preliminary plat is null and void and whatever vested rights existed
to complete the project under the preliminary plat would expire as well. Because the phased cluster
subdivision program would allow only one final plat to be recorded in a 10-year period, the landowner would
be assured that only a timely filed first final plat could be approved in conformance with an approved and
vested preliminary plat, insulated from any changes to the Zoning Ordinance.
The 5-year period that an approved preliminary plat is valid is the minimum period allowed by the
Virginia Code, and a longer period could be allowed by the Subdivision Ordinance. Virginia Code S 15.2-
2241(5). Because the potential buildout ofa phased cluster subdivision could take decades, a preliminary
plat's period of validity could be extended beyond the 5-year period to assure those landowners whose
preliminary plats have vested that they could develop according to the approved preliminary plat. However,
a vested preliminary plat could insulate a project from changes to the Zoning Ordinance for years, possibly
decades.
B. The first final plat
Within the first year after a preliminary plat is approved, the landowner must submit to the County a
final plat for all or part of the property. Albemarle County Code S 14-228. For a phased cluster subdivision,
the first final plat would create not more than 2 cluster lots, as well as the preservation parcel and the residue.
A first final plat would have to be approved and recorded during the 5-year period that the
preliminary plat remains valid in order for the final plat to be insulated from any changes to the Zoning
Ordinance. Once the final plat is approved, the landowner would have a vested right to develop that phase of
the project, provided that extensive obligations or substantial expenses were incurred in diligent pursuit of
the project (see section 4).
2
C. Subsequent final plats
Under current regulations, a landowner has the right to record the final plats for the remaining
sections shown on an approved preliminary plat for a period of 5 years after the date that the first final plat
was recorded, or a longer period approved by the subdivision agent or the Planning Commission. Albemarle
County Code S 14-230(A). This time line protects landowners creating phased subdivisions from changes to
the Zoning Ordinance, but only for a relatively limited period of time - at most about 10 years (assuming the
first final plat is approved and recorded near the end of the 5-year period the preliminary plat is valid, plus an
additional 5 years for all subsequent final plats to be approved and recorded).
The proposed phased cluster program would allow each subsequent final plat to create not more than
2 additional cluster lots. Each subsequent final plat could be approved and recorded only after at least 10
years had passed since the prior final plat was recorded. Because of the 1 O-year phasing period (which
would be established in the Zoning Ordinance), the Subdivision Ordinance would need to be amended to
extend the period in which subsequent final plats in a phased cluster subdivision may be recorded from 5
years to a period not less than 10 years. See, Albemarle County Code S 14-230.
If a subsequent final plat was recorded within the prescribed period, the landowner would have a
vested right to develop that phase of the project, provided that extensive obligations or substantial expenses
were incurred in diligent pursuit of the project (see section 4).
4. Extensive obli2ations or substantial expenses: dili2ent pursuit
The other key issue in a vested rights analysis will be whether the owner incurred extensive
obligations or substantial expenses in diligent pursuit of the project in reliance on the approved plat. Virginia
Code S 15.2-2307.
The developer of a phased cluster subdivision may incur extensive obligations or substantial
expenses in conjunction with the first final plat. See, City of Suffolk v. Board of Zoning Appeals of the City of
Suffolk, 266 Va. 137 (2003), The nature of cluster developments may require that much of the infrastructure
installed in the first phase be sized, located and constructed to handle the ultimate development of the entire
property, and the first-phase infrastructure alone may be sufficient to find that the obligations are extensive
or the expenses are substantial.
Assuming that the period of validity of a preliminary plat is extended under the proposed phased
cluster subdivision program, diligent pursuit will be measured in years, even decades, with periods of
activity and, possibly, long periods of inactivity. As for whether a landowner has diligently pursued a
project, the County will have to determine whether the landowner undertook a series of activities to develop
the whole property through a series of regular, ifnot constant, events. See, City of Suffolk, supra, The very
nature of the proposed phased cluster subdivision program assures that development activities will be
sporadic, with interludes of inactivity possibly lasting 10 years or more. Nonetheless, under this program,
these activities would be found to be a series of regular events requiring a finding of diligent pursuit.
5. Conclusion
The doctrine of vested rights protects certain existing private property interests when zoning
regulations are changed. For the phased cluster subdivision program, the vested rights analysis will depend
on the regulations adopted to implement the program, and the particular facts applicable to a specific
subdivision. Under current regulations, vested rights may arise with the approval of a preliminary plat and
continue for the 5-year period that the preliminary plat is valid. Regulations implementing the phased cluster
subdivision program could extend that period, allowing vested rights to be established for at least the length
of time that a preliminary plat is valid assuring the landowner could develop the number of lots approved on
the preliminary plat. For final plats, vested rights may arise when the final plat is recorded and apply to that
particular phase of the subdivision,
3
.
.
.
Albemarle County Planning Commission
February 28,2006
The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a meeting and a work session on Tuesday, February
28, 2006, at 4:00 p.m., at the County Office Building, Room 235, Second Floor, 401 Mcintire Road,
Charlottesville, Virginia. Members attending were Bill Edgerton, Calvin Morris, Vice-Chairman, Pete
Craddock; Jo Higgins, Eric Strucko, Jon Cannon and Marcia Joseph, Chairman. Pete Craddock arrived at
4:45 p.m. Julia Monteith, Senior Land Use Planner for the University of Virginia, representative for David
J. Neuman, FAIA, Architect for University of Virginia was absent.
Other officials present were Wayne Cilimberg, Planning Director; David Benish, Chief of Planning &
Community Development; Mark Graham, Director of Community Development; Scott Clark, Senior
Planner; John Shepherd, Manager of Zoning Administration; Joan McDowell, Principal Planner and Greg
Kamptner, Deputy County Attorney.
Call to Order and Establish Quorum:
Ms. Joseph called the work session to order at 4:00 p.m. and established a quorum.
Work sessions:
ZTA-2005-004 Phasing and Clusterina, RA District - Work session to discuss and make
recommendations to the Board of Supervisors pertaining to Rural Areas clustering of subdivisions,
phasing of development, and the public review/input process. (Joan McDowell)
Ms. McDowell stated that last October staff brought the issues of phasing and clustering and the
implementation for the rural areas to the Commission. It was Ms. Higgins that raised the question if there
would be any impacts on conservation easement. So it has taken staff a while, but they have two of the
local experts on conservation easements that will start off the meeting. After they have discussed the
pros and cons of conservation easement and phasing and clustering then they can move into the phasing
and clustering individually and then the combination of phasing and clustering and the issues that they
need to consider. Also, staff has laid out two options for public input for the Commission's review. They
will begin with Rex Linville, of Piedmont Environmental Council, and Ridge Schuyler, of the Nature
Conservancy. It turns out that they have a little different view points on this, which she felt would be more
interesting than one view point. But, they both agree to the main benefit of slowing growth in the rural
areas. They both agree that it outweighs any potential for slowing easements.
Ms. Joseph asked staff what was her expectations for the end of this meeting. She asked what she
wanted the Commission to have accomplished.
Ms. McDowell hoped that they could get agreement on the phasing and clustering issues that are in the
report and that they pick the option or a combination of the two for public input. Then they can send this
back to the Board of Supervisors as they agreed to do and let them agree on the public input. The Board
wants to condense this process so that they can get phasing and clustering to them by fall.
Ridge Schuyler, Director of the Piedmont Program at the Nature Conservancy, stated that the Nature
Conservancy is a global organization that has been around for about 50 years. They use a science
based process to identify the Rivanna water shed as one of the places that they want to protect. It is one
of the best examples of a kemont river system left. So they want to protect it before it disappears. So
their interest here is in the Rivanna water shed. A lot of the work he does is to try to protect the Rivanna
water shed. As an organization they both purchase land and hold conservation easements. For context,
in the United States they own 3.3 million acres of land, which is land they purchased for their mission.
They have easements on 3.2 million acres of land. In Virginia they own about 64,000 acres, and have
easements on about 50,000 acres. He employs a lot of different strategies to protect the water shed and
a couple of forests that they have identified. One of the things he does is negotiates and holds
conservation easements. Last year of the 10,000 or so acres that got eased in Albemarle County, the
Nature Conservancy accounted for 2,100 acres of those and POF pretty much the bulk of those. The
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - FEBRUARY 28, 2006 1
DRAFT MINUTES - ZTA-2005-05 RURAL AREAS PHASING AND CLUSTERING
Rainer, P.C. also did some of those. So he actually is on the ground working with land owners trying to
help them realize their vision of protection. That is just one of the tools that they use for protecting the
water sheds.
Rex Linville stated that he worked for the Piedmont Environmental Council as a Land Conservation
Specialist. They work in a much smaller area of nine counties from here up to Loudon County. They are
a much different model in the sense that they are looking more broadly at what constitutes the land that
they are trying to get preserved. It is everything from scenic open space to natural habitat areas to civil
war battlefields, preserve structures and productive agricultural and timber land. He noted that his main
role is really to do some seed work with some of the land owners that ultimately Ridge will work with. He
was out trying to do more sort of whole sale education and outreach to the land owners in the community
that have parcels that are in one capacity or another worth of protection. That might be that they would
donate an easement to the Nature Conservancy or to the Virginia Outdoors Foundation. Or they might
use the Albemarle County Ace Program as a way to preserve their property or the. Thomas Jefferson Soil
and Water Conservation District. So he was really trying to bring a range of options to land owners and try
to help them figure out what best fits their set of particular circumstances and what is going to be the best
tool and mechanism for them to reach their land preservation goals for that property. As a result they sort
of cover the whole County rather than looking at those specific areas within the Rivanna water shed. To
put it in context of those easements, last year of the easements held in Albemarle County they accepted
one of those and it was on a 116 acre property. They really see themselves as easement holders as the
last resort. They really only step up to the plate to hold an easement when for whatever reason due to
sort of a lack of fit between those other easement holders and the land owner or due to timing constraints
or other issues and there is really not another outlet for that land owner to find a good place to park their
conservation easement.
Ms. Higgins stated that she felt that it was important to have them here. She asked if he could explain
why people are seeking to donate easements because that gets back to the issue that they are
considering. Right now there are predominantly large owners that are seeking easements and if their tax
leverage is taken away, then they will not have a lot of people knocking on their door. They do not want
to interfere with that traffic.
Mr. Linville felt that was the main part of this discussion. In his experience people put land under
easement because they want to protect their property. Unless someone was as the IRS would put it
"gaining the system", he has never worked with a land owner who put property under easement because
it was the smartest financial decision to make. In every instance the land owner is losing something by
putting land under easement. It is a thorn dropped gift of an access. The tax incentive that you get back
will never equal the value of what you have given up. It is not a money making proposition. It is a
charitable act.
Mr. Schuyler stated that it softens the blow.
Mr. Linville agreed that the tax incentive merely softens the blow. So everybody is coming with some
slant towards the desire to preserve their land. His job is to sit down and help people understand that
dynamic and figure out what are the incentives, their preservation goals and is that going to make this a
viable decision for them.
Mr. Schuyler stated that to put a finer point on that without going into a lot of tax detail, but the financial
incentives in his experience is that the land owner first wants to protect their land. They also want to
know what kind of financial incentives there are to determine where they kind of end up at the end of the
day. But those financial incentives are never going to get them to whole or else it would not be a
charitable deduction of a charitable nature. So the way it works is that if you donate an easement on a
piece of property that is worth $2,000,000 before the easement and a $1,500,000 after the easement you
diminish the value by $500,000. That $500,000 is a charitable deduction on your federal taxes. So you
are not getting that $500,000 back. You are getting whatever you tax rate is, which is possibly 25 or 30
percent of that as a deduction on the federal level. Then on the state level you get a tax credit that is
worth 50 percent of the dollars of your donation. But, in both those cases you are getting a mere
percentage of the value of the donation. So in no way could you ever come out whole by giving a gift of a
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - FEBRUARY 28, 2006
DRAFT MINUTES - ZTA-2005-05 RURAL AREAS PHASING AND CLUSTERING
2
.
.
.
conservation easement. So if people are motivated solely by financial reasons they are never going to do
a conservation easement. Those people will just sell their land because they will never get back the
whole. The incentives are helpful because they do soften the blow and it may help people protect their
land if they are having trouble making it worth. It may help them go forward and do that. But, it is never
going to make it whole. Therefore, they have to get the conservation effort first and the financial incentive
second.
Mr. Linville stated that the fact that the incentives make a difference is born out by the numbers. If they
look at a chart of the trend in land conservation in Virginia and Albemarle County region wide they would
see that before the land preservation tax credit was created PEC was probably throughout our service
area seeing, which was in the late 90's, it might have been as low as 5,000 acres preserved region wide.
Then it sort of jumped in 2002 up to 9,000 or 10,000 acres. Then with the advent of this transferable tax
credit in 2002 it has really skyrocketed up to as many within our service area 25,000 acres were
preserved last year. That included 10,000 acres in Albemarle. VOF accepted easements on 41,000
acres.
Ms. Higgins asked doesn't that in itself proof the point.
Mr. Linville stated that what it proves is that what they are now doing as the incentives increase we're
capturing more people along that continual. Ultimately, if the discussion really centers around is some
change to our zoning ordinance going to in some way diminish that incentive and if that change to the
ordinance is going to result in preservation of the rural area then he would love for them to put him out of
business. In other words, if they had an ordinance that was effectively preserving the rural area, then
people would not need to put their land under easement.
Mr. Strucko stated that they were generally in the business of preserving open space. Does the concept
of clustering as a policy achieve that ultimate need for the land owner who isn't on that end of the
spectrum that is pure profit once they take their asset and make it productive in some form or fashion, but
it wants to contribute to the general good of the rural area by putting a large section under a parcel into an
easement and developing a smaller section. Does that policy as a concept appeal to you?
Ms. Higgins asked to make one statement in response to what he was saying. Clustering actually works
with the conservation easement concept.
Mr. Strucko stated that he understood that, but just wanted to get their opinion.
Ms. Higgins stated that the one that doesn't is the phasing.
Mr. Strucko suggested that they just focus on the clustering part first and talk about the phasing later. If
they want to exercise the existing development rights on their property and don't want to sell it, is the
policy clustering going to do that in their perspective.
Mr. Linville stated that what clustering does not do from one perspective is that it does not take the
infrastructure needs that are created as a result of the implementation of that cluster out of the rural area.
In other words, just because the houses are clustered they still have to provide the same services to that
cluster. It does not matter from a services perspective whether they are spread out on a map or clustered
in a tight spot on the map. So from a larger question of land use planning you have not changed that
dynamic from maybe Ridges perspective of sort of are you preserving intact habitat areas. He noted that
he would allow Ridge to address that, but he felt that they have addressed some of those issues.
Mr. Schuyler pointed out that when the Nature Conservancy identifies a place where they are going to
work one of the things that they do at the very outset because they are a science based organization is
determine what is the outcome that they are trying to achieve. What is the desired future condition? What
is it that they are trying to protect with all of your efforts and strategies? So it seems that the first order of
business is to say what is it that you are trying to preserve or protect with your strategy that they are trying
to implement. For clustering if one of the things that you are trying to protect is unfragmented forest land,
then clearly clustering is good for protecting more forest from being fragmented. If their goal is to limit the
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - FEBRUARY 28, 2006 3
DRAFT MINUTES - ZTA-2005-05 RURAL AREAS PHASING AND CLUSTERING
effect of impervious cover on your water shed, clustering mayor may not depending on how that
clustering is implemented. To the intent that clustering involves the building of roads out to the cluster you
may not have advanced the ball very far in terms of reducing the amount of hardened surface in your
water shed. It really depends on how it is accomplished and what it is that you are trying to achieve with
the effort. But, he could see clustering done in a way that does protect the water shed by allowing you to
concentrate your storm water problems in one place and deal with them. So he could see if done right
with low impact development standards or something else if they decided to go forward.
Ms. Higgins pointed out that they all recognize that clustering does have a decrease in impervious area
with roads because the roads are shorter. That has always been the carrot for the Rural Preservation
development.
Mr. Strucko stated that you are allowing them to exercise their property rights in a way that may have a
minimal impact on rural land consumption.
Mr. Schuyler stated that it depends on what functions you are trying get the land to achieve for you. If
you are trying to achieve vast scenic open space, he felt that it would make sense. But, if you clustered
everything in one area and kept the rest of it open, then you are protecting that. If you are trying to
protect a forest similarly clustering would protect that forest. If you have other desires for your land you
have to judge the outcome by the standard that you are trying to meet or the outcome that you are trying
to achieve.
Mr. Linville stated that if the question is if you take a 100 acre farm and create five 20-acre farmettes
versus taking those five development rights and sticking them onto 5 acres all together in the corner,
clearly that is better from the habitat, water quality, scenic and land use perspectives. But going back to
the services perspective and if you have diminished in any way the cost of the services associated with
that, no. So they have other issues that are still associated with that because you have not in any way
reduced the density in the rural area in doing that. They have not taken anything away.
Ms. Higgins noted that they would not have slowed down the rate.
Mr. Linville agreed, but noted that in some sense you have made some improvements in the way it was
exercised.
Ms. Higgins stated that there was less consumption for residential use and potentially more for
agricultural or just preservation for environmental issues.
Mr. Strucko pointed out that they have several scenarios. But, that unused part is 100 acres and the 95
acres that are not used goes into a permanent conservation easement.
Mr. Schuyler stated that was where the rubber meets the road. In other words, what happens to those 95
acres? He worked some on the eastern shore of Maryland where some of the counties just recorded a
county restriction along with it, which was something that the county could change their mind on later.
There was no long term preservation of that satisfied tract. He felt that if they were going to a lot like that
it would be advantageous to see a permanent open space easement that existed on that.
Ms. Higgins noted that they have been doing that under the Rural Preservation development. Part of this
about the tax equation and the potential financial benefit if it jumped in 2002 because of that it is
diminished by clustering because the value of the particular land when you look at the before and after
easement situation, the financial difference is probably not as great as no development or partial
development versus full development in a cluster format. There is probably some tax advantages
associated with clustering. They will still have a lump of land that might for various reasons.
Mr. Edgerton pointed out that it has not proven to be that way. The clustered lots next to the large piece
of land that will not be developed are far more valuable. The market has supported that. He had worked
on projects where they got more value for those smaller clustered lots because they know that the
adjacent land is not going to be developed.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - FEBRUARY 28, 2006 4
DRAFT MINUTES - ZTA-2005-05 RURAL AREAS PHASING AND CLUSTERING
.
.
.
Mr. Linville stated that the question when you determine an easement value is what would a third party
buy the land for. If they look at that clustered development and acknowledge that cluster development is
really what people want, then he would be able to get a greater rate of return if he buys that land and
cluster because he would not have as much infrastructure cost associated with it. The price that they are
going to pay to purchase that property is going to be the same or higher than if they spread the
development out across. If someone came with an appraisal that said that there was a diminish ion of
value because they clustered rather than spread the development all over the property he would look at
that appraisal and say that is suspect to me. He could not believe that someone would pay a
substantially less amount for a property that had a cluster on it than for a property other development.
Ms. Higgins stated that you would have to prepare a cluster of 10 versus a cluster of 20. If someone
gives up 10 of the right that it would still give them some potential leverage to at least provide some
incentive. If it is 25 percent or 50 percent of whatever it is still some leverage.
Mr. Linville stated that even in that case just diminishing the number of division rights from 20 to 10 might
still not get you much of an easement value because those 10 remaining lots because they are on a
bigger piece of land with more buffer around them might actually still be as valuable as the 20 were. They
would want to look at what the developer would pay for the right to build those things. Really they see
was that the biggest diminish ion when there is a property with a lot of development rights and you really
restrict them down to one, or if you have a really big property down to only a couple.
Ms. Higgins asked to turn the page because this is why she felt it was important to talk to them. The tax
incentives are there and the people want to do the right thing. There are people who are wealthy land
owners and not necessarily farmers doing this, but potentially a land owner who has the financial wealth
to be able to say that he does not want this property to be developed and he wants to preserve it. But,
they are always dependent on when they buy easements is the value now versus the value of what could
be if it were developed today. Her understanding of the tax rules are that they have even gotten more
critical of that and have actually challenged the ones who did not do a development plan. But, they have
to have someone do something that is a valid developable concept plan. If they interject phasing and a
time delay or if they have 5 development rights over 25 years with 2 per 10 years. If you look at the today
value before and you look at the tomorrow value after the development the development is only the
creation of 2 lots in 10 years. The tax incentive is gone. It is literally just that one imposition could
destroy the basis where people come knocking on their door. That is a true question that she does not
know here way around.
Mr. Linville stated that he had a couple of thoughts on that. Fundamentally in the way that conservation
easements are valued the scenario that she gave in doing a development plan and looking at what is the
highest and best use of this property given its number of development rights is, of course, one way. It is
typically a very aggressive way that people use to justify a particular evaluation for a property. It is
referred to as the subdivision development analysis technique. What is this property worth given sort of a
developer's formula of development with X number of lots for X number of dollars, for X number of dollars
for infrastructure costs and X number of dollars discounted over a certain number of time and using a real
complicated methodology to determine today's value.
Ms. Higgins noted that was what an appraiser does.
Mr. Linville stated that was only one technique that an appraiser may use. Another technique would be to
look at comparable sales and say here is a 100 acre property and here is another 100 acre property and
this one sold for a million dollars and this is a similar property with a similar number of development rights
and in a similar portion of the county. Therefore, that property is also worth a million dollars. Therefore,
not all easements are done under that subdivision development analysis technique. That is a technique
that is used when someone wants to maximize their tax deduction. Not all landowners are doing that nor
are all landowners who are donating land easements simply are wealthy individuals. There are people
from all financial spectrums that are preserving land. If you go back to the underlying assumption that
people are preserving property because they want to preserve their property and that there are tax
incentives for doing that. They all believe in the perfect world that you are only given tax incentives for
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - FEBRUARY 28, 2006 5
DRAFT MINUTES - ZTA-2005-05 RURAL AREAS PHASING AND CLUSTERING
what you have given up. If they use Ridges example of a 2 million dollar property was the before
easement value and 1.5 million dollars after easement value today he was asking someone to give up
one-half a million dollars. They are going to get tax incentives that don't equal one-half a million dollars.
If as a result of phasing he was asking them that now their property was valued at 2 miljion and after the
easement they were only diminishing it by $200,000. Then it would be 1.8 million as opposed to 1.5
million. The phasing would result in a smaller incentive to them. Therefore, he was only asking them to
give up $200,000 instead of giving up $500,000. He felt that from his perspective it was easier to ask
since he was asking them to give up less capital.
Ms. Higgins noted that they would be taking away their incentive to seek that.
Mr. Strucko stated that if someone was developing their property and going through a phasing what tax
incentive are they seeking? They are developing a property and we are just saying that they have to
develop it over the course of 35 years. Are they seeking a tax incentive?
Mr. Linville felt that Ms. Higgins's suggestion was that an easement donation would be less likely under a
phasing scenario. He did not know if he agreed with that. His bigger overarching statement would be if
phasing results in the preservation of the rural area and if you go back to Ridges point if that is the
desired condition and phasing results in that desired condition, and then does it matter that you have had
fewer conservation easements. Again, he would love for them to put him out of work.
Ms. Joseph pointed out that when they talked about phasing it was about creating two lots every ten
years. They now have a lot of land that is in agricultural forestall districts. A lot of them are created in a
ten year period. She asked if that was something that is considered. That is sort of a kind of phasing. It
is not a forever thing and they don't know if the zoning ordinance is a forever thing either. But, they do
know that someone has made the commitment to put this land in and not subdivide anything less than a
21 acre parcel for say 10 years. Is that looked at when conservation easements are created?
Mr. Linville stated that the appraisers do look at that, but the ones that he has spoken with don't take
much in to account for the fact that the land is in an agricultural district. In other words, they find that
again look at comparable sales that there is not much of an impact on easement value as a result of
being an agricultural forestall district.
Mr. Schuyler stated that he could not think of any cases in doing appraisals where a property was in an
agricultural district over the last couple of years.
Ms. Higgins stated that technically those owners could not deal with pre-development or post-
development plans because they have given up the right to do their development. Therefore, they are not
in the tax incentive.
Mr. Schuyler stated that the Nature Conservancy is not just trying to get easements. They are trying to
employ whatever strategies that they can to protect their water shed from various threats. The easement
is just a tool. If it is a vehicle, then it is not a destination. The destination is the protection of the water
shed. If felt for the County that the destination is the protection of the rural areas in the way that they
define it in their Comp Plan. He views it that the easement is a tool to achieve that, but there are other
tools. It sounds like the Commission considering some other tools. He felt that they would want to pick
the tool that best accomplishes the arrival at the destination.
Ms. Higgins noted that they all agree that easements are permanent and that they achieve the overall
goal. The land goes in voluntarily and it is either paid for or there is an incentive paid for by the tax
payers' dollars. The ACE Program does the same thing. But, when she sits here and looks at these
farmers that are in the second or third generation and now they are talking about rules that will tell them
that they held their most valuable asset for all of this time, but now they were going to change the rules
potentially to say you can only get two lots every ten years. Well what could keep your easement in its
current state with this jump of people stepping up to the plate, and they don't want to take that away.
Mr. Cannon asked would a phasing ordinance likely reduce the rate that they would be able to obtain
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - FEBRUARY 28, 2006 6
DRAFT MINUTES - ZTA-2005-05 RURAL AREAS PHASING AND CLUSTERING
.
.
.
donations of easements.
Mr. Linville stated that Ridge and he had talked about this earlier today. He felt that it was a tough call to
know. It is not obvious that it would. He felt that in certain circumstances with particular properties it in
fact could. With other properties it may not. Again, it would depend on where that property is and who is
the owner and what is the objective.
Mr. Strucko asked what would be the decision process for the land owner going through that. If he was
thinking about giving a conservation easement, but he has this phasing thing going on what is he trying to
decide?
Mr. Linville felt that what they would find is when they go to talk to a land owner about a conservation
easement they talk about two things primarily. First, what is their vision for conservation of their property?
Then what are the financial implications of implementing that decision. So they talk about both of them.
They would talk through what is their vision for protection of their property and what they would want an
easement to accomplish. Then what are the financial implications of that decision. The financial
implications of that decision have to do with the incentives that are available and those kinds of questions.
Mr. Schuyler noted that every property owner is different, which why they ask how this is going to affect
the donation of easement. It depends on every single land owner out there and what motivates them to
want to donate an easement in the first place. There are as many variations of that as there are land
owners.
Mr. Linville pointed out that if they go back to sort of the matter of what resulted in that dramatic increase
it is the variable tax incentives that we have here in Virginia today. It is not the value of the gift. It the tax
incentive and what someone is getting for giving up X. If phasing has some impact on what X is from his
mind it is not going to make a very big difference. What is going to make a bigger difference are the tax
incentives robust. Currently, the tax incentives are pretty robust. The reason that they are getting so
many easements is that now people can get 80 percent of that back in the form of tax incentives. He
noted that the conversation starts with what they are trying to preserve. The fact that when they sit down
with a spreadsheet to show what they mean financially, yes, that then makes it easier to close the deal.
Mr. Strucko disagreed with Ms. Higgins that phasing was going to diminish land easements. If he was a
land owner looking to make a financial gain he was going to develop. He did not think it would matter
whether he had phased development of units because he was still going to develop.
Mr. Linville agreed that if it was all about finances the land owner was going to develop their land and not
put it under easement.
Mr. Cannon stated that the percentage benefit to the land owner remains the same. He felt what Ms.
Higgins was saying is the increment of difference in value to which that percentage would be applied
would likely be smaller under a phasing program.
Mr. Linville stated that he did not know if that was correct.
Mr. Cannon stated that the alternative of selling the property for development would also be less valuable.
The reason that the increment is smaller is that the value for land if sold for development is less because
it is phased. There would be a decrease in the value of the alternatives if you will. What he was hearing
these gentlemen say is that it is very hard to calculate it under those circumstances whether this would
have an impact on the likelihood of donations or not.
Mr. Linville stated that he 100 percent agreed with Ridge that easements are just one tool. If phasing is a
more effective tool than conservation easements for overall preservation of the rural area then that may
be a good tool and any detrimental impact that it has on the total number of acres going under easement
may not matter.
Mr. Schuyler stated that there were all kinds of different reasons why people put their land under
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - FEBRUARY 28, 2006 7
DRAFT MINUTES - ZTA-2005-05 RURAL AREAS PHASING AND CLUSTERING
easement. But, even with regard to the incentive there are all kinds of factors out there that are beyond
our control that are going to affect that incentive far more than anything that the Commission is
considering. For example, the General Assembly may racket back the generosity of the conservation tax
credit. That is why he would be reluctant to advise the Commission to work only on phasing as it relates
to conservation easements. There are other factors such as when VDOT changes their site line rules,
which limits the amount of development that one can do. That can change the incentives. There are all
kinds of things happening that could change the incentive.
Mr. Kamptner stated that he wanted to understand better the context of this discussion. What the County
is looking at is mandating clustering and phasing with a preservation tract in rural areas. So if they
mandate that isn't the whole idea of a charitable donation out the window.
Mr. Schuyler stated that right because that preservation tract would not be a charitable donation. That is
correct.
Mr. Kamptner stated that if they mandate this they are talking about conservation easements that are not
part of the development.
Mr. Edgerton stated that they would just be changing the rural preservation part of the ordinance if they
go with the phasing of lots.
Ms. Higgins stated that she was still looking at the two separately in order to understand both.
Mr. Kamptner stated that it was probably the whole RA regulations and not just the RPD because it will
become the Subdivision Ordinance since it will become the form of development the way that they are
looking at it right now. It is throughout the rural areas.
Mr. Edgerton asked if the number of development rights would change.
Mr. Kamptner stated that the number of development rights would not change.
Mr. Edgerton asked if the Commission recommended the adoption of what staff has put before us for
phasing and clustering that it would now become the by right scenario in the rural areas. If he owned a
piece of land that had ten development rights, does he have the option of doing the old form of
development where he could do five two-acre lots and as many 21 acre lots.
Mr. Kamptner stated that what was before us now the answer to that is no that you would not have that
option.
Mr. Strucko stated that every rural development would be a cluster.
Ms. McDowell stated that it would except for family divisions.
Mr. Kamptner stated that there is a bill in the General Assembly that would require that all localities allow
cluster developments in at least 40 percent of its territory. This is a way to mandate clustering on
localities.
Ms. Higgins stated that they all agree with the benefits of clustering. But, she has a problem that phasing
will get in the way with clustering. There is not explanation in the staff report on how it would work
together.
Ms. Joseph stated that if they mandate a conservation easement on that property there is no tax benefit.
So they have to assume that the money will be made doing that cluster subdivision.
Mr. Kamptner stated that was the other component of what he heard Rex and Ridge saying was that your
experience has shown that type of development really will not have a loss in value to the land owner
because it is just that the form of the development has changed.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - FEBRUARY 28, 2006
DRAFT MINUTES - ZTA-2005-05 RURAL AREAS PHASING AND CLUSTERING
8
.
.
.
Mr. Edgerton stated that the person missing from this conversation is the person who determines the
value for rights that are given up. He has talked with a number of folks and has been told that it is not
necessarily how much you can develop it, but some of the larger parcels are actually worth more as
larger parcels than they are with their development potential. There are a lot of up front costs to
developing a parcel that needs to be balanced out with the asset itself.
Mr. Linville stated that the question is what the highest and best use of the property would be. Is it an
estate property or is it a residential subdivision. He felt that they were seeing a shift because the number
of estate parcels are becoming fewer and farther between they are becoming more valuable.
Mr. Schuyler pointed out that the location of the property was going to make a difference in the value. He
felt that Albemarle County is an unique situation because of the large amounts of easements being held
due to the many factors and can't be looked at in relationship to other counties regarding phasing.
Mr. Linville stated that it would be hard to predict the effect on easements if they took away the
incentives. It is the land owner's decision to make and every land owner is different. There are a lot of
other factors to consider other than do they have phasing.
Ms. Higgins stated that there was no issue with clustering because it fits with it. If someone gives up their
development it won't affect their tax credits.
Mr. Linville suggested that they look at phasing to see how it would affect the goal that they are trying to
achieve.
Ms. McDowell asked the Commission to look at the staff report and try as a group say which items they
want to send to the Board. Their objective is to get through this list and through the two options for public
input. Staff will take this to the Board and then they would get started with work sessions and public
input.
Mr. Edgerton stated that he preferred option one.
Ms. Joseph stated that first of all staff started out by using the guiding principles that they went through,
which she felt was excellent. Second, staff created this list that they had discussed for a long time about
what sort of items within the rural areas do they think are important and worthy of preservation. She felt
that was also excellent. She felt that Ms. Higgins had brought up a point that some how, some place,
somewhere it should be added to something that they reference as they are looking at these things. So
that is excellent also. She felt that they talked about this phasing and they all shook their heads that 1
through 4 on page 2 was okay and that they were with her.
Ms. Higgins stated that she had a problem with phasing and item 3 as she understood it. She asked to
see how it would be implemented even though she knew it was a good tool.
Ms. Joseph stated that they would keep that as an addendum and a footnote. She asked how the other
Commissioners felt.
The consensus of all of the other Commissioners, except Ms. Higgins, was that they agreed with it.
Ms. Joseph stated that they were on to clustering they felt that it important to put preserved area in one
grouping so that they have a large block of them. She asked how the other Commissioners felt about
clustering.
Ms. Higgins stated that it says these items would address the design of the rural area. She was really
focused that they not lose sight of # 14, which was discussed and talked about relationship. It was
actually under #5 on page 4. She asked why it was under one that is issues for considering both of them.
She felt that it should be in the right place.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - FEBRUARY 28, 2006
DRAFT MINUTES - ZTA-2005-05 RURAL AREAS PHASING AND CLUSTERING
9
Ms. Joseph suggested that it be put in the right place and then the Commission would be there. She
asked if any of the other Commissioners had any questions about 1-14 regarding clustering.
It was the consensus of the Commissioners that they agreed with items 1-14 regarding clustering with Ms.
Higgins' comment about #14. Also, Ms. Joseph had the following two questions: Why parcels in the
agricultural forestall districts would not be an exception, also.
Ms. McDowell stated that one was that they would only be committed for a period of ten years in an
agricultural forestall district. Let's assume that clustering and phasing never gets off the table and they
were just dealing with clustering. They are committed to slowing growth for a period of ten years. You
can pull out and you can put your growth in and you can go back into an agricultural forestall district if you
want. The 21 acre lots that you are allowed in the agricultural forestall district has certainly shown over
time not to be successful in preserving rural areas and cuts it up into estate lots. It is not good for farming
or forestry. So what you are allowed to do is the opposite of what they are trying to do with clustering
them together and use as little land as possible for residential to have the biggest bank for the buck with
that preservation parcel.
Ms. Joseph stated that may be another part of the ordinance that they have to change when they change
this for clustering. She agreed with staff.
Ms. McDowell stated that it would definitely have to change with phasing because it is less restrictive with
phasing.
Ms. Joseph stated that they were on to phasing and clustering combined.
Ms. McDowell stated that this is new territory for Albemarle County. When you put phasing and clustering
together it creates some things that they had to think about. Do they want to get the preservation
recorded first? In which that is your fourth lot in which case triggers the need for a road. So that was an
issue that they considered. Do they want the preservation parcel because it is tied to a conservation
easement do they want that to be an exemption to a phasing requirement.
Ms. Higgins stated that she still did not understand how phasing overlaid on clustering can work with
these requirements in place.
Ms. McDowell stated that the first phase they include the minimum of four lots being your parent parcel,
the two new residential lots and the minimal preservation parcel if that is agreed that should be an
exemption. So there is a public road standard that would be required with that. In being that they are
phasing and clustering parcels together that road connection to what may be the preservation parcel
would be a little longer than they would originally want without the ability to fill those lots in immediately.
The parent parcel is the holder of the development rights and where the rest of the clustering would take
place. So when they tie them together there are some issues that they need to think about, which staff
has been thinking about. Then the issues for phasing and clustering together the subdivisions may be
needed for financial purposes. This is not necessarily together. She did not know a lot about this, but
there are farmers who need to just for financial purposes to create a lot so that they are not mortgaging
the entire farm to buy a tractor. They would just be using that one lot as collateral. She did not know any
way that they would know if that was bona-fide or that he could not sell it or use it as another estate lot
later. That was number 1 in issues with phasing. They talked about the likely idea of it being 100 acre
lots. But, there are some bona-fide reasons why folks might need to subdivide off big chunks of their land.
This is just something that they know, but it is an issue that staff needs the Commission to weigh in on.
Mr. Benish stated that staff flagged that as an issue that they might have to tackle when this comes back
to us.
Ms. Higgins stated that she had problems with #4 of clustering and phasing combined. She did not
understand what it meant.
Ms. McDowell stated that they would not be getting any more lots that they could of today. This is saying
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - FEBRUARY 28, 2006
DRAFT MINUTES - ZTA-2005-05 RURAL AREAS PHASING AND CLUSTERING
10
.
.
.
the phasing potential is how many lots you could get out of the parcel today. One has to show their
conventional number of lots they could get now. Then you could only create two.
Ms. Higgins noted that then they would have to build the road into those two lots.
Ms. Joseph stated that it could still be a dirt road perhaps from this point. But, they would still have their
parent parcel that would have the clusters within it and the preservation parcel.
Ms. Higgins noted that the cluster would not exist because they could not create those parcels.
Ms. McDowell stated that was correct.
Ms. Higgins stated that what staff was really suggesting is that someone that creates one or two parcels
does all of the planning for the future 25 years and put it into the concept plan and create the two parcels
and build the road into those two because you have to meet the road requirements, which is triggered by
3, and also the requirement of # 7. She questioned if that would make it reasonable.
Ms. McDowell stated that when they come in they know how many parcels they can get out of it. That is
what they have to show now with a RPD.
Ms. Higgins stated that they were not talking about the division right, but how to make the phasing which
limits how many parcels can be created and works with the clustering.
Ms. McDowell stated that one of the things that they don't want is to vest properties prematurely. If they
get approval for the two lots and show us all the rest of them they are vested. That is what they want to
avoid. They are going to show to themselves because they always do.
Ms. Higgins asked what if the rules change in the 25 years. How do you deal with that?
Mr. Cannon stated that once they vest it does not matter because they can always go forward.
Ms. McDowell stated that they could only get the number of lots you could get today or December 10.
She felt that any developer or surveyor is going to show the layout to himself. They are just actually
verifying the development, but not vesting it.
Ms. Higgins felt that they are going to have to show the clusters with the septic and well locations.
Mr. Benish felt that they need to discuss that in the next round.
Mr. Cannon asked what the concern about vesting with what was shown is.
Ms. McDowell stated that if there were any rule changes in the future they would not apply. If the County
looks back and see if the 21 acres just did not do what it was suppose to do, then they could not adjust
the change. If the County in 20 years looks back and finds that the density does not work, then they could
not change it.
Ms. Joseph stated that they were going to need some additional information on vesting from Mr.
Kamptner at some point.
Mr. Kamptner asked staff to provide some information about what the approval in year one would be.
Mr. Edgerton asked that staff provide several scenarios showing clustering and phasing.
The Planning Commission asked staff to schedule another work session to bring back additional
information on vesting and to provide scenarios to show how clustering and phasing works before they
take action. The next work session will be held on March 14 meeting at 4:00 p.m.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - FEBRUARY 28, 2006
DRAFT MINUTES - ZTA-2005-05 RURAL AREAS PHASING AND CLUSTERING
11
In summary, the Planning Commission held a third work session to discuss and make recommendations
to the Board of Supervisors pertaining to Rural Areas clustering of subdivisions, phasing of development,
and the public reviewlinput process. Guest speakers were two local experts on conservation easements,
Rex Linville, the Land Conservation Specialist for PEC and Ridge Schuyler, Director of Piedmont
Program for the Nature Conservancy. The Planning Commission asked staff to schedule another work
session to bring back additional information on vesting and to provide scenarios to show how clustering
and phasing works before they take action. The next work session will be held on March 14 meeting at
4:00 p.m.
The Planning Commission recessed at 5:43 p,m. for a dinner break and reconvened at 6:10 p.m. in
Meeting Room 241,
(Recorded and transcribed by Sharon Claytor Taylor, Recording Secretary.)
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - FEBRUARY 28, 2006
DRAFT MINUTES - ZTA-2005-05 RURAL AREAS PHASING AND CLUSTERING
12
Albemarle County Planning Commission
March 14, 2006
The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a meeting and a work session on Tuesday, March 14, 2006, at 4:00
..m., at the County Office Building, Room 235, Second Floor, 401 Mcintire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia. Members
ttending were Bill Edgerton, Calvin Morris, Vice-Chairman, Pete Craddock, Marcia Joseph, Chairman; Jo Higgins, Eric
Strucko, and Jon Cannon. Julia Monteith, Senior Land Use Planner for the University of Virginia, representative for David
J. Neuman, FAIA, Architect for University of Virginia was present. Pete Craddock and Julia Monteith arrived at 4:10 p.m.
Other officials present were Wayne Cilimberg, Planning Director; Joan McDowell, Principal Planner, Mark Graham,
Director of Community Development; Amy Arnold, Planner; David Benish, Chief of Planning and Community
Development; Scott Clark, Senior Planner; John Shepherd, Manager of Zoning Administration and Greg Kamptner,
Deputy County Attorney.
Call to Order and Establish Quorum:
Ms. Joseph called the special meeting to order at 4:07 p.m. and established a quorum.
Work sessions:
ZTA-2005-004 Phasina and Clusterina, RA District - Work session to discuss text amendment outlines for phasing and
clustering of development, family divisions, and two public input options. (Joan McDowell)
Ms. Joseph stated that this was a continuation of a work session held several weeks ago. She asked Mr. Cilimberg and
Ms. McDowell to lead the Commission into the discussions so that they could finish this today.
Mr. Cilimberg stated that staff has targeted this for the Board during the second quarter of the year between April to June.
A tentative work schedule has been scheduled for the Board of Supervisors next month in the event the Commission is
able to get finished. Certainly between April and June staff would like to get this to the Board so that they can review what
the Commission has recommended and then kind of set the direction. There is another meeting that the Board is going to
.ave in May to discuss the Mountain Overlay, which again is a tentative meeting, but one that would get another matter
efore them during that same period that they really are anxious to see come to them. The expectation of the Board, as
staff sees it, is that the Commission is going to be delivering to them the concepts for the changes that would take place in
the Rural Areas division regarding phasing and clustering as well as what they recommend as the public input process for
the review of the ordinance proposals. They did not expect that the Commission would be delivering the details of an
ordinance. He felt that was not really where they are because they were really trying to wrap up the concepts. But, they
would definitely want to make sure that the Board is aware of not only what the Commission recommends, but the things
that they discussed about those details that they are going to have to spend time with when that work on the ordinance is
back in their hands. The Commission has already identified a number of things that are going to be important to pay
attention to. Staff is going to make the Board aware of those things so that their eyes are open as well about what those
details might entail and some of the considerations as the Commission moves forward in the ordinance development and
some of the things that they will probably be hearing from the public. That is what staff is hoping the Commission can
accomplish. Staff has this set on a path to get to the Board for them begin their discussion and get back to the
Commission with the direction they set. He noted that this is not going to be easy because there is going to be a lot of
work involved when they get into the ordinance development. This is probably the easy part in thinking through all of the
things that might come up. But, it is very important.
Ms. Joseph stated that this would allow the Commission to get some public input without having the ordinance already
drafted.
Ms. McDowell stated that they would continue the discussion from two weeks ago. Just to reiterate, the Commission has
gone through just the framework for the phasing and the ideas behind phasing and clustering. The Commission asked
that item 14 be added to the clustering list, which is to encourage the connectivity of conservation land wherever feasible
by locating conservation easements adjacent to other conservation easement properties. Tonight they will talk some more
about the phasing and clustering combined. As previously requested by the Commission, staff has prepared some
graphics to show what staff has been talking about. Therefore, they could get a visual picture not only as an individual
parcel but as a combination of parcels to go into a cluster and what happens to them over time. Staff will present a power
.oint presentation on phasing and clustering in the Rural Areas. (See Attachment: March 14, 2006 Phasing and
lustering Rural Subdivisions: The analysis criteria and patterning impact of phasing and clustering) Next, Mr. Kamptner
is prepared to discuss the issue of vesting of subdivisions. That was a question at the last meeting. Also, they will go
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - MARCH 14, 2006
DRAFT MINUTES - ZTA-2005-05 PHASING AND CLUSTERING, RA DISTRICT
1
over the public input process. Staff has presented a couple of options to be reviewed. The Board has charged the
Commission with condensing the public input, but not diminishing it. So that is a challenge. Part of the challenge is to
look at combining all of these so that the public input is combined into single work sessions and public hearings instead of
one per each phasing, clustering and family divisions. Family division will also be discussed concerning the issue of
lengthening the time period. Next, Scott Clark will present the PowerPoint presentation.
Scott Clark presented a PowerPoint presentation that contained some real world examples instead of just the rectangular
diagrams on how phasing and clustering work together. Staff picked two examples with one of a single parcel and the
other of a larger area of multiple parcels to show what the basic steps will be to laying out one of these divisions. He
explained what the steps would be in laying out the process. First, staff took an aerial of a property to pick out the
preservation area with the resources that they were trying to protect and then the location of the development lots, etc.
Then they developed the possible development scenarios using clustering and phasing over a 20 year time period. (See
Attachment: March 14, 2006 Phasing and Clustering Rural Subdivisions: The analysis criteria and patterning impact of
phasing and clustering)
Mr. Edgerton asked if the area designated for the development lots was being referred to as the parent parcel.
Mr. Clark replied no that the parent parcel was the whole thing. This lot shows what staff refers to as day one with that
first division. There are two development lots and the preservation lot would be created at the same time. So they were
showing two houses off of that initial road from the public highway and then a drive way and another house on the
preservation track.
Ms. Higgins questioned going back to the parent parcel, which was excluded from the count, and when he said two in ten
and this says first lot. So by doing this they were actually doing three plus the parent parcel.
Mr. Clark stated that was correct.
Ms. Higgins noted that they were only allowed to do two excluding the parent parcel.
Mr. Kamptner stated that it was the two cluster lots, the preservation parcel and the residue for the parent parcel from
which all subsequent cluster lots would be created.
Mr. Clark pointed out that the residue is not counted against the phasing, and Mr. Kamptner agreed.
Mr. Clark stated that there were two development lots and then the preservation tract is exempt because they were trying
to get that on the ground at the beginning.
Ms. Higgins stated that by creating the two lots it was actually creating three lots right there. She asked what was on the
other side of the road.
Mr. Edgerton stated that it was the residue.
Mr. Clark stated that there were two development lots, the residue and then the preservation tract.
Ms. Higgins stated that was four.
Mr. Cannon asked if it was built on the residue initially.
Mr. Clark stated that staff has not tied that down entirely. Theoretically, they could put one house on it, but that would limit
the options for each development.
Ms. Higgins noted that their wording just does not agree with that.
Ms. Joseph stated that they were not doing the ordinance language right now, but just concepts. That is something that
has to be figured out if they agree that four makes sense or the way that it is working out right now.
Ms. Higgins stated that would be three in ten years excluding the preservation area.
Ms. McDowell stated right, but that they were looking at what they would exempt.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - MARCH 14, 2006
DRAFT MINUTES - ZTA-2005-05 PHASING AND CLUSTERING, RA DISTRICT
2
Ms. Higgins noted that their description says two except the preservation area. But, they are looking at an example that
has three except the preservation area. Someone could put a house situated so that could be divided off.
Ms. McDowell stated that might not be the best thing to link it to.
.r. Clark agreed that there were three new lots along with what is left from the original.
Ms. Joseph stated that lot actually has development rights and that was where the rights would say.
Mr. Clark agreed that is where the development rights stay until the next phase comes through.
Mr. Edgerton stated that they would now be accessing three residences from a state road. Therefore, they would have to
build the road accordingly.
Mr. Clark suggested that they might have to rewrite the road regulations to deal with those kinds of situations to make
sure that they are not forcing people into building more road than is necessary to be built. If they had built the two lots
right on the road, then there would a very short driveway. But, that is part of what they have to contemplate once they get
to the details.
Ms. Higgins asked if both parcels were greater than two acres and they had said two acres with the possibility of going to
three if need be, but to keep it at two acres maximum.
Mr. Clark noted that both parcels were two acres. Years later with the next phase there will be two more lots. Then ten
years after that they would have six lots of roughly twelve acres. The division is then complete. Staff realized after doing
this that the adjacent conservation easement is on an existing RPD, which was done several years ago. These lots are
the development lots in the current pattern of RPD's and range from three to ten acres. Whereas, what you see here is a
pattern with a maximum of two acres. He continued on to the second example, which was a parcel of about 228 acres.
But, in their theoretical example they said that perhaps it was three parcels of record. There were three pieces of 78
acres, 66 acres and 83 acres, which had a total of 23 total development or division rights. Once again, they did the
resource conservation plan first and figure out what they were trying to protect. One thing that is not shown here is the list
.f high quality soils in the Comp Plan. Those soils cover the entire parcel. It is not shown, but it needs to be noted that it
there. The transparent green covers 80 percent of the parcel, which are high quality agricultural soils. The creek and
floodplain feed down to the water supply tributary. The orange areas are critical slopes. These are all things that are
found in their current RPD design standards to protect or to stay away from. The cross hatched area is some data from
the State Department of Forestry, which analyzed patches of forest in the County and tried to figure out what constitutes a
contiguous piece for conservation purposes. They are trying to use that as another factor in designing the way the
development should go. For their purposes this area is considered one forest patch. So it is a little challenging because
of the location of the state road. The obvious area to develop is the already clear section. But, there is not enough room
there for 22 two acre lots. So this is an example where the choices are not clear cut and they would have to give up
something. In hopes of staying away from the floodplain and the water supply tributary staff thought if they had to lose
part of that forest the general landscape theology tells you to take it off of the edges and up the middle. So instead of
taking it there staff said that this dashed line is designated as the development area and they would take a part of the
forest patch from the end. That would have less impact overall. This is day one with three parcels of record, each having
two lots in the first phase for a total of six lots and three lots would be parent parcels grouped together within this
development area. It is about 50 acres, which could have roughly 44 lots. Again, there is a little extra in there for
possibility. All six of those development lots from the three parent parcels come with the first division, as well as the
remaining tract. In this case it is about 184 acres.
Ms. Higgins stated that if they can only do two in ten years, then how do they do six lots?
Mr. Clark stated that they could do two lots from each of the parent parcels.
Mr. Strucko asked if was for a single owner for three distinct parcels.
Mr. Clark stated that it was for a single application.
Ms. McDowell pointed out that the owners could be combined.
ar. Edgerton asked if they were talking about another six lots ten years later, and Ms. McDowell stated that was correct.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - MARCH 14, 2006
DRAFT MINUTES - ZTA-2005-05 PHASING AND CLUSTERING, RA DISTRICT
3
Mr. Craddock stated that since it was three parcels Jhey could put a house on each of the parcels of preservation so that
the parcel to the left, upper top and the residue that is not in that development area of parcel C.
Mr. Clark stated that the assumption was that the regulations would call for a single preservation tract. So all 23 parcels
total from all three parent parcels and they were assuming that 22 of those 23 lots needed to go in this area. That i:
something to be discussed.
Mr. Craddock stated that in the previous example he had one parcel and got a preservation house and three parcels. So
why couldn't these owners have one on each.
Ms. McDowell stated that they could develop the parcels separately, but in this hypothetical they decided to use what they
see over time with RPD's, which was multiple parcels and show that you could still get your preservation parcel with the
two lots from the phasing altogether. It is their choice to combine them if they have separate parcels or just have one
parent parcel.
Mr. Cilimberg stated that he would imagine if they had three separate owners and they were combining parcels that they
would protect their interest in combining them to make sure no one was getting an advantage over the other. That is a
private matter. The scenario that might occur is that they could have three different parcels that already have a house on
them in this example. So what you could move into the cluster would be less than the total rights. He asked if that was
correct in trying to create one cluster and preserve a tract that has those houses that were originally in existence, then
they were potentially transferring less to a cluster.
Ms. Higgins stated that if A, Band C had three different owners with three different preservation tracts that the
Commission in #14 was trying to create a way to make contiguous preservation area if three different owners came in
over different one year periods. They want a way so that the parcels they create somehow relate to one another so that
there is contiguous preservation area. This is a pure example by putting two whole parcels into the preservation tract.
But, if those lots had to stay with that parent parcel, it would be interesting to see if it was possible to do. That is the part
that she was having trouble with on the implementation. If two, two and two had to be spread out with the road with the
long distance to get to it, how do they make it workable? It is almost like it could be done here.
Ms. Joseph stated what she heard Ms. Higgins say is that suppose everybody comes in how do they encourage them all
to cluster in one place.
Ms. Higgins stated that #14 was to say how do we get contiguous conservation areas and how do we get them to relate to
each other if it was done over several years. She liked the idea of mixing some of the forest in because actually by
putting all of the houses in that open field they were going in the other direction of taking away good farmable land.
Ms. McDowell pointed out that was why at the beginning they had to look at what to protect. The first example shows you
that preservation tract was next to an existing preservation tract. So you do put those together. That is part of what staff
would look at.
Ms. Higgins felt that the first example was going to be very typical and is a terrible example of what will happen. It will be
these little two acre sliced up things jammed together.
Ms. McDowell stated that this could be an advantage to somebody that has more than one parcel or multiple owners
because their infrastructure costs are far less than if they divided it individually.
Ms. Higgins asked if staff had any idea if these are three different owners and they came in one this year and one next
year, what would staff be looking at or what would be most important. She felt that they might see more of that than three
owners that are the same.
Mr. Clark felt that this was a bad example to try to do that from because first of all three parcels are fictional and may be
developable. If staff received an actual application that looks like this with a 228 parcel and then they hand us a
determination that say by the way this is actual three parcels. He pointed out that only this one piece has road access.
Those other two, even though they were separate clusters, would be difficult because it is landlocked.
Ms. Higgins noted that it has a private road on the upper end.
Mr. Clark noted that there was only one public road.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - MARCH 14, 2006
DRAFT MINUTES - ZTA-2005-05 PHASING AND CLUSTERING, RA DISTRICT
4
Mr. Strucko stated that the first applicant would set the tone for subsequent applicants. But, staff would try to make the
preservation tracts contiguous depending upon the first application.
Ms. Joseph felt that one of the questions that staff asks in here is if they want to rate any of these staff reviews. Do they
.ant to rate the floodplain, critical slopes and do a number system; or, do they want to do it on site specific. They would
ook and see what the important attributes of each site is and what it is surrounded by.
Ms. Higgins stated that as they develop the ordinance that is a good discussion. She agreed with Ms. Joseph, but she
was just trying to get some feedback on if it would make more sense to let that dominate or let other issues dominate.
Which one is going to work out?
Mr. Edgerton stated that he had another issue. In the second scenario where they have 22 ultimate lots he could not help
but look at this and wonder about valuable it would be to somehow incorporate in the adjustment of the ordinance some
layout of how all 22 lots may be developed some day.
Ms. Higgins suggested that was the part about the vesting. Once someone does this they have to actually show how they
can get all of the lots.
Mr. Edgerton stated that it might be a vesting thing, but it is a little worrisome if you put in one road and then come up with
six lots that will be served by that road. There are couple examples of this coming up later in the meeting tonight where
they talk about how important that is. He asked when staff worked out the additional acreage if he just did it mathematical
when he chopped off part of the forest area.
Mr. Clark stated that staff was assuming that the applicants are going to have to figure out pretty close where that ultimate
build out is going to be.
Mr. Edgerton suggested that they may need to incorporate something in the language of the proposed ordinance change
that would mandate that exercise so they don't end up with something that does not work down the road. Even though it
might work mathematically, it might not work on the site.
.r. Cannon stated that the lots would need to be buildable.
Mr. Edgerton agreed. If they have combined all of these and are trying to put all 22 development rights into that one area,
they need to make sure that it is going to work.
Ms. Higgins noted that they also had the groundwater study and all of the additional conditions they have gone through to
make sure the land can support a certain number of lots. But, if they are only approving six lots she asked if that could
get into the vesting of the others.
Mr. Kamptner stated that they would get to that issue. But, the way they envisioned it in looking at vested rights and
related issues would be that the preliminary plat would show the full build out of the property and from that point on with
the final plats for the first four lots and then each two that come in every ten years those are really like phased final plats
for each subsequent phase of the development of the property.
Ms. Higgins noted that they would have to meet the road standards for the ultimate number of lots on a single road.
Mr. Kamptner stated that it has already been established that the initial plat will require a public road standard.
Mr. Edgerton stated that would occur when it gets above 2 lots.
Ms. Higgins pointed out that there were categories within that, too.
Mr. Kamptner stated that they don't know if an owner desires to fully develop their property. There are a lot of intangibles.
Mr. Edgerton stated that from a planning perspective it was going to be very hard to evaluate this.
Mr. Kamptner stated that the plats could be amended over time and standards will change. It may be that once they
eaCh a certain number of phased plats that the road will have to be upgraded once you pass a certain threshold.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - MARCH 14, 2006
DRAFT MINUTES - ZTA-2005-05 PHASING AND CLUSTERING, RA DISTRICT
5
Ms. McDowell stated that they wanted to show in particular that it would just be available land that will be there for
development.
Mr. Cannon stated that there are natural features that cross parcel boundaries that would need to be taken into account
by staff in their review.
Ms. McDowell pointed out that they could only combine if they phase. It is a figure of a carrot because they would be
building fewer infrastructures and still getting their phasing and the lots.
Ms. Higgins stated that with phasing they would have to build more infrastructure than the particular phase you might be
developing. She felt that was going to be the rough thing to figure out to make it work. She asked if they were not
considering forwarding this to the Board as clustering with all the Commissioners being in favor of it since they all know
that it has worked. It is a proven tool. Then they have phasing, which again, it is a good slow down took. Are they only
going to forward it as a combined thing. The only reason she was bringing this up was that she was trying to think of the
success of the final adoption. Do they not look at it both ways? She asked if it could be done separately and also be done
together. She did not want to have a failure because of the implementation that they are not looking at. They are actually
forwarding a concept. She felt that they need to leave that avenue open and somehow say they all agree to this and this.
But, they are trying to make them work together. But, until they get to that point she did not want to regress because to go
back would be worse. She asked if there was a way to keep that option open.
Ms. Joseph asked specifically what she wanted to leave open.
Ms. Higgins stated that the options were of clustering, time delay phasing and then doing both together. Is there a way to
keep an option open so if the Board so chooses due to the issues that might be raised.
Ms. Joseph felt that is a discussion that the Commission can have after they have heard about the vesting. They are not
quite there yet. She felt that is a big piece of it that was in everybody's mind; and, therefore requires this preliminary plat
that shows the parcel that keeps the development rights.
Mr. Kamptner stated that it was the residue of the parent parcel.
Ms. Joseph asked if there were any more questions on this issue. There being none, she stated that they would move 0,
to Mr. Kamptner's discussion on vesting.
Mr. Kamptner made the following presentation on vested rights.
. He stated that vested rights are very complicated. It is made even more complicated here because they have
looked at it under our current regulations on what would probably have to happen once they get into a phased
cluster subdivision program. He wanted to start from the beginning on what vested rights are. Conceptually for
those who are familiar with zoning and the idea of nonconforming uses, in that scenario they have an existing use
and the zoning regulations change after that use is established and that use/structure or lot becomes
nonconforming. So it is no longer in compliance with the newly adopted zoning regulations, but it is allowed to
continue. Vested rights is the corollary to nonconforming uses in that it is the particular approved project and the
use or structure has not been established yet. But, it is so far along in the process that when that zoning
ordinance regulation is changed out of fundamental fairness that right has vested to the point where that use
should be allowed to be established. So when they are talking about vesting rights in the context of this kind of
program they are talking about approved preliminary plats and subdivision plats and the rights that are attached to
develop the project according to that plat recognizing that over the next 10, 20 or 100 years as these phased
subdivisions may take to be fully developed the zoning regulations will change.
. So how are vested rights established? There are three factors that have to exist.
o There has to be a significant governmental act. Both the approval of a preliminary subdivision plat and of
a final subdivision plat are significant governmental acts. That has been established by statute and is
actually in the Code. Several years ago the General Assembly stepped in and replaced the body of case
law that it developed and listed a number of types of approvals that are significant governmental acts.
o The second factor is good faith reliance on that approval. So the developer gets the plat approved.
Based on that approval the developer goes out and starts hiring engineers, contractors and things like
that to work towards the completion of the project.
o The third factor is that the developer needs to incur extensive obligations for substantial expenses j
diligent pursuit of the approval. So as example in the approval of a preliminary subdivision plat, it has a
period of validity for five years. Within that time the owner needs to submit a final subdivision plat within
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - MARCH 14,2006
DRAFT MINUTES - ZTA-2005-05 PHASING AND CLUSTERING, RA DISTRICT
6
the first year after it is approved. Ultimately, if they submit the final plat at the first anniversary, then there
are four more years to get that approved. They are at least assured the validity of the preliminary plat for
the full five year period by submitting the final plat. So in merely jumping from the preliminary to the final
plat stage you can vest your right to develop under the approved preliminary plat.
.s. Higgins asked what the category cost of substantial is because it could be substantial for just a preliminary plat if
someone had to survey 228 acres and do all of the evaluations.
Mr. Kamptner stated that there were no bright line tests. There has only been one case that has looked at this issue since
the law was adopted several years ago. In that case it was a large project and the developer had spent almost $200,000.
Under current regulations that is the laws that apply to preliminary plats. It is valid for up to five years. Therefore, vested
rights can last for that five year period. The law also allows localities to extend that period for a longer period of time.
One thing that they have included in our memo that the Board may want to consider is whether or not that life of the
preliminary plat provided that the applicant keeps coming in at regular intervals should be vested for the entire life of the
project until it is fully developed. That is something that they will have to study some more. But, that would insulate that
development of the parcel from any zoning changes until the project is fully developed. That is something that will have to
be considered. The flip side is that if the County stuck with just the laws that currently exists with the five year period and
the five year vested life of a preliminary plat it really is just going to be the first phase that is going to be guaranteed of
coming in under the approved preliminary plat. It is not subject to any changes of the zoning ordinance. Any subsequent
phases will be outside of that five year envelope.
Mr. Edgerton stated that they would need to make sure that long range plan does not have the word preliminary on it.
Mr. Kamptner stated that as final plats do come in what is vested with those final plats. A final plat is approved and then
recorded. It has a period of validity and the developer is allowed to develop as that final plat was approved. As long as
the extensive obligations or substantial expenses have been made they are allowed to do it. It is vested only as to that
particular phase. So later phases, unless the life of the preliminary plat is continued, there is no guarantee for these
subsequent phases.
Ms. Higgins asked if that is the case unless they have meet 1, 2 and 3. If they did come in and they had an affirmative
eovernment action on the preliminary and they relied on it in good faith and spent an extensive amount of money, then
oes that trump what he is saying that it expires?
Mr. Kamptner stated no, because the approval has to still be in effect so that the preliminary plat is in effect only for its five
year life. So even if extensive obligations have been made the preliminary plat after five years expires. So there is no
significant governmental act after that time. That is why fairness may dictate that they extend the life of the preliminary
plat. One of the key issues for the vesting analysis is always whether or not the owner has actually incurred extensive
obligations or substantial expenses. In the typical situation in the conventional development in a cluster development not
looking at the ten year phasing that they are dealing with here those criteria would be met probably with the very first
phase. It would be the initial final plat that would require sufficient infrastructure, if not all of it. That would lead to the
vesting.
Ms. Joseph asked if they were actually building the road to vest it.
Mr. Kamptner stated most likely yes.
Ms. Higgins stated that ultimately you would have 20 lots and would have to do a 20 lot subdivision road and all of those
standards you go out and build it. Then you just do your phase. Then you come in during subsequent years and you are
basically vested for those lots and no one could ever take them away if the ordinance changed 25 years from now.
Mr. Kamptner stated that it depends on where you are in the process. They would be vested as to what they have platted
up to that point unless the life of the preliminary plat has been extended.
Ms. Higgins stated that if you built a road to serve 20 or 30 lots and then the rules changed and may be some day in the
future the County says they are going to take division rights away and someone already built a lot for 30 lots how could
you take the lots away. That is the vesting she was trying to consider.
~r. Kamptner stated that it is because the significant governmental act is no longer there. So that first criteria disappears.
~i,e way the law is set up right now it envisions that a phased subdivision will be platted within five years. So our analysis
has taken that approach. If you come in and have five phases for your project for a preliminary plat and come in on the
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - MARCH 14, 2006
DRAFT MINUTES - ZTA-2005-05 PHASING AND CLUSTERING. RA DISTRICT
7
first anniversary and get your first final plat approved. Then you build your roads for your c1usterdevelopment. Then you
come back in year two and the zoning ordinances have changed, he felt that they would probably find that you had vested
because the first plat or the infrastructure that went in was the significant substantial expense. So you vested that
preliminary plat. In year two, three, four and five you come in with another phase. By the time the preliminary plat is goinp
to expire you have fully developed. Once they start extending this period out to 20, 30, 40, or 50 years the analysi.
changes. The concepts of fairness trickles in and the validity of the preliminary plat may need to be extended as well
because the owner with the first phase has made a commitment to put in this infrastructure and has relied on that
preliminary approval. That is something that staff will need to look at in the next few months.
Ms. Joseph stated that it is possible that you may vest with the preliminary plat if you show good faith as you move
forward with the road. It is not a guarantee that this will lock up this particular design.
Mr. Kamptner stated that the plat for the first phase under a phased cluster program is just an academic vesting because
they are only vesting for that five year period. Once the next phase comes in they would no longer have that.
Mr. Cilimberg pointed out that they would have a new preliminary.
Ms. Higgins felt that would be a nightmare to process and to deal with because as years go by the floodplain could
change. It could be very interesting.
Ms. McDowell stated that staff only anticipates that the road would only go as far as each phase allows an extra lot.
Mr. Edgerton stated that if it was ultimately going to serve 20 lots and you are anticipating that, then at a minimum you
have to have a right-of-way to expand it to deal with that later.
Ms. McDowell stated that you need to know where it is going to go.
Ms. Higgins pointed out that to design that road was another expense.
Mr. Cannon asked if there was any legal barrier in extending the time period in which the preliminary plat would be valid.
Mr. Kamptner replied no, that the Virginia Code allows localities to extend it. Our ordinance right now allows us to extent.
us to do it on a case by case basis depending on some factors.
Mr. Cannon asked if a generic amendment applicable to these clustered subdivision, and Mr. Kamptner replied that he
thought they could do that.
Ms. Joseph asked if they could do it without changing the language as it stands right now.
Mr. Kamptner replied no that they would change the ordinance to specify a period because right now it is allowed on a
case by case basis.
Ms. Joseph stated that Ms. Higgins had an important question. There are three issues being the clustering, phasing and
then phasing and clustering. Also, there are the issues of family subdivision and public input.
Ms. Higgins asked there were two viable options and then they were looking at them in a joint sense. They have looked
at some simplistic things. As they are getting into the implementation and all of the issues that are in the staff report, and
she has another list of implementation issues, should they keep it that as they get public input that they get the public
input on clustering, on phasing and on joining them together. She opposed just throwing it out there to get so much
negative that they have to go back and look at it.
Ms. Joseph reiterated that she was saying that they should get comments on clustering, phasing and then on joining
them. She asked if anybody else had any other thoughts on that.
Ms. Monteith stated that if the intention is to combine them, then she was not sure what they would do with the comments
that are separated. It is complex.
Ms. Joseph agreed that it is complex. They always say that they want the public people to feel as though they have a sa:
in the process.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - MARCH 14, 2006
DRAFT MINUTES - ZTA-2005-05 PHASING AND CLUSTERING, RA DISTRICT
8
Mr. Edgerton stated that it was a danger in keeping them separate. They are going to work entirely differently if they
address the issues separately. If you just look at clustering and put your blinders on and don't look at phasing, then you
have one scenario of how a piece of land will develop. If you combine the clustering with the phasing, regardless of
whether our draft is the right number of years, then that changes the whole formula. He felt that they could not be
eiscussed separately and then somehow try to combine them later.
Ms. Higgins stated that they would have them on an equal basis. They started out with clustering and phasing
individually, but now they are looking at them together.
Mr. Edgerton suggested that they look at the two examples. If you look at these as clustering, that is pretty simple. That
simplifies you vesting issues and they don't get into any conflict with the five year vesting versus the ten year that they are
talking about.
Ms. Higgins noted that they do it now and it is in the ordinance in a basis form now.
Mr. Edgerton agreed that they have clustering, but he was not sure if they were accomplishing much of anything if they
just look at clustering. Basically, they would be keeping it the way it is right now.
Ms. Joseph felt that there were aspects of this particular clustering that they were being asked to consider that were
different from what they do now.
Ms. McDowell noted that the biggest change is the minimum two acre lot now and they have switched that to a maximum.
They saw a huge difference in the amount of residential that would be used. She agreed that it was a much simpler task.
That is kind of the way staff phrased it in the staff report. It says that you looked at phasing and then clustering, and now
tonight they are looking at phasing and clustering together to see if the Commission likes that.
Ms. Higgins asked why they should eliminate the opportunity for public input on the three levels saying that they are
considering them all equally and that there are pros and cons to all of them.
Mr. Strucko stated that he feared that it might be misleading to the public if they look at them individually and separately.
_he reality of it is that they are considering a rural area policy that has these things combined being rural area clustering
nd phasing. That is what the public needs to comment on it. That is the rural area clustering with phasing. To discuss
them separately may cause more confusion. It may be a little misleading. Someone may comment in a vacuum and he
was concerned about that. The public needs to understand that they are considering a broad policy. It is not just
individual tools. But, they are considering rural area clustering with phasing. That is what they need the comments on. It
may run the risk of being misleading if they look at them individually.
Mr. Cannon pointed out that he was not seeing what the disagreement was here. It seems that conceptually they have
three alternatives, which includes clustering by itself, phasing by itself or both of them together. He felt that they were
focusing on the option of putting them together, which takes a lot of extra work. You can't just take phasing by itself and
clustering by itself and put them together and have them work in a program because they are special issues that arise
when you combine them. It seems that is where a lot of work has to be done specifically on a combined approach. But, it
is also an option and will remain an option to the Board of Supervisors to have clustering and phasing separately. He felt
that the public was free to comment on any of those options. But, the hard work towards our recommendation has to be
on how to do what you are actually going to get.
Ms. Higgins stated that all of the staff reports have shown it individually. Plus when the research was done on various
other counties she has not found one county that has successfully joined them. So she has not seen the ramifications on
how to implement this. The issue of fundamental fairness might be the stumbling block. She noted that her point is that
they were doing something that maybe that no other county has done. In addition she has not found one in any other
states. But, to go into it with a focus on that and not have it more workable and more open all three levels she felt that
they have made the leap and made the decision and left the public input out.
Mr. Edgerton stated that they did not do it in a vacuum. They did it because the County has asked us to come up with a
way to preserve the rural areas and end the sprawl into the rural areas. He felt that Mr. Strucko put it very well in that the
public certainly will have the opportunity to speak up. It is not going to take much public discussion for the complexity of
these issues to start making that dialogue a very vital one and an important one. But, they need to remember why they
ee doing this in the first place. They are not doing this just to do an exercise to parallel some other county's experience.
hey are trying to do something that has never been done. They are trying to preserve the rural areas.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - MARCH 14, 2006
DRAFT MINUTES - ZTA-2005-05 PHASING AND CLUSTERING, RA DISTRICT
9
Ms. Monteith suggested that it was partially how they present it. Maybe they present it in such a way that you start with
what the premise was and why they went into this exercise. Then that it seems from analysis that using the two tools
together is probably the best approach.
Ms. Higgins questioned whether it was the best approach.
Ms. Monteith stated that she was speaking in a one minute thought here. But, the schematics can be doctored or
changed or adjusted later. She was just trying to put a concept out there because a lot of times it is the way that you talk
about something or the order that you present it in. She noted that her only concern was about understandability in that it
would be presented in such a way that it is not so complex that people just glaze over it and can't understand and become
confused.
Ms. Joseph asked staff to remind the Commission about why they were here.
Ms. McDowell stated that they started with the guiding principles and the visions in the Comprehensive Plan. They talked
a little about this last time. The guiding principles want them to look at natural resources, historic resources and scenic
resources together as important components. The Board had us take out the word "equal," but they are all listed. There
were months of discussion on that and what to add and what not to have in these important components in what makes
up the rural area. When they started talking about land uses in the rural area there was quite a discussion about the
benefits of clustering. As you recall, they were told not to go down the road towards diffusing development. That was off
the table. They were not to down zone the rural areas. So they talked about other tools to be used. Clustering was one of
those tools. It does not do anything to change the number of lots. It just combines and addressing some forms of
development. Another took is phasing. That would address the rate of development. Nothing changes as far as the
ultimate build out. So they were not tackling the density in the rural areas. They are attaching the sprawl in the rural area
and the rate of growth. There was quite a discussion about mandating clustering and providing the phasing. There was
some opposition on the Commission at that time. There were one or two Commissioners that had some concerns about
it. But, the majority of the Commission said that this is what we want to develop policies on and the devil is in the details
later when they do this. So when they started doing the staff report on phasing and clustering and that is the
implementation that the board decided on. They will do phasing first and then clustering. Then clustering was moved up
to be equal with phasing about a year ago. Now they are looking at phasing and clustering and family divisions all at
once.
Ms. Joseph reminded the Commission that yes they do have cluster development, but it is not required.
Mr. Edgerton noted that it was not by right either.
Ms. Higgins stated that the form was not good. She noted that fewer than 20 lots are by right and over 20 lots have been
taken off the table.
Ms. Joseph stated that they were looking here at requiring phasing. It is the only kind of subdivision that would be allowed
in the rural area.
Ms. McDowell stated that it would be except for family divisions. The Commission talked about large lots. For example
with 100 acres divided in half they think that the merits or the pros and cons in doing that and the Commission decided
that should be taken off the table because it was more important to address the form of development and preservation
tracts.
Ms. Higgins asked that they just not say that it is the only thing that they are putting out there.
Mr. Craddock stated that Ms. McDowell was correct in her recollection of where they have come from on this. On the
clustering he had just looked at this as more of a refinement of something that we had put out there already. The
phrasing is because 80 percent of the survey said to keep the rural areas rural. Short of taking development rights, if
somebody has a better way than phasing it is still going to fill the bucket, but it fills it a little bit slower than what it can be
done now. He felt that to make this work it has got to go hand in hand unless somebody has something better. That is
where some good public debate would come into effect because then it could come out what everybody likes about it or
doesn't like about it. Then the Commission can work on it some more.
Ms. Joseph stated that she had heard from Mr. Edgerton, Mr. Strucko and Mr. Craddock that they would really like to g
out with phasing and clustering combined. She heard from Mr. Cannon that they would get the public comment on eac.
of these issues anyway.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - MARCH 14, 2006
DRAFT MINUTES - ZTA-2005-05 PHASING AND CLUSTERING, RA DISTRICT
10
Mr. Morris stated that there were three areas that they were going to look, which included phasing, clustering and what
they would really like to do where possible is combine them. There is always that possibility either/or.
.s. Joseph stated that it sound like the Commission is split on this. She noted that Ms. Higgins, Mr. Morris and Mr.
Cannon felt that public input should be received for each individual issue separately on phasing, clustering and the
possibility of either/or of combing phasing and clustering. They felt that the combination should not be the only thing that
they are putting out for public discussion. She asked what the Commission wanted to tell the Board that they would like
the public to debate.
Mr. Morris stated that he would like input on all three issues.
Mr. Cannon stated that when an agency goes out for public comment on a policy decision they typically put forth a
proposal and then identifies some alternatives. Then they get comments on all of them. Then they take those comments
back. It seems that the proposal would be some combined version of phasing and clustering and may be revisions to
family subdivision along with it. That would be the proposal that they would be working towards and they want to hear
public comment on the proposal. But, there are obvious alternatives to that proposal. One is doing nothing; another is
doing one or the other of those things, or doing something entirely different. He did not see why it had to be a big issue
about they were going to hear from the public about. They can hear from the public about the whole range of things still
understanding what they are putting forward and where they are going right now and what they hear from the public is the
combined form.
Mr. Cilimberg noted that the practical aspect of anything that they have ever put out is they put out what they think is the
best "strawman" so to speak. That is what people will respond to. They are not going to limit their comments to either yes
or no on the "strawman." They are going to comment what they feel are good and bad attributes of the "strawman" and
any alternatives that they think would work better. He imagined that they would hear a lot about what people are
concerned about without phasing whether it is part of clustering or not part of clustering. So he thought that their
"strawman" is the combination. The comments will come in all over the place. The one thing that he wanted to note about
phasing, and they kind of called the Board's attention to this, is our view of it is that it would slow down the rate the
subdivision activity occurring. You will probably not see a big change in building permit activity. The reality is that 250 to
al300 building permits just having clustering and phasing as combined or separately is not going to have a huge impact on
~at because there is so much out there that people can build on at least for some period of time. That is where the
development areas play the biggest role in their ability to attract more of the development.
Ms. Higgins stated that the timing is perfect because the supply is up.
Mr. Edgerton felt that they needed a lot of public input. He stressed what Ms. Monteith said about the importance of the
presentation. This has been such a long drawn out process and the public is going to forget why this is even coming up.
He felt that it is important that in the overview to the public that they be reminded why they are even having this
discussion. There is a lot of history. They need to point out the many years that several Boards have been trying to figure
out a way to slow down the growth in the rural areas and all of the exercises that we have gone through to do that. They
keep hearing these survey numbers that are overwhelming. He felt that they need to stay focused on that unless the
public opinion has changed, which they will hear about if it has.
Ms. Higgins reiterated that it seems that they seem so focus that sometimes it appears like they have made the decision.
She felt that the jury is out and she wanted the public to get that message.
Ms. Joseph stated as they go around everybody is still grappling with how this is going to work. She stated that don't
have the specifics and they need to hear from people on what they are thinking and what are their concerns in that regard.
The last thing they have to consider is option one and option two of the process.
Mr. Edgerton preferred option one because it allows for a lot of public input and the public wants to be involved. Option
one would allow the public four opportunities for input in work sessions and public hearings. They would urge the public
to come and discuss it.
Ms. Higgins asked if they were skipping over the stakeholders' meeting.
.s. Joseph stated that they were assuming that the stakeholders would show up at the meetings. It was open for
veryone. Certainly the stakeholders will be contacted and given whatever staff reports and whatever.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - MARCH 14, 2006
DRAFT MINUTES - ZTA-2005-05 PHASING AND CLUSTERING, RA DISTRICT
11
Ms. Higgins pointed out that the rural areas do not have a neighborhood to call on. They don't have people that have a lot
of communication. She hoped that they could find ways to stipulate this because the rural area is the biggest land area of
the County and there is no notifying neighborhood. She questioned how they would get the information out.
Ms. Joseph felt that staff had been very effective in working with the rural area Comp Plan and had a lot of people come.
Ms. McDowell stated that they had a focus group. It is hard in the rural areas to identify the stakeholders because in the
development areas it is quite naturally the development community that identifies itself. But, staff does not identify them.
Every land owner in the rural areas is a stake holder. Every land owner in the development is also a stake holder in this
discussion.
Mr. Edgerton stated that the 85 percent does not entirely live in the rural areas.
Ms. Higgins asked where the focus group was now.
Ms. McDowell stated that the focus group worked with staff to develop the Comprehensive Plan. So they have not met
with them. In fact, they don't all live here anymore. She meets with a lot of those members in the Mountain Overlay
District. So it is not like staff has lost touch.
Mr. Cilimberg stated that was something that the Board would have to decide on whether they wanted to include a focus
group. But, that is not what is being proposed in option one per say.
Ms. Joseph agreed that it was not in option one, but option two talks about a round table discussion.
Ms. McDowell noted that they would have to identify certain groups like the Farm Bureau.
Ms. Joseph noted that when they have a round table it does not mean that people will show up. When they have a public
hearing she felt that more people would show up because they know it is more official than just talking to staff about some
of the issues.
Ms. McDowell pointed out that she would get with Lee Catlin about the best way to notify the public.
Ms. Higgins stated that they were recommending using focus groups on the Comp Plan amendment on the rural areas,
but they leave the focus group out when they actually move forward.
Ms. Joseph stated no, that they would be included and would just be invited.
Mr. Morris felt that they need public input as everyone has said. He liked the way it was laid out in option one.
Mr. Craddock stated that the focus group did what they were supposed to do. They were supposed to focus a short lived
group. They did their thing and now it is time to move on with option one. If the Board did like what they heard at the very
end at e), then they could put f) to start all over again. He pointed out that would be just like the Mountaintop discussions
that started all over again.
Mr. Cannon stated that he would be happy to go with option one.
Ms. Higgins stated that they could go with option one because it was not much different.
Ms. Joseph stated that it was the consensus of the Commission to go with option one for public input. The next issue is
about family division.
Ms. Higgins asked that the Commission vote on this issue. She pulled out tbe April 6, 2004 staff report attachment about
family subdivision research. She could not find the attachment. But, the one sheet was basically presented by David
Benish. In that research by David Benish said they had no known cases of abuse of family division rights in Albemarle
County. She believed that Mr. Kamptner confirmed that no one has ever been prosecuted or they have never had a
violation.
Mr. Kamptner stated that they have never had a subdivision violation based on family division.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - MARCH 14, 2006
DRAFT MINUTES - ZTA-2005-05 PHASING AND CLUSTERING, RA DISTRICT
12
Ms. Higgins stated that they have not had any subdivision violation with the existing rules on family subdivision. So with
those two things known, they have jumped to the two extremes. One is to extend the time frame to five years, which she
really has no problem with. But, they were adding this five year pre-ownership, which they have no basis that there has
ever been a violation in the history of the County. She was not sure how they jumped to that. When she looked at the
~ther counties they did not have any pre-holding requirements. In view of fairness, she a problem after some of the
Wf,eople she had talked with that if someone moves into the area or buys the farm next and has two teenaged son and
wants to do a family subdivision what makes that person less able to do it because they have not owned their land five
years. So after that extensive research and going back to her previous files to see where the violations were she could
not support the five year pre-ownership. But, she could support going from the two to five years because she did not think
there was any abuse. But, she shuttered to think that nobody has told them what the violation would entail and who would
be punished so to speak. They are setting themselves up for potentially enforcement issues and nobody is abusing it that
they can prove.
Mr. Edgerton pointed out that just because it has not been taken to court does not mean that it had not been abused.
Ms. Higgins stated that they had no violation on record in the County.
Ms. McDowell recalled that they had talked about this at a previous meeting that staff really does not have the tracking
mechanisms to know because if it is a family member, especially with a different last name, they cannot track it. Staff does
not know if it a member of the family or not. Staff has not been tracking them either.
Mr. Cilimberg stated that this was somewhat like phasing and clustering together in that they were almost putting out what
you consider to be the most potentially restrictive approach. They were going to get the feedback from people on whether
they feel that it should require pre-ownership for any period of time before and how long you should require ownership
once you have done the division. In some way, you are not deciding whether you are going to go five and five. They are
deciding whether that is the approach they are going to take to get public input.
Ms. Higgins felt that it was not the same because they could not justify what they are putting out there. They could not
say that it is better or say that they are solving a problem. They can't say that they have violations that they need to stop.
They have absolutely no justification.
.r. Benish stated that one of the reasons staff brought this issue up was that when they changed the landscape of how
they control development potentially with phasing family divisions could potentially go out to the ten year time frame. That
is not the requirement that they are living in right now. So they don't have violations, but with phasing there is a potential
for family divisions to become a loophole.
Ms. Higgins suggested that they explain that because that is the first time that she had heard that comment.
Ms. Monteith felt that they could look at areas that are 10 to 20 years ahead of us such as was indicated in an article
about Prince Williams County.
Mr. Kamptner felt that article stated that Prince Williams County has the five year pre-division holding period. They could
learn from them about what problems they were trying to correct separate and apart from trying to close a potential
loophole in the phasing.
Ms. Higgins suggested that staff tell the Commission what would be done with a violation of a family division if it was
discovered. She had asked that question before and was told that we have not had one and no one has ever done
anything about them. What is the punishment? The person is gone that sold the land and they live out of state, what
happens?
Mr. Kamptner stated that one of the remedies is to vacate the plat. It is a harsh consequence.
Ms. Higgins asked for a vote because they have no justification historically to this point.
The consensus of the Planning Commission, with one dissenting vote, was to include a text amendment for Family
Division for a concurrent ZTA to extend the time of ownership to 5 years before and 5 years after the creation of a family
division. The dissenting vote (Ms. Higgins) was because there is no justification historically because there are no known
.iolations regarding family division in the County. A request was made that when this goes forward that the justification
e included with it.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - MARCH 14, 2006
DRAFT MINUTES - ZTA-2005-05 PHASING AND CLUSTERING, RA DISTRICT
13
In summary, a fourth work session on ZTA-2005-004 Phasing and Clustering, RA District was held by the Planning
Commission to discuss text amendment outlines for phrasing and clustering of development, family divisions, and two
public input options. Staff presented a PowerPoint presentation. (Attachment) The slides showed two examples of
proposed development on a combination of parcels and an individual parcel, which demonstrated the analysis criteria and
patterning impact of phasing and clustering. The Commission held a discussion with staff and provided the followin~
comments to be forwarded to the Board of Supervisors:
1. The Commission was split on consolidating the reviews/processes for Phasing, and Rural Clustering text
amendments; (Note: Craddock, Edgerton and Strucko supported going out for public input with phasing
and clustering combined. Higgins, Morris and Cannon felt that public input should be received for each
individual issue separately on phasing, clustering and the possibility of either/or of combining phasing and
clustering. They felt that the combination should not be the only thing that they are putting out for public
discussion.)
2. The consensus of the Planning Commission, with one dissenting vote, was to include a text amendment
for Family Division for a concurrent ZT A to extend the time of ownership to 5 years before and 5 years
after the creation of a family division. The dissenting vote was because there is no justification historically
because there are no known violations regarding family division in the County. A request was made that
when this goes forward that the justification be included with it.
3. The consensus of the Planning Commission was to use Option 1 for the public input process as outlined
in the staff report.
4. One Commissioner asked that in the overview to the public that they be reminded of why they were
having this discussion because there was a lot of history. The public needs to be reminded that several
Boards have been trying to figure out a way to slow down the growth in the Rural Areas.
5. It was asked that the public be made aware that the ordinance amendment has not already been written.
The Planning Commission recessed at 5:36 p.m, for a dinner break,
The meeting reconvened at 6:00 p.m.
(Transcribed by Sharon C. Taylor, Recording Secretary)
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - MARCH 14, 2006
DRAFT MINUTES - ZTA-2005-05 PHASING AND CLUSTERING, RA DISTRICT
14
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
Commission on Children and Families (CCF) Lease
AGENDA DATE:
April 12, 2006
ACTION:
INFORMATION:
SUBJECT/PROPOSAUREQUEST:
Authorizing Lease of County-Owned Office Space to
the Charlottesville-Albemarle Commission on
Children and Families (CCF)
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: X
INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS: Yes
REVIEWED BY:
~
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Tucker, White, Shadman, Davis, Herrick
LEGAL REVIEW: Yes
BACKGROUND:
With the purchase and renovation of the County Office Building-5th Street, the County government greatly expanded its
supply of available office space to meet future needs. However, at present, the County government is not using all of the
available office space at the County Office Building-5th Street. As a result, the County has looked to fill this current surplus
of office space with other agencies that serve the public. Specifically, County staff has made arrangements for the
Charlottesville-Albemarle Commission on Children and Families (CCF) and the local office of the Virginia Cooperative
Extension to be located in the surplus space at the County Office Building-5th Street.
STRATEGIC PLAN:
4.2: Fund County Services in a fair, efficient manner and provide needed public facilities and infrastructure.
DISCUSSION:
The Charlottesville-Albemarle Commission on Children and Families (CCF) is a 22-member planning and advisory body to
the City of Charlottesville and County of Albemarle. Citizen, community agency, local government, education, and university
leaders work to improve outcomes for local children and families. Until recently, CCF was housed in office space owned by
the City of Charlottesville near City Hall. However, with the opening of County Office Building-5th Street, CCF was eager to
upgrade both the size and quality of its office space.
Staff has prepared a proposed lease of 3,664 square feet of office space, as designated on an attached floor plan. The
lease would have a term of five years, beginning with CCF's initial occupancy of the space on October 25, 2004. The lease
may be renewed thereafter only by agreement of the parties. Rent would begin at $5.00 per square foot during the first year,
to meet CCF's current available funding, and would escalate annually, reaching the current market rate of $16.00 per square
foot in the fourth year. CCF is agreeable to all of the terms and conditions and has executed the lease subject to the
Board's approval.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends that the Board approve the rental of surplus space at the County Office Building-5th Street and authorize
the County Executive execute the lease on behalf of the County for this space,
ATTACHMENTS:
A - Lease Agreement
B - Floor Plan
06.047
AGREEMENT OF LEASE
THIS LEASE AGREEMENT is made as of March 22, 2006 by and between the
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA, Landlord, and the CHARLOTTESVILLE/
ALBEMARLE COMMISSION ON CHILDREN AND FAMILIES, Tenant.
ARTICLE I. PREMISES AND IMPROVEMENTS
In consideration of the rents and covenants herein set forth, Landlord hereby leases to
Tenant, and Tenant hereby rents from Landlord, the premises described on Exhibit A attached
hereto and made a part hereof together with any and all improvements thereon (the "Leased
Premises"). The Leased Premises shall be occupied by the Charlottesville/Albemarle
Commission on Children and Families.
ARTICLE II. TITLE: QUIET ENJOYMENT
So long as Tenant is not in default hereunder, Tenant shall have peaceful and quiet
enjoyment, use and possession of the Leased Premises without hindrance on the part of the
Landlord or anyone claiming by, through, or under Landlord.
ARTICLE III, TERM
Section 3.1, Commencement and Expiration, The term of this Lease shall commence on
October 25, 2004 (the "Date of Commencement") and shall expire October 24, 2009, All
references to the "term" of this Lease shall, unless the context indicates a different meaning, be
deemed to be a reference to the term described herein.
Section 3.2. Renewal. This Lease may be renewed for an additional period as may be
mutually agreed by the Landlord and Tenant. If renewal is not agreed upon by the Landlord and
Tenant, this Lease shall expire upon expiration of the initial term.
ARTICLE IV. RENT
Section 4.1. Annual Rent. Commencing upon the Date of Commencement, during the
first year of this Lease, Tenant agrees to pay to Landlord annual rent of $5.00 per gross square
foot, payable in equal monthly installments, in advance, on the first day of each month during the
term hereof. During the second year of this Lease, Tenant agrees to pay to Landlord annual rent
of $8.60 per gross square foot, payable in equal monthly installments, in advance, on the first day
of each month during the term hereof, During the third year of this Lease, Tenant agrees to pay
to Landlord annual rent of $12.00 per gross square foot, payable in equal monthly installments,
in advance, on the first day of each month during the term hereof. During the fourth year of this
Lease, Tenant agrees to pay to Landlord annual rent of $16,00 per gross square foot, payable in
equal monthly installments, in advance, on the first day of each month during the term hereof.
During the fifth year of this Lease, Tenant agrees to pay to Landlord annual rent of $18,00 per
gross square foot, payable in equal monthly installments, in advance, on the first day of each
month during the term hereof. Gross square feet shall be calculated within the perimeter of the
1
area to be used solely by the Charlottesville/Albemarle Commission on Children and Families.
After the fifth year of this Lease, the rent for any subsequent term of the Lease shall be
indexed for inflation and shall be calculated by first establishing a fraction, the numerator of
which shall be the level of the CPI Index (as defined herein) as of the first day of that month
which is two months before the month in which the Date of Commencement occurs in the
subsequent years, and the denominator of which shall be the level of the CPI Index as of the first
day of that month which is two months before the initial Date of Commencement. The resulting
fraction shall be multiplied by the rent agreed upon or established for the first year of the term of
the Lease to determine the annual rent due for the year. The rental figure shall be revised each
year based upon this formula. The CPI Index shall be the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics
Consumer Price Index (all items, all urban consumers, 1982-1984 = 100), If the CPI Index shall
be discontinued, Landlord shall designate an appropriate substitute index or formula having the
same general acceptance as to use and reliability as the CPI Index and such substitute shall be
used as if originally designated herein, Notwithstanding the foregoing, in no event shall the rent
due for any lease year decrease below the rent payable for the first year.
Section 4.2. Address for Rent Payment. All payments of rent due Landlord pursuant to
Section 4.1 shall be made to Landlord at the address specified in Section 15.3, or to such other
party or at such other address as hereinafter may be designated by Landlord by written notice
delivered to Tenant at least ten (10) days prior to the next ensuing monthly rental payment date,
ARTICLE V. UTILITIES AND SERVICES
Landlord shall provide water, sewer, electricity, heating and cooling, trash collection and
janitorial services at no additional cost to Tenant. Tenant shall provide telephone and all other
servIces,
ARTICLE VI. USE OF PROPERTY
Section 6.1. Permitted Use. Tenant shall have use of the Leased Premises for offices.
Tenant shall also have use of the lunchroom, restrooms, elevators and main entry corridors,
which areas will not be calculated in the gross square footage for rental purposes,
Section 6.2. Parking. Tenant shall be entitled to the use of parking spaces in the parking
lot and an access easement to the Leased Premises.
ARTICLE VII. AL TERA TIONS, IMPROVEMENTS, FIXTURES AND SIGNS
Section 7.1. Installation by Tenant.
(a) Tenant may, from time to time, make or cause to be made any interior non-structural
alterations, additions or improvements which do not damage or alter the Leased Premises,
provided that Landlord's consent shall have first been obtained in writing, and provided that
Tenant shall obtain all required governmental permits for such alterations, additions or
improvements,
2
(b) Tenant may, from time to time, make interior structural alterations, additions or
improvements, only with Landlord's prior 'written consent to plans and specifications therefor,
which consent shall not be unreasonably withheld. Upon the expiration or sooner termination of
this Lease, Landlord shall have the option (exercisable upon sixty (60) days notice to Tenant
except in the case of a termination of this Lease due to a default by Tenant, in which case no
such notice shall be required) to require Tenant to remove at Tenant's sole cost and expense any
and all improvements made by Tenant to the Leased Premises or to elect to keep such
improvement as Landlord's property. In the event Tenant is required to remove any
improvements, (i) Tenant shall be responsible for the repair of all damage caused by the
installation or removal thereof, and (ii) if Tenant fails to properly remove such improvements or
provide for the repair of the Leased Premises, Landlord may perform the same at Tenant's cost
and expense.
Section 7.2, Signs, Tenant shall have the right to place signs on the interior or exterior
of the Leased Premises with the prior written approval of Landlord.
ARTICLE VIII MAINTENANCE OF LEASED PREMISES
Section 8.1. Maintenance. Landlord shall be responsible for all repairs and maintenance
for the Leased Premises, whether ordinary or extraordinary, structural or non-structural, foreseen
or unforeseen, including, but not limited to, plumbing, heating, electrical, air conditioning, plate
glass and windows. Notwithstanding the foregoing, Tenant shall be responsible for all
maintenance and repairs necessitated by the negligence of Tenant, its employees and invitees.
Section 8.2, Surrender of Leased Premises. At the expiration of the tenancy hereby
created, Tenant shall surrender the Leased Premises and all keys for the Leased Premises to
Landlord at the place then fixed for the payment of rent and shall inform Landlord of all
combinations on locks, safes and vaults, it any, which Landlord has granted permission to have
left in the Leased Premises. At such time, the Leased Premises shall be broom clean and in good
condition and repair, commensurate with its age. If Tenant leaves any of Tenant's personal
property in the Leased Premises, Landlord, at its option, may remove and store any or all of such
property at Tenant's expense or may deem the same abandoned and, in such event, the property
deemed abandoned shall become the property of Landlord,
ARTICLE IX. INSURANCE
Section 9,1. Liabilitv Insurance of Tenant. Tenant covenants and agrees that it will, at
all times during the term of this Lease, keep in full force and effect a policy of public liability
and property damage insurance with respect to the Leased Premises and the business operated by
Tenant and any sub-tenants of Tenant on the Leased Premises in which the limits of public
liability for bodily injury and property damage shall not be less than One Million Dollars
($1,000,000) per accident, combined single limit. The policy shall name Landlord as additional
insured. The policy shall provide that the insurance thereunder shall not be cancelled until thirty
(30) days after written notice thereof to all named insured,
Section 9.2. Fire and Extended Coverage. Landlord agrees that it will, during the initial
3
and any renewal term of this Lease, insure and keep insured, for the benefit of Landlord and its
respective successors in interest, the Leased Premises, or any portion thereof then in being. Such
policy shall contain coverage against loss, damage or destruction by fire and such other hazards
as are covered and protected against, at standard rates under policies of insurance commonly
referred to and known as "extended coverage," as the same may exist from time to time.
Landlord agrees to name Tenant as an additional insured on such policy, as its interest may
appear.
Section 9.3. Evidence ofInsurance. Copies of policies of insurance (or certificates of the
insurers) for insurance required to be maintained by Tenant and Landlord pursuant to Sections
9.1 and 9.2 shall be delivered by Landlord or Tenant, as the case may be, to the other upon the
issuance of such insurance and thereafter not less than thirty (30) days prior to the expiration
dates thereof.
Section 9.4. Waiver of Subrogation. Landlord and Tenant each hereby releases the other
from any and all liability or responsibility to itself or anyone claiming through or under it by way
of subrogation or otherwise for any loss or damage to property caused by fire or any of the
extended coverage or supplementary contract casualties, even if such fire or other casualty
results from the negligence of itself or anyone for whom it may be responsible, provided,
however, that this release shall be applicable and in force and effect only with respect to loss or
damage occurring during such time as any such release shall not adversely affect or impair the
releasor's policies or insurance or prejudice the right of the releasor to recover thereunder.
ARTICLE X. WASTE, NUISANCE, COMPLIANCE WIlli
GOVERNMENTAL REGULATIONS
Section 10.1. Waste or Nuisance. Tenant shall not commit or suffer to be committed any
waste or any nuisance upon the Leased Premises.
Section 10.2. Governmental Regulations. During the term of this Lease, Tenant shall, at
Tenant's sole cost and expense, comply with all of the requirements of all county, municipal,
state, federal and other applicable governmental authorities, now in force, or which may
hereafter be in force, pertaining to the Leased Premises or Tenant's use and occupancy thereof.
ARTICLE XI. FIRE OR OTHER CASUALTY
If the Leased Premises shall be damaged so as to render two-thirds (2/3) or more of the
Leased Premises untenantable by fire or other casualty insured against under the insurance
required to be carried by Landlord pursuant to Section 9.2, Landlord may elect to either
terminate this Lease as of the date of damage or repair the Leased Premises. Unless Landlord
elects to terminate this Lease, such damage or destruction shall in no way annul or void this
Lease except that Tenant shall be entitled to a proportionate reduction of the rent payable under
Article IV while such repairs are being made, such proportionate reduction to be based upon the
proportion of the Leased Premises rendered untenantable as a result of such damage.
Notwithstanding the foregoing, if any damage or destruction from any cause whatsoever has not
been repaired and such repairs have not commenced within one hundred eighty (180) days of the
4
date thereof, Tenant may, as its exclusive remedy, terminate this Lease upon thirty (30) days
written notice to Landlord.
ARTICLE XII C01\iTDEMNA TION
If the whole or any part of the Leased Premises shall be taken under the power of eminent
domain, then this Lease shall terminate as to the part so taken on the day when Tenant is required
to yield possession thereof, the Landlord shall make such repairs and alterations as may be
necessary in order to restore the part not taken to useful condition; and the rent payable under
Article IV shall be reduced proportionately as to the portion of the Leased Premises so taken. If
the amount of the Leased Premises so taken is such as to impair substantially the usefulness of
the Leased Premises for the purposes for which the same are hereby leased, then either party
shall have the option to terminate this Lease as of the date when Tenant is required to yield
posseSSIOn.
ARTICLE XIII DEFAULT OF TENANT
Section 13.1. Default. The occurrence of any of the following shall be deemed a
"default" under this Lease:
(a) Tenant fails to pay when due any amount of rent, additional rent or other monies
due under this Lease, including Articles IV and V, and such payment is not received by
Landlord within ten (10) days after written notice of such failure is received by Tenant; or
(b) a default in any of the other provisions of this Lease, and such default continues
uncured for a period of thirty (30) days after written notice thereof from Landlord.
Section 13.2. Remedies. In the event of any default or breach hereof by Tenant,
Landlord shall have the right (in addition to all other rights and remedies provided by law) to
terminate this Lease or to re-enter and take possession of the Leased Premises, peaceably or by
force, and to remove any property therein without liability for damage to and without obligation
to store such property, but may store the same at Tenant's expense, and to collect from Tenant all
rent then due and which would accrue for the unexpired portion of the term hereof, together with
reasonable attorney's fees. In addition, in the event of a failure to pay rent, additional rent or
other money within five (5) days of its due date, Tenant shall pay to Landlord the greater of
Twenty-Five and no/l 00 Dollars ($25.00) or one half (112) of one percent (1 %) of such sum for
each day after the fifth day such rent or other money is late.
ARTICLE XIV HOLDING OVER, SIGNS, SUCCESSORS
Section 14.1. Holding Over. Any holding over after the expiration of the term hereof,
with the consent of Landlord, shall be construed to be a tenancy from month-to-month at the
same rent herein specified (prorated on a monthly basis) and shall otherwise be on the terms and
conditions herein specified as far as applicable.
Section 14.2. Showing the Leased Premises. During the last ninety (90) days of the term
5
hereof, Tenant shall allow Landlord, or its agents, to show the Leased Premises to prospective
tenants or purchasers at such times as Landlord may reasonably desire.
Section 14.3. Successors. All rights and liabilities herein given to, or imposed upon the
respective parties hereto, shall extend to and bind the heirs, executors, administrators, successors
and permitted assigns of the parties. All covenants, representations and agreements of Landlord
shall be deemed the covenants, representations and agreements of the fee owner from time to
time of the Leased Premises and Landlord shall be automatically released of all liability under
this Lease from and after the date of any sale by Landlord of the Leased Premises. All
covenants, representations and agreements of Tenant shall be deemed the covenants,
representations, and agreements of the occupant or occupants of the Leased Premises.
ARTICLE XV. BROKER'S FEES
Tenant and Landlord hereby warrant that there are no brokerage commissions due in
connection with this Lease.
ARTICLE XVI. NO ASSIGNMENT
Tenant shall not assign this Lease or sublet all or any portion of the Leased Premises,
either directly or indirectly, without the prior written consent of Landlord. No assignment,
sublease or transfer of tliis Lease by Tenant shall (i) be effective unless and until the assignee,
subtenant or transferee expressly assumes in writing Tenant's obligations under this Lease, or (ii)
relieve Tenant of its obligations hereunder, and Tenant shall thereafter remain liable for the
obligations of the Tenant under this Lease whether arising before or after such assignment,
sublease or transfer.
ARTICLE XVII. SUBORDINATION OF LEASE
This Lease and all rights of Tenant hereunder are and shall be subject and subordinate in
all respects to (1) any mortgages, deeds of trust and building loan agreements affecting the
Leased Premises, including any and all renewals, replacements, modifications, substitutions,
supplements and extensions thereof, and (2) each advance made or to be made thereunder. In
confirmation of such subordination, Tenant shall promptly upon the request of Landlord execute
and deliver an instrument in recordable form satisfactory to Landlord evidencing such
subordination; and if Tenant fails to execute, acknowledge or deliver any such instrument within
ten (10) days after request therefor, Tenant hereby irrevocably constitutes and appoints Landlord
as Tenant's attorney-in-fact, coupled with an interest, to execute, acknowledge and deliver any
such instruments on behalf of Tenant. Tenant further agrees that in the event any such
mortgagee or lender requests reasonable modifications to this Lease as a condition of such
financing, Tenant shall not withhold or delay its consent thereto.
ARTICLE XVIII. MISCELLANEOUS
Section 18.1. Waiver. The waiver by landlord or Tenant of any breach of any term,
covenant or condition contained herein shall not be deemed to be a waiver of such term,
6
covenant, or condition or any subsequent breach of the same or any other term, covenant, or
condition contained herein. The subsequent acceptance or payment of rent hereunder by
Landlord or Tenant, respectively, shall not be deemed to be a waiver of any breach by Tenant or
Landlord, respectively, of any term, covenant or condition of this Lease regardless of knowledge
of such breach at the time of acceptance or payment of such rent. No covenant, term, or
condition of this Lease shall be deemed to have been waived by Tenant or Landlord unless the
waiver be in writing signed by the party to be charged thereby.
Section 18.2. Entire Agreement. This Lease, and the Exhibits attached hereto and
forming a part hereof, set forth all the covenants, promises, agreements, conditions and
understandings between Landlord and Tenant concerning the Leased Premises; and there are no
covenants, promises, agreements, conditions or understandings, either oral or written, between
them other than as herein set forth. Except as herein otherwise provided, no subsequent
alteration, amendment, change or addition to this Lease shall be binding upon Landlord (
Tenant unless reduced in writing and signed by them.
Section 18.3. Notices. Any notice, demand, request or other instrument which may be,
or are required to be given under this Lease, shall be in writing and delivered in person or by
United States certified mail, postage prepaid, and shall be addressed:
(a) if to Landlord, at
County of Albemarle
County Executive's Office
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902
or at such other address as Landlord may designate by written notice;
(b) if to Tenant, at
Charlottesville/Albemarle Commission on Children and Families
1600 Fifth Street
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902
or at such other address as Tenant shall designate by written notice.
Section 18.4. Captions and Section Numbers. The captions and section numbers
appearing in this Lease are inserted only as a matter of convenience and in no way define, limit,
construe or describe the scope or intent of such sections of this Lease nor in any way do they
affect this Lease.
Section 18.5. Partial Invalidity. If any term, covenant or condition of this Lease, or the
application thereof, to any person or circumstance shall to ~ny extent be invalid or
unenforceable, the remainder of this Lease, or the application of such term, covenant, or
condition to persons or circumstances other than those as to which it is held invalid or
unenforceable, shall not be affected thereby and each term, covenant, or condition of this Lease
shall be valid and be enforced to the fullest extent permitted by law.
Section 18.6. Recording. Upon request of either party, a memorandum of lease will be
7
executed and recorded. Such memorandum shall contain any provisions of this Lease which
either party requests except for the provisions of Article IV, which shall not be included. The
cost of recording such memorandum of lease or a short form hereof shall be borne by the party
requesting such recordation.
Section 18.7. Governing Law. This Agreement shall be governed by and construed in
accordance with the laws of the Commonwealth of Virginia.
Section 18.8. Counterparts This Agreement may be executed simultaneously in two or
more counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original, but all of which together shall
constitute one and the same instrument.
Section 18.9. This lease is subject to annual appropriations by the Board of Supervisors
of Albemarle County, Virginia.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this instrument as of the
day and year first above written.
TENANT
CHARLOTTESVILLE/ALBEMARLE COMMISSION
ON CHILDREN AND FAMILIES
By: -Vt:U ~
Print Na : Gretchen EllIs
Title: Director J-+/7-e~//1-
,
~
LANDLORD
This Lease is executed on behalf of the County of Albemarle by Robert W. Tucker, Jr.,
County Executive, following a duly-held public hearing, and pursuant to a Resolution of the
Albemarle County Board of Supervisors.
Approved as to form:
8
?
A emarle County Attorney
9
EXHIBIT A
DESCRIPTION OF LEASED PREMISES
All that certain portion of the Albemarle County Office Building, located at 1600 Fifth
Street Extended, Charlottesville, Virginia, shown shaded in gray on the attached floor plan titled
"Rentable Area," and being 3,664 square feet of office space, more or less.
10
'N 'N
u.. 0 u.. '0
Vl Vl 0 I
CO x CO x u.. N 1
..... ..... . Vl ~
I - - - - I "" x I
III J r-- N --~-I
V'
lit f ~O
III I ,- u.. I
IL_ _ _. ;:: Vl X 1
H
. 0 '0 I
0 CO
u.. u.. 'N '"" -I
Vl Vl ~ -.-:: -
lfl X X I') ;:;:;- I
N ...... ~
-!.o V 0 V. I
N ~ 0
:- ,- I
;:: ;::
--- _I
--Q---
'N
u..O
Vl-
cnX
~ ,
~ ,""
;::
'N
u.. '0
Vl~
cnX
~,
~ .'1)
]
]
N N
u.. '0 u.. 0
Vl Vl
CO X
V Cx:l N.
N ~ 0
0 ,~
N
!H
H
:(0
~O
6\ I
]N
u I
c
tC'J
~
Q:
~
t;0
,ON
~O
zN
-;:;0
."-
o
a:
H
~ i~;;;
0.. ~~ to
- cnN (0
~ -g,.~ ~
frl:r.g,~
~ ~5 ~
~~~_u. lD
0:: ~= 0
< ;: ~ :;:; I
Cl ~M N
>- 0 III <i I
~ 2~,gr'l
Cl (.)~
0:: ~
~ '1
W
:r
~
"'-,
OJ u...
c CL
.
o
o
.
o
I
.~
II
.
<D
~~
u ~
V1
(/)
I
I-
L{)
<(
w
0:::
<(
W
-l
CO
<(
I-
Z
w
0:::
C9
Z
(:) <:
-l z
~ 13
CO 0::
W 5
U ~
u:: ~
LL ::>
o 8
~ ~
z ~
~ :::>
o ~
u ;;;!
W
-l
0::::
<i <
~ ~
z w
1: CO
'0 -l
a:<
~
;.::
.~
.
"
o
H
Kenneth C. Boyd
Rivanna
COUNTY OF ALBEMARlE
Office of Board of Supervisors
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-45%
(434) 2%-5843 FAX (434) 296-5800
April 21, 2006
David L. Slutzky
Rio
Undsay G, Dorrier, Jr,
Scottsville
Sally H. Thomas
Samuel Miller
Dennis S. Rooker
Jack Jouett
David C, Wyant
White Hall
The Honorable Timothy M. Kaine
Governor of Virginia
State Capitol, Third Floor
Richmond, Virginia 23219
Dear Governor Kaine:
Albemarle County requests your support to veto HB 1290 and SB 260. These bills, as
approved by the General Assembly, change the definition of idle equipment, which will
result in a negative fiscal impact for local governments.
Currently, the Code of Virginia does not define idle machinery and tools. For the last
fifty-five years, idle machinery and tools has been defined based on opinions of the
Virginia Tax Department. The definition of idle machinery and tools contained in HB
1290 and SB 260 differs from the Tax Department's definition, resulting in a revenue
loss for local governments.
A veto of these bills will protect fifty-five years of rational state tax policy implemented by
local governments and allow local governments to work with the industry to develop a
consensual definition of idleness.
Thank you for your consideration of the County's concern regarding these bills and for
supporting local governments with your prior proposed amendments to these bills.
Sincerely,
L:f~
Dennis S. Rooker
Chairman
DSR/ab
06.002
*
Printed on recycled paper
County of Albemarle
Department of Community Development
Memorandum
TO:
FROM:
Members, Albemarle County Board of Supervisors
Amelia G. McCulley, Zoning Administrato~'
DATE:
March 15, 2006
RE:
2005 Annual Report of the Board of Zoning Appeals
State Code Section 15.2-2308 requires the Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA) to keep a
full public record of its proceedings and to submit a report of its activities to the
governing body. The full 2005 BZA annual report is attached for your information.
The Board of Zoning Appeals hears variances from the Zoning Ordinance and appeals
from decisions of the Zoning Administrator or other administrative officer. These
appeals can include determinations of zoning violation.
The number of appeals received in 2005 (13) increased by 3, from 10 received in 2004.
Of the 13 appeals received in 2005, the Board upheld the Zoning Administrator in 2, 4
appeals were withdrawn, 2 were void, 1 was dismissed and 1 was moot. One appeal is
still pending and 2 were still under review as of December 31,2005. The number of
appeals related to violations increased by 7 in 2005 from 2 in 2004 to 9 in 2005.
The number of variances received in 2005 decreased by 12, from 21 in 2004 to 9 in
2005. Four variances were approved, 1 was denied and 2 were withdrawn. Two are
still pending as of December 31,2005. The number of variance requests related to
setbacks decreased in 2005.
The following court cases are still pending as of December 31,2005:
1. Crafton Corporation v. Board of Zoninq Appeals (appeal of determination of
zoning violation)
2. Van der Linde Housinq, Inc. v. Board of Zoninq Appeals (appeal of determination
of zoninq violation)
3. Paul Beqin, et a!. v. Board of Zoninq Appeals and Planned Parenthood
ALBEMARLE COUNTY BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
2005 ANNUAL REPORT
I. INTRODUCTION
The Code of Virginia states that the Board of Zoning Appeals shall submit a report of its
activities to the governing body at least once each year {Sec. 15.2-2308}. This report is
a brief outline of their activities.
II. PERSONNEL
The Board of Zoning Appeals consists of five members. They are appointed by the
Circuit Court for a term not to exceed five years. The Board members during the year
2005 were:
Member
Term Expiration
Max C. Kennedy, Chairman
Reappointed May 23, 2003 for a five year term - to
expire May 23, 2008
David Bass, Vice Chairman
Reappointed May 23, 2002 for a five year term - to
expire May 23, 2007
George Bailey, Secretary
Reappointed May 23, 2005 for a five year term - to
expire May 23,2010
Richard Cogan
Reappointed May 23, 2004 for a five year term - to
expire May 23, 2009
Randy Rinehart
Reappointed May 23, 2001 for a five year term - to
expire May 23, 2006
III. OPERATING PROCEDURES
Regular meetings of the Board are held the first Tuesday of each month starting at 2:00
p.m. Special meetings are called in cases of appeals or a high number of submittals,
when the regular schedule does not provide sufficient hearing time. These special
meetings may begin at 1 :00 p.m.
The Board operates with Rules of Procedure which were adopted November 15, 2002.
r:\OEPT\BCZS\b<:a\Annual Rep.ortslbza ""'nual reporl2005 dilled 2 8 06.dex:
Board of Zoning Appeals 2005 Annual Report
Page 2
IV. EXPENSES
The Board of Zoning Appeals does not have a separate budget. Compensation and
mileage are included within the budget of the Community Development Department,
specifically within the Zoning and Current Development cost center. Funding for Board
salaries in the fiscal year 2004-2005 is consistent with prior years and expenses were a
total of $2,493. Board members are paid $45 per meeting and are reimbursed for
mileage traveled to the meetings.
Staff to the Board includes the Director of Zoning & Current Development (Zoning
Administrator), Manager of Zoning Administration and the Chief of Zoning
Administration (Deputy Zoning Administrator). Support staff includes the Zoning
Assistant and at times will include the Zoning Technician.
V. ACTION SUMMARY
The Board of Zoning Appeals held 9 meetings in 2005. The number of submittals and
actions considered by the Board in 2005 are shown in the following tables:
Variances
Nine (9) variance applications were received in 2005. Four (4) variances were
approved, one (1) was denied, two (2) were withdrawn, and two (2) are pending. See
the following table:
Application # Project Name Type of request Approved Denied With
Conditions
V A-0502 T. Ronald Reduction of front Approved WI staff's
Durham setback to allow a condition
carport to remain
V A-0503 William & Reduction of front Approved WI Board
Deanna setback to allow modifications
Mcintire construction of a to staffs
porch conditions
V A-0507 William H. Reduction of front Approved W/ Board
Houff setback to allow modifications
construction of to staffs
dwellinq conditions
V A-0508 Vernon or Ada Reduction of front Approved W / Board
Cobbs setback to allow modifications
construction of to staffs
dwellinq conditions
V A-0506 Harlin & Betty Reduce front Denied
Sykes setback to allow
construction of an
addition to
existinq dwellinq
I:\DEPT\8CZS\bza\Annua/ RepOl't$\bza N'lnual report 2005 dated 2 a OS_doc
Board of Zoning Appeals 2005 Annual Report Page 3
Withdrawn and Void
Application # Project Name Withdrawn Void
V A-0501 Kumon Math Reading Center Withdrawn
V A-0505 Sean or Beverly Castorina Withdrawn
Pending
Application # Project Name Pending
V A-0504 Montessori school Additional information from the applicant
V A-0509 Mechum's Trestle LLC Additional information from the applicant
Appeals
Thirteen (13) appeals were taken in 2005. The Board upheld the Zoning Administrator
in two (2) appeals, four (4) were withdrawn, two (2) were void, one (1) was dismissed,
one (1) was moot, two (2) are under review and one (1) is pending.
Application # Project Name Upheld ZA Type
AP-05-04 Van der Linde Affirmed ZA on Determination of violation
Housing Items 1 & 2 &
Affirmed and
modified item 3
AP-05-07 Crafton Corporation Upheld ZA Determination of violation
Pending I Under Review
Application # Project Name Status Type
AP-05-13 Scott or Caroline Under review Determination of Violation
Watkins
AP-05-14 Constance Hallquist & Under review Letter of Determination -
Brian Cowan nonconforming lot
redivision
AP-05-06 Marcia Joseph Pending Letter of Determination -
use
t:\DEPT\BCZSlbza\Armual R&pOI"ts\bza annual rl!lpOrl 2005 dated 2 a 06 doc
Board of Zoning Appeals 2005 Annual Report
Page 4
Withdrawn and Void
Application # Project Name Withdrawn / Void
Dismissed / Moot
AP-05-0 1 Kevin or Colleen O'Rourke Withdrawn
AP-05-02 Kevin or Colleen O'Rourke Withdrawn
AP-05-03 Gifford Crawford Withdrawn
AP-05-11 Daniel L. Price Withdrawn
AP-05-05 Dale Cruz Void
AP-05-09 Roger Gibson/Michael Void
Umstadter
AP-05-08 Ingleridge LLC Dismissed
AP-05-10 Murcielago LLC Moot
AP-05-12
Application type selected in
error in City View
Special Use Permits
No special use permits for off-site signs were received in 2005.
VI. COURT ACTIONS
The following are court actions taken on the Board of Zoning Appeals' cases in 2005:
1. Crafton Corporation v. Board of Zoninq Appeals: Petition to writ of certiorari filed
in Albemarle County Circuit Court challenging the decision of the Board of Zoning
Appeals that the property is a junkyard in violation of the Zoning Ordinance. The
record of the proceedings before the Board of Zoning Appeals has been filed with
the Court, but a trial date has not been set.
2. Van der Linde Housinq, Inc. v. Board of Zoninq Appeals: Petition to writ of
certiorari filed in Albemarle County Circuit Court challenging the decision of the
Board of Zoning Appeals that the property is developed in violation of the
approved site plan and is used in violation of the Zoning Ordinance. The record
of the proceedings before the Board of Zoning Appeals has been filed with the
Court, but a trial date has not been set.
IIDEPnBCZS\bza\Annual Reporlslbz.!l annual roporl 2005 dated 2 e 06.doc
Board of Zoning Appeals 2005 Annual Report
Page 5
3. Barry Schmidt v. Board of Zoninq Appeals: Petition to writ of certiorari filed in
Albemarle County Circuit Court challenging the decision of the Board of Zoning
Appeals that the mobile home on the property lost its nonconforming status. The
case was dismissed by the court because of inactivity for the past three years.
4. Christopher Hyland, et al. v. Board of Zoninq Appeals (Faulconer Construction
Company): The Virginia Supreme Court dismissed the citizen-appellant's appeal
in 2004.
5. Paul Beqin. et al. v. Board of Zoninq Appeals and Planned Parenthood: Petition
to writ of certiorari filed in Albemarle County Circuit Court challenging the
decision of the Board of Zoning Appeals that Planned Parenthood's use of the
property is a professional office use. The court has not yet issued a writ of
certiorari directing the Board of Zoning Appeals to file the record of its
proceedings, so the case has not proceeded and a trial date has not been set.
I\DEPnBCZS\bz~\Annual Reporls\bza annual reporl 2005 dated 2 8 06 doc
~
~
-~
=~
= ~
PIEDMONT
HOUSING
ALLIANCE
President
Helen D. Flamini
Vice President
Karen V. Lilleleht
Secretary
Cheryl Roberts
Treasurer
Gordon J. Walker
Charlottesville
Nisha Botchwey
Paul Brant
Gate Pratt
Satyendra Singh Huja
Gwen Reynolds
Albemarle County
Ron White
Greene County
Ginny Barefoot
Daria Overton Rose
Louisa County
Grace Cooke
Nelson County
Ron H, Enders
At-Large
Lloyd Snook
Charlottesville Housing
Foundation
George E. Loper
Francis H. Fife
David M, Oakland
Memorandum
To:
Albemarle County Board of Supervisors
From: Karen Reifenberger, Director of Fair Housing, Piedmont Housing Alliance
Date: 4/612006
Re:
Fair Housing Month Resolution
In recognition of Fair Housing Month, Piedmont Housing Alliance strongly supports the
County's Fair Housing Month Resolution. All recipients offederal funds must perform an
annual action to affirmatively further fair housing. One such approved action is adopting a
resolution endorsing the concept of fair housing and advertising its wording through the
local media.
Please join us in celebrating Fair Housing Month. Piedmont Housing Alliance's Regional
Fair Housing Education & Outreach Program provides fair housing services in
Charlottesville and the surrounding counties of Albemarle, Fluvanna, Louisa, Greene, and
Nelson. The goal is to raise awareness and promote compliance with fair housing laws that
protect us from housing discrimination based on race, color, national origin, religion,
gender, disability, presence of children in the family, and elderliness. PHA's fair housing
activities include conducting presentations and seminars, implementing public awareness
campaigns, responding to inquiries and complaints, and chairing the Regional Fair Housing
Advisory Board.
Over the past year, PHA conducted 29 fair housing presentations for 504 people and
responded to 72 calls for assistance. We have also provided the County with fair housing
month poster displays and fair housing booklets for renters and homeowners. Visit our
comprehensive fair housing web site at www.avenue.orgfphalfairhousing.
PHA has been nationally recognized by HUD for its outstanding Education & Outreach
Program, has received 6 consecutive years of HUD funding for the program, and has
received an Excellent rating on each of its grant performance assessments (see attached
letter from HUD). Local support is critical in attracting this significant federal support of
our program to ensure equal housing opportunity in Albemarle County; thank you for your
support of fair housing.
If you have any questions about this resolution or additional fair housing activities, please
contact Karen Reifenberger at 817-2436 ext. 106. Thank you so much.
III Monticello Ave, Suite 104 . Charlottesville, VA 22902 . (434 )817-CHDO (2436) . Fax (434)8 J 7-0664 . Email pha@avenue.org
Visit our websitc: www.avcnue.org/pha
FAIR HOUSING MONTH
WHEREAS, April 2006, marks the thirty-eighth anniversary of the passage of the Fair Housing Act
of 1968, which sought to eliminate discrimination in housing opportunities and to
affirmatively further housing choices for all Americans; and
WHEREAS, the ongoing struggle for dignity and housing opportunity for all is not the exclusive
province of the Federal government; and
WHEREAS, vigorous local efforts to combat discrimination can be as effective, if not more so, than
Federal efforts; and
WHEREAS, illegal barriers to equal opportunity in housing, no matter how subtle, diminish the
rights of all;
NO~ THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED,
that in the pursuit of the shared goal and responsibility of providing equal housing
opportunities for all men and women, the Board of County Supervisors of Albemarle
County, Virginia, does hereby join in the national celebration by proclaiming
APRIL, 2006
as
FAIR HOUSING MONTH
and encourages all agencies, institutions and individuals, public and private, m
Albemarle County to abide by the letter and the spirit of the Fair Housing law.
Signed and sealed this 12th day of April, 2006.
Dennis S. Rooker, Chairman
Albemarle Board of County Supervisors
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
Public Hearing on Albemarle County's Plan for
Administering Housing Choice Vouchers
AGENDA DATE:
April 12, 2006
ACTION: X
INFORMATION:
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher Annual Plan
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION:
INFORMATION:
STAFF CONTACTCS):
Tucker, White, Davis, White
LEGAL REVIEW: Yes
REVIEWED BY:
~
(
ATTACHMENTS: Yes
BACKGROUND:
The Albemarle County Office of Housing is the designated local agency for the administration of the Housing Choice
Voucher Program (hereinafter referred to as the "program"), formerly known as the Section 8 Rental Assistance Program.
The Office of Housing is a part of the executive branch of local government and not a public housing authority. However,
with respect to the program, the Office of Housing must comply with requirements of the U.S. Department of Housing and
Urban Development (HUD) regarding activities as a Public Housing Agency (PHA) including the development of a 5-year
PHA Plan and Annual Plans. Last year a 5-year Plan and Annual Plan was submitted to and approved by HUD. In each
year covered by the 5-year Plan, a PHA is required to submit an Annual Plan to HUD for approval. Prior to submission, the
Plan must be made available for a 45-day public review period and also be the subject of a public hearing,
STRATEGIC PLAN:
The submission of an Annual Plan is required to continue the program. This program is a critical component of addressing
housing affordability issues for very low-income renters who can not otherwise afford fair market rents.
DISCUSSION:
The program administered by Albemarle County provides rental assistance to approximately 420 families. Over the past
five years, the Office of Housing has recommended and HUD has approved minor revisions to program operations. These
include setting a preference for families who live and/or work in Albemarle County and establishing a minimum tenant
payment of $50/month. In addition, the ability to allocate project-based vouchers (vouchers designated to specific units
rather than individual families) was requested and approved. Up to 15% of available vouchers may be used for this
purpose. Currently 24 project-based vouchers are allocated to Park's Edge Apartments and 12 have been committed to
Park View on South Pantops.
The program is currently operating at approximately 90% of capacity with at least 30 families having been issued vouchers
that are seeking housing. Part of the reason for the lease-up rate (capacity) being lower than desired is the fact that staff is
more aggressive in finding program misuse or abuse. In such cases, it often takes a couple months to investigate and
terminate assistance and an additional three to four months to issue the available voucher to someone else. Another
issue impacting the lease-up rate is the inability of voucher holders to find housing that can be approved under the
program. It is also becoming more frequent that voucher holders are turned down due to lack of sufficient income, credit
history, and past rental references. Although these issues exist, we do not see any reason to change the existing Annual
Plan nor have any recommendations been brought forward by the Resident Advisory Board or the Housing Committee,
Therefore, the proposed Annual Plan to be submitted to HUD is unchanged from the current year's Plan.
BUDGET IMPACT:
There is no additional budget impact beyond the annual appropriations from the general fund budget that support the
operations of the Office of Housing. The majority of staffing and operations costs are covered by fees from HUD for
the administration of the program.
AGENDA TITLE:
Public Hearing on Albemarle County's Plan for Administering Housing Choice Vouchers
April 12, 2006
Page 2
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff requests that the Board of Supervisors conduct a public hearing on the Housing Choice Voucher Program Annual
Plan to obtain any additional input from the public. Staff also requests the Board to authorize the County Executive to
execute the attached Certifications of Compliance for submission with the Plan.
ATTACHMENTS
2006 Housinq Choice Voucher Annual Plan
PHA Certifications of Compliance
06.046
Attachment A
PHA Plans
U.S. Department of Housing and
Urban Development
Office of Public and Indian
Housing
OMB No. 2577-0226
(exp. 05/31/2006)
Streamlined Annual
Version
This information collection is authorized by Section 511 of the Quality Housing and Work Responsibility Act, which added a new
section 5A to the U.S. Housing Act of 1937 that introduced 5.year and annual PHA Plans. The full PHA plan provides a ready source
for interested parties to locate basic PHA policies, rules, and requirements concerning the PHA's operations, programs, and services,
and informs HUD, families served by the PHA, and members of the public of the PHA's mission and strategies for serving the needs
oflow-income and very low-income families. This form allows eligible PHAs to make a streamlined annual Plan submission to HUD
consistent with HUD's efforts to provide regulatory relief for certain types of PH As. Public reporting burden for this information
collection is estimated to average 11.7 hours per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data
sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. HUD may not collect
this information and respondents are not required to complete this form, unless it displays a currently valid OMS Control Number.
Privacy Act Notice. The United States Department of Housing and Urban Development, Federal Housing Administration, is
authorized to solicit the information requested in this form by virtue of Title 12, U.S. Code, Section 1701 et seq., and regulations
promulgated thereunder at Title 12, Code of Federal Regulations. Information in PHA plans is publicly available.
Streamlined Annual PHA Plan
for Fiscal Year: 2006
-
PHA Name: Albemarle County Office of Housing
NOTE: This PHA Plan template (HUD-50075-SA) is to be completed in accordance with instructions
contained in previous Notices PIH 99-33 (HA), 99-51 (HA), 2000-22 (HA), 2000-36 (HA), 2000-43
(HA), 2001-4 (HA), 2001-26 (HA), 2003-7 (HA), and any related notices HUD may subsequently issue.
form HUD-50075-SA (4/30/2003)
PHA Name:
HA Code:
Streamlined Annual Plan for Fiscal Year 20_
Streamlined Annual PHA Plan
Agency Identification
PHA Name: Albemarle Countv Otfice of Housing PHA Number: VA036VO
PHA Fiscal Year Beginning: 07/2006
PHA Programs Administered:
DPublic Housing and Section 8 C8JSection 8 Only
Number ofpubIic housing units: Number ofS8 units:
Number of S8 units:
DPublic Housing Only
Number ofpubIic housing units:
DPHA Consortia: (check box if submitting a joint PHA Plan and complete table)
Participating PHAs
PHA
Code
Program(s) Included in
the Consortium
Programs Not in # of Units
the Consortium Each Program
Participating PHA 1:
Participating PHA 2:
Participating PHA 3:
PHA Plan Contact Information:
Name: Ronnie L. White
TDD: 711
Phone: 434-296-5839
Email: rwhite2@albemarle.org
Public Access to Information
Information regarding any activities outlined in this plan can be obtained by contacting:
(select all that apply)
C8J PHA's main administrative office D PHA's development management offices
Display Locations For PHA Plans and Supporting Documents
The PHA Plan revised policies or program changes (including attachments) are available for
public review and inspection. C8J Yes D No.
If yes, select all that apply:
C8J Main administrative office of the PHA
D PHA development management offices
D Main administrative office of the local, county or State government
D Public library D PHA website D Other (list below)
PHA Plan Supporting Documents are available for inspection at: (select all that apply)
C8J Main business office of the PHA D PHA development management offices
D Other (list below)
Page 2 of9
form HUD-S007S-SA (04/30/2003)
PHA Name:
HA Code:
Streamlined Annual Plan for Fiscal Year 20_
Streamlined Annual PHA Plan
Fiscal Year 2006
[24 CFR Part 903.12(c)]
A. PHA PLAN COMPONENTS
o 1. Site-Based Waiting List Policies
903.7(b)(2) Policies on Eligibility, Selection, and Admissions
o 2. Capital Improvement Needs
903.7(g) Statement of Capital Improvements Needed
o 3. Section 8(y) Homeownership
903. 7(k)(1 )(i) Statement of Homeownership Programs
[8J 4. Project-Based Voucher Programs
o 5. PHA Statement of Consistency with Consolidated Plan. Complete only ifPHA has
changed any policies, programs, or plan components from its last Annual Plan.
[8J 6. Supporting Documents Available for Review
o 7. Capital Fund Program and Capital Fund Program Replacement Housing Factor,
Annual Statement/Performance and Evaluation Report
o 8. Capital Fund Program 5-Year Action Plan
B. SEPARATE HARD COPY SUBMISSIONS TO LOCAL HUD FIELD OFFICE
Form HUD-S0076, PHA Certifications ofComvliance with the PHA Plans and Related Regulations:
Board Resolution to Accompanv the Streamlined Annual Plan identifying policies or programs the PHA
has revised since submission of its last Annual Plan, and including Civil Rights certifications and
assurances the changed policies were presented to the Resident Advisory Board for review and comment,
approved by the PHA governing board, and made available for review and inspection at the PHA's
Form HUD-S0070,
Form BUD-S0071,
Form SF-LLL &SF-LLLa, Disclosure ofLobbving Activities.
and
Page 3 of9
form HUD-50075-SA (04/30/2003)
PHA Name:
HA Code:
Streamlined Annual Plan for Fiscal Year 20_
1. Site-Based Waitine Lists (Elieibility, Selection, Admissions Policies)
[24 CFR Part 903.12(c), 903.7(b)(2)]
Exemptions: Section 8 only PHAs are not required to complete this component.
Not Applicable
Not Applicable
Section 8 Tenant Based Assistance--Section 8
1. 0 Yes ~ No: Does the PHA plan to administer a Section 8 Homeownership program
pursuant to Section 8(y) of the U.S.H.A. of 1937, as implemented by 24
CFR part 982 ? (If "No", skip to the next component; if "yes", complete
each program description below (copy and complete questions for each
program identified.)
2. Program Description:
a. Size of Program
o Yes 0 No:
Will the PHA limit the number of families participating in the Section 8
homeownership option?
If the answer to the question above was yes, what is the maximum number
of participants this fiscal year?
b. PHA-established eligibility criteria
DYes 0 No: Will the PHA's program have eligibility criteria for participation in its
Section 8 Homeownership Option program in addition to HUD criteria?
If yes, list criteria:
c. What actions will the PHA undertake to implement the program this year (list)?
3. Capacity of the PHA to Administer a Section 8 Homeownership Program:
The PHA has demonstrated its capacity to administer the program by (select all that apply):
o Establishing a minimum homeowner downpayment requirement of at least 3 percent of
purchase price and requiring that at least 1 percent of the purchase price comes from the
family's resources.
o Requiring that financing for purchase of a home under its Section 8 homeownership will
be provided, insured or guaranteed by the state or Federal government; comply with
Page 4 of9
form HUD-S007S-SA (04/30/2003)
PHA Name:
HA Code:
Streamlined Annual Plan for Fiscal Year 20_
o
o
secondary mortgage market underwriting requirements; or comply with generally
accepted private sector underwriting standards.
Partnering with a qualified agency or agencies to administer the program (list name(s)
and years of experience below):
Demonstrating that it has other relevant experience (list experience below):
4. Use of the Project-Based Voucher Pro2ram
Intent to Use Project-Based Assistance
~ Yes 0 No: Does the PHA plan to "project-base" any tenant-based Section 8 vouchers in
the coming year? If the answer is "no," go to the next component. If yes, answer the following
questions.
1. ~ Yes 0 No: Are there circumstances indicating that the project basing of the units,
rather than tenant-basing of the same amount of assistance is an appropriate option? If
yes, check which circumstances apply:
~ low utilization rate for vouchers due to lack of suitable rental units
~ access to neighborhoods outside of high poverty areas
o other (describe below:)
2. Indicate the number of units and general location of units (e.g. eligible census tracts or
smaller areas within eligible census tracts): 58
5. PHA Statement of Consistency with the Consolidated Plan
[24 CFR Part 903.15)
1. Consolidated Plan jurisdiction: (provide name here)
Thomas Jefferson HOME Consortium
2. The PHA has taken the following steps to ensure consistency of this PHA Plan with the
Consolidated Plan for the jurisdiction: (select all that apply)
~
o
~
The PHA has based its statement of needs of families on its waiting lists on the needs
expressed in the Consolidated Plan/so
The PHA has participated in any consultation process organized and offered by the
Consolidated Plan agency in the development of the Consolidated Plan.
The PHA has consulted with the Consolidated Plan agency during the development of
this PHA Plan.
Page 5 of9
form HUD-S007S-SA (04/30/2003)
PHA Name:
HA Code:
Streamlined Annual Plan for Fiscal Year 20_
o
o
Activities to be undertaken by the PHA in the coming year are consistent with the
initiatives contained in the Consolidated Plan. (list below)
Other: (list below)
3. The Consolidated Plan of the jurisdiction supports the PHA Plan with the following actions
and commitments: (describe below)
6. SupportiD!! Documents Available for Review for Streamlined Annual PHA
Plans
PHAs are to indicate which documents are available for public review by placing a mark in the "Applicable
& On Display" column in the appropriate rows, All listed documents must be on display if applicable to
the program activities conducted by the PHA.
List of SUDDortinl! Documents Available for Review
Applicable Supporting Document Related Plan
&On Component
Displav
PHA Certifications of Compliance with the PHA Plans and Related Regulations and 5 Year and Annual
X Board Resolution to Accompany the Standard Annual, Standard Five- Year, and Plans
Streamlined Five- Year/Annual Plans;
X PHA Certifications of Compliance with the PHA Plans and Related Regulations and Streamlined Annual
Board Resolution to Accompanv the Streamlined Annual Plan Plans
X Certification by State or Local Official of PHA Plan Consistency with Consolidated 5 Year and standard
Plan. Annual Plans
Fair Housing Documentation Supporting Fair Housing Certifications: Records 5 Year and Annual
reflecting that the PHA has examined its programs or proposed programs, identified Plans
X any impediments to fair housing choice in those programs, addressed or is addressing
those impediments in a reasonable fashion in view of the resources available, and
worked or is working with local jurisdictions to implement any of the jurisdictions'
initiatives to affirmativelv further fair housing that require the PHA's involvement.
Housing Needs Statement of the Consolidated Plan for the jurisdiction(s) in which the Annual Plan:
X PHA is located and any additional backup data to support statement of housing needs Housing Needs
for families on the PHA's public housing and Section 8 tenant-based waiting lists.
Most recent board-approved operating budget for the public housing program Annual Plan:
Financial Resources
Public Housing Admissions and (Continued) Occupancy Policy (A&O/ACOP), which Annual Plan:
includes the Tenant Selection and Assignment Plan [TSAP] and the Site-Based Eligibility, Selection,
Waiting List Procedure. and Admissions
Policies
Deconcentration Income Analysis Annual Plan:
Eligibility, Selection,
and Admissions
Policies
Any policy governing occupancy of Police Officers and Over-Income Tenants in Annual Plan:
Public Housing. 0 Check here if included in the public housing A&O Policy. Eligibility, Selection,
and Admissions
Policies
Section 8 Administrative Plan Annual Plan:
X Eligibility, Selection,
and Admissions
Policies
Public housing rent determination policies, including the method for setting public Annual Plan: Rent
housing flat rents. Determination
o Check here if included in the public housing A & 0 Policv.
Schedule of flat rents offered at each public housing development. Annual Plan: Rent
o Check here if included in the public housing A & 0 Policv. Determination
Page 60f9
form HUD-S007S-SA (04/30/2003)
PHA Name:
HA Code:
Streamlined Annual Plan for Fiscal Year 20
Section 8 rent determination (payment standard) policies (if included in Annual Plan: Rent Determination
X plan, not necessary as a supporting document) and written analysis of
Section 8 payment standard policies. D Check here if included in
Section 8 Administrative Plan.
Public housing management and maintenance policy documents, Annual Plan: Operations and
including policies for the prevention or eradication of pest infestation Maintenance
(including cockroach infestation).
Results oflatest Public Housing Assessment System (PHAS) Annual Plan: Management and
Assessment (or other applicable assessment). Operations
Follow-up Plan to Results of the PHAS Resident Satisfaction Survey (if Annual Plan: Operations and
necessary) Maintenance and Community
Service & Self-Sufficiencv
X Results of latest Section 8 Management Assessment System (SEMAP) Annual Plan: Management and
Operations
X Any policies governing any Section 8 special housing types Annual Plan: Operations and
[8J Check here if included in Section 8 Administrative Plan Maintenance
Public housing grievance procedures Annual Plan: Grievance Procedures
D Check here if included in the oublic housinl!: A & 0 Policv
X Section 8 informal review and hearing procedures. Annual Plan: Grievance Procedures
[8J Check here if included in Section 8 Administrative Plan.
The Capital Fund/Comprehensive Grant Program Annual Statement Annual Plan: Capital Needs
/Performance and Evaluation Reoort for anv active grant year.
Most recent ClAP BudgetIProgress Report (HUD 52825) for any active Annual Plan: Capital Needs
ClAP grants.
Approved HOPE VI applications or, if more recent, approved or Annual Plan: Capital Needs
submitted HOPE VI Revitalization Plans, or any other approved
orooosal for develooment ofoublic housinl!:.
Self-evaluation, Needs Assessment and Transition Plan required by Annual Plan: Capital Needs
regulations implementing Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act and the
Americans with Disabilities Act. See PIH Notice 99-52 (HAt
Approved or submitted applications for demolition and/or disposition Annual Plan: Demolition and
of public housing. Disposition
Approved or submitted applications for designation of public housing Annual Plan: Designation of Public
(Designated Housing Plans). Housing
Approved or submitted assessments of reasonable revitalization of Annual Plan: Conversion of Public
public housing and approved or submitted conversion plans prepared Housing
pursuant to section 202 of the 1996 HUD Appropriations Act, Section
22 of the US Housing Act of 1937, or Section 33 of the US Housing
Actofl937.
Documentation for required Initial Assessment and any additional Annual Plan: Voluntary Conversion
information required by HUD for V oluntarv Conversion, of Public Housing
Aooroved or submitted oublic housinl!: homeownershio orolrrams/olans. Annual Plan: Homeownershio
Policies governing any Section 8 Homeownership program Annual Plan: Homeownership
(Section of the Section 8 Administrative Plan)
Public Housing Community Service Policy/Programs Annual Plan: Community Service &
D Check here if included in Public Housinl!: A & 0 Policy Self-Sufficiency
Cooperative agreement between the PHA and the T ANF agency and Annual Plan: Community Service &
between the PHA and local emolovrnent and training service agencies. Self-Sufficiency
X FSS Action Planes) for public housing and/or Section 8, Annual Plan: Community Service &
Self-Sufficiency
Section 3 documentation required by 24 CFR Part 135, Subpart E for Annual Plan: Community Service &
public housing. Self-Sufficiency
Most recent self-sufficiency (ED/SS, TOP or ROSS or other resident Annual Plan: Community Service &
services grant) grant program reoorts for oublic housing. Self-Sufficiency
Policy on Ownership of Pets in Public Housing Family Developments Annual Plan: Pet Policy
(as required by regulation at 24 CFR Part 960, Subpart G).
D Check here if included in the oublic housinl!: A & 0 Policy.
The results of the most recent fiscal year audit ofthe PHA conducted Annual Plan: Annual Audit
under the Single Audit Act as imolemented bv OMB Circular A-l33,
Page 7 of9
form HUD-S007S-SA (04/30/2003)
PHA Name: Streamlined Annual Plan for Fiscal Year 20_
HA Code:
the results of that audit and the PHA's resoonse to any findings.
Other supporting documents (optional) (specify as needed)
(list individually; use as many lines as necessarv)
Consortium agreement(s) and for Consortium Joint PHA Plans Onlv: Joint Annual PHA Plan for
Certification that consortium agreement is in compliance with 24 CFR Consortia: Agency Identification and
Part 943 pursuant to an opinion of counsel on file and available for Annual Management and Operations
insoection.
Page 8 of9 form HUD-50075-SA (04/30/2003)
~
u
.
00
loo
=
e
e
=
rJ1
....
;.>
loo
=
~
G:'
~
~
~
u
=:;
~
u
--
loo
o
;.>
u
=
~
=
~
-
~
=
Q
....
......
CJ
-<
$.,
~
~
>
I
~
>
....
~
e
~
$.,
Q
$.,
~
"C
=
=
~
-
~
......
....
;.>
loo ~
8.~
~ e
~ =
= loo
.5: 0
;.> loo
~~
-"Cl
= =
;;. =
~~
"Cl_
= =
= .-:::
~
u =
=u
=
e"Cl
loo =
o =
'f e
~ =
~ loo
';;. 0
= loo
~~
~"Cl
;.> =
.s =
rJ1~
- -
= =
=::::
=
= =
<u
-
~
~
~
~
U
-
~
~
U
---
$.,
Q
......
CJ
~
~
OJ)
=
....
\I.l
=
Q
==
......
=
~
e
~
CJ
~
-
"t'"Q..
... ~
g.~
~ e
~ ~
= $.,
Q OJ)
.... Q
...... $.,
~~
-"C
~ =
> =
~~
"C_
= ~
~;;:
~ Q..
CJ ~
;U
E -g ~
Q ~
~e~
,.,~ ~
_ $.,
- OJ) =
......= Q....
$.,......
~ ,.,. $.,
e - Q
~"C
~ = =
~~~
IIIIIIIIIIt ~ ..
~~=
= -= ..
-$.,
= ~ ~
-<U~
-
~
~
~
~
u
-
~
~
U
---
$.,
Q
......
CJ
~
~
OJ)
=
....
\I.l
=
Q
==
~
...t:l
~
\..)
.....
......
......
=
~
e
~
CJ
~
-
t ~
g.~
~ e
~ ~
= $.,
Q OJ)
.... Q
...... $.,
~~
-"C
~ =
> =
~~
"C
=-;~
~ ;;: =
~ Q.. "C
CJ ~ ~
;u-e
e"C~
$., = =
Q ~ Q
~e;::
~~~
~$.,=
~OJ)~
5 e ~
e~C.
~-ge
~=~
~~..
- - ~
~~=
=;;:......
= Q.. $.,
= ~ ~
-<u~
~
......
~
~
...t:l
8
.....
......
~
......
~
=
~
-
~
=
Q
....
......
CJ
-<
$.,
~
~
>
I
~
>
....
~
e
~
$.,
OJ)
e t
~ ~
"C e
g ~
~~
-
~~
.... ......
Q..$.,
~ ~
u~
<:ll
......
...t:l
~
\..)
.....
......
~
......
~
=
~ \I.l
- ~
~;::
= ....
Q .~
~~
<-<
$.,~
~ $.,
~ Q
>~
~ I
.... \I.l
~ ~
e
~
$.,
OJ) =
Q ....
$.,......
~ 5
"C
=
= =
~~
-
~=
.... ......
Q..$.,
~ ~
u~
~
...t:l
~
\..)
.....
......
~
......
~
=
~ \I.l
- ~
~;::
= ....
Q .~
;:~
<-<
$.,~
~ $.,
~ Q
>~
~ I
.... \I.l
~ ~
e
~
$.,
OJ) =
Q ....
$.,......
~ 5
"C
=
= =
~~
-
~~
...... ~
.... ......
Q..$.,
~ ~
u~
~
""'
o
o
N
Ci
""'
;ao
2..
-<I:
'1
lfl
t-
o
o
lfl
6
;;,
==
E
..8
~
...t:l
~
\..)
.....
......
~
'-
o
~
"
OJ)
"
0...
~
......
~
Attachment B
Streamlined PHA Plan
PHA Certifications of Compliance
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development
Office of Public and Indian Housing
PHA Certifications of Compliance with the PHA Plans and Related Regulations:
Board Resolution to Accompany the Streamlined Annual PHA Plan
Acting on behalf of the Board of Commissioners of the Public Housing Agency (PHA) listed below, as its Chairman or other
authorized PHA official if there is no Board of Commissioners, I approve the submission of the streamlined Annual PHA Plan for
PHA fiscal year beginning July 1, 2006. hereinafter referred to as the Streamlined Annual Plan, of which this document is a part
and make the following certifications, agreements with, and assurances to the Department of Housing and Urban Development
(HUD) in connection with the submission of the Streamlined Plan and implementation thereof
1. The streamlined Annual Plan is consistent with the applicable comprehensive housing affordability strategy (or any streamlined
Plan incorporating such strategy) for the jurisdiction in which the PHA is located.
2, The PHA has established a Resident Advisory Board or Boards, the membership of which represents the residents assisted by
the PHA, and provided this Board or Boards an opportunity to review and comment on any program and policy changes since
submission of the last Annual Plan.
3. The PHA made the proposed streamlined Annual Plan, including policy and program revisions since submission of the last
Annual Plan, and all information relevant to the public hearing available for public inspection at least 45 days before the hearing,
published a notice that a hearing would be held and conducted a hearing to discuss the streamlined Plan and invited public
comment.
4. The PHA will carry out the streamlined Annual Plan in conformity with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Fair Housing
Act, section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, and title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990.
5. The PHA will affirmatively further fair housing by examining their programs or proposed programs, identify any impediments to
fair housing choice within those programs, address those impediments in a reasonable fashion in view of the resources available
and work with local jurisdictions to implement any of the jurisdiction's initiatives to affirmatively further fair housing that require the
PHA's involvement and maintain records reflecting these analyses and actions.
6. For streamlined Annual Plans that include a policy or change in policy for site-based waiting lists:
The PHA regularly submits required data to HUD's MTCS in an accurate, complete and timely manner (as specified in PIR Notice
99-2);
. The system of site-based waiting lists provides for full disclosure to each applicant in the selection of the development in which
to reside, including basic information about available sites; and an estimate of the period of time the applicant would likely have to
wait to be admitted to units of different sizes and types at each site;
. Adoption of site-based waiting list would not violate any court order or settlement agreement or be inconsistent with a pending
complaint brought by HUD;
. The PHA shall take reasonable measures to assure that such waiting list is consistent with affirmatively furthering fair housing;
. The PHA provides for review of its site-based waiting list policy to determine if it is consistent with civil rights laws and
certifications, as specified in 24 CFR part 903,7(b)(2),
7. The PHA will comply with the prohibitions against discrimination on the basis of age pursuant to the Age Discrimination Act of
1975.
8. The PHA will comply with the Architectural Barriers Act of 1968 and 24 CFR Part 41, Policies and Procedures for the Enforcement
of Standards and Requirements for Accessibility by the Physically Handicapped.
9. The PHA will comply with the requirements of section 3 of the Housing and Urban Development Act of 1968, Employment
Opportunities for Low-or Very-Low Income Persons, and with its implementing regulation at 24 CFR Part 135,
10, The PHA has submitted with the streamlined Plan a certification with regard to a drug-free workplace required by 24 CFR Part
24, Subpart F.
11. The PHA has submitted with the streamlined Plan a certification with regard to compliance with restrictions on lobbying required
by 24 CFR Part 87, together with disclosure forms if required by this Part, and with restrictions on payments to influence Federal
Transactions, in accordance with the Byrd Amendment
and implementing regulations at 49 CFR Part 24.
12, The PHA will comply with acquisition and relocation requirements of the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property
Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 and implementing regulations at 49 CFR Part 24 as applicable,
13, The PHA will take appropriate affirmative action to award contracts to minority and women's business enterprises under 24 CFR
5,105( a).
14, The PHA will provide HUD or the responsible entity any documentation that the Department needs to carry out its review under
the National Environmental Policy Act and other related authorities in accordance with 24 CFR Part 58,
15. With respect to public housing the PHA will comply with Davis -Bacon or HUD determined wage rate requirements under
section 12 of the United States Housing Act of 1937 and the Contract Work Hours and Safety Standards Act.
16. The PHA will keep records in accordance with 24 CFR 85,20 and facilitate an effective audit to determine compliance with
program requirements.
Page 1 of 2
form HUD-50076 (4/30/2003)
17. The PHA will comply with the Lead-Based Paint Poisoning Prevention Act and 24 CFR Part 35.
18. The PHA will comply with the policies, guidelines, and requirements of OMB Circular No, A-87 (Cost Principles for State, Local
and Indian Tribal Governments) and 24 CFR Part 85 (Administrative Requirements for Grants and Cooperative Agreements to State,
Local and Federally Recognized Indian Tribal Governments.).
19. The PHA will undertake only activities and programs covered by the streamlined Annual Plan in a manner consistent with its
streamlined Annual Plan and will utilize covered grant funds only for activities that are approvable under the regulations and
included in its streamlined Plan.
20. All certifications and attachments (if any) to the streamlined Plan have been and will continue to be available at all times and all
locations that the PHA streamlined Plan is available for public inspection. All required supporting documents have been made
available for public inspection along with the streamlined Plan and additional requirements at the primary business office of the
PHA and at all other times and locations identified by the PHA in its streamlined Annual Plan and will continue to be made
available at least at the primary business office of the PHA.
21.The PHA certifies that the following policies, programs, and plan components have been revised since submission of its last
Annual PHA Plan (check all policies, programs, and components that have been changed):
903.7a Housing Needs
903.7b Eligibility, Selection, and Admissions Policies
903.7c Financial Resources
903.7d Rent Determination Policies
903.7h Demolition and Disposition
903.7k Homeownership Programs
" 903.7r Additional Information
A. Progress in meeting 5-year mission and goals
_B. Criteria for substantial deviation and significant amendments
'" .C. Other information requested by HUD
I. Resident Advisory Board consultation process
~2. Membership of Resident Advisory Board
_3. Resident membership on PHA governing board
22. The PHA provides assurance as part of this certification regarding its streamlined annual PHA Plan that:
(i) The Resident Advisory Board had an opportunity to review and comment on the changes to the policies and programs before
implementation by the PHA;
(ii) The changes were duly approved by the PHA board of directors (or similar governing body); and
(iii)The revised policies and programs are available for review and inspection, at the principal office of the PHA during normal
business hours.
Albemarle County Office of Housing
PHA Name
V A036VO
PHA Number
Strp~mlinpc1 Annual PHA Plan for Fiscal Year: 2006
I hereby certify that all the infonnation stated herein, as well as any infonnation provided in the accompaniment herewith, is true and accurate. Warning: HUD will prosecute false
claims and statements. Conviction mav result in criminal and/or civil penalties. (18 V.S.C. 1001, 1010. 1012; 31 V.S.C. 3729, 3802)
Name of Authorized Official
Title
Robert W. Tucker
County Executive
Signature
Date
x
Page 2 of 2
form HUD-50076 (4/30/2003)
.
.
.
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Communit)' Development
401 McIntire Road, Room 227
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
Phone (434)296-5832
Fax (434) 972-4011
Apri] 3, 2006
Virginia Tahboub
Rosewood Manor, LLC
500 Greenbrier Drive
Charlottesville, VA 2290]
RE: SP 2005-032 Rosewood Village Assisted Living at HolIymead Town Center
(Signs #8, 34) - Tax Map 32 Parcel 41D (a portion ofB]ock III in area C)
Dear Ms. Tahboub:
The Albemarle County Planning Commission, at its meeting on March 21,2006, unanimously
recommended approval of the above-noted petition to the Board of Supervisors.
Please note that this approval is subject to the following conditions:
1. Maximum usage is limited to ninety-six residents (96) residents in the facility
2. No part of the assisted living facility site may be utilized for any activities other than
those directly related to the adult care residence.
3. The special use permit authorizes only an adult care residence which provides an assisted
living level of service, as defined by 22V AC40-71 as provided under the Virginia
Administrative Code.
4. Neither a preliminary or final site plan, building permit, Certificate of Occupancy or any
other permit shall be approved or issued for this project if the zoning administrator
determines that the owners of Area C are in violation of proffer 2.F. for Area C (ZMA-
2001-009).
Please be advised that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors will review this petition and
receive public comment at their meeting on April 12,2006.
If you should have any questions or comments regarding the above noted action, please do not
hesitate to contact me at (434) 296-5832.
;;fr
Sean Dougherty
Senior Planner
Planning Division
~
.
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
SP 2005-00032 Rosewood Village at the Hollymead
Town Center
STAFF:
SEAN DOUGHERTY
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Request for a special use permit to allow for a
96-bed assisted living facility in Area C of the
Town Center,
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE:
March 21, 2006 Public Hearing
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS DATE:
April 5, 2006 '
OWNER/APPLICANT: Post Office Land Trust is the owner. The applicant is Virginia Tahboub.
PROPOSAL:
This request is for a special use permit to allow for a 67,291 sq. ft, 96-bed assisted living facility on a
1.25 acre site zoned Planned Development Mixed Commercial within Area C of the northwest
quadrant of the Hollymead Town Center. The facility will be at the Southwest corner of the extension
of Timberwood Boulevard and Gathering Place. The facility will provide long-term residential care for
the elderly, including special care units for residents with Alzheimer's,
eACKGROUND:
Area C of the Hollymead Town Center was approved in 2002 as PDMC zoning with a Code of
Development (ZMA 2001-00020). The Code of Development allows assisted living facilities in this
block by special use permit.
DISCUSSION/FINDINGS:
The request is found to be generally consistent with existing zoning, the Land Use Plan, and
Neighborhood Model. Staff supports the application.
Factors Favorable to this request
. The proposal for this use adds diversity and increases residential uses in the Town Center
. The use does not generate impacts associated with typical residential development
. The residents of an assisted living facility in this location will benefit from the retail and
restaurants provided within the commercial portion of the Town Center.
Factors Unfavorable to this Request
. The roads to serve this facility are not in place. This concern is addressed with the inclusion of
recommended condition four.
RECOMMENDA TION:
Staff recommends approval with conditions,
.
STAFF PERSON:
PLANNING COMMISSION:
~ARD OF SUPERVISORS:
SP 2005-00032 Rosewood Villa~e Assisted Livin~ Facility
Sean Dougherty
March 21, 2006
April 5, 2006
Applicant's Proposal
Virginia Taboub, owner of the Rosewood Village assisted living facility on Greenbriar Drive, is
proposing to build a second facility to provide long-term residential care for the elderly. The facility's
program is also designed to provide residential care for those suffering from Alzheimer's and other
forms of dementia.
Petition:
PROJECT: SP 2005-00032 Rosewood Village Assisted Living at the Hollymead Town Center
PROPOSED: Request for a special use permit to allow for a 70,000 sq. ft. assisted living facility on
1 .25 acres
ZONING CATEGORY/GENERAL USAGE: PD-MC Planned Development Mixed Commercial-large-
scale commercial uses; and residential by special use permit (15 units/ acre); EC Entrance Corridor
Overlay District
SECTION: 25A.2.2.1 which allows assisted living facilities by special use permit in PDMC
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE/DENSITY: Town Center: designates compact, higher density
area containing a mixture of businesses, services, public facilities, residential areas and public
spaces, attracting activities of all kinds.
LOCATION: Tax Map 32 Parcel 41 D. The property is located approximately 1,500 feet from U.S,
aoute 29 along Timberwood Boulevard in the Hollymead Town Center.
_AGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Rio
Character of the Area
The subject property lies west of Route 29, along the southeast corner of the extension of
Timberwood Boulevard and Gathering Place. These roads are not yet completed. See Attachment A
for the Location Map and Attachment B for the Application Plan. The area has been cleared, graded,
and prepared for development.
Applicant's Justification for the Request:
The applicant has said that the Comprehensive Plan designates this area as Town Center and the
guidelines associated with the Town Center designation at Hollymead allows this form of
development. Additionally, the proposal increases the mixture of housing types at the Town Center.
Plannin~ and Zonin~ History:
The property was zoned Rural Areas prior to ZMA 2001-00020 which changed the zoning to Planned
Development Mixed Commercial. The rezoning to PDMC was accompanied by a proffered Code of
Development.
Comprehensive Plan:
The Land Use Plan designates this area as Town Center. The Town Center designation at Hollymead
is accompanied by in the Land Use Plan with "Conceptual Masterplan and Design Guidelines for the
,atiollymead Town Center". The proposal is in keeping with the Town Center designation and the
.ollymead Town Center Guidelines, Because the Hollymead Town Center rezoning to PD-MC
assessed conformity with the Neighborhood Model, this SP analysis need not make that assessment
in detail. The Hollymead Town Center generally conforms to the principles of neighborhood friendly
3
streets and paths, interconnected streets and transportation networks, and an internal pedestrian
orientation. In terms of parks and open space, the Hollymead Town Center includes a greenway trail
along Powell Creek, pocket parks, and other public outdoor spaces. The proffered Code of
Development ensures buildings and spaces of human scale,
5T AFF COMMENT
Staff will address each provision of Section 31.2.4.1 of the Zoning Ordinance below:
The Board of Supervisors hereby reserves unto itself the riqht to issue all special use permits
permitted hereunder, Special use permits for uses as provided in this ordinance may be issued upon
a findinq by the Board of Supervisors that such use will not be of substantial detriment to adjacent
property,
The facility will house elderly residents. Staff can identify no detriment that this facility would have on
adjacent property. In addition, the residents are assumed to be retired and not contributing to morning
or evening peak commute times. Their transportation needs will be provided by the Rosewood Village
management, JABA, or friends and relatives. Other traffic associated with the facility will be
generated by employees and visitors.
that the character of the district will not be chanqed thereby,
The proposal is in keeping with the form of development anticipated with the Comprehensive Plan
Amendment that placed the Town Center designation on the area. The proposal is in keeping with the
Town Center Design Guidelines.
and that such use will be in harmony with the purpose and intent of this ordinance,
Staff has reviewed this request for compliance with the purpose and intent of the Zoning Ordinance,
and identified no conflict that would arise as a result of its approval.
with the uses permitted by riqht in the district,
Section 25A of the Zoning Ordinance, entitled Planned Development - Mixed Commercial, allows the
same by-right uses as well as those that are permitted by special use permits in the C-1
(Commercial), CO (Commercial Office), and HC (Highway Commercial) zoning districts. Assisted
living facilities are permitted by special use permit in C-1, CO, and HC districts. A proffered Code of
Development was submitted with the request to rezone this property to PDMC (ZMA 2001-00020).
This Code of Development set maximum non-residential parameters in each block and allowed for
certain uses to be allowed by Special Use Permit. Within this block, the Code of Development allows
assisted living facilities by special use permit. The traffic generation impacts from this use were
prepared to determine the impacts of this use on the road system established within the block. It has
been determined that this use will not generate impacts in excess of that which is permitted in this
block based on the traffic study prepared for the Town Center. The proposed use is compatible with
the other permitted uses in this district.
4
with additional requlations provided in Section 5.0 of this ordinance,
e1.13 REST HOME, NURSING HOME, CONVALESCENT HOME, ORPHANAGE
a. Such uses shall be provided in locations where the physical surroundings are compatible to the
particular area;
Staff considers the physical surroundings compatible. The application plan offers outdoor areas on
site and the Town Center includes neighborhood friendly streets, pocket parks, more formalized
urban public spaces, and a greenway trail along Powell Creek. The neighboring uses allowed by the
Code of Development or that are currently being proposed include residential, retail, and office. Staff
does not see a conflict. Additionally, the availability of these amenities may allow for the residents to
lead more active lifestyles than if the facility was located in a remote setting.
b. No such use shall be established in any area either by right or by special use permit until the
Albemarle County fire official has determined that adequate fire protection is available to such use;
The pressure water available within the Town Center is 3,675 gallons per minute at 20 psi residual.
This system was designed to serve the many uses in the Town Center and is more than adequate to
serve this use.
c. Generally such uses should be located in proximity to or in short response time to emergency
medical and fire protection facilities. Uses for the elderly and handicapped should be
convenient to shopping, social, education and cultural uses;
.e fire station at the North Fork Research Park is scheduled to be completed in summer 2007. This
station will be within a half mile of this assisted living facility. Existing fire and rescue facilities include
the Berkmar Drive fire station and the Seminole Trail and the Earlysville Fire station. These facilities
are connected to the site by Earlysville Road and Route 29 respectively.
d. No such use shall be operated without approval and, where appropriate, licensing by such
agencies as the Virginia Department of Welfare} the Virginia Department of Health, and other
such appropriate local, state and federal agencies as may have authority in a particular case.
The applicant has submitted documentation regarding their intent with respect to the regulatory
requirements for nursing homes. Compliance with the respective agencies governing the
management of such facilities is a condition of the special use permit.
and with the public health, safety and qeneral welfare.
To protect the public health, safety, and general welfare, public roads associated with Area C proffers
need to be constructed before a certificate of occupancy can be issued for the assisted living facility.
To date, the roads are not complete, however this can be addressed through conditions. Condition
four has been crafted to address this concern. Recommended condition four refers to the proffer for
Hollymead Town Center Area C that requires the completion of Access Road C (now referred to as
Meeting Street) from its alignment in Area A to Timberwood Boulevard prior to a certificate of
.ccupancy being issued for Area C.
5
SUMMARY:
The introduction of an assisted living facility in this portion of Area C is permitted by special use
permit in the Code of Development proffered with the Area C of the Hollymead Town Center
rezoning. Additionally, this use adds uses in keeping with residential development to the Town Cente:
without the impacts of conventional residential development. Convenient access to the Town Center
and its amenities will provide convenient access to services and many opportunities for active living
and recreation for residents and their visitors.
Factors Favorable to this request
. The proposal for this use adds diversity and increases residential uses in the Town Center.
. The use does not generate impacts associated with typical residential development.
. The residents of an assisted living facility in this location will benefit from the retail and
restaurants provided within the commercial portion of the Town Center.
Factors Unfavorable to this Request
. The roads to serve this facility are not in place. With the inclusion of condition four with this
special use permit request, this concern is addressed.
Recommendation:
Staff opinion is that this special use permit is consistent with Sections 5.1.13 and 31.2.4.1 of the
Zoning Ordinance, the area's Comprehensive Plan Designation, The Hollymead Design Guidelines,
and the Neighborhood Model. Therefore, staff recommends approval, subject to the following
conditions:
1. Maximum usage is limited to ninety-six residents (96) residents in the facility
2. No part of the assisted living facility site may be utilized for any activities other than those
directly related to the adult care residence.
3. The special use permit authorizes only an adult care residence which provides an assisted
living level of service, as defined by 22VAC40-71 as provided under the Virginia Administrative
Code.
4. The site plan associated with Rosewood Village will not be signed until proffer 2.F. for Area C
(ZMA 2001-999) is met.
Attachments
A. Location Map I Town Center Development Plan
B. Application Plan
6
.
/ .1
~r
..~~, v, "1
C .----~.~.~ :~
\,~' "I-.~/'
r:
/p
,>.-6
(' " "1\:1'
\-~
0~\
'<!:;;z<2:~ \.
..6J "\..~~J>)
w,";:p"
) ~~~( ~~~;<>
0""\,\/':'\~ . ,/J/
'\;)' \ :~.., /p..A
" I,' ," \:
>;,// '~, ~ ,,-
.,' """.)0
V \~^.1 "vz....)
,.; .Cy::/~N
. '. ~" )/ c' ~ L" .
/ /oJ" .;0;;;>7 v"i>'~".)_'
do< (.d;-ryx;; v /:7.X<') ~
\,\' \~~':>\' '/'" '\(~j.
~~~:;<;~)~,Q~:~~'~ .
O\,.L'~ t:. A-".df'o~"'
, ./< ;;:/ O. t.;:';.<;'"iOi~' 0 v
)d'.~-'Y/~'" <> "
.A' '"
\o~o '~,
(~c~; "'\
; ~ '
\ .
::+j~;
1::>
:~
. ;/;;. f
l~:,:~,~ ;
.
,1\
.
5
~
c
~ ,'-
~
'\
~'.
=""~
<(
- 0
c:: 0
Q)
E
.c:
u
nl
-
-
. <(
~.
" !
)'" ..~
~. ::'
Attachment A
7
Attachment B
"',:",-;.,
""
00
dZ~~ ~,
1,1 >5~~d~ ~
mill AA::l[:3ElC g 9
~; ~~~~z!~ ~~ ~
~H i""Ul....~Pn~
0_00 ~~<H [Ii .(
CI OG~4 W \ J- C\" ---------- /"
.~
/~.::"":,,:,.:~~,, ~I
.., . . ----------~~::'
;=~l\"'~~;,.. \\ \i ~I
(!~t~~'
<\'~ .
"lt~
L.-\\~.~.. ~
st;t... ~. :'.~., ~
4t~ . ~\.< ~
~ \ \ ~
\\ \ ~
\ \ \
)~
!hnl
. 'I..
"I~'l
II':
i:S
a:l
..
c::
Q)
E
J:
(,)
.a
..
<C
~
UJ
\-
Z
UJ
U
>- zo
~ UJ ~~
~ 0 o~~
~S0\-~~ n
>---3Z0f5~ '
:=i>-<(IO~ ~ I
e > UJ~~ P .
tr;O---3L....> ~ ~ ~.lB; I~
~ 8 fa ~ ~ ~ ~ ~Ie Ihl ih:ill;~~H".1
t: ~ I- -1 Q.. (j') - !, !' i ~ .i~ lj h IH I
z :> \.!l UJ ,~l! ~ ! ~ ,B- ~ .~ u
::JUJtOO~~ ~Bn il~ ~I ~u ~hl II. !!mhl~d~.'~lhU
~ to to :r: li"J 0 ~I! !o ~ ~I~ I~' ~ I'f< I ~ "'u~:lljfi ~@hi
~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~I Un nn UIi dihUU Ii ~:mili;hhlli mn
'""
'"
B
""
. 0/\ 'i<il
'. :.,..'-"..
..
.'
,.f;'~!
~~. "
R,fll'
----------
~liiliil
dluui
~~~B~ ~!~
."hig2f
~~'ci~.. ~
~lbU ;~II ~
~ ,Mlnil i II
8
.
.
.
Albemarle County Planning Commission
March 21 J 2006
The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a meeting and a public hearing on Tuesday, March 21,
2006, at 6:00 p,m., at the County Office Building, Room 241, Second Floor, 401 Mcintire Road,
Charlottesville, Virginia. Members attending were Bill Edgerton, Eric Strucko, Calvin Morris, Vice-
Chairman; Pete Craddock, Jo Higgins and Marcia Joseph, Chairman. Absent was Jon Cannon. Julia
Monteith, Senior Land Use Planner for the University of Virginia, representative for David J. Neuman,
FAIA, Architect for University of Virginia was present.
Other officials present were Wayne Cilimberg, Planning Director; Claudette Grant, Senior Planner; Bill
Fritz, Development Review Manager; Sean Dougherty, Senior Planner; David Benish, Chief of Planning &
Community Development and Greg Kamptner, Deputy County Attorney.
Call to Order and Establish Quorum:
Ms, Joseph called the regular meeting to order at 6:02 p.m. and established a quorum.
Public Hearing Item:
SP-2005-032 Rosewood Villaae Assisted Livina at Hollvmead Town Center (Sians #8.34)
PROPOSED: Request for a special use permit to allow for a 70,000 sq. ft. assisted living facility on 1.25
acres.
ZONING CATEGORY/GENERAL USAGE: PD-MC Planned Development Mixed Commercial - large-
scale commercial uses; and residential by special use permit (15 units/ acre); EC Entrance Corridor
Overlay District.
SECTION: 25A.2.2.1 which allows assisted living facilities by special use permit in PDMC.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE/DENSITY: Town Center: designates compact, higher density area
containing a mixture of businesses, services, public facilities, residential areas and public spaces,
attracting activities of all kinds.
LOCATION: Tax Map 32 Parcel 41 D. The property is located approximately 1,500 feet from U.S. Route
29 along Timberwood Boulevard in the Hollymead Town Center.
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Rio
STAFF: Sean Dougherty
Ms. Higgins recused herself from SP-2005-032 due to a direct relationship through her mother with the
existing Rosewood Village to avoid any appearance of impropriety. She left the room at 6:55 p.m.
Mr. Dougherty summarized the staff report.
This is a request for a special use permit to allow for a 67,291 square foot 96 bed assisted living facility
within PD-MC zoning in Area C of the Hollymead Town Center. This is in the northwest quadrant of the
town center. It will provide long term residential care for the elderly including special care units for
residents with Alzheimer's.
The request is found to be generally consistent with the existing zoning, the land use plan and the
Neighborhood's Model. Staff supports the application.
Factors Favorable to this request
· The proposal for this use adds diversity and increases residential uses in the Town Center.
· The use does not generate impacts associated with typical residential development.
· The residents of an assisted living facility in this location will benefit from the retail and
restaurants provided within the commercial portion of the Town Center in addition to open space
amenities,
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - MARCH 21, 2006
DRAFT MINUTES SP-2005-032
ROSEMONT VILLAGE ASSISTED LIVING AT HOLL YMEAD TOWN CENTER
Factors Unfavorable to this Request
. The roads to serve this facility are not in place. With the inclusion of condition four with this
special use permit request, this concern is addressed.
Staff opinion is that this special use permit is consistent with SeCtions 5.1.13 and 31.2.4.1 of the Zoning
Ordinance, the area's Comprehensive Plan Designation, The Hollymead Design Guidelines, and the
Neighborhood Model. Therefore, staff recommends approval, subject to the following conditions:
1. Maximum usage is limited to ninety-six residents (96) residents in the facility
2. No part of the assisted living facility site may be utilized for any activities other than those directly
related to the adult care residence.
3. The special use permit authorizes only an adult care residence which provides an assisted living
level of service, as defined by 22VAC40-71 as provided under the Virginia Administrative Code.
4. The site plan associated with Rosewood Village will not be signed until proffer 2.F. for Area C
(ZMA 2001-999) is met.
The fourth condition was amended by zoning today and has been reviewed by the County Attorney. The
revised condition reads, "Neither a preliminary or final site plan, building permit, Certificate of Occupancy
or any other permit shall be approved or issued for this project if the zoning administrator determines that
the owners of Area C are in violation of proffer 2.F. for Area C (ZMA-2001-009).
There is one clarification under the review of Section 31.2.4.1 where staff had said that the applicant had
submitted documentation for regulatory requirements for a nursing home. That is not correct. It is
actually an assisted living facility, The wrong words were used. Everything else in the staff report is
reflected correctly. But, this is an assisted living level of service and not a nursing home, which is a little
bit more intense.
Staff presented a PowerPoint presentation showing the area of the proposal. One slide showed the
extension of Town Center Drive going out to Route 606, which will come in with proffers for A-1 and A-2,
Mr. Strucko asked if Timberwood Boulevard was the road that was not yet constructed.
Mr. Dougherty stated that road has been constructed to a point.
Mr. Strucko asked if the road extends beyond that point from Airport Road where the fire house access
was located.
Mr. Edgerton stated that the fire house access was on the other side of Airport Road.
Mr. Strucko stated that there was going to be some activity for the fire and rescue service at this
institution.
Mr, Cilimberg stated that the road across Airport Road from the end of Timberwood Boulevard would be
part of the future development to make a connection. It is not the road that will have the fire station
located on it.
Mr, Strucko asked if the fire station would have access to that road through the other connections.
Mr. Cilimberg stated that it would ultimately, but for the near term it would come out to Airport Road, up to
Timberwood and then into this back side of Hollymead Town Center. If you look where the C is located
on the plan, then just to the left it is sitting over the extension that would occur ultimately of Meeting Street
to the Lewis and Clark Boulevard. But, that would have to come through a future development that is not
before the County as yet.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - MARCH 21, 2006 2
DRAFT MINUTES SP-2005-032
ROSEMONT VILLAGE ASSISTED LIVING AT HOLL YMEAD TOWN CENTER
.
.
.
Ms. Joseph noted that one of the things staff had talked about was how residents of this facility would be
able to walk to different parks.
Mr. Dougherty stated that was included on the site as outdoor patio green space and outdoor seating
along Meeting Street, which would be used as a gathering place. In Abington Place there is a rather
large park that provides access back towards the green space, which is literally within 100 feet of the
western corner. The entrance to the greenways trails is also located within 100 feet. There is a part in
section A-1 that will be coming in for review. That would essentially be all of the larger spaces. But,
Timberwood Boulevard and this traffic circle are suppose to include small sort spaces carved out of the
street walls, which would be essentially small plazas where a couple of benches would fit with some
public art and those sorts of things. That is in addition to the sidewalks and benches that are provided
throughout the area.
Mr. Cilimberg stated that Rosewood Village on Greenbrier Drive is probably within a similar distance of
the greenway trail, which was part of the Rivanna Trail system. There is probably not a lot of difference in
distance between that location and the proximity to that trail off of Greenbrier and this location in proximity
to this future greenway. .
Mr. Dougherty continued the Power Point presentation in order to show the Commission what is going on
out there now.
Ms. Joseph asked how many stories would be in this building. Also, when the building plans come in will
staff look at them to see if they are in compliance with the guidelines.
Mr. Dougherty stated that on the street the building would have four stories and on the interior of the site
three stories. When the building plans come in the site planner will review for compliance with the
guidelines, and he will receive a copy. He pointed out that it was a very attractive building,
Mr. Edgerton asked if the elevations will be part of the approval if the request is approved.
Mr. Dougherty stated that he was not sure and had not discussed that with the applicant, but that was not
part of the conditions as written.
There being no further questions for staff, Ms. Joseph opened the public hearing and invited the applicant
to address the Commission.
Ms. Taub, owner and applicant, stated that six years ago she came in front of most of the Commissioners
for Rosewood Village on Greenbrier Drive, which is across from the Senior Center. At that location they
have 66 residents. In this building they want to be able to accommodate another 84 units, which would
be about 90 residents. They have designed the building to have an urban look because they are in the
Hollymead Town Center. They are excited about the fact that it is very much located like their Greenbrier
facility because it has the residential component like Branchlands, which is the residential component
there. This has this new residential component, which is very nice. She felt that the green space and the
amenities at Hollymead Town Center will be very beneficial for the families, She felt that it was a good
compliment both ways. She pointed out that her husband was also present.
Ms. Joseph invited other public comment. There being none, the public hearing was closed and the
matter was before the Commission.
Mr, Morris stated that he liked to see this type of facility in the Hollymead Town Center. He felt that it was
very appropriate,
Mr. Strucko agreed. He thanked staff for the broader context, which really helped him understand what is
happening in and around this area.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - MARCH 21, 2006
DRAFT MINUTES SP-2005-032
ROSEMONT VILLAGE ASSISTED LIVING AT HOLL YMEAD TOWN CENTER
3
Ms. Joseph supported the request because it is not going to be a detriment to the area and it really does
conform to pretty much everything that they want happening in Hollymead Town Center.
Motion: Mr. Morris moved, Mr. Edgerton seconded, to approve SP-2005-032, Rosewood Village
Assisted Living at Hollymead Town Center with the conditions, as amended, recommended by staff.
1. Maximum usage is limited to ninety-six residents (96) residents in the facility
2. No part of the assisted living facility site may be utilized for any activities other than those directly
related to the adult care residence,
3. The special use permit authorizes only an adult care residence which provides an assisted living
level of service, as defined by 22VAC40-71 as provided under the Virginia Administrative Code.
4. Neither a preliminary or final site plan, building permit, Certificate of Occupancy or any other
permit shall be approved or issued for this project if the zoning administrator determines that the
owners of Area C are in violation of proffer 2.F. for Area C (ZMA-2001-009).
The motion passed by a vote of 5:0. (Commissioner Cannon was absent.) (Commissioner Higgins
abstained.)
Ms. Joseph stated that SP-2005-032, Rosewood Village Assisted Living at Hollymead Town Center would
go to the Board of Supervisors on April 12 with a recommendation for approval.
(Recorded and transcribed by Sharon Claytor Taylor, Recording Secretary.)
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - MARCH 21, 2006
DRAFT MINUTES SP-2005-032
ROSEMONT VILLAGE ASSISTED LIVING AT HOLL YMEAD TOWN CENTER
4
..
'\
Board of Supervisors' FY 06/07 Operating and Capital Budgets
Changes from Recommended Budget
IFY 06/07
FUND
II UKt:~
FY 06/07 Recommended FY 06/07 Proposed
Budget Budget
10,182,767
22,000
-45,000
10,159,767
3,528,917
3,528,917
25,648,727
150,000
146,265
-53,570
-72,560
-101,863
6,790
25,723,789
3,814,282
13,100
3,827,382
16,090,006
154,426
7,867
-68,960
16,183,339
5,746,500
10,000
3,127
5,759,627
7,564,410
7,564,410
146,590
146,590
10,134,816
10,134,816
23,088,333
387,543
693,772
24,169,648
91,165,717
91,165,717
1,183,817
355,766
1,539,583
198,294,882 199,903,585
Attachment B
GENERAL FUND EXPENDITURES
Administration
ACE Publicity
Decals
Subtotal, Administration
Judicial
Subtotal, Judicial
Public Safety
Northern Fire EMS
CARS
Regional Jail
Juvenile Detention Center
Emergency Communications Center
OAR - Drug Court
Subtotal, Public Safety
General Services
Roadway Landscaping
Subtotal, General Services
Human Development & Education
7th Bright Stars Program
Commission on Children & Families
CSA
Subtotal, Human Development & Education
Parks and Recreation
Save the Fire Works
Virginia Film Festival
Subtotal, Parks and Recreation
Community Development
Subtotal, Community Development
Miscellaneous
Subtotal, Non-Departmental
City Revenue Sharing
Subtotal, Revenue Sharing
Capital Improvement & Debt Service Transfers
Increase Transfer to CIP for ACE (General Fund)
Dedicate Additional 1/2 Cent to Capital
Subtotal, Capital & Debt Transfers
Transfer for School Operations
Subtotal, Transfer for School Operations
Contingency Reserves
Board Reserve Adjustment
Subtotal, Contingency Reserve
Board of Supervisors' FY 06/07 Operatin and Capital Bud ets
Chan es from Recommended Budget
GENERAL FUND - REVENUES & FUNDING SOURCES
COUNTY EXECUTIVE'S RECOMMENDED BUDGET
One-Time Fund Balances
FY 06/07 Recommended
Budget
198,294,882
FY 06/07 Proposed
Budget
REVENUE ADJUSTMENTS
Real Estate Reassessment
1,608,703
TOTAL, Revenue & Fund Balance Adjustments
$~HOQLDIVI$ION ElCPENDITURES
School Fund Operations
School Board Adjustments
Increase Transfer from County
Less Unfunded Requests
Subtotal, School Fund Operations
FY 06187 Recomrnended FY 06107 Proposed
Sudget Budget
141,732,877
141,732,877
Self-Sustaining Fund Operations
Subtotal, School Self-Sustaining
14,830,310
14,830,310
FY 06107 SCHOOL DIVISION BUDGET
158 663,187
158 663 187
~AL1WROVsMENTS BUDGET
General Government Projects
Acquisition of Conservation Easements (from General Fund)
Capital Reserve
Subtotal, General Government Projects
f:Y 06187 Propoeect
Budget
387,543
1,988,630
25,009,173
Storm Water Projects
Subtotal, Storm Water Projects
650,000
650,000
School Division Projects
Subtotal, School Division Projects
13,375,000
13,375,000
Debt Service
Subtotal, Debt Service
13,787,000
13,787,000
P'ltIIO? CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS 8UDC$1T
Bright Stars
General Fund Transfer
Schools Transfer
State Revenue
Subtotal, Family Support
154,426
64,737
34,093
1,037,679
CSA
General Fund Transfer
6,584,802
-68,960
Attachment B
Board of Supervisors' FY 06/07 Operatin and Capital Bud ets
Changes from Recommended Budget
Schools Transfer
Fund Balance
Subtotal, Family Support
150,000
-81,040
6,584,802
Other Special Revenue Funds
9,008,222
Subtotal, Other Special Revenue Funds
9,008,222
SUBTOTAL-ALL FUNDS
LESSINTERFUNDTRANSFERS
TOTAL COUNTY BUDGET. ALL FUNDS
421,680,516
(125,733,796)
295,946,720
425,918,648
(127,115,314)
298,803,334
Attachment B
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
Adoption of the FY 06/07 Operating and Capital
Budgets
AGENDA DATE:
April 12, 2006
ACTION: X
INFORMATION:
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Request Board Adoption of the FY 06/07 Operating
and Capital Budgets
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION:
INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS: Yes
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Mr. Tucker, Mr. Davis, Mr. Breeden, Ms. White
REVIEWED BY:
~
I
LEGAL REVIEW: Yes
BACKGROUND:
On April 5th, a public hearing was held on the Board of Supervisors' proposed FY 06/07 Operating and Capital budgets.
STRATEGIC PLAN:
4.2 Fund County services in a fair, efficient manner and provide needed public facilities and infrastructure.
DISCUSSION:
The FY 06/07 Operating and Capital budgets total $298,803,334. This amount reflects the County Executive's
Recommended Budget plus changes made during the Board's work sessions. The attached resolution (Attachment A)
formally approves the total proposed expenditures of $298,803,334 for FY 06/07, Attachment B details the adjustments
made to the County Executive's Recommended Budget.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
If the Board has no additions or deletions, staff requests adoption of the FY 06/07 Operating and Capital Budgets.
ATTACHMENTS
A - Budget Resolution
B - Summary of Chanqes
06.049
BUDGET RESOLUTION
BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, that the
County budget for the Fiscal Year beginning July 1, 2006 be approved as follows:
Administration
Judicial
Public Safety
General Services
Human Development (including PVCC)
Parks, Recreation, and Cultural
Community Development
Refunds
City/County Revenue Sharing
General Government Capital Projects
Storm Water Improvements
General Government Debt Service
Education - Capital Projects
Education - Debt Service
Education - School Operations
Education - Self-Sustaining Funds
Special Revenue Fund Operations
Less: Interfund Transfers
Contingency Reserves
TOTAL
***************
FY 06/07 ADOPTED
$10,159,767
3,528,917
25,723.789
3,827,382
16,183,339
5,759,627
7,564,410
146,590
10,134,816
25,009,173
650,000
2,254,274
13,375,000
11,532,726
141,732,877
14,830,310
16,630,703
(11,779,949)
1,539,583
$298,803,334
I, Ella W. Carey, do hereby certify that the foregoing writing is a true and correct copy of
a Resolution duly adopted by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County by a vote of six to
zero, as recorded below, at a regular meeting held on April 12, 2006.
Mr. Boyd
Mr. Dorrier
Mr. Rooker
Mr. Slutzky
Ms. Thomas
Mr. Wyant
Ave Nav
Y
y
Y
Y
Y
Y
isors
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
Calendar Year 2006 Tax Levy Resolution
AGENDA DATE:
April 12, 2006
ACTION: X
INFORMATION:
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Request Board Approval of the Calendar Year 2006
Tax Rates
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION:
INFORMATION:
REVIEWED BY:
~
STAFF CONTACTlS):
Mr. Tucker, Mr. Davis, Mr. Breeden, Ms. White
ATTACHMENTS: Yes
LEGAL REVIEW: Yes
BACKGROUND:
On AprilS, 2006, a public hearing was held on the Board of Supervisors' proposed budget for FY 06/07. A public hearing
also was held on the 2006 calendar year tax rates.
The attached resolution to set the 2006 tax year or calendar year tax rates must be approved at the April 12, 2006 meeting
in order that the printing and mailing of the tax bills can occur in a timely manner.
STRATEGIC PLAN:
4.2 Fund County services in a fair, efficient manner and provide needed public facilities and infrastructure.
DISCUSSION:
The attached resolution sets the tax levy for calendar year 2006. The proposed rates are set at $0.74/$100 assessed
valuation for real estate, public service, and manufactured homes for the 2006 tax year, and at $4,28/$100 assessed value
for the personal property tax rate, including machinery and tools.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends approval of the proposed tax rates.
ATTACHMENTS
A - Resolution
06.050
RESOLUTION
BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, does
hereby set the County Levy for the Calendar Year 2006 for General County purposes at
Seventy-Four Cents ($0.74) on every One Hundred Dollars of assessed value of real estate; at
Seventy-Four Cents ($0.74) on every One Hundred Dollars of assessed value of manufactured
homes; at Seventy-Four Cents ($0.74) on every One Hundred Dollars of assessed value of
public service assessments; at Four Dollars and Twenty-Eight Cents ($4.28) on every One
Hundred Dollars of assessed value of personal property; and at Four Dollars and Twenty-Eight
Cents ($4.28) on every One Hundred Dollars of assessed value of machinery and tools; and
FURTHER orders that the Director of Finance of Albemarle County assess and collect
the taxes on all taxable real estate and all taxable personal property.
**************
I, Ella W. Carey, do hereby certify that the foregoing writing is a true and correct copy of
a Resolution duly adopted by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County by a vote of six to
zero, as recorded below, at a regular meeting held on April 12. 2006.
Mr. Boyd
Mr. Dorrier
Mr. Rooker
Mr. Slutzky
Ms. Thomas
Mr. Wyant
Ave Nav
Y
y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Route 250 West Task Force
County of Albemarle
Department of Planning and Community Development
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, VA 22902-4596
TO:
Rebecca Ragsdale, Senior Planner
Route 250 West Task FOn:~
March 30, 2006
FROM:
DATE:
REF:
ZMA-2005-005 Liberty Hall
The Route 250 West Task Force, which was charged by the Board of Supervisors to
review and make recommendations with regards to transportation improvements and
development proposal impact along the Route 250 West corridor, has reviewed the
Liberty Hall development's rezoning request. The Task Force does not support the
Liberty Hall development as proposed due to the increased density request and the
negative impact that additional density will have on the local road network. The Task
Force requests the Board of Supervisors not to support this rezoning until all
transportation impacts are addressed.
The Task Force appreciates the opportunity to provide comments and would be happy to
provide additional input.
cc: County of Albemarle Board of Supervisors
Albemarle County Service Authority Board of Directors
The Board of Directors of the Albemarle County Service Authority met in regular session on February 16, 2006
at 9:00 am.
Members Present: Mr. Parker, Chairman; Messrs. Humphris, Larsen, Roberts
Members Absent: Messrs. Lumpkin, Wagner
Staff Present: Messrs. Bowling, Brent, Shoop; Ms. Barton, Ms. Breeden, Ms. Rohm-Briggs, Ms. Thraves
Public Present: Mr. Gary Fern
1. Call to Order
The Chairman called the meeting to order and a quorum was established.
2. Approval of Minutes
The minutes of the Board's December 15, 2005 and January 19, 2006 meetings were reviewed and
approved.
3. Matters from the Public
There were no matters from the public.
4. Consent Aqenda
For Information
a. Monthly Financial Reports
b. Monthly CIP Report
c. RWSA Minutes of November 28, 2005
5. Introduction of Gary W. Fern
The Chairman introduced and welcomed Mr. Gary W. Fern, the successor to the current Executive
Director, Mr. J. W. Brent.
Mr. Humphris moved to approve the appointment of Mr. Fern as Executive Director on March 1,
2006, seconded by Mr. Roberts. All members voted aye.
6. Consideration of Financial Transaction Resolutions
Mr. Brent referred to several resolutions provided to the Board requiring their approval in authorizing Mr.
Gary Fern to execute documents requiring the signature of the Authority's Executive Director as of March 1,
2006 (Attached as Pages _). Mr. Brent asked that the Board adopt the generic resolution authorizing Mr.
February 16,2006
Page 1
#
J
Albemarle County Service Authority Board of Directors
Mr. Shoop added that the 6"diameter sewer serving a section of Lockesley Terrace was removed from
the project. He stated, that although the line could be rehabilitated, it would be best to replace it with an 8"
diameter sewer to serve the 15 homes. Mr. Shoop stated that Authority crews could complete this work or it
could be advertised for bidding at a later time.
Mr. Roberts asked if any contingencies existed in the contract. Mr. Shoop replied that the project has a
unit price contract and that the number of units estimated provides some contingency. He added that the
favorable unit prices may allow for additional work to be accomplished.
Mr. Larsen moved to award the contract to Insituform Technologies, authorize the Chairman to
execute the contract and appropriate $397,028 in the 3R Reserve Fund. Mr. Roberts seconded. All
members voted aye.
9. Consideration of Amendment to Rules and Reoulations; Irriqation System Application Processino Fees
Mr. Brent stated that in attempt to recover costs for reviewing irrigation system plans and preparing cost
estimates for irrigation service connections, he recommended that the Board consider the proposed resolution
assessing fees for these services (Attached as Page _). He added that the charges would be $20 for
irrigation system plan review and $80 for cost estimate preparation.
The Chairman asked what the ramifications were for installing an irrigation system without notifying the
Authority or having an additional meter installed. Mr. Brent stated that if an irrigation system .was connected to
the public system without a dedicated service connection, the customer would pay full price for water and sewer
through the tiered rates. The Chairman added that the Authority would also pay an unnecessary sewer charge
with illicit irrigation use.
Mr. Larsen asked if irrigation contractors were made aware of the proposed changes and Mr. Brent
concurred. He added that Albemarle County's Community Development department has been notified of the
plumbing permit requirement for irrigation systems.
Mr. Humphris moved to adopt the resolution, seconded by Mr. Larsen. The Chairman called for
a roll-call vote: Mr. Parker, aye; Mr. Humphris, aye; Mr. Roberts, aye; Mr. Larsen, aye.
10. Authorization to Advertise for Bids for Mobile Generators
Mr. Brent stated that in April, 2004 the Virginia General Assembly enacted legislation requiring all
utilities to prepare for extended power outages. The staff conferred with Mr. Gary Fern and has recommended
the purchase of three (3) mobile generators in order to keep customers in service in the event of an emergency.
Mr. Brent requested the Board's authorization to proceed to bid.
February 16,2006
Page 3
)
Albemarle County Service Authority Board of Directors
Brent return to a meeting in the near future for the Board to express their sincere appreciation for his
years of service. Mr. Brent agreed.
13. Executive Session to Discuss Personnel Matters
Mr. Brent requested that the Board go into Executive Session, in accordance with Section 2.2-3711. A 1
and A7 of the Virginia Code, as amended, to discuss a personnel matter.
Mr. Humphris moved to enter into Executive Session, seconded by Mr. Larsen. All members
voted aye.
The Board came back into regular session. Ms. Rohm-Briggs read into the record a resolution stating
that only matters so previously stated and exempted from open discussion in regular session were discussed in
executive session (Attached as Page _).
Mr. Humphris moved to adopt the resolution, seconded by Mr. Larsen. The Chairman asked for
a roll-call vote: Mr. Parker, aye; Mr. Humphris, aye; Mr. Roberts, aye; Mr. Larsen, aye.
Mr. Larsen moved to change Mr. Brent's retirement date as an employee of the Albemarle
County Service Authority from March 1, 2006 to May 1, 2006, or such earlier time as the Board receives
an official letter from Mr. Brent stating an exact retirement date. Mr. Roberts seconded the motion. All
members voted aye.
14. Adiournment
There being no further business, Mr. Roberts moved the meeting be adjourned, seconded by Mr.
Larsen. All members voted aye.
oh~/-
frt'* J. W. Brent, Secretary- Treasurer
February 16, 2006
Page 5
An Idea for a Greater Charlottesville Transit System
This is an idea that would greatly alleviate traffic congestion, pollution, and emission of
greenhouse gases in the greater Charlottesville area, as well as save people money on
gasoline and car expenses. What I am proposing would cut down, perhaps by half, the
number of vehicles traveling into Charlottesville each day from the surrounding area.
Since most of the employment, business, shopping and entertaimnent areas are located in
the city of Charlottesville, many people are compelled to drive into Charlottesville on a
daily basis.
Because there are only a small number of major roads leading into the city, such as
route 29 North and South, route 20, route 250 and Interstate 64, I am proposing that
commuter parking Jots be built along these routes 10, 15, or 20 miles out. From these
lots the commuters would board energy efficient buses that nm down these major routes
into the city. In the city the buses would take one of a small number of circuits that
would bring people close to all the major destinations.
For example: From Rt. 250 on Pantops, Circuit A could go west, exit at Hydraulic Rd,
proceed on 29 N, and stop at various places for people to go to K-Mart, Seminole Square,
Post Office, Fashion Square Mall, Albemarle Square, Rio Hill, down to Walmart and
return retracing the same circuit.
For example: Also from Rt. 250 on Pantops, Circuit B could go west on 250 turn on
High Street, go past Martha Jefferson Hospital, continue by the Downtown Mall, the
main library to Vinegar Hill, to the Albemarle Office Building and return.
For example: Coming on Rt. 20, Circuit C would come down West Main Street, Loop
around the University Hospital, proceed down University A venue to Emmet Street, go
past Barracks Road Shopping Center, turn on Preston A venue, to McIntire and back to
Rt.20.
Similar circuits could be devised for buses entering the city from other routes. During
peak commuting hours buses could run from the commuter lots into the city more
frequently. The riders along these routes and in the city itself could certainly board these
buses and cut down on their own driving. I suggest that the new buses be bright and
visible, that they have very visible stops and that they signal in a very noticeable way that
they are about to stop. I suggest that more visible crosswalks be built near these stops
where people can cross safely the busy roads.
I believe this is the time to have this alternative. This would promote a healthier life for
us all. I am circulating this proposal to local officials and citizens to gain support for this
idea and bring it to reality. Private contributions could help also.
Mira PahIic