Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2001-08-15 ACTIONS Board of Supervisors Meeting of August 15, 2001 August 16, 2001 5:30 p.m. Room 235 1. Call to order. AGENDA ITEM/ACTION ASSIGNMENT Meeting was called to order at 5:30 p.m., by the Chairman, Sally Thomas. All BOS members present (Martin arrived at 5:50 and Dorrier arrived at 6:00 p.m.), Bob Tucker, Larry Davis, Tom Hanson, Wayne Campagna, and Jim Morgan present. Clerk: Laurie Bentley. 2. Closed Session at 5:31 p.m. None. 7:00 p.m. Recess and Reconvene in Meeting Room 241 3. Certify Closed Session. Certified at 7:00 p.m. 6. From the Public: Matters Not Listed on the Agenda. None. None. 7.1. Resolution approving filing of application to the Virginia Public School Authority for loan ~n principal amount not to exceed $20,330,000. ADOPTED. 7.2, Conveyance of surplus police cruisers by the Albemarle County Police Department to the Central Shenandoah Criminal Justice Training Academy. APPROVED. Authorize County Executive to execute new seven-year contract with Dominion Virginia Power for electrical service to Albemarle County. AUTHORIZED. Proclamation recognizing the week of August 28, 2001 through September 2, 2001 as "Albemarle County Fair Week". ADOPTED. 7.3. 7,4. 7.7. Copy of.letter dated August 6, 2001, from Philip A. Leone, Director Joint Legislative Audit and Review Commission (JLARC), to Robert W. Tucker, Jr., re: review of existing system for funding highway construction and mass transit. CONSENSUS to have Planning staff draft comments in response to letter, to be submitted to the Board for approval at the 9/5 meeting. Issues to be included: ensuring that counties do not have to make up growing VDOT deficit (Thomas); asking that another funding category be added for urban roads, such as the southern connector, be included in the rewew so that'VDOT funds them (H umphris); and traffic calming measures (Martin). 7.8. Copy of notice from the Department of Environmental Quality of a public hearing to consider an application from Old Dominion Electric Cooperative to construct and operate a combustion turbine facility in Louisa County. CONSENSUS to have Engineering staff request a draft copy of the application and gather information on how it may affect the County, prior to the DEQ's public hearing. 8. SP-2001-017. Merrie Meadows (Sign #69). DEFERRED until 9/5/01 Board meeting. Clerk: Forward 4 signed originals of resolution (Attachment A) to Brenda Neitz. Clerk: Copy Mark Trank on Action Letter. County Attorney's office: Provide signed original copy of agreement (Attachment B) and electronic version to Clerk's office. None-Presented proclamation (Attachment C) to Ann Tucker, representing the Fair, at the meeting. Plannin,q staff: Draft comments in response to letter, to be submitted to the Board for approval at. the 9/5 meeting. En,q~neering staff: Obtain copy of application and gather information on how it may affect the County, prior to the DEQ's public hearing. Planning staff: Gather additional information on camping activities and provide recommendation to E~oard at 9/5/01 Board meeting. 9. SP-2001-019 Covesville Child Development Center (Sign #34 & Clerk: Include conditions (Attachment D). 35). APPROVED with two conditions. 10. DiscusSion: Soccer Organization of Charlottesville-Albemarle Clerk: Advertise public hearing. 12. (SOCA) Request to amend the jurisdictional boundary areas for sewer service to proposed soccer field complex. SET PUBLIC HEARING for 9/12/01 Board meeting. From the Board: Matters Not Listed on the Agenda. · Ms. Thomas and Ms. Humphris provided a brief summary of the recent LGOC meeting they attended. Ms. Thomas asked that any Board members wno had comments regarding the "shelter industry" send comments to her prior to a meeting to be held by the High Growth Coalition later this week. · Mr. Perkins discussed a meeting he attended in May, during which a proposal was made that counties be given the right to regulate silvaculture (tree cutting). · Mr. Tucker followed up on prewous discussions, asking if the Board wished to direct staff to pursue establishing staggered terms on the NF District Advisory Committee. CONSENSUS for Clerk to provide additional information for the 9/5/01 Board meeting. None. None. Clerk: Provide recommendation to the Board in 9/5/01 Boards and Commissions Vacancy Letter. 13. Adjourn at 8:40 p.m. None. Attachment A At a regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, held on the 15th day of August, 2001, at the time and place established by such Board for its regular meetings, in accordance with Section 15.2-1416 of the Code of Virginia of 1950, as amended, at which the following members were present and absent: PRESENT: David P. Bowerman; Lindsay G. Dorrier, Jr.; Charlotte Humphris; Charles S. Martin; Walter F. Perkins; and Sally H. Thomas. ABSENT: None. the following resolution was adopted by the affirmative roll call vote of a majority of all members of the Board, the ayes and nays being recorded in the minutes of the meeting as shown below: MEMBER VOTE David P. Bowerman Lindsay G. Dorrier, Jr. Charlotte Y. Humphris Charles S. Martin Walter F. Perkins Sally H. Thomas Ave Aye Aye Aye Aye Aye RESOLUTION APPROVING THE FILING OF AN APPLICATION WITH THE VIRGINIA PUBLIC SCHOOL AUTHORITY FOR A LOAN IN A PRINCIPAL AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $20,330,000 WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors (the "Board") of Albemarle County, Virginia, (the "County"), in collaboration with the Albemarle County School Board, has determined that it is necessary and desirable for the County to undertake various capital improvements for its public school system: BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ALBEMARLE COUNTY, VIRGINIA: 1. The Board hereby approves the filing of an application with the Virginia Public School Authority for a loan to the County in a principal amount not to exceed $20,330,000 to finance various capital improvements for its public school system. The County Executive, in collaboration with the other officers of the County and the Albemarle County School Board, is hereby authorized and directed to complete an application and deliver it to the Virginia Public School Authority. 2. This resolution shall take effect immediately. The undersigned Clerk of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, certifies that the foregoing instrument constitutes a true and correct extract from the minutes of a regular meeting of the Board held on the 15th day of August, 2001, and of the whole thereof so far as applicable to the matters referred to in such extract. WITNESS my signature and seal of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, this 16 day of August, 2001. Attachment B Clerk will ask corn pany to forward electronic version of agreement. needs it upon receipt. It will provided to anyone who Attachment C ALBEMARLE COUNTY FAIR WEEK WHEREAS, WHEREAS, WHEREAS, 14fftEREAS, NOW, THEREFORE, for the past 20 years, the Albemarle County Fair has entertained tens of thousands of guests during its annual production; and the Albemarle County Fair is unique in many ~vays, founded by a group of community spirited people ~vho ~vanted something special for their neighbors and friends to enjoy and enrich their lives. The theme has alreays emphasized the County's agricultural and forestal heritage; and the Albemarle County Fair is a non-profit corporation operated by dedicated volunteers, officers and directors; and the Albemarle County Fair offers an atmosphere conducive to families and their children. A friendly, safe, carefree atmosphere is the hallmark of the event. Unique in the state in that all food and drink is sold by local non-profit organizations as an opportunity for them to raise monies for their ~vorth~vhile programs; and the Albemarle County Fair supports agricultural and rural lifestyles, offers exhibits of home-art skills, crops, large livestock, small livestock and poultry, ~vith competitions in livestock and numerous other farm skills, and night~ entertainment for all to enjoy; L Sally H. Thomas, Chairman, on behalf of the Albemarle Board of County Supervisors, do hereby proclaim the ~veek of AUGUST 28, 2001 THROUGH SEPTEMBER 2, 2001 as ALBEMARLE COUNTY FAIR WEEK and urge all citizens to actively participate in the scheduled activities and programs sponsored and supported by the more than 275 volunteers, public and area businesses. CHAIRMAN ALBEMARLE BOARD OF COUNTY SUPER VISORS Attachment D PLANNING CONDITIONS SP-2001-019 Covesville Child Development Center (Sign #34 & 35). Conditions are as follows: 1. The applicant shall not commence operation of the day-care center before securing a Certificate of Appropriateness for .this use from the Architectural Review Board; and, 2. Enrollment in the day-care center shall be limited to 25 children. COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AGENDA TITLE: Virginia Public School Authority SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Request adoption of a resolution approving the filing of an application to the Virginia Public School Authority for a loan 'n a principal amount not to exceed $20,330,000, STAFF CONTACT(S): Messrs. Tucker, Castner, Breeden; Ms. White AGENDA DATE: August 15, 2001 ACTION: X CONSENT AGENDA: ACTION: ATTACHMENTS: Yes REVIEWED BY~ ITEM NUMBER: INFORMATION: INFORMATION: BACKGROUND: Funding for the FY 2001/02 Capital 'Improvement Budget anticipated the issuance of $20,332,000 in bonds through the Virginia Public School Authority (VPSA) for various school projects. DISCUSSION: Participation in the bond issue requires both the School Board and Board of Supervisors to pass a resolution authorizing application to VPSA. It is anticipated at this time that the School Board wilJ pass the resolution at their meeting on August 9, 2001 and the Board of Supervisors on August 15, 2001. The required application will be submitted to VPSA by their September 4, 2001 deadline. A number of actions (resolutions, public hearings, approvals) will be required between now and November 2001 to meet the requirements of VPSA and to maintain their time schedule. The required documents will be submitted to you as received by the Director of Finance from the County's bond counsel. Proposed projects to be funded with the VPSA issuance are: · Brownsville Additions · Burley Addition/Renovations · Jouett Addition/Renovations · Northern Area Elementary · Southem Area Elementary · Maintenance/Replacement $240,000 $6,995,0OO $315,000 $10,544,000 $1,225,000 $1,013,000 $20,332,000 RECOMMENDATION: Staff requests approval of the attached resolution authorizing the County's application to the Virginia Public School Authority for $20,332,000 in bond revenues. 01.152 08-08-01 P03:05 tN At a regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, held on the 15th day of August, 2001, at the time and place established by such Board for its regular meetings, in accordance with Section 15.2-1416 of the Code of Virginia of 1950, as mended, at which the following members were present and absent: PRESENT: David P. Bowerman; Lindsay G. Dorrier, Jr.; Charlotte Y. Humphris; Charles S. Martin; Walter F. Perkins; and 8ally H. Thomas ABSENT: None. the following resolution was adopted by the affirmative roll call vote of a majority of all members of the Board, the ayes and nays being recorded in the minutes of the meeting as shown below: MEMBER VOTE David P. Bowerman Lindsay G. Dorrier, Jr. Charlotte Y. Humphris Charles S. Martin Walter F. Perkins Sally H. Thomas Aye Aye Aye Aye Aye Aye RESOLUTION APPROVING THE FILING OF AN APPLICATION WITH THE VIRGINIA PUBLIC SCHOOL AUTHORITY FOR A LOAN IN A PRINCIPAL AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $20,330,000 WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors (the "Board") of Albemarle County, Virginia, (the "County"), in collaboration with the Albemarle County School Board, has determined that it is necessary and desirable for the County to undertake various capital improvements for ks public school system: BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ALBEMARLE COUNTY, VIRGINIA: 1. The Board hereby approves the filing of an application with the Virginia Public School Authority for a loan to the County in a principal amount not to exceed $20,330,000 to finance various capital improvemems for its public school system. The County Executive, in collaboration with the other officers of the County and the Albemarle County School Board, is hereby author/zed and directed to complete an application and deliver it to the Virginia Public School Authority. 2. This resolution shall take effect immediately. The undersigned Clerk of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, certifies that the foregoing instrument constitutes a tree and correct extract from the minutes of a regular meeting of the Board held on the 15th day of August, 2001, and of the whole thereof so far as applicable to the matters referred to in such extract. WITNESS my signature and seal of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, this 16 day of August, 2001. (SEAL) COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AGENDA TITLE: Conveyance of Surplus Police Cruisers to Central Shenandoah Criminal Justice Training Academy. SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST. Authorize the conveyance of two police cruisers by the Albemarle County Police Department to the Central Shenandoah Criminal Justice Training Academy. STAFF CONTACTS: Messrs, Tucker, Davis, Foley, Trank, Miller AGENDA DATE: August 15, 2001 ACTION: CONSENT AGEN DA: ITEM NUMBER: INFORMATION: ACTION: × INFORMATION: ATrACHMENTS: Letter dated April 24, 2001 DISCUSSION: The Central Shenandoah Criminal Justice Training Academy in Waynesboro is in the process of attempting to acquire a fleet of vehicles to use in its basic and in-service training to police agencies in Central Virginia. Albemarle County is a founding and charter member of the Academy, and the Police Department has two surplus police cruisers that it would like to convey to the Academy as part of the County's contribution to the operations of the Academy. The vehicles would be used for Albemarle County police officers and other agencies, and would permit the County to avoid having to bring cars from its operational police fleet during mandated training sessions. The County would have priority usage of the vehicles when County police officers are attending training at the Academy. Va. Code § 15.2-1748 authorizes the County to convey the vehicles to the Academy in furtherance of its purposes and mission. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Board approve the conveyance of two surplus police cruisers to the Central Shenandoah Criminal Justice Training Academy and authorize the County Executive to execute the necessary documents to finalize the conveyance. 01.154 08-09-01 A08:16 IN CENTRAL SHENANDOAH CRIMINAL JUSTICE TRAINING ACADEMY 211 WEST TWELFTH STREET, WAYNESBORO, VIRGINIA 22980-4796 Telephone: 540-943-0532 540-943-0533 Fax: 540-943-8827 Apr//24, 2001 Chief John Miller Albemarle County Police Department 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22901 Chief Miller, In reference to our previous discussions I understand that the possibility exists for Albemarle County to donate two surplus police cruisers to the academy. We are attempting to acquire a fleet of six or eight police package vehicles to use in our basic and in-service training programs. Your county's donation of these two vehicles would go far in helping us accomplish tiffs goal and to provide driver training to our officers. I have spoken w/th Sergeant Richard Martin and through these d/scussions have agreed that,/fAlbemarle County is able m donate two cars, that the cars w/Il be made ava/lable to future ~dbemarle County students. This would be in lieu of them having to bring cars fi.om your operational fleet during mandated entry-level training, or any other time a car is needed during such tra/ning. Our ab/lity to provide competent, leading edge training depends on the generosity of our member jur/sdictions and we w/Il appreciate any effort you may expend in the furtherance of th/s request. Thank you and please call if I may be of further ass/stance in this matter. Sincerely, Alan E. Minnick (for) William L. Flink~ Director COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AGENDA TITLE: Contract for Electrical Service with Dominion Virginia Power. SU BJ ECT/PROPOSAL/REQU EST: Authorize the County Executive to execute new 7~year contract for electrical service to Albemarle County. STAFF CONTACT(S): Messrs. Tucker, Davis, Trank AGENDA DATE: August 15, 2001 ACTION: CONSENT AGENDA: ACTION: X ITEM NUMBER: IN FORMATION: INFORMATION: ATrACHMENTS: Agreement Dated July 25, 2001 REVIEWED BY:~~ DISCUSSION: The VMLNACO Virginia Power Steering Committee has negotiated a new agreement with Virginia Power for a seven-year term for electrical service to local governments to be effective from July 1, 2000 to June 30, 2007. Major areas of the new contract include a rate reduction effective January 1, 2001 to reflect tax law changes; a rate reduction effective July 1, 2001 to reduce allocation of purchased capacity cost; a fixing of base rates otherwise throughout the seven-year contract; and a variety of other changes that the Steering Committee recommends as favorable to local governments. The County and School Division are participating to a limited extent in a short-term pilot program for customer choice of electricity suppliers through a joint powers agreement of limited duration and purpose. The new seven-year contract with Dominion Virginia Power does not affect the County or School Division's ability to participate in the pilot program. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Board authorize the County Executive to execute the Agreement on behalf of the County. 06-03-0 01.151 LARRY W. DAVIS COUNTY ATTORNEY PHONE (804) 972-4067 FAX (804) 972-4068 COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Office of County Attorney 40I Mclntire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 MARK A. TRANK DEPUTY COUNTY ATTORNEY GREG KAMPTNER ANDREW H. HERRICK ASSISTANT COUNTY ATTOKNEYS August 16, 2001 Robert M. Kelly Distribution Customer Contracts Dominion Virginia Power One James River Plaza P.O. Box 26666 Richmond, Virginia 23261-6666 Re: Virginia Power Contract with Albemarle County Dear Mr. Kelly: Please find enclosed 2 original contracts executed by the County Executive and the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County. Please return a fully executed original to me, as well as an electronic copy to the following email addresses for inclusion in the Board of Supervisors minutes: mdavis02~albemarle.or~ and lbentley(~albemarle.or~. Thank you for your cooperation. Please call me if you have any questions. Sincerely, Marsha A. Davis Legal Services Assistant /md Enclosure cc:V~aurie Bentley, Deputy Clerk Albemarle County Board of Supervisors AGREEMENT FOR THE PROVISION OF ELECTRIC SERVICE TO MUNICIPALITIES AND COUNTIES OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA FROM VIRGINIA ELECTRIC AND POWER COMPANY 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 This Agreement, made this 25th day of July, 2001 between the Albemarle County, a unit of local government of the Commonwealth of Virginia, hereinafter called the "Customer", and Virginia Electric and Power Company, hereinafter called the "Company," provides that in consideration of the mutual covenants and agreements herein contained, the parties hereto contract and agree with each other as follows: A. PURCHASE AND SALE 1. Purchases From the Company The Customer will purchase from the Company and the Company will sell to the Customer, pursuant to the provisions of this Agreement and the Terms and Conditions For The Provision of Electric SerVice to Municipalities and Counties and the applicable schedules of charges, attached hereto and made a part hereof, the services requested by the Customer (including the service being furnished on the effective date of this Agreement) within the territory served by the Company in the Commonwealth of Virginia. Under this agreement, "electric service" shall include the provision by the Company to the Customer of the delivery of electricity and, to the extent provided by the Company, electric energy and utility services. 2. Purchases From the Customer The Company will purchase electricity from the Customer's generating facilities under a separate agreement in accordance with the Publ}c Util/ty Regulatory Policies Act of 1978 (PURPA) and the Federal and Virginia rules that implement PURPA, if the generating unit qualifies for such treatment. The Customer may participate in any formal Company solicitation for capacity and energy based on the Company's needs. The Customer also may contract for the sale of electricity to the Company in accordance with the availability, pricing, and terms and conditions of the Company's Virginia Schedule 19 and applicable terms and conditions of contracts for the sale of electricity to the Company, except that sales of electricity from the Company to the Customer shall be made in accordance with this Agreement. The Company's Virginia Schedule 19 is on file with the State Corporation Mast~rAgr~c-flnal.(0[196).doc Form No. 729711 (Sep 2000) Q2000 Dominion Resources Services. Inc. AGREEMENT (Continued) Page 2 of 8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 41 42 43 45 46 Commission (r'scc") as part of the Company's Terms and Conditions and Schedules for Supplying Electricity. Notwithstanding the preceding paragraph, if PURPA is repealed, or if other changes occur to the laws or rules affecting the Company's obligations to purchase electricity or the conditions of sale related thereto, the Company shall revise its practices to be consistent with such changes and may at its option elect to no longer enter into agreements for the purchase of electricity from the Customer to the extent permitted by applicable law and rules. TERM The term of this Agreement shall be from July 1, 2000 to June 30, 2007. C. RATES AND CHARGES 1) The schedules of charges applicable from July 1, 2000 through December 31, 2000, are attached hereto as Attachment A. The schedules of charges applicable from January 1, 2001 through June 30, 2007 are attached hereto as Attachment B and reflect the elimination of the Gross Receipts Tax and the implementation of Virginia State Income Tax effective January 1, 2001. Any use of electricity for which no schedule of charges is shown will be supplied in accordance with the Miscellaneous Light and Power Schedule 100. 2) The Terms and Conditions of service applicable throughout the term of this agreement are attached hereto, as Attachment C. 3) The distribution/wire charge rate schedules will be developed through negotiation between the VML/VACO Virg/nia Power Steering Committee (or successor organization bargaining collectively on behalf of local governments within the Company's service area), hereinafter called the "Steering Committee" or its authorized representative acting on behalf of the Customer, and the Company; and, unless the Company and Steering Committee agree otherwise, in the same manner as the distribution/wire charge rate schedules approved by the SCC for Virginia jurisdictional customers. Pursuant to Paragraph E.3. of this Agreement, the distribution/wire charge rate schedules will be effective on the later off (a) January 1, 2002 or (b) the termination of all contracts awarded to a competitive service provider in the Retail Access Pilot Program (Pilot), which sha/l be no later than August 31, 2002; provided, however, that if no contracts are awarded under the Pilot, then the distribution/wire charge rate schedules will be effective January 1, 2002. The Steering Committee shall notify the Company in writing no less than sixty days prior to the effective date of the distribution/wires charges. The Company will provide its proposed distribution/wires charge rate schedules to the Steering Committee, with all workpapers, within 30 days of the final order by the SCC for distribution/wires charge rates for Virginia jurisdictional customers, but no later than ~' Dominion- Mast~'Agre~-finaI(0119~).doc Form No. 729711 (SEC, 2000) Q 2000 Dominion Resources Services. Inc. AGREEMENT (Continued) Page 3 of 8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 45 46 4) 5) December 1, 2001, with the stipulation that the proposal can be revised to comply with any SCC rulings that affect the calculation, development and/or implementation of distribution/wires charge rate schedules for Virginia jurisdictional customers. The distribution/wire charge rate schedules will be calculated using a transmission component that is based on the then FERC approved transmission service rates, which may change from time to time. For qualifying individual accounts the Customer may elect companion load management rate schedules or riders as follows: Schedules CSCM, SGCM, SGCM-1, and Rider J-CM. These load management rates and rider wilt be revised from time to time as approved for other retail customers in Virginia, however, throughout the term of this Agreement the payments provided under Schedule SGCM-1 shall remain at $4.50 per kW during the billing months of November through April, and $8.00 per kW for the billing months of May through October. For accounts participating in the Pilot program or full customer choice, such load management rate schedules and riders are not available during such participation. The terms of service unique to specific connection points may, as applicable, be enumerated in Attachment E. Other service points may be identified, in writing, for inclusion under this Agreement at such times as the need for service develops. Nothing in this Agreement shall be construed as precluding the parties hereto from entering into a separate contract for services of a special nature. D. RETAIL ACCESS PILOT PROGRAM (PILOT) 1) As used in this Agreement, the following terms shall have the meanings set forth below: a."Bundled rate schedule" - Any of several rate schedules that include both the sale of electric energy and the delivery of electric energy to the mutually agreed point of delivery, using the Company's transmission and/or distribution system(s) as the means of delivery. b. "Bundled service" - The provision of both electric energy and delivery service by the Company under a "bundled rate schedule." "Distribution/wires charge rate schedule" - Any of several rate schedules which include only charges for the distribution of electric energy to the mutually agreed point of delivery and the "wires charge" as defined in § 56-583 of the Code of Virginia (or its successor); and which exclude charges for electric energy; and where the account of the Customer purchases electric energy from a licensed competitive supplier. "Full customer choice" - An environment under which any account of the Customer may purchase electric energy from a licensed competitive supplier without regard to any limitations established under a "pilot" program. ~1l Dom,nGon- Mastca-Agm~-final.(01t96).doc Form No. 729711 fSe~ 2000) ~2000 Dominion Resources Services. fnc. AGREEMENT (Continued) Page 4 of 8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 t8 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 45 46 2) 3) 4) e."Pilot" - A program under which a limited amount of kilowatt-hours may be purchased fi:om licensed competitive suppliers by local governments (in aggregate), with such program being of a definite time period and having the purpose of testing and refining the methods and procedures for allowing purchases in a "full customer choice" environment. A metered account served under Schedules 100, 110 or 130 can participate in the Pilot through August 31,2002, pursuant to Section VI of the Terms and Conditions and subject to the limitation that the total kWh available under the Pilot to all municipalities or counties, or boards, agencies, or authorities thereof does not exceed 117 million kWh. The Steering Committee w/Il be responsible for the selection of the accounts participating in the Pilot. A customer account participating in the Pilot will purchase distributiOn service and pay any applicable wires charges under Schedule 100P-Pilot Miscellaneous Light and Power Service; Schedule 110P-Pilot All Electric Building Service and Dual Fuel Systems or Schedule 130P - Pilot Large Miscellaneous L~ht and Power Service provided in Attachment D. The applicable Pilot rate schedule for a customer account will be as determined under Section VI of the Terms and Conditions for the. Provision of Electric Service to Municipalities and Counties - Virgima. The Retail Access Pilot Program General Rules and Regulations are provided in Attachment D. The tranSmission and market prices used to calculate the price to compare and the base wires charge will be fixed for the Pilot and determined through negotiations between the Company and the Steering Committee and unless agreed otherwise shall be consistent with the methodologies established by the SCC for the Virginia jurisdictional pilot, while recognizing any unique characteristics of the County and Municipal customers. If and when the Pilot extends beyond January 1, 2002, the Terms and Conditions applicable to the Pilot will be the Terms and Conditions that are established for the phase- in for full customer choice. 5) For customers who have authorized the release of their usage information by a commumcafion received by the Company fi:om the Steering Committee, their usage and interval data will be accessible via the Company's secured website to licensed suppliers and aggregators that have completed all registration requirements with the Company. 6) Usage, billing information and, where applicable, interval data will be accessible to Customers through either the Company's Customer Service Online website or through the Dominion Key Customer website. Customers must sign up in advance for access to information through either site. Ee MasterAgn:e-final (01196).doc FULL CUSTOMER CHOICE - 1) Full customer choice will be phased-in for all local government customers in a manner ~JI'l~ ~0~10~' Form No. 729711 (Sop 2000) (~)2000 Dominion Resources Services Inc. AGREEMENT (Continued) Page 5 of 8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 45 2) 3) 4) 5) consisteat with the phase-in for large commercial and industrial Virginia jurisdictional customers approved by the SCC, which is one-third of kWh on January 1, 2002; two- thirds of kWh on September 1, 2002; and all kWh on January 1, 2003. Should the SCC revise the phase-in of full customer choice for large commercial and industrial Virginia jurisdictional customers, the phase-in for local government customers, unless agreed to otherwise, shall be in the same manner as that approved by the SCC for large commercial and industrial Virginia Jurisdictional customers. Effective January 1, 2002, an additional increment of County/Municipal annual kwh will be eligible for choice so that, in total, the pilot eligible usage and the additional increment will equal the proportion of the first phase approved by the SCC for Virginia jurisdictional customers. The base wires charge and the transmission and market prices used to calculate the price to compare for the incremental customers phased-in beginning January 1, 2002 and billed on either Schedule 100P, Schedule 110P or Schedule 130P, will be the same as those used for the pilot customers until the new distribution/wire charge rate schedules take effect on or after January 1, 2002, as set forth in Paragraph C.3. above. After January 1, 2002 the Company and the Steering Committee shall seek to coordinate adjustments to base wires charges with changes to market prices and trark~mksion rates, but in no case shall such adjustments occur more frequently than annually. Such adjustments shall be determined through negotiation and unless agreed otherwise will be consistent with the methodology and data approved by the SCC for Virginia Jurisdictional customers. Customer information will be made available to customers and licensed suppliers or aggregators in accordance with Paragraphs D.5 and D.6. AGREEMENT REVISIONS Upon the effective date of this electric service agreement, the Customer through the Steering Committee or the Company may request that the other party consider revising the agreement, according to the following principles, however, any revisions to the agreement shall only be as mutually agreed between the Company and the Steering Committee: 1) If the Company separates the ownership of its transmission or distribution assets from its generation, assets, any such renegotiations shall be limited to good faith renegotiations to change the present provision for recovery of fuel and purchased power costs to some other provisions designed not to cause customers to pay more for fuel, purchased power, and non-fuel rates than they would have paid under the current fuel adjustment provisions if the ownership had not been transferred, and designed to require the generation company to assure performance of the capped rates provisions of this Agreement; MasterAgree-fir~l (01196).doc ~ DomlnNon Form No. 729711 (Sep 2000) ~'2000 Dominion Resources Services AGREEMENT (Continued) Page 6 of 8 1 2 3 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 45 46 2) When the Company offers competitive metering and/or billing options for its GS-3 and GS-4 Virginia jurisdictional customers, then it shall offer such options for all County and Municipal accounts with interval meters. When it offers Such options for its smaller jurisdictional customers, it shall offer such options to all County and Municipal accounts with non-interval meters. Before such options are' offered to County and Municipal accounts, the Company and the Steering Committee shall negotiate for a further unbundling of capped rates to isolate charges related to the newly competitive metering and/or billing services and, unless agreed otherwise, this further unbundling shall be in a manner consistent with the methodology implemented for jurisdictional customers; 3) 4) 5) 6) 7) 8) If the Company's jurisdictional rate schedules and/or Terms and Conditions are revised to require a new methodology for calculating line extension payments, then, after the adoption of such revisions by the SCC, the Company and the Steering Committee, unless they agree otherwise, shall negotiate in good faith to adopt a new methodology for calculating line extension payments that is consistent with the methodology adoPted by the SCC for jurisdictional non-residential customers while preserving (to the extent feasible) any unique characteristics of the line extension policies of the County and Municipal customers. Termination of the Company's capped rates by the SCC under § 56-582 of the Virginia Code; The General Assembly's material amendment of § 56-590 of the Virginia Code regarding the functional separation of generation, retail transmission and distribution of electric utilities. The General Assembly or SCC's approval of a methodology for recovery of fuel or purchased power costs that differs from the current methodology under § 56-249.6 of the Virginia Code The Customer through the Steering Committee or the Company may seek to renegotiate an adjustment for rates for any tax law changes. Such adjustment, unless otherwise agreed to, shall be consistent with the methodology approved by the SCC for Virginia jurisdictional customers. Unless otherwise agreed to by the Company and the Steering Committee, the Company, upon a finding of financial distress beyond the Company's control by the SCC that allows adjustments to Virginia jurisdictional base rates, shall adjust the rates for County and Municipal customers within 90 days following a final order of the SCC finding financial distress. Such rate adjustment shall be, unless the parties agree otherwise, in the same manner as that approved by the SCC for jurisdictional customers, while recognizing any unique characteristics of the County and Municipal customers. Dominion- MastcrAgrec-fmal (01196).doc Form No. 729711 [Sep 2000) © 2000 Domtmon Resources Services. inc. AGREEMENT (Continued) Page 7 of 8 8 9 10 11 12 13 /4 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 G. GENERAL 1) 2) Unless otherWise specifically agreed to in writing, this Agreement cancels and supersedes as of its effective date all previous agreements including supplemental agreements between the Customer and the Company for electric service covered by this Agreement. This Agreement shall inure to the benefit of and be binding upon the successors or assigns of each of the parties hereof. 4) This Agreement shall be binding upon the Customer and the Company only when executed by their duly authorized official or authorized representative, and shall not be modified by any promise, agreement or representation of any agent or employee of the Company or Steering Committee except in writing and executed by such a duly authorized official or officer. The obligations of the Company and the Customer for service under this Agreement are subject to appropriations by Customer's governing body to pay for such service. In the event any proxdsion, or any part or portion of any provision of this Agreement shall be declared by a court of competent jurisdiction to be unlawful, invalid, void or otherwise unenforceable, the remainder of this Agreement shall be severable and remain enforceable. Only the provision (or part or provision thereof) so declared shall be considered unlawful, invalid, void or otherwise unenforceable. Dominion- Mas~Agr~-final (OllglS).doc Form No. 7297111Sep 2000) ©2000 Dominion Resources Services. mc. AGREEMENT (Continued) Page 8 of 8 VIRGINIA ELECTRIC AND POWER COMPANY By: Title CUSTOMER'S NAME: By: 6 10 11 Title 12 (Information requested below to be filled in only if approval obtained or required by Customer.) 8 At a regular meeting of the 9 of of the held on ,20 , this Agreemem was presemed for approval as prescribed by its roles of order, was approved, and the above officer was authorized to execute same on its behalf. Attest Clerk Dominion" Mast~-rAgz~ce-fmaJ.(01196)~oc Form No. 72971 ~ (Sep 2000) ©2000 Dominion Resources Services Inc. ALBEMARLE COUNTY FAIR WEEK WHEREAS, for the past 20years, the Albemarle Coun~ Fair has ~aertained t~as of thousands of guests during its annual production; and WHEREAS, the Albemarle County Fair is unique in many ways, founded by a group of community spirited people who wanted something special for their neighbors and friends to enjoy and enrich their lives. The theme has always emphasized th~ County's agricultural and forestal heritage; and the Albemarle County Fair is a non-profit corporation operated by dedicated volunteers, o~wers and directors; and WHERF~S, th~ Albemarle Coun~ Fair offers an atrnospI~re conductae to families and their children. A friendly, safe, carej~e atmosphere is the hallmark of the event. Unique in the state in that all food and drink is sold by local non-profit organizations as an opportun?y for them to raise monies for their worthwhile programs; and WHEREAS, the Albemarle Coun~ Fair supI~rrts agr~lturul and rural li~st~s, offers ~xhibits of home-art skills, crops, large livestock, small livestock and poultry, with competitions in livestock and numerous other farm skills, and nightly entertainment for att to NOW, THEREFORE, L Sally H. Thomas, Chairman, on behalf of th~ Albemarle Board of Coun~ Supervisors, do hereby proclaim t!~ week of AUGUST 28, 2001 THROUGH SEPTEMBER 2, 2001 ALBEMARLE COUNTY FAIR WEEK and urge all citizens to actively participate in the scheduled activities and programs sponsored wnd supported by the more than 275 volunteers, public and area businesses. CHAI~ ALBEMARLE BOARD OF COUNTY SUPER VISORS ALBEMARLE COUNTY FAIR, INC. P O BOX 121 NORTH GARDEN, VIRGINIA 22959 LINDA ANDERSON 434-979-1551 July 23, 200i Albemarle County Board of Supervisors Albemarle County Office Building 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 ATTENTION: Ms. Ella Carey, Clerk Dear Sirs and Madames: On behalf ofthe Albemarle County Fair Board of Directors and its 275 volunteers, we do hereby petition the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors to issue a proclamation designating the week of Tuesday, August 28tl~ through Sunday, September 2nd as "Albemarle County Fair Week." Such a proclamation, we feel, would reco~ize the tireless and charitable efforts of the volunteers and Fair Directors in presenting this event which is of great important to the general public. As you know, the Fair encourages participation by all in many evems, exhibitions and competitions and it is open to all citizens ofthe world. This year we will celebrate our 20~ year of operation. Your consideration of this petition is appreciated. Sincerely, % Linda Anderson Administrative Assistant 07-31-01 P01:41 iN 2001 SECOND QUARTER BUILDING REPORT County of Albemarle Department of Planning and Community Development 401 Mclntire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 (804) 296-5823 INDEX I. Corn parison of New Residential Dwelling Units by Month (Charts A & B) I1. Comparison of Residential Dwelling Units by Type (Charts C, D, & E) II1. Comparison of All Building Permits (Chad F) KEY TO TYPES OF HOUSING REFERRED TO IN REPORT SF SFA SF/TH DUP MF MHC AA Single-Family (includes modular) Single-Family Attached Single-Family Townhouse Duplex Multi-Family Mobile Home in the County (not in an existing park) Accessory Apartment 08-08-01 P04:18 IN -2- During the second quarter of 2001, 189 building permits were issued for 439 dwelling units. In addition, 3 permits were issued for mobile homes in an existing park at an average exchange value of $2.500, for a total of $7,500. I. COMPARISON OF NEW RESIDENTIAL DWELLING UNITS BY MONTH Chart A. Nine Year Comparison of New Residential Dwelling Units by Month MONTH ! 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 JAN · 49 190 50 26 54 38 49 52 52 FEB 56 53 43 44 44 39 84 43 39 MAR 58 72 47 61 57 65 65 54 54 APR 76 69 46 71 75 62 102 63 62 MAY 45 60 41 63 118 65 55 72 196 JUN 79 70 ~ 62 41 89 85 75 50 181 JUL 81 186 51 87 59 74 69 56 AUG 116 49 44 105 34 221 56 65 SEP 45 47 56 64 48 68 68 49 OCT ' 68 51 42 186 216 61 48 48 NOV 65 60 66 43 49 48 42 49 32 48 44 62 48 57 49 DEC 67 , TOTAL 805 939 596 835 905 874 770 650 584 Chart B. Three Year Comparison of New Residential Dwelling Units by Month IC~art B: Three Year Comparison of New Residential Dwelling Unit by MOnthJ 240 220 - 200 - 180 - 160 140 120 _ 60 - J~ FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC MONTH J~1999 ~2000 ,2001 J Prepared by the Albemarle County Office of Mapping, Graphics, and Information Resources (OOMGAIR) -3- Quarter 2 II. COMPARISON OF RESIDENTIAL DWELLING UNITS Chart C. Breakdown of New Residential Dwelling Units by Magisterial District and Dwelling Unit Type MAGISTERIAL DWELLING UNIT TYPE TOTAL % TOTAL ' DISTRICT SF SFA SF/TH DUP MF MHC AA UNITS UNITS RIO 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 1% JACK JOUETT 4 0 0 0 0 0 1 5 1% RIVANNA 54 4 5 0 265 4 3 335 76% SAMUEL MILLER 23 ' 2 0 0 0 0 0 25 6% SCOTTSVILLE 13 0 0 0 0 3 0 16 4% WHITE HALL 53 0 0 0 0 1 0 54 12% TOTAL · 151 6 5 0 265 8 4 439 100% Chart D. Breakdown of New Residential Dwelling Units by Comprehensive Plan Area and Dwelling Unit Type COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AREA DWELLING UNIT TYPE TOTAL SF SFA SF/'rH DUP MF MHC AA UNITS URBAN NEIGHBORHOOD 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 URBAN NEIGHBORHOOD 2 9 0 0 0 0 0 1 10 URBAN NEIGHBORHOOD 3 6 0 0 0 265 0 0 271 URBAN NEIGHBORHOOD 4 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 URBAN NEIGHBORHOOD 5 7 2 0 0 0 0 0 9 URBAN NEIGHBORHOOD 6 1 0 0 0 0 0 01 URBAN NEIGHBORHOOD 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CROZET COMMUNITY 26 0 0 0 0 0 0 26 HOLLYMEAD COMMUNITY 7 4 5 0 0 4 1 21 PINEY MOUNTAIN COMMUNITY 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 RiVANNA VILLAGE 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 DEVELOPMENT AREA SUBTOTAL 69 6 5 0 26,5 4 2 351 RURAL AREA 1 24 0 0 0 0 1 1 26 RURAL AREA 2 25 0 0 0 0 0 1 26 RURAL AREA 3 20 0 0 0 0 0 ,0 20 RURAL AREA 4 13 0 0 0 0 3 0 ' 16 RURAL AREA SUBTOTAL 82 0 0 0 I 0 4 2 88 TOTAL 151 6 5 0 265 8 4 439 Prepared by the Albemarle County Office of Mapping Graphics, and Information Resources (~)OMGAIR) -4- Quarter 2 II. COMPARISON OF RESIDENTIAL DWELLING UNITS BY TYPE (continued) Chart E. Breakdown of Residential Dwelling Units by Elementary School District and Dwelling Unit Type SCHOOL DWELLING UNIT TYPE TOTAL % TOTAL DISTRICT SF SFA SF/-rH DUP MF MHC AA ' UNITS UNITS Agnor-Hurt 5 0 0 0 0 0 I 6 1% . Broadus Wood 13 0 0 0 0 5 0 18 · 4% Brownsville 21 0 0 0 0 0 0 21 5% Crozet 19 0 0 0 0 0 0 19 4% Greer 0 0 0 0 0 0 ' 0 0 0% Hollymead 1 0 5 0 0 0 0 6 1% Medwether Lewis 8 0 0 0 0 0 1 9 2% Murray 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 2% Red Hill 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 1% Cale 10 2 0 0 265 0 0 277 63% Scottsville 4 0 0 0 0 3 0 7 2% Stone Robinson 25 0 0 0 0 0 0 25 6% Stony Point 19 0 0 0 0 0 1 20 5% Woodbrook 11 4 0 0 0 0 1 16 4% Yancey 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 3' 1% TOTAL 151 6 5 0 265 8 4 439 .100% r . I III. COMPARISON OF ALL BUILDING PERMITS Chart F. Estimated Cost of Construction by Magisterial District and Construction Type MAGISTERIAL NEW ' *NEW NON-RES. I NEW COMMERCIAL FARM BUILDING TOTAL DISTRICT RESIDENTIAL & ALTER. RES. & NEW INSTITUT. & ALTER. COMM. ~ No. Amount-$ No. Amount-$ No. Amount-$ No. Amount-$ No. Amount-$ RIO 4 $ 909,920 18 $ 641,980 4 $ 34,000 30 3,701,093 56 $ 5,286,993' JOUETT 4 $ 1,400 000 13 $ 336,275 0 $ 3 $ 158,750 20 $ 1,895,025 RIVANNA ' 86 $ 29,356 836 57 $ 1,416,632 6 $ 11,021,800 15 $ I 475,818 164 $ . 43,271,086 S. MILLER 25 $ 5,272,890 37 $ 2,200,694 3 $ 11,948,516 4 $ 169,000 69 ' $ 19,591,100 SCOTTSVtLLE 16 $ 3,450,680 38 $ 586,986 1 ' $ 350,000 19 $ 275,000 74 $ 4,662,666 WHITE HALL 54 $ 9,321,733 41 $ 1,678,162 0 , $ 4 $ 207,500 99 $ 11,207,395 TOTAL 189 $ 49,7.12,059 204 $ 6,860,729 14 $ 23,354,316 75 $ 5,987,161, 482 $ 85,914,265 Additional value of mobile homes placed in existing parks is inclu Prepared bythe Albemarle County Office of Mapp. ing, Graphics, and Information Resources (OOMGAIR) Philip A. Leone Director COMMONWEALTH o[ VIRGINIA Joint Legislative Audit and Review Commission Suite 1100, General Assembly Building, Capitol Square Richmond, Virginia 23219 (804) 786-1258 AuGust 6, 2001 Mr. Robert W. Tucker County Executive Albemarle County 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, VirGinia 22902-4596 Dear Mr. Tucker: The Joint LeGislative Audit and Review Con~nission (JLARC) has directed JLARC staff to review the existing system for funding highway construction and mass transit. The current system for the allocation of highway construction funds is based on a study conducted by JLARC staff in cooperation with the VirGinia Department of Transportation almost 20 years ago. Modifications based on the JLARC study were made to the allocation formulas in 1985, and the formulas have remained unchanged since that time. A study team was assembled in February and is currently conducting this funding study. November 13, 2001 has been set as the tentative date for completion of the study and the presentation of the study findings to the Commission. As part of this study, we are interested in receiving input from local Governments reGardinG transportation funding in the State. In coordination with the VirGinia Municipal League and the VirGinia Association of Counties, we have already conducted two panel discussions with selected members of both organizations to discuss transportation funding in VirGinia. As a further effort to receive local input, by this letter we are inviting counties, cities, and towns to submit written comments reGardinG transportation fundinG. You may submit comments on any issues pertaining to transportation fundinG. Some of the issues that you may want to comment on include: · Use of a needs-based system for the allocation of highway construction funds · Factors which could be used in funding formulas to reflect transportation needs · Use of the primary, secOndary, and urban road classification system for the allocation of construction funds · Allocation of funding among and within road systems · Need for separate bridge and unpaved road funds 08-09-01 A10:57 tN Mr. Robert W. Tucker August 6, 2001 Page Two · Virginia Transportation Act and funding for high cost, high priority projects · Transit funding You may send any comments to Hal Greet at either of the following addresses: Joint Leglslative Audit and Review Commission Suite 1100, General Assembly Building Capitol S~uare Richmond, VA 23219 or HGreer91eg.state.va.us We would appreciate receiving your comments by September 7, 2001. In the meantime, if you have any questions about the study or this request for comments, you may contact Hal Greet at (804) 819-4572 or at the above e-mail address. Sincerely, Philip A. Leone Director PAL:bct cc: The Honorable Sally H. Thomas, Chairman Board of Supervisors James S. Gilmore, III Governor lohn Paul Woodley, Jr. Secretary of Natural Resources COMMONWEALTH o[ VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY Fredericksburg Office 806 Westwood Office Park Fredericksburg, Virginia 22401 (540) 899-4600 Fax (540) 899-4647 FS0-563-01 Dennis H. Treacy Director Gregory L. Clayton Regional Director August 7, 2001 Registration No: 40989 Ms. Sally H. Thomas - Chairman Albemarle County - Board of Supervisors 401 Mcintire Road Charlottesville, VA 22902 Subject: Announcement of a Public Hearing for Old Dominion Electric : CoOperative-Louisa Combustion Turbine Facility Dear Ms. Thomas: Attached is a copy of the public notice scheduled to appear in the August 9; 2001, edition of the Central Virginian concerning an application for a construct and operate permit for Old Dominion Electric Cooperative, pursuant to the Virginia Regulations for the Control and Abatement of Air Pollution, Title 9 Virginia Administrative Code (VAC) 5 Chapter 80-10 et seq. The public notice period for this draft permit begins on August 9, 2001 and will continue for thirty' days. A copy of the draft permit and the permit application will be available at the DEQ Fredericksburg Office. Please contact me within the time frame indicated in the attached notice if you have any questions or comments associated with this permit application, Sincerely, Sharon S. Cregg~.~ Environmental'Engineer 08-09-0t A10:57 IN An Agency of the Natural Resources Secretariat PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE The Department of Environmental Quality, Fredericksburg Satellite Office (DEQ-FSO) shall conduct a public hearing on September 11,2001, beginning promptly at 7 p.m., in accordance with Virginia Administrative Code, 9 VAC 5-80-10 and 9 VAC 5-80-1020 of its regulations, in the Forum of Louisa County Middle School, Mineral, Virginia. The hearing shall be held to consider an application from Old Dominion Electric Cooperative (Old Dominion)to construct and operate a simple cycle combustion turbine station bordered on the north by Route 860 and on the east by the CSX Railroad. The site is approximately 1.5 miles south of the town of Gordonsville in Louisa County, Virginia. The proposed site consists of four (4) GE (7EA) simple cycle dual fuel combustion turbines (CT) and one (1) GE (7FA) simple cycle dual fuel CT. The maximum rated heat input capacity for each of the GE (7EA) CTs is 1,095 MMBtu/hr and 1,964 MMBtu/hr for the GE (7FA). Each GE (7EA) CT's associated electrical generator is designed to produce a maximum of 101.7 megawatts (MW). The GE (7FA) CT's associated electrical generator is designed to produce a maximum of 197MW. The DEQ staff has completed its review of the permit application and is ready to- receive public comments. The public may examine the application package at the DEQ, Fredericksburg Office, 806 Westwood Office Park, Fredericksburg, Virginia 22401, (540) 899-4600, on each business day between the hours of 8:30 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. until September 11., 2001. The air pollutant of concern inherent to Old Dominion's CT operations is Nitrogen Oxides (NO×). The facility wide pollution limit proposed by the;construct and operate permit is 249 tons 'per year (tpy) of NOx. Additional pollutant levels are: 244 tpy of Carbon Monoxide (CO), 55 tpy of Particulate.Matter, 24 tpy of Sulfur Dioxides (SO2), and 12 tpy of Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC). The DEQ staff will present an informational briefing describing the proposed project and the Department's rationale for its determination, to interested individuals on September. 11,, 2001, in the Louisa County Middle School's Forum beginning at 6:30 p.m. Following the · presentation, the DEQ staff will answer questions related to the air quality issues affecting this project. Information exchanged dudng the briefing will not be part of the public record. Persons desiring to make a statement concerning this application at the headng are requested to enter their names on a sign-up sheet to be provided, beginning 60 minutes before the public hearing and to furnish the hearing officer with two copies of their testimony, and the original of any exhibits.' Oral testimony will be given based on the order of the sign-up sheet, and the length of the testimony shall be determined by the hearing officer. In lieu of oral testimony, written comments may be submitted during the public hearing or to the DEQ, Fredericksburg Office up to the end of business hours on September 26, 2001. Testimony, exhibits and comments presented or made during the public comment pedod are part of the public record. Gregory L. Clayton Regional Director COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department o£ Planning & Community Development 401 Mclntire Road, Room 218 Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 (804~ 296 - 5823 Fax (804) 972 - 4012 July 31. 2001 David M. Rutt 2860 Cindy .Lane Charlottesville, VA 22911 RE: SP-2001-017 Merrie Meadows SDP-2001-036 Merrie Meadows Site Plan Waiver Tax Map 48, Parcel 15A Dear Mr. Rutt: The Albemarle County Planning Commission, at its meeting on July '1.7, 2001, unanimously recommended approval of the above-noted petition to the Board of Supervisors. Please note that this approval is subjectto the following: SP-2001-O17 Merrie Meadows - Recommended approval subject to the following conditions: The improvements shall be constructed on the parcel insubstantial conformance with the plan included in this report as Attachment B, titled Merrie Meadows Site Plan and dated 6- 13-01 (revised). A commercial entrance, subject to Virginia Department of Transportation standards, shall be required. Adequate sight distance will be required by either a dedication of a 25' nght-of- way along the property line abutting Route 20 or the provision of a sight easement for the entrance, subject to the approval of the Virginia Department of Transportation. 3. Ali required Health Department approvals shall be obtained prior to the issuance of a building permit. All structures and parking areas not in existence as of the date of the approval of this special use permit shall maintain Commercial setback standards (50 feet for rear and sides), as set forth in Section 21.7.2 of the Albemarle Zoning Ordinance. 5. All outdoor lighting shall be shielded to reflect light away from the adjoining properties and Route 20. 6. All outdoor activities shall cease after 10 P.M. Page 2 July 31, 2001 7. SP 81-18 and all uses authorized thereby are terminated. Prior to issuance of Certificate of Occupancy, Evergreen trees, such as white pine, shall be installed between the access road and the adjacent parcel (TM 48 Parcel 74). The landscape materials and location of installation shall be subject to approval of the Planning Director or designee, pdor to issuance 'of a building permit. Please beadvised that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors will review this petition and receive public comment at their meeting on August '15, 200'1 (SP only). Any new or additional information regarding your application must be submitted to the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors at least seven days prior to your scheduled hearing date. SDP-2001-036 Merrie Meadows Site Plan Waiver- Approved subject to the following conditions: Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall provide adequate sight ~distance at the entrance along Route 20, subject to approval by the Virginia Department of 'Transportation. 2. The entrance to the site shall be depicted on a plan prior to issuance of a building permit. 3. The application number and conditions of approval for SP 01-17 shall be noted on the plan, prior to issuance of a building permit. 4. All required setbacks shall be noted on the plan, prior to issuance of a building permit. The following notes on the plan shall be required prior to issuance of a building permit: "Each outdoor luminaries equipped'with a lamp which emits 3.000 or more initial lumens shall be a full cutoff luminaries or a decorative luminaries with full cutoff optics." and "The spillover of lighting from parking area luminaries onto public roads and property in residential or rUral areas zoning districts shall not exceed one-half (%) foot candle." If you should have any questions or comments regarding the above noted action, please do not heSitate to contact me. Sincerely, Joan McDowell Principal Planner JMD/jcf Cc: Ella Carey Jack Kelsey Bob Ball Amelia McCulley Steve AIIshouse Howell J. Cotten STAFF PERSON: PLANNING COMMISSION: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS: Joan D. McDowell July 17, 2001 August 15, 2001 (Revised) SP 01-17 Merrie Meadows SDP 01-36 Merrie Meadows Site Plan Waiver Applicant's Proposal: The applicant has requested a special use permit for a church within the Rural Area. The applicant would construct the church on the site of an existing building that is scheduled for demolition. The new building would have an assembly area of4,418 square feet and a footprint approximately 695 square feet larger than the existing structure. A portion of the proposed building would be two-story. The existing church is a non- conforming use, as church services have been conducted on the property prior to the adoption of' the Zoning Ordinance. The proposed expansion requires a special use permit to bring the church into compliance with the Zoning Ordinance. Although a private.school was approved in 1981 (SP-81-18), it has not been in operation for apProximately 15 years. The applicant has requested that the Board of Supervisors vacate SP 81-18. Petitions: The apPlicant has requested approval of the following: Request for special use permit to allow a church in accordance with Section 10.2.2.35 of the Zoning. Ordinance which allows for churches in the Rural Areas. The existing church is non-conforming and the expansion of the building requires approval of a special use permit to bring the church into conformance with the current Zoning Ordinance. · SDP 01-036, a request fol' a preliminary site plan waiver, has also been Submitted. · Request that SP 81-18, a special use permit for a private school, be vacated by the Board of Supervisors. The property, described as Tax Map 48 Parcel 15A contains 37.55 acres, and is located in the Rivarma Magisterial District at 2746 Merrie Meadows Lane, on the west side of Route 20 North, south of Route 640 in the Stony Point SP 01- 17 Mcrrie Meadows 07/31/01 community. The property is zoned Rural Areas District. The Comprehensive Plan designates .this property as RA Rural Area, and it is within the Southwest Mountains Historic District. Character of the Area: The church would be located within the interior property that has had several compatible uses in operation since the 1964, according to the applicant. Maintaining its rural character, the Stony Point neighborhood contains a mixture of residential, farms, and forested parcels. The former village also has an elementary school, fire station, a service club and church within close ~vicinity of the' proposed church. Planning and Zoning History: SP-1981-18: approved special use permit for a small private school limited to 25 students. The school was in operation for 3-4 years. Although not in use for the past 10-15 years, this S Pnms with the land and could be re- instated by any owner at any time, according to the current ordinance. The applicant has requested that this special use permit be vacated. · SP-1985-035: approved special use permit for four cabins for weekend outing lodging/camping two 'times a year; this SP is non-transferable and the applicant plans to continue the use. SP-1997-004: request for an amendment to SP-85-35 for expanded camp facilities; the applicant requested that the application be put on hold until additional information could be submitted. After further consideration, the application was withdrawn. HO 1984-139: home occupation for a mechanical contractor HO -.1992-382: home occupation for a plumbing contractor Comprehensive Plan: Located within the small community of Stony Point off Route 20, the property is within the Rural Area designation of the Comprehensive Plan. Stony Point was previously designated a Village in the Comprehensive Plan. It is also within the Southwest Mountains Historic District. This facility would be consistent with other churches in size and scale in the Rural Area. SP 01- 17 Merrie Meadows 07/31/01 As this facility and use would be on the interior of the parcel and not visible from Route 20 or from adjacent residences, minimal visual impact of this use on the area can be anticipated. The building to be demolished has no historic significance and its removal would not compromise the Historic District standing on the National Register. RECOMMENDATION: Staffhas reviewed these requests for compliance with the provisions of Section 31.2.4.1 of the zoning ordinance and recommends approval of the special use permit, based on the consistency with the Comprehensive Plan. STAFF COMMENT: Staff will addresS each proVision of Section 31.2.4.1 of the Zoning Ordinance. The Board of Supervisors hereby reserves unto itself the right to issue all special use permits permitted hereunder. Special use permits for uses as provided in this ordinance may be issued upon a finding by the Board of Supervisors that such use will not be of substantial detriment to adjacent property_. The property has been used for private recreational and religious purposes since the 1960's, including having church services on the property. As the church uses are of greater intensity than residential or agricultural uses within a rural area-zoning district, the Zoning Department has recommended that greater setbacks be required. As the Zoning Ordinance proVides for additional buffers for commercial uses adjacent to rural areas, a comparison of commercial and rural side, front and rear setbacks is as follows: I Rural I Commercial Front 75 feet 30 feet Side 25 feet 50 feet Rear 35 feet 50 feet SP 01- 17 Merrie Meadows 07/31/01 The Commercial' District side and rear setback standards adjacent to rural areas are thelarger of the two and would further the protection of the rural area. A condition of approval has been offered to require compliance with Section 21~7.2 standards for side and rear commercial setbacks adjacent to rural area districts. As the rural area front yard setbacks are larger, the R~ front setback would remain. No nighttime outdoor play activities have been proposed. However, the applicant has advised that children are playing outside after the church service 'ends at 9:30 P.M. Neighbors have advised staff that nighttime nOise has often been disturbing. Therefore, the applicant has voluntarily offered to prevent noise generating activities, such as bouncing a ball against a wall, from occurring at night. In addition, a condition of approval has been offered to require that all outdoor activities cease after 10:00 P.M. This condition would be consistent with a condition approved recently for a church in the Rural Area, Northside Community Church. that the character of the .district will not be changed thereby, Open space~ agricultural uses and very low-density residential uses, mixed with an existing church and an industrial/office building to the south characterize this portion of the rural area district. The church is not expected to change the character of the district. As the church would be on the interior of this 37.55-acre property, the greatest impact would be at the entrance road, Merrie Meadows Lane, .onto Route 20. The County Engineering Department, in concert with the Virginia Department of Transportation comments, would require adequate commercial sight distance and commercial entrance improvement. that the character of the district will not be changed thereby, Churches are consistent with the character of the Rural Area district. The size and location of this church would not mitigate potential negative impact on the character of the area. SP 01- 17 Merrie Meadows 07/31/01 and that such use will be in harmony with the purpose and intent of this ordinance, The Rural Area zoning district was created to establish a zone that provides for the preservation and protection of agricultural and forestal resources; provide for water supply protection; be an area of limited service delivery; and to conserve natural, scenic, and historic resources. The church is viewed as a use supportive of rural Albemarle County residents. with the uses permitted by right in the district, The proposed church would not restrict the current uses or other by right uses available on this site or by right uses on any other property. with additional regulations provided in Section 5.0 of this ordinance, Section 5.0 of the Zoning Ordinance does not contain provisions governing churches. and with the public health, safety_ and general welfare. The Engineering Department, in conjunction with VDOT, has recommended that a condition of the approval be offered to require that the entrance to be improved to a VDOT commercial entrance standard. Adequate sight distance will be required. VDOT has recommended that the applicant either dedicates 25' right-of-way from the centerline along Route 20 or provides a sight easement for the entrance. In addition, a condition of approval is recommended to require that all Health Department regulations must be met prior to the issuance of a building permit. The Health Department does not have any record on file - for this property. Their septic system installations may predate modem record keeping at the Health Department. SUMMARY: Staff has identified request: the following factors, which are favorable to this SP 01- 17 Merrie Meadows 07/31/01 o The Land USe Plan Suggests that churches are supportive to the rural areas in the County. No detrimental impact on the adjacent properties is anticipated as a result of the church use. The church has been in existence since the 1960's. The special use permit is a result of the applicant propo.sing a building expansion. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Staff recommends APPROVAL of SP 01-17, subject to the following conditions: 1. The improvements shall be constructed on the parcel in substantial conformance with the plan included in this report as Attachment B, tiffed Merrie Meadows Site Plan and dated 6-13-01 (revised). A commercial entrance, subject to Virginia Department of Transportation standards, shall be required. Adequate sight distance will be required by either a dedication of a 25' right-of-way along the property line abutting Route 20 or the provision of a sight easement for the entrance, subject to the approval of the Virginia Department of Transportation. 3. All required Health Department approvals shall be obtained prior to the issuance of a building permit. All structures and parking areas not in existence as of the date of the approval of this special use permit shall maintain Commercial setback standards (50 feet for rear and sides), as set forth in Section 21.7.2of the Albemarle Zoning Ordinance. 5. All outdoor lighting shall be shielded to reflect light away from the adjoining properties and Route 20. 6. All outdoor activities shall cease after 10 P.M. 7. SP 81-18 and all uses authorized thereby are terminated. SP 01- 17 Merrie Meadows 07/31/01 Prior to issuance of Certificate of Occupancy, Evergreen trees, such as white pine, shall be installed between the access road and the adjacent parcel (TM 48 Parcel 74). The landscape materials and location of installation shall be subject to approval of the Planning Director or deSignee, prior to issuance of a building permit. SITE PLAN WAIVER SDP-01-36 The applicant has also requested that a waiver of Ordinance Section Number 18.32.3.10 requirements for a preliminary site plan, as this rePresents the continuation of an existing use on this site. The Commission may waive the drawing of a site plan, if requiring a site plan would not forward the purpose of the Ordinance or otherwise serve the public interest. The Engineering Department has requested that a condition regarding entrance improvement requirements be approved with such a waiver request. The Zoning Departs. ent has requested that the applicant provide information on a plan prior to the issuance of building permits. With approval of this waiver, the plan would not be required to meet all the requirements of a preliminary plan (Section 18.32.3.10). Staff is able to support the request for a site plan waiver as the information submitted by the applicant generally meets the requirements for a site plan. Therefore, staff recommends approval of a site plan waiver, subject to the following condition: Prior. to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall provide adequate sight distance at the entrance along Route 20, subject to approval by the Virginia Department of Transportation. 2. The entrance to the site shall be depicted on a plan prior to issuance of a building permit. 3. The application number and conditions of approval for SP 01-17 shall be noted on the plan, prior to issuance of a building permit. SP 01- 17 Merrie Meadows 07/31/01 4. All required setbacks shall be noted on the plan, prior to issuance of a building permit. 5. The follOwing notes on the plan shall be required prior to issuance of a building permit: "Each outdoor luminaries equipped with a lamp which emits 3,000 or more initial lumens shall be a full cutoff luminaries or a decorative luminaries with full cutoff optics." and "The spillover of lighting from parking area luminaries onto public roads and property in residential or rural areas'zoning districts shall not exceed one,half (½) fOot candle." Attachments A -B SP 01-17 Application SP 01-17 Plan Titled Merrie Meadows Site Plan, and .dated 6/13/01 SP 01- 17 Merrie Meadows 07/31/01 c Application for Special Use Permit CoUnty of Albemarle -:- Department ofBuilding CO~^TT^CHMENV ^ ices~ OFFICE USE ONLY--^ /] _ se# -S'¥-i31-~ ~P 0 'J ~; o ~ o a o_ 0 0 I 5 H o Sign# ~f [*Zoning Dis~ct R A *Zoning Ordin=ce Section number (*staff will ~sist you wi~ ~e items) Number of acres to be covered by Spedal Use Permit ar= O Yes~qo ~a'~'esO No Is this an amendment to an existing Special Use Permit? Are you submitting a site development plan with this application? Zip 2, 2q Il Owner of land (^s ~isted i. th~ County'~ ~ecords):/]0ta~//J~¢ ~/t/:¢n ~e~fe~/H~cff ~ &/~ P~v, ieMe ~/~r~[ Address 'Z~ ~,'~ ~ ~n ~ City ~r ~ ~P~,~/~mte ~ Zip >2 ~// DaytimePhone(~ ) q7s-7~ Fax~ ~/~Z7-'X/~7 E-mailhj~{~,'~r~ Tax map and parcel q~' b0ar~e--,/ /,-CA Physical Address (if assigned) ~.7¥{. ~e_./'r/~. ~/et~J~da ~ _ Locationofproperty(md,narks. imcrs¢ctioas, orother)O~ ~q~e_ I'l or t'l uJ e~ I" z , a. ~ 'F ?w ~ Does the owner of this property ow.n (or have any ownership inte. rest in) any abutting property? If yes, please list those tax map and parcel numbers ~¢.r - t - OFFICE USE ONLY ~[o~] Fee amount $ ~'5,Or) Date Paid El Special Use Permits: ~ Variances: Concurrent review of Site Development Plan? Check# q[ Receipt,// /~(],~ .By: /21 ZMAs and Proffers: Letter of Authorization Yes El No 401 Mclntire Road -:' Charlottesville, VA 22902 -:o Voice: 296-5832 o:- Fax: 972-41. 9 Section 31.2.4.1 of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance states that, "The board of supervisors hereby reserves unto itself the right to issue all special use permits permitted hereunder. Special use permits for uses as provided in this ordinance may be issued upon a finding by the board of supervisors that such use will not be of substantial detriment to adjacentproperty, that the character of the district~-. will not be changed thereby and that such use will be in harmony_ with the purpose and.intent of this..j ordinance, with the uses permitted by right in the district, with additional regulations provided in section 5.0 of this ordinance, and with the public health, safety and general welfare. The items which follow will be reviewed by the staff in their analysis of your request. Please complete this form and provide additional information which will assist the County in its review of your request. If you need assistance filling out these items, staff is available. WhatistheComprehensivePlandesignationforthisproperty? It~tlrPo/ ~r~it3 btx 1LPt'e~7~' How will the proposed special use affect adjacent property? / How will the proposed special uSe affect the character of the district surrounding the property? How is the use in harmony with the purpose and intent of the Zoning Ordinance? Howis the use in harmony with the uses permitted by right in the district? Nhat additional regu!ations provided in Section 5.0 of the Zoning Ordinance apply to this use? HoW will this use promote the public health, safety, and general welfare of the community? Describe your request in detail and include all pertinent information such as the numbers of persons involved in the use, operating hours, and any unique features of the use: ATrACHMENTS REQUIRED - provide two(2) copies of each: Recorded plat'or boundary' 'survey of the property requested for the rezoning. If there is no recorded plat or boundary survey, please provide legal description of the property and the Deed Book and page number or Plat Book and page number. Note: If you are requesting a special use permit only for a portion of the property, it needs to be described or delineated on a copy of the plat or surveyed drawing. Ownership information - If ownership of the property is in the name of any type Of legal entity or organization including, but not limited to, the name of a corporation, partnership or association, or in the name of a trust, or in a fictitious name, a document acceptable to the County must be submitted certifying that the person signing below has the authority to do so. If the applicant is a contract purchaser, a document acceptable to the County must be submitted containing the owner's written consent to the application. If the applicant is the agent .of the owner, a document acceptable to the County must be sUbmitted that is evidence of the existence and scope of the agency. OPTIONAL ATTACHMENTS: Drawings or con6eptual plans, if any. Additional Information, if any. I hereby certify that I own the subject property, or have the legal power to act on behalf of the owner in filing this application. I also certify that the information provided is true and accurate to the best of my Printed Name Date Daytime phone number of Signatory Original document held by Richmond and Fishburne, L.L.P. Queen Charlotte Square 214 East High Street Charlottesville, VA 22902 The Howell Joe Cotten Revocable Declaration of Trust I. Howell Joe Cotten, of Albemarle County, Virginia make this Declaration of Trust dated ~r~t/l~_'~ ., 2000. I am married to Phyllis Jeannine Cotten ("my wife") and I have seven children, Laura Lynne Hull, Jeffrey Cot~en, Gregory Joe Cotten, Phillip Howell Cotten, Timothy Duane Cotten, Marilyn Janelle Rutt, and Amy Denise Dunavant. For reasons satisfactory to me, I have decided to make no provision in this Declaration of Trust for my son, Jeffrey Cotten. Accordingly, the words "my children," and "children of mine," etc., as used in this Declaration of Trust, shall be deemed to not include Jeffrey Cotten, it being my intention that he not participate in any of the benefits provided in this Declaration of Trust. However, the words "my children," and "children of mine," etc. shall be deemed to include my son Jeffrey Cotten's wife, Angie Diane Cotten to the same extent as if she were my own biological child, it being my intent that she (and her descendants) be treated the same as my own children (and their descendants) throughout this Declaration of Trust. Article I. Creation and Disposition of Trust. A. Creation of Trust. I declare that I hold as Trustee the sum of $10.00 in cash. I may add other assets to this trust. I or any successor Trustee shall administer all the assets in ~trust under the terms of this Declaration of Trust. In the event of my resignation as Trustee, death or inability to manage business or financial affairs, my wife shall have the right to become my successor Trustee and be vested with the same authority and duties upon her written acceptance of fiduciary duties. If for any reason my wife fails or ceases to serve as successor Trustee, my daughter Laura Lynne Hull and my son Gregory Joe Cotten shall both have the right to become my successor Co-Trustees and be vested with the same authority and duties upon their written acceptance of fiduciary duties. No successor Trustee shall have any obligation to inquire into or seek a judicial determination of my ability to manage business or financial affairs and my successor Trustee may assume that I have that ability unless and until written notice to the contrary is received from my physician. As used in this Declaratmn of Trust. thc term "my Trustee" shall be deemed to refer to the one or ones so serving from [lille tO time. B. Trust During My Lifetime. During my lifetime my Trustee shall accumulate the income and retain the pnncipal of the trust except as I may otherwise direct. If at any time, in the opinion of my Trustee, I am unable to so direct, my Trustee may pay income or principal as my Trustee may deem necessary to provide for my support, health and comfort and to pay my obligations, including the support of my wife. My Trustee shall mmually add any undistributed income to principal. C. Disposition At My Deatl,. If my wife survives me, my Trustee shall divide the residue and other assets received bY my Trustee by reason of my death into the Marital -Share- and the.Family Trust as directed in. Article V. If my wife does not survive me, all such assets shall constitute fl~e Family Trust. My Trustee shall administer the Marital Share and the Family Trust as directed in Articles II and III, respectively. Article II. Marital Share. My Trustee shall distribute the Marital Share to my wife outright, in fee simple and absolUtely. Article III. Family Trust. A. Dur#zg My Wife's Lifetime. My Trustee shall pay the net income of file Family Trust to my wife during her lifetime in quarterly or more frequent instalhnents and may pay to her or for her benefit as much of the principal of the Family Trust as nay Trustee may deem necessary for her support and health. B. Following Survivor's Death. Following the death of the survivor of nay wife and me, my Trustee shall divide the principal and any accrued or undistributed income of the Family Trust into as many equal shares as may be necessary in order to provide (i) one shm'e for each then living child of mine and (ii) one share for each deceased child of mine haviug a descendant then living, and nay Trustee shall dispose of such shares as follows: (1) My Trustee shall distribute one share to each then living child of mine; and (2) My Trustee shall distribute one share to the then living descendants, per stirpes, of each deceased child of mine' having a descendant then living. C. Takers #~ Default. If at any time there is no living beneficiary designated to receive the assets of the Family Trust, my Trustee shall distribute such assets one-half to my heirs and one-half to the heirs of nay wife, both determined as if we had died unmarried at such time, pursuant to the laws of Virginia governing intestate succession to real estate that are in force on the date of this Declaration of Trust. Article IV. Provisions for Grandchild. - ' A. Grandchild's Trust. Whenever any trust payment or other interest in may trust vests in a grandchild or other beneficiary under age.twenty-five, nay Trustee may hold flae interest in trust. My Trustee may pay to or for the benefit of the beneficiary as much of the net income or principal of the trust as my Trustee may deem necessary for the beneficiary's support, health and education. When the beneficiary reaches age twenty-five, my Trustee shall distribute the trust assets to the beneficiary. If the beneficiary dies before reaching that age, nay Trustee shall distribute the trust assets to the beneficiary's estate. B. Custodial Accmmts. My Trustee may distribute any interest vesting in a beneficiary under age twenty-one to a custodian under the Virginia Uniform Transfers to Minors Act (21) selected by nay Trustee. My Trustee may distribute any haterest vesting in an incapacitated beneficiary to a custodian under the Virginia Unifoma Custodial Trust Act selected by my Trustee. Article V. Division Into Family Trust and Marital Share. A. Assets Subject to Division. If my wife survives me, my Trustee shall divide the principal of the assets held at my death and other assets received by nay Trustee that are hmludcd ~in my gross estat¢~ for federal estate tax purposes after payment of any charges under Article VI (collectively the "Trust Assets") into the Fanfily Trust and the Marital Share in the manner described in this Article. B. Family Trust Fractional Share. The Family Trust shall consist of a fractional share of flae Trust Assets. The numerator of the fraction shall equal the largest value of the Trust Assets that can pass free of federal estate tax by reason of the unified credit and the -2- credit for state death taxes (to the extent the use of such credit does not increase state death taxes) allowable to nay estate, after reduction by reason of (1) my adjusted taxable gifts, (2) other dispositions of property included in my gross estate for which no marital, charitable or other dcductiou is allowed in computing nay federal estate tax and (3) administration expenses and other charges to principal that are not claimed and allowed as federal estate tax deductions. The denominator of the fraction shall equal the value of the Trust Assets based upon values as finally determined for federal estate tax purposes. C. Marital Share Fractional Share. The Marital Share shall consist of the renmining fractional share of the Trust Assets. D; Tax Elections. Any portion of the Marital Share fo; which the marital dcducuon is not allowed in computing my federal estate tax by reason of a qualified disclaimer shall not be deemed a disposition of property under clause (2) of paragraph B.. Transfer taxes incurred at my death and attributable to a qualified disclaimer of property included in my gross estate shall not be deemed charges to principal under clause (3) of paragraph B. I realize that the fractional shares of the Family Trust and Marital Share may otherxvise be affected by thc exercise of certain tax elections. E. Assets Not Subject to Division. My Trustee shall segregate and add to thc Family Trust all assets that are not included in. nay gross estate, and such assets shall not be subject to the fractional division described in this Article. F. Allocation of Assets. My Trustee shall not allocate to the Marital Share any property or proceeds of property that cannot qualify for the marital deduction. To the extent possible my Trustee shall not allocate to the Marital Share any assets upon which a foreign death tax is payable. In other respects my Trustee may allocate assets as my Trustee may deem to be in the best interests of the beneficiaries, valuing each asset on the date of allocation. G. Allocation of Income. Income earned on the Trust Assets before the division (and income on assets used to make the payments under Article VI) shall retain its character as income and shall be allocated in the same fractions. Income earned on assets that are not included in my gross estate shall retain its character as income in the Family Trust. Article VI. Debts, Taxes and Other Charges. At my death nay Trustee shall pay to or upon the order of my Executor funds needed to pay my legally enforceable debts, my charitable pledges, funeral and burial expenses, costs of administration, transfer taxes and specific bequests under nay will. My Trustee may rely upon my Executor as to the amount of the charges. My Trustee shall use any United States Treasury securities that may be redeemed at par to pay federal estate taxes for that purpose. Assets that are not included in my gross estate shall not be used for such payments. My Trustee shall pay the charges before the division of the assets tm. der Article 'V, and the payments shall not be charged against the Marital Share or the share of any beneficiary. Article VII. Trustees. A. Additional Trustees. At any time that only one Trustee is serving, that Trustee shall have the right to appoint any individual or any bank or trust company having trust -3- powers to become an additional Trustee. The appointment of any additional Trustee shall be effective upon written acceptance of fiduciary duties delivered to flae Trustee risen serving. B. Resignation of Trustee. Any Trustee may resign as Trustee by written notice to mc, or if I am not living, to the adult beneficiaries authorized to receive trust income and the parents or other adult persons responsible for any minor beneficiaries authorized to receive trust income. C. &~ccessor Trustee. If all the Trustees named in paragraph A of Article i resign or otherwise cease to serve and no other Trustee is then serving, I, or if I am not living, a majority of the adult beneficiaries authorized to receive trust income, Or if there are none, a majority of the parents or other adult persons responsible for any minor'beneficiaries authorized to receive trust income, may appoint any individual or bank or trust company having trust powers as successor Trustee. The appoinlment shall be effective upon written acceptance of fiduciary duties by the successor Trustee. If no successor Trustee is so appointed, a successor Trustee may be appointed as provided by law upon application of the resigning Trustee or any beneficiarY. D. Actions of Predecessor. No Trustee serving under this Declaration of Trust shall be responsible for or required to inquire into any fiduciarY actions occurring before such Trustee's appointment. E. Compensation. Any individual Trustee shall be entitled to reasonable compensation for services rendered. Any corporate Trustee shall be entitled to receive for its services the compensation specified in its published fee schedule in effect at the time services are rendered, and such compensation may varY from time to time based on such schedule. Article VIII. Trust Administration. A. Fiduciary Powers. In addition to tile powers granted by law, I grant my Trustee the powers set forth in Section 64.1-57 of the Code of Virginia, and I incorporate that Code Section in this Declaration of Trust by tlfis reference. Assets may be transferred to this trust that would not meet the standard in Virginia as suitable investments. My Trustee may nevertheless retain the assets for so long as nay Trustee considers appropriate, even if the assets represent an overconcentration or do not meet flae stmadard o~f prudence. B. Funding of Marital St, are. In funding the Marital Share, my Trustee shall not exercise any power in a manner that would infringe upon any legal requirement for file allowance of the marital deduction. C. GSTExemption Allocation. I have authorized my Executor under my will to allocate all or any portion of my available exemption from generation-skipping transfer taxes to any property of wlfich I am the transferor, including any property transferred by me during my lifetime as to which I did not make an allocation before nay death. Without linfiting flae discretion of nay Executor, I anticipate that my Executor will allocate my --available GST.exemption.to the Family Trust. D~ Merger. My Trustee may merge or consolidate for achninistrative purposes any trust made by me with any other trust made by me or my wife having the same Trustee and substantially the same dispositive provisions. -4- E. Allocation of Assets. Assets allocated to one trust or share may be of different character or have different income tax bases than assets allocated to another trust or share. F. Fiduciary Discretion. The powers and discretion granted to my Trustee are exercisable ouly in a fiduciary capacity and may not be used to enlarge or shift any beneficial interest except as an incidental consequence of the discharge of fiduciary duties. My Trustee may make tax elections without regard to the relative interests of any beneficiaries and may, but shall not be required to, make equitable adjustments atnong beneficiaries. G. Tax'Sensitive Powers. After my death, no individual serving as Trustee may participate as Trustee in the exercise of any discretion to distribute principal to himself or herself other than for his or her health, education, support, and maintenance, or any of them, nor may any such individual participate as Trustee in the exercise of any discretion to distribute or expend principal or income in a manner that discharges a Trustee's personal obligation to support a beneficiary. If this paragraph precludes all of the Trustees from exercising a discretion otherwise granted them, an independent person may be named by the Trustees as an additional Trustee, with the sole authority .to exercise these discretions. H. Investment Advisor. My Trustee is authorized to employ attorneys, accountants, investment advisors, specialists and such other agents as my Trustee shall deem necessary or desirable. My Trustee shall have the authority to appoint an investment manager or managers to manage all or an3; part of the assets of the trust, and to delegate to said manager investment discretion. Such appointment shall include the power to acquire and dispose of such assets. My Trustee may charge the compensation of such attorneys, accountants, investment advisors, investment managers, specialists and other agents and any other expenses against the trust. I. Change of Trust Situs. If at any time, in the opinion of my Trustee, it is in the best interests of the beneficiaries of m~y trust for the sims of the trust to be located in a jurisdiction other than the one in which the trust is administered at the time, ,ny Trustee may remove the trust sims (and if appropriate, the trust assets) to such other jurisdiction. My Trustee may also elect that the law of such other jurisdiction shall govern the trust if appropriate under the circumstances. J. Accountbtgs. My Trustee shall make mi annual accounting to me during my lifetime, and after my death, to each beneficiary or the one who, in the opinion of my Trustee, is primarily in chat'ge of such beneficiary's affairs. K. Right to Reside itt Residence. I anticipate that after my death my Trustee may retain an interest in my residence in the Family Trust. To the extent that an interest in my residence is so retained, my wife shall have the exclusive right to use or occupy the residence free of rent or other charges. My wife may direct my Trustee to sell my Trustee's interest in the residence and reinvest the net proceeds in income-producing assets, or apply the proceeds to purchase an interest in another residence acceptable to my wife to be retained in trust for her personal use. Article IX. Reserved Rights. A. Additional Contributiot,s. I reserve for myself and any other person, with the consent of my Trustee, the right to transfer additional assets to my Trustee. -5- B. Revocation a~,d ,4mendment. I reserve the right to revoke or amend this Declaration of Trust by a writing (other than my will) signed by me and delivered to my Trustee during my lifetime. The duties or compensation of my Trustee shall not be changed without the consent of my Trustee. If this Declaration of Trust has been revoked but at my death any assets are payable to my Trustee, my Trustee shall distribute the assets to my estate. Article X. Miscellaneous Provisions. A. Spendthrift Provisions. TO the extent pemfitted by laW~ the principal and income of any trust shall not be liable for the debts of any beneficiary or subject to alienation or anticipation by a beneficiary, except as otherwise provided. B. Adoption. A person related by or through adoption shall take under this Declaration of Trust as if related by or through birth. C. Construction of Terms. 'Where appropriate to the context, pronouns or other temps expressed in one number and gender shall be deemed to include the other number and genders. Tax-related terms shall be construed in the context of the federal revenue laws in effecl at my death. D. Situs. This Declaration of Trust is made and delivered in Virginia and shall be governed by its laws. Witness my signature and seal: STATE OF VIRGINIA-AT LARGE Howell J~/Cotten~ra~tor mad initial Trustee CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE, to-wit~ The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this ,2000 by Ho~veli Joe Cotten. [SEAL] 3rd ,, day of My Cormnission expires: June 30, 2001 -6- 17 How will the proposed special use affect adjacent property? Parcels 74 (47.352 acres), 75 (105.856 acres) and 6 (102.4 .acres) are all used as cattle grazing and/or farm cropland. In addition, there is and will remain, substantial tree buffers on the subject site between the proposed building and those adjacent parcels: Parcel 14;B;(8.165 acres) has a residence built on it and is buffered from view of the proposed building by a hill and several hundred feet of undisturbed trees and undergrowth. The proposed special use will have no affect on the adjacent property. This request is merely to bring the current use and the existing special use declaration into alignment. How will the proposed special use affect the character of the district surrounding the property? Cdven the various uses in the Stony Point neighborhood, i.e. the Ruritan Club, Stony Point Elementary School, Episcopal Chapel, and Fire Station, the proposed use for the subject site is consistent with the character of the district. The rural area character of the district surrounding the property will not be affected by the granting of the special use being requested. Howis the use in harmony with the purpose and intent of the Zoning Ordinance? The speCial use request is in harmony with the Zoning Ordinance as set forth in the Albemarle County Code section 1.4. In particular, Section 1.4.8 is the most applicable issue to the property under consideration for special use. Since the adjacent properties are currently fully provided for in ~heir agricultural use, the alignment of the existing use with the special use declaration will in no way alter this provision. Additionally, Section 1.5 states that the code is designed to ensure that the treatment of lands provides "reasonable consideration for the existing use and character of properties". This request amounts to a change in declaration of use and nothing further as to actual use or character of properties. Therefore the harmony in question is fully addressed. How is the use in harmony with the uses permitted by right in the district? In Albemarle County Code Section 10.2.2 BY SPECIAL USE PERMIT, number 35 (church) appears to be the most appropriate item. A number of residents of Albemarle County, Greene County and the city of Charlottesville function together on a regular basis as a part of the "church" which is Christ's body. The subject property has been used for decades as the center of this assembly's interactions with each other. Also, as stated above, Section 1.5 provides for the reasonable consideration for the existing use and character of properties,, This gathering place has been for more than three decades, is currently and is desired to be in the future allowed to support the needs of this assembly of citizens of the above mentioned counties and city. What additional regulations provided in Section 5.0 of the Zoning Ordinance apply to this use? Not applicable, How will this use promote the public health, safety, and general welfare of the community? This facility provides activities for the children, teenagers and families of this assembly. The intent is to promote the development of responsible adUlts thus contributing directly to the common good of ail citizens of Albemarle County. This intent iSrealized by providing recreational needs and instructional training in being law-abiding citizens that can enjoy their environment and community and pass the same along to the next generation by responsible handling of available resources. Both responsible and accountable behavior is aggressively encouraged and taught by example of the parents and grandparent: in the community. Teenagers and children are taught in these principles by opportunities to serve one another in community oriented fellowship activities. Describe your request in detail and include all pertinent information such as the numbers of persons involved in the use, operation hours, and any-unique features of the use: This request is to bring the current use and the existing declaration of special use into alignment. This will require 1) maintaining the campground use, 2) vacating the private school use and 3) adding a church use. The residents of Albemarle, Greene and City of Charlottesville that constitute the assembly that use the existing facilities are bound together by commonly held religious beliefs. The gathering together, on the property in question, is for the conduct of activities associated with the shared beliefs of the assembly. There is no intent to construct an edifice or draw attention to the facilities as would be commonly expected by church builders.~ There would be no canvassing of the surrounding neighborhood fo~ converts or busing of local residents to and from this center. There would be no prominent advertisement of the facility that could cause at least an identity impact to the community. Since this approach has been followed for decades on this property, this specific request for change in special use status is merely impacting the recorded statement and represents no significant change to what has been.the practice for decades. - The use is intended for those known to be of like mind as to beliefs that wish' to share in the community- related activities. These activities are directed toward religious training and the provision of recreational activities for children and teenagers. These activities do not create excess noise but are extremely low key as to what one would reasonably expect fi'om a large gathering of people. The responsible conduct on the part of the participants is a product of the religious beliefs of the assembly. Additionally, the use is for training children and teenagers how to become responsible adults. This requires, in part, the responsible use of resources such as property, obedience to the laws regarding use of these resources and being responsible neighbors in the neighborhood in which the property is located. To this end this request is being submitted to ensure the proper posture of the owner in the use of his property for this assembly's activities.' 70 adults and 50 children on average use this facility at least 3 times per week. Seven months of the year, usually on the 3rd Sunday of the month, the center is used for a regional gathering of this assembly. At these times there will be approximately 200 adults and 150 children. Weeknight hours of operation are typically 7:00PM to 10:30PM and Sundays 9:00AM to 10:30PM. There are normally 4 and some years 5 camps held at the center. Attendance at camps ranges between 300-350 persons. These camps ust~ally extend across holiday weekends. The hours of operation are typically 8AM to 12AM at the extremes. Unique features of the use are the following: 1) ReSponsible, law abiding use of the property AT ALL TIMES 2) Respectful consideration of adjoining property owners concerns and legitimate use of their property 3) Provision of recreational activities for children and teenagers that are extremely low noise by any standard used in rural areas today 4) Maintenance of good neighbor relations with adjacent property owners 5) Refusal to alter appearance of property by using permanent advertisement articles 6) Desire to provide minimal impact to community identity and environment through the continued use of the property as has been sustained over the past 3 decades. 19 Additional Historical Data Some ChriStians we know in this area have been meeting inthe Name of the Lord Jesus Christ without denominational ties since' 1956. We have rented various meeting rooms, school auditoriums and other public facilities for years. We began meeting on this property in 1963 and because of the lack of facilities were limited to summer time use. In 1964 we built our first open-air strueture~therefore aider Albemarle. County organized the Zoning Department we became a non-conforming use of this property. Since We were only using the facilities in the summer time we applied and secured a Special Use Permit for our camping outings. Over the years the facilities were improved until they could be used year around. Since that time the non-conforming use of the facilities has made it apparent that a "church" classification more accurately describes the current use. We are requesting this special use classification to continue congregating and offering our services to the community. Services include but are not limited to Bible study, worship services, congregational singing, special group singing, young people activities such as racketball, volleyball, basketball and baseball. Activities for children in addition to playground equipment and games, include sings, birthday parties and the like. Christian camps on the various national holidays are designed as family activities to strengthen the family. Alt of our meetings and camps are family oriented so our count of attendees includes adults and children. We thank you in advance for reviewing this information and granting this special use permit to properly align our current use of the property making it a conforming use thus allowing us to replace the exiSting facilities with a new building. 2O DETAIL SHOWING LOC RESIDENCE ON TRACT SCALE 1",40' [TION OF 2(5.ZgAC) PLAT SHOWING SURVEY AND DIVISION OF TRAGT CF LAND SHOWN AS PARGEL 15 ON TAX MAP, SHEET 48 STONY POINT, I' = 200' FB37 P70 RIVANNA MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT ALBEMARLE COUNTY,VA. JUNE 6,1965 WI~AM S. ROUDABUSH,JR. / . . ".~ ' ' ' ATTACHMENT i / - - :/' ...... . ~,,~,~. ~ . , · ~,~ ~ . ~ .~,, ~ ~,~ ~--~.. ~~' ~ ~ . .. - ~ ' /-' '-=~ ....... ~ ~ . . ~ :: . ' . - I ~ ~ . . ~ . , ...... ~~---k¢ ~ ,,'- . ' ' ~ / - .... 4/ ~ ~~, - . _- . _ . _ :.."~,._, ,,' -~ x . · . .. X,,~ ~- -.~~/ ~ .~~~ ........ ~I~.~~~. ~ ~ . .. X X. 7 ~_ " · · ~ · , · ': ....... .. · :~..' - . ' '7')/! / .-~'-::..:.'. .:.':.:":: ~,~~~NN~NNNNNNNN~~N~ ;' ] : I.~ ] ~ . . IW/ . ~ ~ · ..... ..... . _~ ~~.~,~ ~.~~ ~: ~----- ~:~ . / . . ~ . .. / ,.~ , ~7 ~=~ . ...,, .~ .. . , / /.,.. i I · ~/~ I ~ :...; ~: ~ ~ .~ ~.- :~ . / . .! / ~~. -~ ~.., /k~l~ . / ....... 7~~--. .......... , . __~ / I 1 '~ /~ ~ .~ ~ ................... I · ~~ "/ ' i · / ~ . ~ · ' . ~ ' - , ... ~ . .. ' ."'-~: I/ .:~~"( t 'iL .' ~ ~ ~~~~,~.~' .m~u~~.~,~~ .,._ , ,.~ .................. .,_ . . .. / , ,. .... , , . . , , . ., , , STAFF PERSON: PLANNING COMMISSION: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS: Scott Clark August 14, 2001 August 15, 2001 SP 01-019 COVESVILLE CHILD DEVELOPMENT CENTER SPECIAL USE PERMIT and SDP 01-051 COVESVILLE CHILD DEVELOPMENT CENTER SITE PLAN WAIVER APPLICANT'S PROPOSAL The applicant proposes to open a child-care center for 25 children in an accessory building to the Cove Presbyterian Church in Covesville, where the church had a day-care center in the past. This special use permit application is accompanied by a site-plan wawer request, SDP 01- 051~ LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY The property, described as Tax Map 108 Parcel 27, contains 3.49 acres, and is located in the Scottsville Magisterial District on Covesville Lane, just north of the intersection with US 29. The property is zoned RA Rural Areas. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN The Comprehensive Plan defines this area as a Rural Area. The Open Space Plan identifies Route 29 as an Entrance Corridor. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of SP 01-019 with conditions. Staff recommends approval of SDP 01-051. STAFF COMMENT (Special Use Permit) 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 right to issue all special use permits permitted hereunder. Special use permits for uses as proVided in this ordinance may be issued upon a finding by the Board of Supervisors that such use will not be of substantial detriment to adjacent property, The impacts of this use would be mainly from traffic (for drop-offs and pick-ups) and some noise. The traffic impact is not considered significant at this location, and the additional traffic Created by this use can be dealt with thrOugh on-site improvements. that the character of the district will not be changed thereby, Although this use is proposed for a property in the Rural Areas district, it is taking place in the historic community of Covesville, in which there is a history of small-scale community-service uses. Childcare is a common function of churches, including those in the rural areas. There is some'concern that providing such services in the rural areas will effectively add urban amenities and help to attract suburban growth. However¢ this is a relatively small day-care center and is located in a historic rural community. 08-~0-01 A08:53 tN and that such use will be in harmony with the purpose and intent of this ordinance, This use is not expected to have any negative impacts on the rural areas, and will not significantly impact the historic resources on the property. The Architectural Review Board will consider issuing a Certificate of Appropriateness for this request. No changes to any structures are included as part of this application. The following information on the historic church was provided by Design Planner Margaret Maliszewski: Cove Presbyterian Church: Historic Significance The Covesville Presbyterian Church is an important Albemarle County historic resource. Covesville's early history is tied to the history of Cove Presbyterian Church. The church was first established in 1747 as a result of the wave of Scotch-Irish immigration into the colony of Virginia. A log meeting house was replaced by a permanent church structure in 1809, and that church was remodeled in 1880 following a tornado. Today the church stands as a simple rectangular, one-room, single-story, Gothic Revival style brick structure. The church was listed on the State and National Registers of Historic Places in 1989. It is significant because it typifies the manner in which Presbyterianism was established in this region, and for the simplicity of its vernacular design, which utilizes pattembook details in an unassuming manner that is fitting for a rural church. The boundary of the National Register resource includes Cove Presbyterian Hall, which was constructed in 1968 and echoes many details of the historic building, but the Hall is considered a non-contributing resource, primarily due to its late date of construction. (This information was taken from the National Register of Historic Places Registration Form for Cove Presbyterian Church, prepared by Susan Holbrook Perdue on January 23, 1989. Original documentation is maintained at the Virginia Department of Historic Resources in Richmond.) with the uses permitted by right in the district, This use provides services to rural residences. with additional regulations provided in Section 5. 0 of this ordinance, 5.1.06 DA Y CARE, NURSERY FACILITY No such use shall operate without licensure by the Virginia Department of Welfare as a childcare center. It shall be the responsibility of the owner/operator to transmit to the zoning administrator a copy of the original license and all renewals thereafter and to notify the zoning administrator of any license expiration, suspension, or revocation within three (3) days of such event. Failure to do so shall be deemed willful noncompliance with the provisions of this ordinance; This requirement requires no action prior to approval. Periodic inspection of the premises shall be made by the Albemarle County fire official at his discretion. Failure to promptly admit the fire official for such inspection shall be deemed willful noncompliance with the provisions of this ordinance; This regulation requires no action prior to approval. These provisions are supplementary and nothing stated herein shall be deemed to preclude application of the requirements of the Virginia Department of Welfare, Virginia Department of Health, Virginia State Fire Marshal, or any other local, state or federal agency. This regulation requires no action prior to approval. and with the public health, safety and general welfare. The applicant ~s proposing to provide adequate parking and driveway improvements to mitigate any safety issues raised by the increased road traffic to the site. The Health Department has determined that the water supply and sewage-disposal system are satisfactory for this use. The day-care building and its play area are near an active rail line. (The line is above the church property on top of a steep slope.) However, the established state licensing process for day,care centers includes detailed planning for playground safety. The applicant's facility will be regulated through this process. If the state process determines that fencing is needed for safety, the applicant will be required to install that fencing. STAFF COMMENT (Site Plan Waiver) Section 32.2.2 of the Zoning Ordinance states: "The forgoing notwithstanding, after notice in accordance with Section 32.4.2.5, the Commission may waive the drawing of a site development plan in a particular case upon finding that the requirement of such plan would not forward the purposes of this ordinance or otherwise serve the public interest;provided that no such waiver shall be made until the Commission has considered the recommendation of the agent. The agent may recommend approval, approval with conditions, or denial of such waiver. In the case of conditional approval, the agent in his recommendation shall state the relationship of the recommended condition to the provisions of this section. No condition shall be imposed which could not be imposed through the application of Section 32. O." Staff finds that, given the scale of this use and the minor changes planned to occur on the site, that requiring a full site plan would not serve the public interest. The applicant has submitted a sketch plan showing the necessary additions to parking and road width. This plan was revised based on staff comments. At present, the only changes required to the plan before staff can sign it are minor changes or additions to the notes on the plan. The applicant has requested waivers for one-way circulation and parallel/curvilinear parking. Section 4.12.6.1 of the Zoning Ordinance reads (in part): "One-way ingress and egress shall not be permitted, except that the commission may approve one-way ingress and egress in such case where the same is necessitated by the peculiar character of the proposed use or site." In this case, the one-way circulation is a design aspect of the historic property, and altering the site to change the circulation pattern would have great impacts on the surroundings of the historic resource. The level of use in a small rural child-care facility is not expected to be high enough to make one-way circulation difficult or unsafe. Section 4.12.6.5 reads (in part): "..perpendicular parking shall be favored. Where practical considerations warrant, the commission may authorize other angled, curvilinear, and/or parallel parking." Four spaces shown on the applicant's sketch plan are for parallel (and to a small degree curvilinear) parking. A small addition of pavement is planned to allow traffic to paSs by the spaces safely. Using this area for parking would allow for convenient drop-offs at the center and would use an area of existing pavement. Staffs supports the applicant's request for both of these waivers. SUMMARY Staff has identified the following factors that are favorable to this request: 1. A similar use has existed on the site in the past. 2. This use provides a community services with minimal impacts to public facilities. Staff has identified the following factor that is unfavorable to this request: The location of the play area next to an active rail line raises safety concerns. However, the state licensing process will apply a consistent safety standard to this facility. RECOMMENDED ACTION The Planning Department recommends approval of SP 01-019 with the following condition: 1. The applicant shall not commence operation of the day-care center until the Planning Commission approves the Covesville Child Development site-plan waiver request (SDP 2001-051 ). 2. The applicant shall not commence operation of the day-care center before securing a Certificate of Appropriateness for this u se from the Architectural Review Board. 3. Enrollment in the day care center shall be limited to 25 children. The Planning Department recommends approval of SDP 01-051. ATTACHMENTS A. Location Map B. Tax Map 4 CASTL~ BOAZ MOUNTAINS HIGH[~ TOP ROCK TOM MOUNTAIN ATTACHMENT A SDP 2001-051 Covesville Child Development Center Site Plan Waiver 'FO RT. 29 4. PORTERS AREAS G ,5 COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE 08-10-01 EXECUTIVE SUIVIMARY Al1:27 tN AGENDA TITLE: Soccer Organization of Charlottesville-Albemarle (SOCA) Jurisdictional Boundary Request SU BJECT/PROPOSAL/REQU EST: Request to allow a proposed soccer field complex to connect to public sewer STAFF CONTACT(S): Messrs. Tucker, Foley, Cilimberg, Benish AGENDA DATE: August 15, 2001 ACTION: Yes CONSENT AGENDA: ITEM NUMBER: INFO RMATION: ACTION: IN FORMATION: ATTACHMENTS: Yes REVIEWED BY: BACKGROUND: The applicant is requesting public sewer service for the SOCA soccer field complex now under construction on Tax Map 46, Parcels 22 and 22C (Attachment A). This site is located on the south side of Route 643, Polo Grounds Rd, approximately 1.1 miles east of Route 29. The property is bordered on the north by Route 643 and on the south by the South Fork Rivanna River. The property is zoned Rural Area, and is designated Rural Area in the County's Land Use Plan. The Board approved a Special Use Permit (SP98-18) on September 9, 1998, for the SOCA soccer field complex. The purpose of the request is to provide sewer service. The Board of Supervisors approved water and sewer service for Parcel 22 on February 12, 1992. That approval was limited to service to only the church building (800 seat) approved under SP 90-35 for Covenant Church of God. The Board denied a request on September 9, 1998 for sewer service to the Soccer Complex. This request was made during the review of the Special Use Permit for the soccer facility. The Board's action was based on the request's inconsistency with the County's policy for extending public utilities in the Rural Area. Attached is the staff report for the 1998 request, which includes as an attachment information regarding the Covenant Church of God 1992 request (Attachment B). The Comprehensive Plan provides the following policy concerning the provision of water and sewer service in the County, including the Rural Areas: "General Principle: Urban Areas, Communities, and Villages are to be served by public water and sewer (p. 109)." "Provide water and sewer service only to areas within the ACSA Jurisdictional Areas (p. 125)." "Follow the boundaries of the designated Development Areas in delineating Jurisdictional Areas (p.125)." "Only allow changes in the jurisdictional areas outside of the designated Development Areas ~n cases where the property is: 1) adjacent to existing lines; and 2) public health and/or safety are in danger (p.125)." DISCUSSION: This site is located in the Rural Areas as designated by the Comprehensive Plan. As noted above, the policy for providing public water and sewer outside of the Development Areas states "Only allow changes in jurisdictional areas outside of designated Development Areas in cases where the property is: (1) adjacent to existing lines; and (2) public health and/or safety is in danger." A sewer line does cross the property. However, there is no current health or safety concern on the site. The request for public sewer for this site is made in order to alleviate the need to construct drainfields. Due to the topography of the site and the existence of significant floodplain, there is limited area on-site to locate adequate sized drainfields to support the use. The drainfields would need to be located in, or along the fringe of, the floodplain and would be more prone to leaching with inundation, or located at an elevation above the proposed building requiring the installation of a pumped system. Pumping of effluent is not a desirable design because pumps can fail. A gravity system is the preferred method for disposal of effluent. Therefore, while this proposal is not consistent with the recommendations of the Corn prehensive Plan for providing service to the Rural Area in that there is no existing health or safety issue, approval of this request may be preferable from a public perspective for the ultimate health and safety at the site as a soccer complex. David Hirschman, Water Resources Manager, has provided comments regarding the various altematives to public sewer (Attachment C) and has concluded that the public sewer is the best technical solution from an environmental perspective. Comments have also been provided by Nick Evans, Chairman of the Thomas Jefferson Soil and Water Conservation District (Attachment D). AGENDA TITLE: Soccer Organization of Charlottesville-Albemarle (SOCA) Jurisdictional Boundary Request August 15, 2001 Page 2 From a land use perspective, the intent of the rural area designation for this site was to recognize the importance of maintaining the critical resources and greenspace provided by the river corridor and protect it from urban development. The Comprehensive Plan recommendation for this area states: "The area between the southern boundary of the Development Area and the South Fork of the Rivanna River is to remain in an open state as a buffer between the Urban Area and the Community of Hollymead. This boundary is critical as it preserves the distinct identity of the Community from the Urban Area and prevents continuous development from the City of Charlottesville to the North Fork of the Rivanna." (Hollymead Community Profile, p. 79). The soccer field corn plex generally maintains the open space character and is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. These two properties contained most of the developable land between the Urban Area and Hollymead. Almost all of the remaining property in this area is in the 100-year floodplain and has very limited development potential. Therefore, the provision of sewer service to this property would not encourage develop inconsistent with the intent of the Comprehensive Plan. RECOMMENDATION: The Board will need to weigh the request's immediate i'nconsistency with the jurisdictional area policy against the possible future health and safety issues associated with a private septic system that requires either pumping or potential floodplain location, and the practical effect of encouraging development inconsistent with the County's growth management policy. Given the circumstances of this site, staff opinion is that providing sewer service for this use on this site is appropriate. Staff recommends that the Board set a public hearing to amend the jurisdictional area to provide sewer service to the soccer complex (Tax Map 46, Parcels 22 and 22C) only as approved under SP 98-18 and SP 98-22. Cc: Mr. J. William Brent Mr. David J. Hirschman Mr. Bill Mueller 01.153 32 ATTACHMENT A 3S 45 RIO RI/ANNA DISTRICTS SECTION 46 ATTACHMENT B COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AGENDA TITLE: Hurt Investment and South Fork Land 1998 ITEM NUMBER: INFORMATION: INFORMATION: ACTION: Yes SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:. Request to allow a proposed soccer field complex to connect to public sewer STAFF CONTACT(S): Messrs. Tucker, Cilimberg,.Benish, Fritz CONSENT AGENDA: ACTION: ATTACHMENTS: Yes REVIEWED BY: DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST: The applicant is requesting th; Map 46,. ~Ae~i~Thls s~te ~s located on the south side of Route 643, Polo Grounds Rd, ap[ ~s east of Route 29. The property is bordered on the north by Route 643 and on the south by the South Fork Rivanna River. The purpose of the request is to provide sewer service for to a proposed soccer field complex. .;ACKGROUND: Staff has attached and DISCUSSION: This site is located in the Rural Areas of the Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan recommends that for the Hollymead Community "The area between the southem boundary of the Development Area and the South Fork of the Rivanna River is to remain in an open state as a buffer between the Urban Area and the Community of Hoilymead. This boundary is critical, as it preserves the distinct identity of the Community from the Urban Area and prevents continuous development from the City Of Charlottesville to the North Fork of the Rivanna". The Comprehensive Plan recommendations for providing public water and sewer outside of the Development Areas are contained on Page 125. The recommendation states ~Only allow changes in jurisdictional areas outside of designated Development Areas in cases where the property is: (1) adjacent to existing lines; and (2) public health and/or safety is in danger". A sewerline does cross the property. However, there is no current health or safety concern on the site. This request is for sewer service only to the proposed soccer fields. The Board has already determined that a n 800 seat church connected to public water and sewer is appropriate on this property (Parcel 22). Staff opinion is that if the proposed soccer field use is approved and the church is not developed (the Board is reviewing two special use permits concurrently), it will create less ~"~.wer/septic use than the previously approved church. The Planning Commission, at its meeting on August 11, 1998, recommended denial of the two Special Use Permits required for the approval of the soccer complex. COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: RE: Albemarle County Board of Supervisors V. Wayne Cilimberg, Director of Planning ~nd///~ Community Development il December 4, 1991 Request for Inclusion in Service Authority Jurisdictional Area - Covenant Church of ~od On February 13, 1991, the Board heard a request from the Covenant/Church of God to include Tax Map 46, Parcel 22 in the Jurisdictional.Area of the Albemarle County Service Authority for water and sewer service. Attached is the February 8, 1991 staff report for that reques? (Attachment A). The Board denied the request for a public hearing at that meeting. "~ The Covenant Church has resubmitted'the same request with supporting justification (See Attachment B). In summary, Mr. Muncaster's reasoning on behalf of the church i~ that the parcel to be served is part of a very limited area that could be developed between Hollymead and the Urban Area due to the restrictions of floodplain and topography. He also argues that the reason this parcel is not included in the growth area is because it is part of an area with very limited development potential. Therefore, Mr. Muncaster feels that providing public water and sewer to this parcel would not underminethe intent of the Comprehensive Plan in this case. Staff recommendation remains ~s presented-in its February 8 staff report. While development potential may be limited in this area, it was purposefully not included in the growth area due to the decision to retain the area between Route 643 and the South Fork Rivanna as a buffer. Consistently, staff has recommended that any area not in the growth area not be included in the jurisdictional area, particularly because public utility capacities should be reserved to support development of designated growth areas. VWC/mem cc: Tom Muncaster Bill Brent ............ iATTAcH MENTAI .; COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Dept. of Planning & Community Development 401 Mclntire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22901-4596 (804) 296-5823 MEMORANDUM TO: Albemarle County Board of Supervisors :. FROM:~- V. Wayne Cilimberg',~'~Director"-0f~ Planning andf~fl~/ Community Development DATE: February 8, 1991 ._. RE: Request To Amend ACSA Service Areas To Provide Public Water and Sewer To The Covenant Church of God (Tax Map 46, Parcel 22) / In June,.1990, the Board of Supervisors approved SP-90-35 Covenant Church of God to allow construction of an 800 seat church on this property. At this time, the Board is being requested to amend the Albemarle County Service Authority service areas to allow public water and sewer service to this site without restriction (request attached). COMPREHENSIVE PLAN~ As was noted in the special use permit report, this site is in the Rural Areas as designated by the Comprehensive Plan. Regarding provision of public utilities, the Comprehensive Plan is intentionally specific in objective and strategies as to where and under what circumstances public utilities should be made available (p. 146): OBJECTIVE: Provide public water and sewer services to the Urban Area and Communities. STRATEGIES-. Follow the boundaries of the designated Growth Areas in delineating jurisdictional areas. Albemarle County Board of Supervisors Page 2 February 8, 1991 Only allow changes in jurisdictional areas outside of designated Growth Area boundaries in cases where the property is: (1) adjacent to existing lines; and (2) public health or safety is endang'~red. This request is inconsistent with both the objective and applicable strategies of the Comprehensive Plan. There are no identified quality or quantity'problems with water on this property that staff is aware of. Further, the Comprehensive Plan warns that "such utilities are not to be eXtended-'to the Rural Areas as these services can increase developmentlpres~sures" (p. 146). In the special use permit report, staff suggested that~this project was of an urban scale and orientation and would be more appropriately located in a designated growth area~ Currently, the Board is being requested to provide urban ~utilities to the site. It shoUld be noted that the applicant has stated that "approval of this petition would also preserve acreage for much more practical uses than drainfield" as well as their position that "the governmental disposition towards this parcel is commercial." Should the Board provide this site with public utilities it could enhance argument for further development in the future. RECOMMENDATION This request is inconsistent with Comprehensive Plan objective and applicable strategies for provision of'public water and sewer service. Public utility capacities should be reserved to support development of designated growth areas. Allowance for water and/or sewer services to this property would be inconsistent with past actions ~by .the Board to ~imit utility service outside the designated growth areas. Staff recommends that public water and sewer service not be made available to this property. Should the Board choose to approve the applicant's'r~quest, service should be limited to the 10.3 acres to occupied by the church and further limited to only the church building as approved under SP-90-35 Covenant Church of God. VWC/jcw ATTACHMENT iRON SET PARCEL 10.:50 AC. D.B. 231 - 45 D.B. 6:~9-544 ~ON SET FRAME ~ON SET T.M. 46 - 22 FREDERICK & GENEVIEVE MORSE D.9. 2:~1 - 45 , 49 PLAT D.B. 639 - 544 HWY. TAKE RESIDUE - 7L927, ACRES T.M. 46 - 23E PETER G. HALLOCK D.B. ~6 - 306 D.B. 596 - 71 PLAT 24" WALNUT N. BANK STREAM I~RSUANT TO THE ALBEMARLE COUNTY ZONING ,ORDINANCE ~IN EFFECT TH~ DA~ AND ARE SHOWN FOR ~FORMATION ~!RFOSE$ ONL~ THEY ARE NOT REETRIC~ CO~NANTS / NN~G WITH rile LAND AND THE~ APPEARANCE ON THIS "PLAT ~ NOT ~NDED TO IMPOSE THEM AS SUCH. ~ PARCEL A MAY NOT BE FURTHER DIVIDED. B. THE RESCUE MAY BE FURTHER DIV~ED ~TO.. 4 LOTS OF AREASLESSTHAN 21ACRE~ ~ACH, PRO~OED THEY DO NOT AGGREGATE MORE THAN 20.70 ACRES, AND AS MANY LOTS OVER ~ T.M. 46--.- 26C JOHN H. CLARK ACRES EACH AS THE RESIDUE WILL ALLOW. D.B. 352-216,217 PLAT 99.00 6'37"E 116.13 SET 19.78 57.91 '48'47"E 138.57 THE FREE ~$ENT AND IN ACCORDANCE WITHTM DESIRE KNOWLED6E, NO~S: I. PARCEL A [ THE RESIDUE EACH HAVE A 'MIM~M OF ~0~000 S.F. OF AREA WITH SLOPES LESS TH~ 25~. 2. PARCEL A DOES NOT LIE WlT~N THE I00 YEAR FLOOD PLAW ACCORDING TO THE FLOOD ~URANCE RATE MAPS. DRIVEWAY S22*4519'~t 400.00 S80'19'39"E 75.86 126.04 SET S79'05'41"E 51.85 S83'42'25"E 70.36 · N84°II'51"E 93.34 FOUND 4.10 MON. FOUND T.M. 46 - 229 F.A. IACHETTA D.B. 441- 649 D~. 661- 700 PLAT 66.23 APPROVED FOR RECORDATION D~EC~OR OF PLANING' ~ PLAT SHOWING SURVEY OF PARCEL A , CONTAINING 10.:50 ACRES A PORTION OF.THE FR. EDERICK.&~GENEVIEVE MORSE PROPERTY,,. ,... LOCATED ON ST. RT. 64:5 , ABOUT I.I MI. E. OF U.S. RT. 29 ALBEMARLE COUNTY , VIRGINIA SCALE :1"- 200' DATE: 6-27-90 FOR REV. :' 7-2-90 CHURCH OF GOO ROGER W. RAY · ASSOC. , INC. CHARLOTTESVILLE , VA. 8128 SET PARCEL A Io.5o AC. D.B. 251 - 45 D.B, 639-544 IRON S36'5: SET FRAME IRON SET T.M. 46 - 22 FREDERICK& GENEVIEVE MORSE O.B. 23t- 45 , 49 PLAT D.B. 639 - 544 HWY. TAKE REsDUE ' ?1,927, ACRES T.M. 46 - 23E PETER G. HALLOCK D.B. 916 - 306 D,B. 596 - 71 PLAT 24" WALNUT N. BANK STREAM S22o45'19"W/ 400.00 THE LAND USE REGULATIONS LISTEO BELOW ARE IMPOSED PURSUANT TO THE ALBEMARLE COUNTY ZONING ORDINANCE IN EFFECT THIS DATE AND ARE SHOWN FOR iNFORMATION PURPOSES ONLY. THEY ARE NOT RESTRICTIVE COVENANTS RUNNING WITH THE LAND AND THEIR APPEARANCE ON THIS pLAT IS NOTINTENDED TO IMPOSE THEM AS SUCH. A. PARCEL A MAY NOT BE FURTHER DIVIDED. B. THE RESIDUE MAY BE FURTHER DIvIOED INTO . 4 LOTS OF AREAS LESS THAN 21 ACRES EACH, PROVIDED THEY DO NOT AGGREGATE MORE THAN 20.70 ACRES, ANO'~AS MANY LOTS OVER 21 T.M. 45 - 26C ACRES EACH AS THE RESIDUE WILL ALLOW. JOHN H. CLARK .B. 352-216,2i7 PLAT $84'4r13"E 99.00 .'OUND NSI'46'ST'E 116.13 sET 19.78 s79-4rl r'E 57.91 S82o48.47"E 158.57 I ION OF THE LAND DE~ftll~~ THE OlV S ........ C,*mOANCE ~I~TH THE DEsJRE n~-= ......... ~ ALL STATEM~NT~ AfP~cu AND CORRECT TO THE SEST TO ARE T~ KNOWLE~E. NOTES: I. PARCEL A & THE RESIDUE EACH HAVE A MINI, OF 30,000 S.F. OF AREA WITH SLOPES LESS THAN 25%. 2. PARCEL A DOES NOT LIE W TH~ THE I00 YEAR FLOOD PLAIN ACCORDING TO THE FLOOD ~SURANCE RATE MAPS. ;80'19'39"E 75.86 APPROVED FOR RECORDATION 77'40'46"E I26.04 SET $79'05'4r'E 51.85 S83'42'25"E 70.56 ),20'45:'E 66.80 93.34 {80*32'or'E 66.23 MON. FOUND S08'12'24"E 316.74 FOUND T.M. 46 - 22B F.A. IACHETTA D.B. 441 - 649 ~ D.B. 661 - 700 PLAT DIRECTOR OF PLANNING PLAT SHOWING SURVEY OF PARCEL A, CONTAINING 10.30 ACRES A PORTION OF THE FREDERICK & GENEVIEVE MORSE PROPERTY LOCATED ON ST. RT. 643, ABOUT IJ MI. E. OF U.S. RT. 29 ALBEMARLE COUNTY , VIRGINIA DATE: 6-27-90 SCALE: r' = 200' , : ..... "I=OR :':: '"*" ;' ': REV..: 7.-Z-90 - ~ .. .. ,.~ ,, ..-~-,.: .?,.~ CHURCH OF GOD ROGER W. RAY & ASSOC., ~C. CHARLOTTESVILLE , V~ Covenant Church of January 11', 1991 Mr. F. R. Bowie, Chairman Albemarle County Board of Supervisors 401McIntire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22901 God ~.,'r '-~ · -,' JAN 14 1991 ° :,'; DiVt ION II 1025 East Rio Road ~esville, vi~nm 2~0~ Dear Mr. Bowie: Please accept this petition as a formal request to include TM 46 Parcel 22 in the jurisdictional area for public water and sewer. As you are aware this property has been approved for con- struction of a church~comp[ex. Included in our purchase of the property were easements to the public sewer which runs adjacent alOng'the eastern boundary of the above cited parcel. Less than 300 feet of natural fall is between our boundary and the sewer line. Our petition incorporates historical studies of the county growth plan, even back to the 70's, which anticipated growth parallel with sewer and water lines. The sewer. line is already installed. Forest Lakes' plan anticipates southerly development approaching Route 643. Inaddition, Meadow Creek Parkway, which ls part of the Comprehensive Plan, will certainly dictate growth. Approval of this petition would als0 preserve acreage for much more practical uses than drainfield. It is noteworthy that the Tax Assessor's office has designated 8+ acres as being taxable--non-agricultural, which indicates that the governmental disposition towards this parcel is commercial. The petitioner understands that installation of lines and hookups are the cost.of the peti~ioneT. We have already talked with Paul Shoopof the Albemarle Service Authority regarding the logistics, and a letter from Mr. Shoop is attached. Our expectation would be to act expeditiously consequent to approval. SENIOR PASTOR Harold L. Bare, Sr. PASTOR Youth arm Music Jer~ Steele PASTOR Education and Extensim V~= M0n~ Obviously, we are most anxious for a favorable vote. What we have petitioned se~ms to us quite logical. Your consideration and cooperation will be deeply appreciated. ' Gratefullv~ ~~"~'~ ~...H~fdld L. Bare, Sr. Enclosures (2): Plat ........... Letter frgm~,Paul_Sh0op ................... cc: Paul Sho~p ~. Wayne Cilimberg LBEMARLE OUNTY SERVICE AUTHORITY' BOX 1OO9 401 MclNTIRE RD. CHAR~_O'I-rESVlLLE, VA. 22902 (804) 296-,5810 January 9, 199I Pastor Harold L. Bare, Sr. 1025 E. Rio Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22901 Re: Sanitary Sewer Service for TM 46 Parcel 22 Dear Pastor Bare: I have reviewed the availability of public water and sewer to your part of parcel 22 above. Unfortunately, this property is not currently-within our jurisdictional area. ~You must petition' the Board of Supervisors to have this included. -There is a sanitary sewer line onsite with adequate capacity to provide service to this property. Connection to this line will require authorization from the Rivanna Water & Sewer Authority. If you are successful in your petition to the Board, we will support this connection and intervene to have it approved by Rivanna./ Water service is somewhat distant, the nearest available line is at Rt. 29 approximately 6600 if offsite. I hope you are successful in petitioning the Board~ The proximity of other properties included in our jurisdictional area should support your request. If I can be of further assistance, please let me know. PAS:dmg Sincerely, Director of Engineering. 1 ALBEMARLE COUN'I f GHARLOTTESVI LLE SECTION 46 SERVICE AUTHORITY JURISDICTIONAL AREAS MAP KEY WATER ONLY WATER AND SEWER WATER ONLY TO EXISTING STRUCTURES These are existing structures as of the adopted date, either. 10-1-82 or 8-10-83 Please see "List of Existing Structures OR Development Rights" for. specific structures and. dates. LIMITED SERVICE Please see "List. of .Existing-Structures OR Development Rights" for specific iimitation.S.'/~ ................................. I. 338 Rio Road I ...... Charlo~esuille, Vg 22901 80~-~78-7~7~ . [ATTACHMENT BI December 2:1~91 Mr. V. Wayne Ci].h'~'~berg, Dlrecto~ o£ Planning & Community Deve].opment Albemarle County 401 Mclntire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22901 Re: Covenant Church of God Dear Mr. Cilh.berg: [ am w'rit:i.r~g in rif(jdld kO th~-: Covenant Churc}~ of God (Tax Map 46 - Parcel 22D)'s request to be included in the Albemarle County. Seivice Author].ty's jurisdictional area. As you stated in youl~ February 8, 199]. staff report, the Comprehensive Plan is "interl- tionally specific in objective and strategies as to where and under what circumstar, ces public utilities should be made a va ].lable: OBJECTIVE: Provide public water 'and sewer services to the Urban Area ar.d communities. STRATEGIES: Follow the boundaries of the designated Growth Areas in delineating Jurisdictional areas." The-Comprehensive Plan's reasoning behind that strategy is that "such utilities are not to be extended to the rural areas as these services can increase development pressures." The develop~ ment potential does not exist in this case. The flood hazard overlay maps clearly shrew that there is. no developable ]and between the Hollymead Growth Area and the Rivanna River ur, til 4,000' down Route 643 from Route 29. Everything else is hi the floodplain. As a matter of fact, a detailed flood study was done in this area and virtually everything is fn the floodway, which as you know, prc, hibits all fill under any circumstance. The total area bo,reded by Re, ute 643, the South F~_,rk RIvanna River, Route 29 and Powell Creek is approxhnately 200 acres. Of that total, 120 acres is floodwa2~. There are just over 30 ac:res which are not part .of the church property, not in the floodplain and beyond setback requiren,,~-'nts. A significant portion of the 30 acres would be unbuildable due to critical slopes and the align- ment proposed ~.or the Meadowcreek Parkway. V. Wayite Cilimber,..i December 2, 199;[ Pa9e 2 The c.'hllr, ch pr_ope.try fronts on ~, r~,.--w] wl~ich Js the southern bour, d- ary of the Ilullymead G~:owtl~ Ar.,'-,.~ .-~d the back of oriub~a] tract abuts the boundary for the N~,ig]~borhond 2 Growth Area. Why then is this property not part of a growtl', area? The answer is found in the Comprehensive Pla~ The area between the southern boundary of Route 643 and the South Fork of the Rivanna River to remain in an open state as a buffer between the urban area and the Community of Ho~ymead. This boundary ~s cr]tica~ as it preserves the distinct identity of'the commun%ty from the urban area and prevents c'.ont]nuous develc, p,'~ent ~cu,', the City of C],arlottesville up Route 29 North to the North Fork of the Rivanna. Thi:{ a~ea ~s ~ncluded in the R]vanna River Greenway Corridor and provides a~ ,'~ppn~un~ty for pass~ve recreational USES. Again, please look at the flood hazard overlay. You will find that 'the 100-year floodplain and f].¢,odway accomplish the stated. object~ves of the Comprehens].ve Plan, providing a buffer and" opportunity for a 9reenway c¢,rr].dor. Staff said that they w~re aware of the limited opportunity for / gr~owth in this area and t[~at was one reason why this property was not included in tile Hollymea,~ Gr.,~wl:h Area. Y~t, the Comp Plan says "utilities are not to be extended to the rural areas as tl~ese set. vices can inczease development pressures". This pu'bs the church in a position where it can't be included in a growth area and have utilities because there's not enough area to develop, but at-the same time, it can't have utilities if it isn't in a growth~ area because toe, much may develop. How can it be both ways? If there isn't enough developable land to be included in a growth area, there can't be an increase in development pzessure, and therefore, utilities should be allowed. This request is consistent with the reasoning which supports the strategies and objective of the Comprehensive Plan for provision of public water and sewer service. Finally, according to the Rivanna Water & Sewer Authority, the sewer which the church would be connecting to (Powell Creek Interceptnr) was originally de-- signed to include the church property and has plenty of capacity. Thank you for your consideratJor~ of th~s request. Please let me know if you need any additional inf,~rmati, on. Attachments Sill{.'ere]y, W. Thnm.qs Muncaster, Jr., P.E. ~ -- JAMES L CA .... ~" .,~, r .,,.., . ° 27'30" z23 '-- ' 8TA, ~.,"OEOLooIST Park ' Cem? t25 Ia ~2 Proff I t : Map 22: COMMUNITY OF HOLLYMEAD 2.73 L -_ _ ~'~* ,-. _ ......... ' ....................... -*.,_'..~L.£ .................... II ---- ,3 0 M.B. 40, Pg. 120 February 12, 1992 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 4) intersection with the origin of Barn Branch; then southwest with Barn B~anch to its confluence with the Rivanna River; then meandering west with the Rivanna River to its intersection with the eastern city limits of Charlottesville; then northeast wi~h the city limits to its intersection with State Route 631 and the Southern Railroad right-of-way, the point of beginning. Agenda Item No. 8. Public Hearing on a request to amend the set%ice area boundaries of the Albemarle County Service Authority to include TM46,P22D, Covenant Church of God, for water and sewer service. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on January 28 and February 4, 1992.) Mr. Cilimberg noted that the tax map relating to the Covenant Church of God identifies the parcel of land in question as Parcel 22. He pointed out that the original special use permit was for parcel 22, but that was before this particular ten acres was subdivided from the original tract to create site for which the particular use is being proposed. Mr. Cilimberg went on to say that this request to amend the Albemarle County Service Authority service areas to provide public water and sewer to The Covenant Church of God was originally made a year ago, but the applicant chose at that time not to go to public hearing. Mr. Cilimberg stated that the applicant subsequently returned with information supporting his feeling that it is appropriate to provide waterand sewer service to this particular location for the proposed church. The applicant then chose to go to public hearing in December for this request. ~r. Cilimberg pointed out the Albemarle County Service Authority's existing service areas on a map to show the relationship of this particular parcel to surrounding service areas. Adjacent to the north and across the South Fork Rivanna River-there are full water and sewer service areas. These areas coincide with the growth, area boundaries for Hollymead and for the urban area.' This request is for an area shown in the Comprehensive Plan outside of those growth areas identified as open space between the two growth areas. This particular site was approved for a church by special use permit, and a/t that time, it was thought that a well and septic system would be used. Further research into the site and further identification of the applicant's need for the development sit~ itself has since identified the need for consid- ering public water and sewer to avoid a large area of septic fields and disturbance on the site. Mr. Cilimberg reminded Board members that they were provided a report in December summarizing the staff's position on the request. Also provided in that report as Attachment A was a report of February 8, 1991, and an Attach- ment B'which is the justification as presented on behalf of The Covenant Church of God by Mr. Tom Muncaster. Mr. Cilimberg stated that Mr. Muncaster's ~easoning is that the parcel to be served is part of a very limited area that could be developed between Hollymead and the urban area. Mr. Cilimberg pointed out that due to the general restriction of flood plain and topography, there is little area identified outside of the growth area that could be developed. Mr. Cilimberg co~nented that Mr. Muncaster argues that the reason this parcel is not included in the growth area is because it is part of an area of limited development potential, so Mr. Muncaster feels that providing public water and sewer to this parcel would not undermine the general intent of the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Cilimberg stated that staff recognizes that fact, but the area was purposely not included in the growth area due to the 'decision to retain the area between Route 643 and the South Fork Rivanna.River as a general buffer between the two growth areas. Mr. Cilimberg noted that staff has consistently recom~nended that any area that is not currently in the growth area-should not be included in public utility service areas. A strong attempt is made to make sure that these boundaries coincide. The staff feels that public utility capacity should be reserved to support development in designated growth areas, and for that reason, even with approvals outside of growth areas for nonresidential development or special use permit types of uses, the staff' has not reco~anended water and sewer Service-. He reiterated that the staff feels that the capacity is most important to those areas designated for growth. Mr. Bain asked if staff has determined that the area within the buffer between the two communities isbuildable. Mr. Cilimberg responded that the basic area Mr. Muncaster identified is shown in the report. The staff can M.B. 40, Pg. 12! February 12, 1992 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 5) confirm, based on Mr. Muncaster's information, that it is a reasonable assump- tion that the area he has identified will be the limit of any developable area. He directed the Board's attention to Attachment B, and described several maps at the back of the package. He said there is an area that ~-~ encompasses the site for the church, outlined in yellow on the map. The staff ~j would agree that this is the area where, if development is expected in this area, this is where it would happen. The area beyond is very unlikely for anything besides the normal flood plain type uses. The staff told Mr. Muncaster and Mr. Bare that if they wanted to pursue the service areas re- quest, the staff would recommend looking at an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan first so the areas could be recognized as being in the growth area. Mr. Bain stated that he has a hard time supporting something that is outside of growth areas, because of the comPrehensive Plan and the procedures that need to be followed. He added, though, that if this is a limited area that can be ~sed for something, then he thinks the Board should consider putting that limited area in the .Comprehensiv~ Plan as a growth area. He went on to say that it could be attached to the Hollymead growth area, and then there would not be a problem. He said that the growth area and the water and sewer service areas can be treated as they have been treated in the past. He then asked where the water and sewer lines now cross the buffer areas~. Mr. Cilimberg answered that the sewer line travels up the South Fork Rivanna River and follows Powell Creek up into Hollymead. He does not know how close the water lines are, but Mr. Bill Brent-Or Mr. Muncaster would point them out.. M.r. Cilimberg noted that there is water service in Hollymead and in the Wrban area. He then called the Board's attention to the fact that the reason the Route 643 boundary was used on the north and the Rivanna River boundary was used on the South is because it was considered that the whole area provided a green space between the two growth areas. He noted that if this request is approved, it would be in recognition of the fact that this area is not that valuable as a green space between the two growth areas. Re stated that the easiest thing for the staff.would be to consider this request along with the other expansions of growth areas to be considered next year. Mr. Martin said since the church received a special use permit to build a church in that area it really is not a green area now. He does not think the water and sewer service will affect whether or not it becomes a green area. Mr. Cilimberg agreed that if the special_use permit is exercised, the area will not serve as a green space. Mr. Marshall remarked that the staff is recommending that water and sewer service be denied to this property, and he doesn't agree. He'asked why the staff is not reco~nending water and sewer service for the church. He inquired if the only reason is because the property is out of the growth area. Mr. Cilimberg answered that the property is out of the growth area and approval would be inconsistent with the Countyfs planning approach. He reiterated that the capacity of the water and sewer system needs to be reserved for develop- ment of designated growth areas. Each incremental addition outside of the growth areas, which uses public utilities, takes some of the capacity away. Mr. Marshall then inquired if this property is going to be incorporated into the growth area~ Mr. Bain stated that he had raised this as a possibility. Mr. Cilimberg stated that if the Board thinks that it is important to have this property incorporated into a growth area, then the Comprehensive Plan could be amended. Mr. Bain mentioned that if this property is really in a limited area, from a policy perspective, the Board probably should agree to incorporate this property into the plan as a growth area. Mr. Marshall remarked that he agrees with Mr. Bain. Mr. Bain said the Board had received information last year which con- tained quotes from the Comprehensive Plan indicating that the service areas should be followed wherever possible unless public health or safety are involved. February 12, 1992 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 6) M.B. 40, Pg. 122 There were no other questions for. Mr. Cilimberg from Board members. Mr. Bowerman then opened the public hearing and asked Mr. Muncaster if he would like to speak. Mr. Tom Muncaster, Muncaster Engineering and Computer Applications, pointed out that the project fronts on Route 643, and'everything north of Route 643 is part of the Hollymead growth area. The area to the south of the property fronts on the South Fork of the Rivanna River, and everything south of that is part of the Neighborhood Two growth area. He stated that 100 percent of the land west of the bend in the river,, between the site and Route 29, is part of the flood plain and is, therefore, not developable. There will not be the opportunity to increase development pressures if this site is included in the service area. Mr. Muncaster said a special use permit for this church has been ap- proved, and £he church will be built,'but there is a question of whether to build in an 9nvironmentally sound manner by connecting to a public sewer or to let the site layout be dictated by a mass of drain fields. From an engineer- ing standpoint, the best option is obvious. He said the Board has accepted such risks in the past under the assumption that the risks were less than the increased pollution which could be caused, by development. In his experience, this has been an issue when a particular project has been in the watershed of one of the County's public drinking water impoundments. He pointed out that this project is different because it is not in the watershed of one of the County's public drinking water im6oundments~ -~nd itis-next'-~o' an existing sewer line. He added that the flood plain will provide a buffer between two growt~ areas. He reiterated that increased development pressures are not an issue with this project. ' Mrs. Humphris asked Mr. Muncaster to point out on the map the part of the property that would be in the growth area, if the Comprehensive Plan were changed so as to allow this property to be included in the growth area. Mr. Muncaster did so. Mrs. Humphris asked how many acres would be involved in ~he growth area. Mr. Muncaster replied that 30 acres would be involved. He pointed out that the Meadow Creek Parkway would also take some of the land if the Parkway is ever built. Mr. Bain stated that the 30 acres mentioned by Mr. Muncaster is not part of the church property. He asked how many acres are actually part of the church property. Mr. Tucker responded that the church has a ten-acre parcel. Mr. Perkins asked Mr. Muncaster to point out the sewer and water lines. Mr. Muncaster showed Mr. Perkins the sewer line on the map., but Mr. Muncaster stated that the nearest water line traveled along Route 29 north. Mr. Harold Bare, Pastor, Covenant Church of God, said the special use permit an important factor for his local parish. He realizes that there may be some present tonight who could be opposed to his request. He asked church representatives to stand and be recognized, and he then presented a petition to the Board. He stated that within 15 or 20 minutes be could fill the room with 100 .plus people who are standing by with buses, but he did not want to do that. Mr. Bare said his concern is simple, and he thinks that it is quite clear. He has listened to the evidence and heard the talk about the green ~space, but the church property is not.involved with the green space area. The property has already been removed from the farm tract, and more than $500,000 has been invested in the property, so the matter cannot be treated trivially. This is a significant monetary investment, so something has to happen with this piece of land. Time is a factor, and he would, like to begin the project this summer~ If this Board chooses to have a Comprehensive Plan amendment, he believes that by the time the Board went through its time tables and the planners for the Church went through their site plan and everything were cleared with all County departments, it could be 1994 before ground could be broken for the church. This is a.time-consuming process, and any delays in the procedure would put the time further into the future because a site plan could not be done until everything were settled. Site plans are expensive and the church cannot afford to spend money on a site plan anticipating something that may not materialize. M.B. 40, Pg. 123 February 12, 1992 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 7) Mr. Bare pointed out that the choice for the church lies between instal- lation of a septic field which will take the prime land, or connecting to a public sewer line. He feels that going through the Comprehensive Plan proce- dure would cause an inordinate delay for the church. Mr. Bare said he does not sit in the supervisors' chairs, and he does not know as much as the~ know about government, but he reminded the Board that it made a decision that this meeting would be held, and he feels it has the right to go ahead and commend the progress of this work. He pointed out that thi~ is America, and Americans do things by the democratic process and they do not have to feel tied to always repeat what has been done in the past. He feels this is an extraordi- nary situation because the property is not attached to any other area. The .property is a piece of isolated land, sO it is not as though the Board would be setting a precedent. He does not know of any other place in the County where there is a church surrounded by a flood plain which is attached to a growth commuDity with public services nearby. Mr. Bare said this is a unique situation, and he does not think there is any need for the Board to feel as though ordinances would be violated. He asked how there could be a violation when the Board has the right to vote for water and sewer service. This is a momentous time for the church members, and he does not feel that he is asking for anything exceptional. He thinks that this 'is a reasonable request, and he mentioned that many of the people's names on the petition have never attended his church. These people heard the case he presented, and they thought it made sense and that strong, churches are needed in the community. He added that he had submitted these remarks t0 Mr. Cilimberg in. a private discussion. Mr. Bare said he is also a sociologist, 'and {s trying tg finish his doctorate at the University of Virginia. He said it takes approximately 80 people to support a pastor and 125 people to have a healthy, social network in a local church. He noted that sociologists are saying across the country that healthy churches are a healthy part of the community, and churches need to be able to grow. He said that this is an important factor. He feels the Board members have before them a clear-cut case, and the prayers and petitions are that the Board will grant its approF- al. He respectfully thanked the Board for its consideration. No one else wished to speak, so Mr. Bowerman closed the public hearing. Mrs. Humphris commented that SP-90-35 was the request that allowed the Covenant Church to be built in this area. She stated that the staff indicated in its report that this church was of an urban scale and implied that it should more appropriately be built in an urban area. She said that it was known from the very beginning that if the church was built in a rural area, it could possibly present a problem. In spite of that fact and the Comprehensive Plan g6als and zoning implications, the church group made a conscious decision to go ahead with the request for issuance of the special use permit, and it was eventually approved. Even though the development potential may be limited inthis area, the County has made a very conscious and careful decision to maintain that area on the map as a buffer between two growth areas, recogniz- ing its value as a green space. She thinks that such a change requires a proposal for a Comprehensive Plan amendment, and if there are problems with that procedure, it is not the fault of this Board. She reminded the group that this Board did not make the original proposal. She noted that the church representatives decided that the septic system would not do and that public sewer was desired. She thinks the manner in which this Board should handle this situation would be not to grant an exception to the Comprehensive Plan and there would not be the possibility of setting a precedent. Mrs.-Humphris noted that no matte~ ~ow often it is believed that no similar circumstances will arise in the future, it could be discovered at a later date that a precedent had been established. She referred to the peti- tion and said'that good planning is not done based on popularity contests. Good planning is based on good sound planning and policies; it is not a numbers game. She believes that this request is not consistent with the objectives and strategies of the Comprehensive Plan-, and she pointed out that the staff had given a lot of time and attention to the request and stii1 feels that it is not in the best inter,st of the entire County. She really believes that it is possible that anytime an exception is granted to the Comprehensive Plan, it will cause problems for the County at a later time. She is opposed to this request and believes that this decision has to be based on existing policies.' M.B. 40, Pg. 124 February 12, 1992 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 8) Mr. Bowerman said that Mr. Bain had raised a good point. Mr. Bowerman asked if the Board could take action on this request and change the Comprehen- sive Plan later to coincide with these actions. He went on to say that when the Board voted to go to public hearing, comments were made recognizing that 200 acres were designated as green space. He said the green belt can still be maintained because there is plenty of land area along the river, but basically this piece of property was a convenient boundary between the Hollymead growth area and the urban growth area. He stated that the s'ituationwas considered closely. He had argued that a person could legitimately look at this area not as separate from the urban area, but almost as pa~t of it, since it is in such close proximity to it. He pointed out that the majority of the land there is not buildable. It was for that reason that he made the motion to hold a public hearing. He does not think this will create any bad precedent because he thinks it is a unique piece of property, even though there is some more acreage there which this Board may have to deal with in the future. He believes tha~ this is a reasonable use in a reasonable location. He thinks it is impossibl9 to get any closer to the urban area and not be in it because the property falls between the two growth areas, and it is located on a Stat~ highway. It is for all of these.reasons that he will support the application for change in the service areas. He will consider, when the Comprehensive Plan is reviewed, studying this area and legitimately changing some of the lines. Mr. Bain remarked that he would rather change the lines . He would unquestionably support the request if the Board supports changing the growth area boundaries. He recalls that when the Comprehensive Plan was being · develbped, and the whole Hollymead area was considered, areas east of Hollymead were examined as possible growth areas because there was pressure from those residents. He added that the people north of Route 643 were requesting the same thing. He thinks that the staff and Board decided that the whole area north of the river should not be in the growth area. He said that the green space was considered, but a lot of time was not spent on considering whether or not the property south of Route 643 could be used fo~ development apart from the flood plain. He asked Mr. Cilimberg if he was correct. Mr. Cilimberg replied that topography maps identified flood plain areas and steep slopes during the overall consideration of growth areas and the immediate areas around growth areas. He thinks that this decision to stay with the buffer between*Route 643 and the River was because there were two identifiable physical boundaries which provided a reasonable separation in this high area. He went on to say that if the area is not developed, and green space is desired in a high area that is very visible, then this area would be serving that purpose. He does not think that the staff consciously considered examining the south side of Route.643 to establish a reasonable addition to the growth area. The staff knew that there was an area there that might be available for development, but it was not identified because the staff and Board seemed satisfied with continuing the ~eparation. Mr. Bain stated that the area in question is a very small area and he thinks it could be included as part of the growth area. He will support a resolution indicating that the Board will consider adding that area as part of the growth area. He is not sure, however, that this is a unique situation. He has being trying to recall other areas that' are adjacent to streams and close to the urban area, where there is a similar situation. He said that he keeps in mind what the Comprehensive Plan indicates as far as extending utilities, and for that reason, he has difficulty supporting the request apart from a Comprehensive Plan amendment.. Mr. Marshall commented that he also will support a resolution for an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan. He said the Comprehensive Plan can be 'change~. He pointed out that this Board is not considering a request from a retail establishment, a night club or a bar. He added that this is a request from a church group, and he wants to see as many people in church as possible. He asked if there was any reason why the church group should be denied its request. He said that he will support the church group and its efforts. Mr. Martin wondered if there was a way that a compromise could be worked out whereby the supervisors could approve'the intent of this public hearing, and at the same time pursue a possible Comprehensive Plan change. M.B. 40, Pg. 125 February 12,' 1992 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 9) Mr. Bain replied that the Board can do that, but he cannot support the motion as it was stated. He understands that the church group has a lot of money involved in this project, but he reminded the church representatives that he voted against the motion in the beginning because it represents putting an urban use in a rural area. Mr. Marshall asked if Mr. Bain could support the motion if the church were allowed to connect to the utilities and the Board made a resolution to follow this action. Mr. Bain responded, "no." He said that he would support the resolution, but the matter sho61d be brought back to this Board in 60 days. The property-is a limited area of 30 or 40 acres of land, and if the staff feeis that an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan is a way to handle the situation, then he could probably support a motion at that time. He believes that supporting the request before a Comprehensive Plan amendment is consid- ered would not allow the matter to progress in the proper order. Mr. Bowerman stated to Mr. Bare that he believes there is Board support for considering a Comprehensive Plan change first and delaying action on this request for 60 days. Mr. Bowerman said he does not know if the motion will be approved or disapproved if it is voted on now. He asked Mr. Bare his feelings about waiting for 60 days to look at a Comprehensive Plan change. Mr. Bare replied that he realizes that to wait would create a greater probability of a favorable vote. He said, again, that the 60 day wait would almost assuredly not allow the church to be built this year because the winter months would be here before any construction could be started. He also understands this Board's poli~i6al position. He knows the Board has s legal right to vote tonight, and it is as legal as waiting six years and going through 50 Compre- hensive Plan changes. He added that this is due procedure, and he stated that this is the church group's position. Mr. Perkins commented that he can support this request because the important thing for this church group is the time element. He thinks this piece of property is unique. If the Board only adheres to the Comprehensiv~ Plan there would not be any need for the Supervisors to meet as often as they do. He thinks the Comprehensive Plan was made to be changed, and he thinks that this is one of those times when it can be changed. He would not be opposed to the request b~cauDe the timing is very important to these people. He will support a change in the service area boundaries. Mr. Bain said the issue before the Board is land use, and that is what the Board should base its decision on. He said that Mr. Bare and his congre- gation have the right as landowners to come before this Board and ask for a change. He added, though, that this Board makes decisions that are related to land uge and the Comprehensive Plan, etc. This Board has already approved the request for the church to be built on that property, but now this Board is having to make another decision tonight. Mr. Perkins replied that a lot of requests have been before this Board, and some have been approved and some have been denied. He said that there will always be requests from people, and some of the requests will continue to be approved, unless there is a change in the Board members. Mr. Marshall stated that he feels each case has its own merits. Mr. Perkins mentioned that the Board has turned down a lot of requests along Hydraulic Road, north of Albemarle High School, because the property was in the drainage area of the Reservoir. He thinks that this is important. He said that this is not the case with the piece of property in question, and he thinks that this situation is unique. Mr. Marshall agreed with Mr. Perkins' previous statement that if the supervisors were only going to adhere to the Comprehensive Plan, then they have no reason to be at these meetings.. Mrs. Humphris remarked that the whole point is that if the supervisors don't want to adhere to the Comprehensive Plan, then the Comprehensive Plan should be changed, but exceptions should not be made to the Plan. Mr. Marshall said that he does not agree. He stated that a whole text- book would not be changed just because it was necessary to change one area in M.B. 4O, Pg. t26 February 12, 1992 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 10) it. He said that the Comprehensive Plan is good, but it is not the Holy Bible. Mr. Martin stated that he would support a motion for Mr. Bare's request because a special use permit was given to the church, and he feels that once that special use permit was given, any legitimate argument of using that space as a buffer disappeared. Mr. Bain explained that any agricultural land outside of the flood plain can be developed, so this property could have been developed with houses. He said that in a rural area, there are still development rights. Mr. Martin remarked that he thought the special use permit was given with the idea that a church would be built there. He reiterated that once the special use permit was issued, then it was already determined that some of the buffer space'~would be lost. This .decision was made when the special use permit was issued. He understands what Mr. Bain is saying about the order in which these ~atters should be handled, and he thinks that the Comprehensive ?lan is a guide and should be treated as a guide. He also believes that the Board should always try to stay within the Plan except when there are excep- tions. To him, this is one of the exceptions that the Board should approve, but he realizes that perhaps the next request will not be approved. Mr. Bowerman commented that he has not supported any exceptions since he has'-been on this-Board' or when he was a member'o~the Planning Commission where there was a question of extending the service areas into a watershed of any of the ~ater supply reservoirs, including the Totier Creek watershed.' He voted against changing the service lines for exactly the same reason. He pointed out that this property is not in a watershed area. He asked if there is a motion. At this time, motion was offered by Mr. Marshall to approve inclusion of Parcel 22-on Tax Map 46 in the service area boundaries of the Albemarle County Service Authority for both water and sewer service, for the 10.3 acres to ~e occupied by the church, and further limited to only the church building as approved under SP-90-35 for Covenant Church of God. Mr. Martin seconded the motion. Mr. St. John pointed out that this request is for water and sewer ser- vice. He asked, if this request is approved, how will the water be routed to the church. He pointed out that the sewer service is not on the church property, but it is near to the property, He stated that someone on the staff should-supply this information. Mr. Bowerma~ asked if there is service area coverage between the water and sewer lines and this parcel. Mr. St. 3ohn answered that there has to be a service area where the lines are. He said that there are houses adjacent to this church along Route 643. He added that if the water line is brought along the road to reach this church, it will be in the street adjacent to these houses. He said that this raises the question of whether or not these people might make the same request. Mr. Marshall noted that his motion stipulates that the water and sewer service will only be to the church. Mr. Martin asked if this would be a matter that will be brought back to this Board. Mr. St. John replied that the matter would be brought back to the Board if someone else made such a request. Mr. Bowerman asked Mr. Bill Brent if he could comment on the proximity of water and sewer service to this specific site. Mr. St. John asked Mr. Brent to explain how the new lines will be routed if new lines are necessary to get the utilities to the site. Mr. Brent responded that the applicant has not made a specific design as to how to extend the water line to the particular site. He added that the path of least resistance and the obvious route would have the water routed February 12, 1992 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 11) M.B. 40, Pg. 127 down Route 643 from Route 29 because the closest water line is located at Route 29. He went on to say that he is not sure if the sewer line crosses the property in question, but if it doesn't, it is very close to it. Mr. ~Cilimberg stated that the sewer line is on a portion ~f the residue parcel. He pointed out on the map the portion of the property the sewer line CrOSSeS. Mr. Stl John asked if the sewer line crosses a portion of the property now Owned by the church. Mr~ Cilimberg answered that as far as he knows the church owns the property where the sewer line is routed. Mr. St. John ex- plained that easements would have to be gotten if other people's property is involved. Mr.'Brent stated that there are easement rights. Mr. St. John stated that this answers his question. He went on to say that it would probably be impractical to connect to sewer service without also connecting to the water service. Mr. Brent next explained, that if the church was not connected to the County's water system, it would be impossible to know how much sewer service was being used. He said that, in such a case, the church representatives would be required to put a meter on the well. ~ROII was called a~d the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES:. Messr~..Bowerman, Marshall, Martin and Perkins. NAYS: Mrs. Humphris and Mr. Bainl Agenda Item No. 9. ZMA-91-12. Beechtree Associates Limited Partnership. Public Hearing on a request to rezone 1.12 acs from CO (proffered) to C-1 (proffered). Property in SE quadrant of Whitewood/Hydraulic Rds inters is ! located in Neighborhood I. Property shown in the Comprehensive Plan for Neighborhood Service~ TM61,P25. CharlottesvilleDist. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on January 28 and February 4, t992.) Mr. Cilimberg gave the staff's report as follows: "CHARACTER OF THE AREA: This site is currently developed with a commercial building consisting of multiple rental spaces. Adjacent properties are als~ developed commercially. This site has access directly to Whitewood Road and is connected to Hydraulic Road through the adjacent commercial development. Albemarle High School is located on Hydraulic Road opposite this site. APPLICANT'S PROPOSAL: The applicant is proposing to amend the exist- ing zoning of the property in order to broaden the range~of permitted uses. 'The applicant has proffered to delete uses which are inconsis- tent with the Neighborhood Servi~e designation of this site or which may be inappropriate in this location due to proximity to the high school and/or access. The applicant's proffers are included as Attachment C (set out in full below). PLANNING AND ZONING HISTORY: March 13, 1963 - Subdivision dreating parcel under review was ap- proved. January 28, 1976 - The Board of Supervisors rezoned the one parcel from R-2, Residential, to B-l, Business, subject to the entrance to 'the site-being limited to Whitewood Road. March 24, 1981 - The Planning Commission approved the site plan for this property. July 20, 1983 - The Board of Supervisors approved ZMA-83-08 (Prof- fered). This action rezoned the property from C-i, Commercial, to CO, Commercial Office. .~ATTACHMENT~C_ COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE DEPARTMENT OF ENGINEERING & PUBLIC WORKS MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: David Benish, Chief of Community Development David Hirschman, Water Resources Manag~ August 7, 2001 South Fork Soccer Center - Sewer Hook Up I have met briefly with Wayne on this subject and also discussed it with Alvson Sappington from the Thomas Jefferson Soil & Water Conservation District mad Bill Craun with the Thomas Jefferson Health District. I understand the long-standing policy for not allowing hook up to public sewer outside of the jurisdictional area, except in cases supported by the Comprehensive Plan. In general, the policy is a firm statement linking public utilities with land use, and is philosophically sound. However, in certain cases, the policy prevents the best technical solution, and the best option from a water quality perspective, even in cases where future land use is of little concern. The South Fork Soccer Center is the latest and perhaps most dramatic example I have observed. I understand that the property in question is not within a Development Area. However, it is sandwiched between two such areas, divided only by the Rivanna River and its flood plain. If the intention is to provide a green swath along the River and between the Development Areas, then the soccer park seems consistent with that intention. The ownership of the property is by a non-profit organization, and even if the ownership were to change in the future, restrictions on flood plain development would restrict other more intensive uses. Given that the Board of Supervisors has approved the use for that particular site, I believe it would be prudent from both a land use and environmental perspective to allow for the best technical, environmentally-sound means of sewage disposal. In this case, hooking up to the sewer line is the clear, best alternative. The reasons for this are as follows: Septic fields are an alternative to sewer hook-up. However, the site is quite limited for septic drainfield disposal due to the extensive flood plain, and limited area outside of the flood plain suitable for such a system. Bill Craun from VDH has expressed his preference for the site connecting to the sewer because of technical lhnitations with finding an adequate drainfield and reserve drainfield. According the Bill, the solution they have found meets only the minimum requirements, and may not be able to meet peak needs during events. MEMORANDUM South Fork Soccer Center - Sewer Hook Up August 7, 2001 Page Two The soil in flood plains tends to be more alluvial and porous than other soils in the area. They are not suitable for accepting septic waste because of the increased chance for waste to leach through them and because of periodic inundation. Even drainfields just above the flood plain level (as in this case) present more risk for septic leaching than drainfields further removed from flood plains and streams. Also, the drainfield area must be graded to install the system, instead of leaving the hillside undisturbed. Furthermore, this septic system will require a private pump station for the waste to get to the drainfield. These types of pump stations can best be described as "accidents waiting to happen." We have personally observed these types of pumps backing up directly into streams in our community. The issue is that they require constant maintenance, and the consequences of failure are very bad for downstream waters. There is 'no way to guarantee that periodic maintenance is taking place, so monitoring and oversight is difficult or non-existent. The best motto for private pump stations is to prevent them if at all possible, especially when other alternatives are readily and economically available. Finally, septic systems always provide some level of risk for sites that must also use wells for potable water. This site will require several wells. While Health Department standards impose certain minimum setback requirements between drainfields and wells, this is far from absolute protection, especially when drainfield conditions are not optimum From a risk reduction perspective, eliminating the need for a drainfield is the best option. Other types of non-conventional systems, such as composting toilets, may be an option. However, we have never clarified County policy on the use of such systems, and they probably would be incapable of handling the event-type loads that will be generated at the soccer park. In some cases, they have proven an excellent solution at remote sites with intermittent and small sewage flows. I don't know all the technical particulars of these systems, but my suspicion is that they would be very expensive to handle flows at the soccer park, and may not do an adequate job. In my mind, the use of such a system would be hard to justify when there is a sewer line running through the site, and we know that the waste will be adequately treated at the Moores Creek Treatment Plant. Presently, SOCA is proposing to use port-a-johns to fill the gap between what the septic field can provide and expected demand. The environmental aspects of a row of port-a-johns may not be an issue, unless one considers their inherent drawbacks for odor, aesthetics, and sanitary conditions. The main issue with port-a-johns is that if the County approves of the use of the site as a soccer facility, by all means allow them a sewage disposal option that does not require the need for a row of permanent port-a-johns. From a regulatory standpoint, I also wonder whether permanent port-a- johns is tantamotmt to permanent pump and haul. In this case, hooking up the sewer line is environmentally sound. The sewer line is already there and is not going away. It seems most prudent to hook onto an existing system rather than to create a redundant sewage disposal system on the site, especially one of dubious effectiveness. Hooking up to the sewer line will necessitate less site grading and will afford more enduring protection for the site's drinking water wells. Also, there is no doubt that the line can handle even the largest event- type flows that the site will generate. MEMORANDUM South Fork Soccer Center - Sewer Hook Up August 7, 2001 Page Three In general, if future land use is not a serious concern, I feel that we should seek the best technical, enviromentally sound option for sewage disposal. I know that we cannot always know what all future land uses may be, or what potential there is for undesirable or more intensive uses that otherwise would not be feasible without sewer hook-up. However, I am advocating for some balance - that on sites where our best judgement tells us that future land use is not an overriding issue, that we allow for sewer hook ups when it can be demonstrated to be the best teclmical and environmental alternative. I would be glad to discuss this issue further with you and your staff and help find an agreeable solution. DJH/ybv Copy: Jack Kelsey, Chief of Engineeriug File: Hirschman\SOCAsewer.doc Louisa Office: 3% Industrial Dr.. Ste 2 Louisa, VA 23093 Tel: 540-967-5940 ATTACHMENT D E-mail: tjswcd@ avenue.org Web Page: avenue.org/tjswcd THOMAS JEFFERSON ~SOIL AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT ,,.~o,~ ) 2134 Berkmar Drive, Charlottesville, VA 22901  Tel: 804-975-0224, Fax: 804-975-1367 June 28, 2001 Mr. Wayne Cilimberg Director of Planning and Community Development, Albemarle County 401 Mclntire Road CharlotteSville VA 22901 rDear Mr. Cilimberg: The Thomas Jefferson Soil and Water ConservatiOn District,partnered with Albemarle-COunty in establishing and holding:'a,Riparian Easement at the SOuth Fork Soccer Park on Polo GroUnds Road .(Rt.. Co43). ~,~ . . ,.:~ .~,~ A plat of this property shows'that a sanitary sewer line is located directly 'under the proposed SocCer Park, however the property is outside of'the jurisdiCtional area for sewer connections.' While we are aware, of,' ' 'andin support of, the pOlicies that restdctconnections to. the Sewer system.to areas designated f°rgr'°wth', we believ'~,that this project is deserving of an exbePti0n:-. A similar.e~cepti°n has alread9'been,granted to a chUrch, located On the. parCel from which the soccer park property was divided. : .-_:...: : : T- Wheh the SoCcer.Organization of Cha:dottesviile Albemarle (SOCA) initially submitted an .app!icaUon for a Jurisdictional Area E~ensi0n in .1998, 'the property w~s underrthe Cbntrol Of. Dr: wimamrHurt. SOCA, a . .nontprofit community .Service organization,: is 'now the solo owner of the.pr5perty, with :intentions to rnair~:tain the property/aS a' rbcre~ti0n:al facility rf'0r th.e'trJng term'. SOCA has .no interest in!'hhY'Pit°fit:makin'g uses of the property. ' · 'As planned now, the Soccer P~k Will have a small septic system just aboye the flood.'plain area. The. sciatic.system will not support heaW usage from the g~neral public, and Will' theref°reneer.tO :be': suPp~r~ented with portable toilets, Due t0-the site reStrictions;'~he Albemarle C°untyHbaith Department recommended'that a connection to the .seWer line. be granted (as noted in a March 1, 2001-:e:mail from Bill Craun to Margaret -Doherty, County Planner).. 'Neither the septic .system nor. the 'portable' .toilets,. serve, the interests of water quality protection .or.public health protection. It is the-recommendation of the TJSWCD that SOCA's request for a JuriSdictional. Area .Extension be granted. The County may wish to qualify, the approvalwith a requirement, that SOCA be.responsible for disconnections from the sewer line if the use of the property, changes.. .. Thank you for your consideration of this request, and we look forward to hearing from you. $~N ic~ H.-~-~ans Chairman Cc. Aibemade County Board of Supervisors County Water Resources Manager ~,,.~ ,r baV~LOPMF~T "To exercise leadership in p~0moting soil and water conservation by providing technical expertise and education to policy-makers and the public" pfiat~i or~ - re~yclsd paper,l~ Ella Cagey From: Sent: To: Subject: k Bob Tucker Monday, July 09, 2001 9:0g AM Ella Carey FW: SOCA Soccer Fields Public Sewer ELLA: FYI. BOB From: Wayne Cilimberg Sent: Friday, July 06, 2001 4:43 PM To: David Hirschman Cc: David Benish; 'alyson. sappington~va.nacdnet.org'; Sally Thomas; Bob Tucker Subject: SOCA Soccer F'~IclS Public Sewer Thank you for the recent information you provided regarding sewer options for the soccer fields adjacent to the S. Fork Rivanna River. You raise some very relevant points that are worthy of consideration. Although this project does not completely meet Comprehensive Plan criteria for the provision of public utilities in the Rural Area, there seem to be some rather unique circumstances that, at a minumum, deserve the Board of Supervisors' review, if SOCA is still so inclined to make application for jurisdictional area designation, we will prepare a report for the Board that includes your analysis. With these facts, the Board can then make decision on going to public headng and ultimately taking action on this request. To: From: Subject: Date: Members, Board of Supervisors ~..~ ~" Ella Washington Carey, CMC, CJ~------~' - Reading iJst for August 15, 2001 August 9, 2001 March 21 (A), 2001 April 18, 200 I Apr/125, 2001 May 9, 200t June 6, 2001 June 20, 2001 July If, 2001 Ms. Thomas Mr. Bowerman Ms. Thomas Pages 28 - end - Mr. Martin Pages I-t8 (end at Item 6a) - Mr. Bowerman Pages I- 13 (end at Item #7) - Mr. Martin Pages 13 (be~nning Item #7) - end - Mr. PerkJns Pages I- 17 (end at Item # I I) - Mr. Dorrier Pages 17 (be~nning Item # I I) - end - Ms. Humphris ,lewc