HomeMy WebLinkAbout2008-07-09
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
FIN A L
JULY 9, 200S, 6:00 P.M.
COUNTY OFFICE BUILDING
LANE AUDITORIUM
1 . C II to Order.
2. PI dge of Allegiance.
3. M ment of Silence.
4. F m the Board: Matters Not Listed on the Agenda.
5. Fr m the Public: Matters Not Listed for Public Hearing on the Agenda.
6. C nsent Agenda.
PUBLIC EARINGS:
7. P OJECT: ZTA-200S-001. Athletic field Ii htin . PROPOSAL: Amend Sections 4.10.3.2 (Exceptions -limited)
a d 4.17.5 (Modification or waiver) of the Zoning Ordinance (Chapter 18 of the Albemarle County Code). This
or inance would amend section 4.10.3.2 by adding poles that support outdoor luminaires for lighting athletic
fa ilities as a class of structures exempt from the zoning district height regulations, provided that a modification is
approved by the planning commission; and amend section 4.17.5 to establish procedural and substantive
re uirements for the commission to modify the height of such poles.
8. P OJECT: AFD-200S-001. Carters Brid e A ricultural and Forestal District. Periodic review of the Carter's
Br dge Agricultural and Forestal District and consider amending section 3-210, Carter's Bridge Agricultural and
F restal District, of Division 2, Districts, of Article II, Districts of Statewide Significance, of Chapter 3, Agricultural
an Forestal Districts, of the Albemarle County Code. The proposed ordinance would identify TMPs 112-15A,
11 -16E1, 112-16E2, 112-16F2, 112-16J, 113-11F, 113-11F1, 113-11F2, 113-11F3, 113-11G, 113-11G1, 113-
11 2, 113-11H, 113-111, 113-11J, 113-11K, 114-31B, 114-31C, 114-310, 114-31E, 114-67C, 114-670, 114-67E,
11 -67F, 114-67G, and 114-67H as being in the district (these parcels were created from parcels already in the
di trict), would show TMP 101-60 as no longer existing (land in this parcel was distributed to other parcels in the
di trict), would remove TMPs 112-16, 112-16C, 112-160, 112-16F, 112-16J, 112-17, 112-19G, 112-19H, 112-191,
11 -11, and 114-31 E from the district, and any other parcels for which a request for withdrawal is received before
th board acts on the proposed ordinance, would add TMP 111-48 to the district, and would continue the district
an set the next district review date deadline of July 9, 2018.
9. P OJECT: AFD-200S-002. Lanark A ricultural and Forestal District. Periodic review of the Lanark Agricultural
an Forestal District and consider amending section 3-221, Lanark Bridge Agricultural and Forestal District, of
Di is ion 2, Districts, of Article II, Districts of Statewide Significance, of Chapter 3, Agricultural and Forestal
Di tricts, of the Albemarle County. The proposed ordinance would identify TMPs 102-35, 102-35A, 102-35C, 102-
40 ,1 03-3A, 103-3B, 103-3C, 103-3G, 103-9A, 103-9B, 103-9C, 103-90, 103-9E, 103-9F, 103-43M and 103-68
as eing in the district (these parcels were created from parcels already in the district), would show TMPs 103-10
an 103-1 OC as no longer existing (land in these parcels was distributed to other parcels in the district), would
re ove TMP 1 02-40A from the district, and any other parcels for which a request for withdrawal is received before
the board acts on the proposed ordinance, and would continue the district and set the next district review date
de dline of July 9, 2018.
10. PR JECT: AFD-200S-003. Panorama A ricultural and Forestal District. Periodic review of the Panorama
Ag icultural and Forestal District and consider amending section 3-224, Panorama Agricultural and Forestal
Dis rict, of Division 2, Districts, of Article II, Districts of Statewide Significance, of Chapter 3, Agricultural and
Fo stal Districts, of the Albemarle County. The proposed ordinance would identify any parcels for which a
req est for withdrawal is received before the board acts on the proposed ordinance, and would continue the
dis rict and set the next district review date deadline of July 9, 2018.
Work Sess ons:
11. a. Land Use Taxation Program - Option 2.
b. Revalidation Program.
12. Fro the Board: Matters Not Listed on the Agenda.
13. Adj urn to July 23,2008,6:30 p.m.
CONSENT AGENDA
FOR INF( RMATION:
6.1 Alpemarle County Department of Social Services, survey results on use of public transportation by customers.
6.2 Alpemarle County Sheriff's Office 2007-08 Game Enforcement Summary.
6.3 C py of letter dated June 26, 2008, from Ronald L. Higgins, Chief of Zoning, to John Murphy, re: LOD-2008-0009
- C~FF/CIAL DETERMINA TlON OF PARCELS AND DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS - Tax Map 58, Parcel 55;
(p operty of John A. & Margaret S. Murphy) - Samuel Miller Magisterial District.
FOR APP ~OVAL:
6.4 A~ proval of Minutes: November 14, 2007 and May 14, 2008.
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
TENTATIVE
JULY 9, 2008, 6:00 P.M.
COUNTY OFFICE BUILDING
LANE AUDITORIUM
1 . C ~II to Order.
2. PI~dge of Allegiance.
3. Mpment of Silence.
4. F om the Board: Matters Not Listed on the Agenda.
5. F om the Public: Matters Not Listed for Public Hearing on the Agenda.
6. Cpnsent Agenda.
PUBLIC. EARINGS:
7. PROJECT: ZTA-200S-001. Athletic field Iiahtina. PROPOSAL: Amend Sections 4.10.3.2 (Exceptions -limited)
a d 4.17.5 (Modification or waiver) of the Zoning Ordinance (Chapter 18 of the Albemarle County Code). This
o dinance would amend section 4.10.3.2 by adding poles that support outdoor luminaires for lighting athletic
fa~ilities as a class of structures exempt from the zoning district height regulations, provided that a modification is
a proved by the planning commission; and amend section 4.17.5 to establish procedural and substantive
re quirements for the commission to modify the height of such poles.
8. PROJECT: AFD-200S-001. Carters Bridae Aaricultural and Forestal District. Periodic review of the Carter's
B idge Agricultural and Forestal District and consider amending section 3-210, Carter's Bridge Agricultural and
F prestal District, of Division 2, Districts, of Article II, Districts of Statewide Significance, of Chapter 3, Agricultural
a d Forestal Districts, of the Albemarle County Code. The proposed ordinance would identify TMPs 112-15A,
1 2-16E1, 112-16E2, 112-16F2, 112-16J, 113-11F, 113-11F1, 113-11F2, 113-11F3, 113-11G, 113-11G1, 113-
1 G2, 113-11H, 113-111, 113-11J, 113-11K, 114-31B, 114-31C, 114-310, 114-31E, 114-67C, 114-670, 114-67E,
1 4-67F, 114-67G, and 114-67H as being in the district (these parcels were created from parcels already in the
di~trict), would show TMP 101-60 as no longer existing (land in this parcel was distributed to other parcels in the
di~trict), would remove TMPs 112-16, 112-16C, 112-160, 112-16F, 112-16J, 112-17, 112-19G, 112-19H, 112-191,
1 3-11, and 114-31 E from the district, and any other parcels for which a request for withdrawal is received before
tr e board acts on the proposed ordinance, would add TMP 111-48 to the district, and would continue the district
a ~d set the next district review date deadline of July 9, 2018.
9. PROJECT: AFD-200S-002. Lanark Aaricultural and Forestal District. Periodic review of the Lanark Agricultural
a ~d Forestal District and consider amending section 3-221, Lanark Bridge Agricultural and Forestal District, of
o vision 2, Districts, of Article II, Districts of Statewide Significance, of Chapter 3, Agricultural and Forestal
Districts, of the Albemarle County. The proposed ordinance would identify TMPs 102-35, 102-35A, 102-35C, 102-
40C, 103-3A, 103-3B, 103-3C, 103-3G, 103-9A, 103-9B, 103-9C, 103-90, 103-9E, 103-9F, 103-43M and 103-68
al; being in the district (these parcels were created from parcels already in the district), would show TMPs 103-10
a(1d 103-1 OC as no longer existing (land in these parcels was distributed to other parcels in the district), would
n move TMP 1 02-40A from the district, and any other parcels for which a request for withdrawal is received before
tt e board acts on the proposed ordinance, and would continue the district and set the next district review date
d~adline of July 9, 2018.
10. PROJECT: AFD-200S-003. Panorama Aaricultural and Forestal District. Periodic review of the Panorama
A~ricultural and Forestal District and consider amending section 3-224, Panorama Agricultural and Forestal
C istrict, of Division 2, Districts, of Article II, Districts of Statewide Significance, of Chapter 3, Agricultural and
Fprestal Districts, of the Albemarle County. The proposed ordinance would identify any parcels for which a
n quest for withdrawal is received before the board acts on the proposed ordinance, and would continue the
d strict and set the next district review date deadline of July 9,2018.
Work Se sions:
11. a Land Use Taxation Program - Option 2.
b Revalidation Program.
12. F om the Board: Matters Not Listed on the Agenda.
13. A~journ.
CONSENT AGENDA
FOR INFC RMATION:
6.1 Alpemarle County Department of Social Services, survey results on use of public transportation by customers.
6.2 Alpemarle County Sheriff's Office 2007-08 Game Enforcement Summary.
6.3 Cppy of letter dated June 26,2008, from Ronald L. Higgins, Chief of Zoning, to John Murphy, re: LOD-2008-0009
_ DFF/CIAL DETERMINA TION OF PARCELS AND DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS - Tax Map 58, Parcel 55;
(p roperty of John A. & Margaret S. Murphy) - Samuel Miller Magisterial District.
FOR APPROVAL:
6.4 Approval of Minutes: November 14, 2007 and May 14, 2008
ACTIONS
Board of Supervisors Meeting of July 9, 200S
Julv 10, 2008
AGENDA ITEM/ACTION ASSIGNMENT
1. Call to Order.
. Meeting was called to order at 6:05 p.m., in the
Lane Auditorium, by the Chairman, Mr. Boyd. All
BOS members were present. Also present were
Bob Tucker, Larry Davis, Wayne Cilimberg and
Ella Jordan.
4. From the Board: Matters Not Listed on the Agenda.
Ann Mallek:
. There was a great meeting held last night
reqardinq the Advance Mills Bridqe.
5. From the Public: Matters not Listed on the Agenda.
. There were none.
7. PROJECT: ZT A-200S-001. Athletic field liahtina. Clerk: Forward copy of adopted ordinance to
. ADOPTED Ordinance No. OS-1S(5), by a vote of Community Development, Parks and
6:0. Recreation and County Attorney's office.
(Attachment 1)
8. PROJECT: AFD-200S-001. Carters Bridae Clerk: Forward copy of adopted ordinance to
AQricultural and Forestal District. Community Development and County
9. PROJECT: AFD-200S-002. Lanark Aaricultural and Attorney's office. (Attachment 2)
Forestal District.
10. PROJECT: AFD-200S-003. Panorama Aaricultural
and Forestal District.
. ADOPTED Ordinance No. OS-3(1), by a vote of
6:0.
11a Work Session: Land Use Taxation Proaram -
Option 2.
. Took no action to change the Land Use Taxation
Proqram.
11 b Work Session: Revalidation Proaram. Clerk: Schedule on agenda for work session
. Moved, 6:0, to proceed with a Revalidation when ready to come back to Board.
Proqram.
12. From the Board: Matters Not Listed on the Agenda. Clerk: Prepare appointment/reappointment
. APPOINTED Margaret Echols to the Pantops letters, update Boards and Commissions
Community Advisory Council. book, webpage, and notify appropriate
. APPOINTED Steve Ashby to the Community persons.
Mobility Committee, with said term to expire
January 12, 2009.
. At 7:42 p.m., the Board went into closed meeting
to consider appointments to boards, committees
and commissions.
. The Board reconvened into open session at 8:15
p.m., and certified the closed meeting. Clerk: Notify Tom Frederick of appointment.
. APPOINTED Dennis Rooker as the Board of
Supervisors' representative, and Ken Boyd as the
alternate, to the South Fork Rivanna Reservoir
Maintenance Task Force.
13. Adjourn to July 23, 2008, 6:30 p.m.
. At 8:17 p.m., the meeting was adjourned to July
23, 2008, 6:30 p.m., Lane Auditorium.
ewj
1
Att chment 1 - ZTA-2008-001 - Ordinance #08-18(5)
Att chment 2 - Ordinance #08-3(1)
2
Attachment 1
ORDINANCE NO. OS-1S(5)
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND CHAPTER 18, ZONING, ARTICLE II, BASIC REGULATIONS, OF THE
CC DE OF THE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA
BE IT ORDAINED By the Board of Supervisors of the County of Albemarle, Virginia, that Chapter 18,
Zo ing, Article II, Basic Regulations, is hereby amended and reordained as follows:
By Amending:
Se .4.10.3.2
Se .4.17.5
Exceptions - limited
Modification or waiver
Ch~pter 1S. Zoning
Art'cle II. Basic Regulations
Se . 4.10.3.2 Exceptions -- limited
The following structures are excepted from the height limitations in the applicable zoning districts:
a. Towers, gables, penthouses, scenery lofts, cupolas, similar structures and necessary
me~hanical appurtenances may be erected on a building to a height twenty (20) percent greater than the
lim established for the district in which the building is located, provided that no such exception shall be
USE d for sleeping or housekeeping purposes or for any commercial or industrial purpose; and provided
further that access by the general public to any such area shall be expressly prohibited.
b. Poles that support outdoor luminaires for lighting athletic facilities, subject to approval of
a rr odification by the commission as provided in section 4.17 .5(a)(3).
Se .4.17.5 Modification or waiver
Modifications and waivers may be granted in an individual case as provided herein: (Amended
1 o-h 7-01 )
a. The commission may modify or waive any standard set forth in section 4.17.4(a) under
sutsections 4.17.5(a)(1) and (2), and may modify the maximum height of poles supporting outdoor
lurr inaires lighting athletic facilities under subsection 4.17.5(a)(3), in the following circumstances:
(An ended 10-17-01)
1. Upon finding that strict application of the standard would not forward the
purboses of this chapter or otherwise serve the public health, safety or welfare, or that alternatives
probosed by the owner would satisfy the purposes of these outdoor lighting regulations at least to an
eqL ivalent degree.
2. Upon finding that an outdoor luminaire, or system of outdoor luminaires, required
for ~n athletic facility cannot reasonably comply with the standard and provide sufficient illumination of the
faci ity for its safe use, as determined by recommended practices adopted by the Illuminating Engineering
SOl iety of North America for that type of facility and activity or other evidence if a recommended practice
is npt applicable. (Amended 10-17-01)
3. Upon finding that the maximum permitted height of a pole supporting an outdoor
luminaire lighting an athletic facility under the applicable district regulations would prevent the luminaire
fror~ providing sufficient illumination of the facility for its safe use, as determined by the recommended
pra tices adopted by the Illuminating Engineering Society of North America for that type of facility and
activity or other evidence if a recommended practice is not applicable.
3
b. Prior to considering a request to modify or waive, five (5) days' written notice shall be
pro ided to the owner, owner's agent or occupant of each abutting lot or parcel and each parcel
im ediately across the street or road from the lot or parcel which is the subject of the request. The
wri ten notice shall identify the nature of the request and the date and time the commission will consider
the request.
c. The commission may impose conditions on such a modification or waiver which it deems
ap ropriate to further the purposes of these outdoor lighting regulations.
d. The board of supervisors shall consider a modification or waiver of this section only as
1. The denial of a modification or waiver, or the approval of a modification or waiver
conditions objectionable to the developer may be appealed to the board of supervisors as an appeal
denial of the plat, as provided in section 14-226 of the Code, or the site plan, as provided in sections
32. .2.7 or 32.4.3.9, to which the modification or waiver pertains. A modification or waiver considered by
the commission in conjunction with an application for a special use permit shall be subject to review by
the board of supervisors.
2. In considering a modification or waiver, the board may grant or deny the
mo ification or waiver based upon the finding set forth in subsection (a), amend any condition imposed by
the commission, and impose any conditions it deems necessary for the reasons set forth in subsection
(a) Otherwise, neither the grant nor denial of a modification or waiver may be appealed to the board.
(A ended 10-17-01)
(0 d. 98-18(1), 8-12-98; Ord. 01-18(4), 5-9-01; Ord. 01-18(8),10-17-01)
4
Attachment 2
ORDINANCE NO. 08-3(1)
Af\ ORDINANCE TO AMEND AND REORDAIN CHAPTER 3, AGRICULTURAL AND FORESTAL
01 lSTRICTS, ARTICLE II, DISTRICTS OF STATEWIDE SIGNIFICANCE, OF THE CODE OF THE
CC UNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA.
BE IT ORDAINED By the Board of Supervisors of the County of Albemarle, Virginia, that Chapter 3,
Ag icultural and Forestal Districts, Article II, Districts of Statewide Significance, is hereby amended
an ~ reordained as follows:
By Amending:
Ser.;. 3-210 Carter's Bridge Agricultural and Forestal District
Sep. 3-221 Lanark Agricultural and Forestal District
Ser.;. 3-224 Panorama Agricultural and Forestal District
Chapter 3. Agricultural and Forestal Districts
Article II. Districts of Statewide Significance
Division 2. Districts
Ser;. 3-210 Carter's Bridge Agricultural and Forestal District.
The district known as the "Carter's Bridge Agricultural and Forestal District" consists of the
follpwing described properties: Tax map 101, parcels 55A, 60; tax map 102, parcels 17 A, 17B,
17 ~1, 170, 18, 19, 19A, 19C, 20B; tax map 111, parcel 48; tax map 112, parcels 3, 15, 15A, 16E,
16 1, 16E2, 16F2, 18H, 19E, 19F, 20, 21, 33A, 370; tax map 113, parcels 1, 1A, 6A, 11A, 11F,
11 1, 11F2, 11F3, 11G, 11G1, 11G2, 11H, 111, 11J, 11K; tax map 114, parcels 25A, 30, 31B, 31C,
310,51,55,56, 67C, 670, 67E, 67F, 67G, 67H, 68, 69, 70; tax map 115, parcel 10; tax map 122,
pa cels 4, 4A, 6, 7, 8, 9,10,12, 12N, 33, 33A, 36; tax map 124, parcel 11. This district, created on
Ap il 20, 1988 for not more than ten years and last reviewed on July 9, 2008, shall next be reviewed
pril r to July 9, 2018.
(C( de 1988, 92.1-40); Ord. 98-A(1), 8-5-98; Ord. 98-3(1), 9-9-98; Ord. 99-3(2), 2-10-99; Ord. 99-
3(~), 5-12-99; Ord. 08-3(1), 7-9-08)
Se~. 3-221 Lanark Agricultural and Forestal District.
The district known as the "Lanark Agricultural and Forestal District" consists of the following
de' cribed properties: Tax map 90, parcels 12, 14A; tax map 90B, parcel A-11; tax map 91, parcels
21, 21A, 21B, 31; tax map 92, parcels 64, 64A; tax map 102, parcels 33, 35, 35A, 35B, 35C, 37, 40,
40hs, 40C; tax map 103, parcels 1, 1A, 1B, 1C, 10, 1E, 1F, 1G, 1H, 1J, 1K, 1L, 1M, 2A, 3, 3A, 3B,
3C 3G, 5, 9, 9A, 9B, 9C, 90, 9E, 9F, 10A, 10B, 100,43, 43L, 43L 1, 43M, 68 (part). This district,
crested on April 20, 1988 for not more than 10 years and last reviewed on July 9, 2008, shall next be
revewed prior to July 9, 2018.
(Cc de 1988, 9 2.1-4(k); Ord. 98-A(1), 8-5-98; Ord. 98-3(1), 9-9-98; Ord. 99-3(2), 2-10-99; Ord. 99-
3(5~, 10-6-99; Ord. 08-3(1), 7-9-08)
5
Sej::. 3-224 Panorama Agricultural and Forestal District.
The district known as the "Panorama Agricultural and Forestal District" consists of the
fOllpwing described properties: Tax map 31, parcel 21 E; tax map 44, parcels 9A, 9C, 12, 120, 12X,
12v, 12Z; tax map 45A, section 1, parcel 27. This district, created on April 20, 1988 for not more
the n 10 years and last reviewed on July 9, 2008, shall next be reviewed prior to July 9, 2018.
(6-~4-95; Code 1988, 9 2.1-4(1); Ord. 98-A(1), 8-5-98; Ord. 98-3(1), 9-9-98; Ord. 99-3(3), 3-17-99;
Or~. 08-3(1),7-9-08)
6
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA ITLE:
Use of pu lic transportation by the customers of the
Albemarle County Department of Social Services
AGENDA DATE:
July 9, 2008
ACTION:
INFORMATION:
SUBJEC IPROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Presentati n of the Albemarle County Department of
Social Se ices' survey results regarding its
customer ' use of the transportation system
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: INFORMATION: X
ATTACHMENTS: Yes
REVIEWED BY:
~
f
STAFF C NTACT(S):
Messrs. T cker, Elliott, and Davis, and Ms. Ralston
BACKGR UND:
Board me ber Sally Thomas requested information from the Department of Social Services regarding how its
customer perceived and utilized the public transportation system. The Department designed and distributed a survey
to its cust mers over a one-week period in May 2008 in an effort to acquire this information and respond to this
request.
STRATE IC PLAN:
Goal 1: E hance the Quality of Life for All Citizens
DISCUSS ON:
The surve was designed and deployed for a short period of time to gather information on three items: 1) reasons
customer do not choose public transportation, 2) why customers like to use the public transportation system, and 3)
anyadditi nal feedback about public transportation. Fifty-four customers completed the survey for a 35.29% response
rate. The op reasons identified for not utilizing public transportation included bus availability, the ability to use private
transporta ion and the physical barrier of the distance between existing ACDSS bus stop and the ACDSS office. The
primary re son to use public transportation was not surprisingly the price of gas. The second most common reason
was align ent with a "green" attitude toward the environment. Nearly twenty percent of respondents also liked the fact
that they c uld do other things while riding the bus.
BUDGET MPACT:
None
RECOMM NDATIONS:
The report is for information only.
ATTACH ENTS
2008 ACD S Customer Public Trans ortation Surve
.. I 'I J /. . .
( ~~f!/[l'" {,I, -" {"(lJull" <'/ al/UIIII
~ ' --/
Albemarle County Department of Social Services
2008 Public Transportation Survey
~
Conducted by
Jennifer E. Behrens, MSW
Office of Program Accountability
Albemarle County Department of Social Services
With Support of
FOCUS Team
Albemarle County Department of Social Services
With Direction from
Kathy Ralston
Director
Albemarle County Department of Social Services
Survey Purpose
The 2008 ACDSS Public Transportation Survey was designed to meet questions spirited by Sally Thomas,
member of Albemarle County Board of Supervisors.l Ms. Thomas pondered the perception of public
transportation and the usage of said transportation by residents of Albemarle County. In efforts to provide
some information as an answer to these questions, Albemarle County Department of Social Services
deployed the survey to gather data from customers served through office visits. Customers who utilize
office visits are those residents of Albemarle County who come to the Department of Social Services'
building to meet with the staff working on their case. These customers may come for previously scheduled
appointments or may present themselves at the office without prior notification.
Survey Design
The survey consisted of three questions. Two questions were multiple choice, multiple response questions.
These first two questions allowed each respondent to circle all applicable answers, as well as to choose to
provide additional information through an "other" option with room for narrative. The third question was
designed as an open-ended question. The survey was a one page format. The survey was given to
customers as they checked in at the front desk for their appointment or to request an appointment with staff.
Staff at the front desk attempted to request each customer to complete a survey. The survey was provided
on a hard clipboard and was accompanied by a pencil. The respondents were asked to return the completed
survey to the staff at the front desk when completed. The estimated time for completion of the survey was
five (5) minutes.
The survey questions equated "public transportation" to the buses or Jaunt as available through
Charlottesville Transportation System (in collaboration with the County of Albemarle County/ Question
1 of the survey requested information pertaining to reasons customers do not choose to utilize public
transportation. Question 2 requested information on why the customers like to use the transportation
system. Question 3 requested any additional feedback about public transportation in Albemarle County
through an open-ended type response format. (Refer to Appendix A.)
The survey was only offered in the English translation to participants. The survey was anonymous.
Results
The survey was deployed on Wednesday, May 7,2008. The survey closed at 9 am, Wednesday, May 14,
2008. Front desk staff record customers in a Reception Log as they enter ACDSS. The participation rate is
based upon this log. The log was sorted and filtered for unique records per day to gather the number of
customers entered into the log. Duplicate records for the same person for the same day were sorted out;
duplicate entries for the same person on different days within the survey timeframe were sorted in for the
analysis, allowing for participants to complete more than one survey (on different days, not the same day).3
Customers identified in the Reception Log as having a Primary Language other than English were also
sorted out for purposes of the analysis. Eleven unique records for languages other than English were sorted
out (3 Other, 1 Russian, and 7 Spanish). Approximately 153 customers who came to the front desk of
Albemarle County Department of Social Services met this sort criteria within this time frame. Fifty four
(54) customers completed and returned the survey. This is a 35.29% response rate, which is a generally
acceptable response rate.4
1 "ACDSS" hereafter refers to Albemarle County Department of Social Services
2 "bus(es)" hereafter refers to public transportation within the County of Albemarle County through usage
of a bus or Jaunt
3 Customer X came was entered into the Reception Log at 10:00 am and at 2:00 pm on 5/9/08 for separate
appointments. Customer X was entered into the Reception Log at 11 :00 am on 5/12 for a third and separate
appointment. For purposes of this survey, Customer X is counted twice, not three times, as potential
participants in the survey.
4 Statistical validity is not assumed with this survey process for several reasons. Staff were not given and
trained on a script to deliver upon presenting the survey to customers. Additionally, not every customer
approaching the front desk was requested to complete a survey, due to several factors. Every attempt was
made to provide every customer with an opportunity to complete the survey; however no assumption of
2008 Public Transportation Survey
May 14,2008
2
ACDSS
Office of Program Accountability
Question 1 Participants had many reasons why they may not choose to use public transportation. Most
obviously, 29.63% of respondents replied that they use private transportation, such as their own
automobile. The most common reason participants relayed that they choose not to utilize the buses or Jaunt
is that the buses do not travel on the needed routes (31.48%). 25.93% of ACDSS customers who
participated in the survey replied that "Walking from the 5th Street Bus Stop to County Office Building-5th
is too difficult for me." This was closely followed by "Route schedules" as being the most common reason
participants chose not to use public transportation (24.07%). Route timeliness was an issue for 18.52% of
the participants. The difficulty of getting on and off of the bus and the cost of using public transportation
were the least common reasons chosen by participants (7.82% and 1.85% respectively).
The open-ended option for Question I relayed several insights.5 These generally are:
bus availability needs improvement (including routes and times running)
using public transportation with child(ren) is difficult
distance between bus stop and ACDSS office is a barrier
bus stop accommodations need improvement (i.e., benches).
(Refer to Appendix B for exact comments.) (Refer to Appendix E for graphical representation of
responses.)
Question 2 The overwhelming reason participants marked as their reason for liking public transportation
was the cost; 64.81 % of respondents replied that using public transportation "is cheaper than paying for
gas." 37.34% of respondents found that public transportation is a more "green" option as it is better for the
environment. 18.52% of respondents liked public transportation because they could do other activities
while riding the bus, and 3.70% of participants liked the bus as the routes transported them to where they
needed to go.
The open-ended option for Question 2 also had several responses.5 These generally are:
bus availability needs improvement
public transportation is a good option if private transportation is not available.
(Refer to Appendix C for exact comments.) (Refer to Appendix E for graphical representation of
responses.)
Question 3 Several participants provided additional feedback about public transportation in Albemarle
County.5 Generally, these are:
bus accommodations need improvement (i.e. benches);
public transportation is a beneficial service;
the bus drivers are kind;
consideration of implementation of a shuttle system/route strictly for ACDSS;
timeliness of buses on routes needs improvement;
extension of night service needed.
(Refer to Appendix D for exact comments.) .)
Discussion
The 2008 ACDSS Public Transportation Survey provided valuable insight into the reasons why customers
of the agency use and do not use public transportation. The survey had a generally acceptable response rate
100% invitation to complete a survey can be made. The questions have not been validated and can not be
considered statistically reliable.
5 Open-ended responses which clearly restated a multiple choice option were coded as such, and not
included in the open-ended response section. For example, the comment "I have my own transportation,"
written as an answer to Question l.h.Other was coded as a response for Question I.c, and not included in
the commentary section.
2008 Public Transportation Survey
May 14, 2008
3
ACDSS
Office of Program Accountability
and was concise enough not to hamper customers awaiting their appointments, which could have prevented
survey completion. The survey ran for one week, to ensure that participants completed surveys on every
business day for ACDSS.
The top reasons customers identified for not utilizing buses included bus availability, the ability to use
private transportation and the physical barrier of the distance between the existing ACDSS bus stop and the
ACDSS office. Ownership of private transportation is not a surprising reason to not utilize public
transportation, but would be an interesting factor to track given the increasing cost of gas and social
emphasis upon a "green" living style. Bus availability encompasses the bus routes and the schedules of
buses on current routes. Interestingly, over one-quarter of participants identified that walking from the
bus stop to the ACDSS office as a barrier to using public transportation. Open ended comments supported
all of these factors leading to use of alternate modes of transportation than buses or Jaunt.
Participants who currently use public transportation clearly stated that the price of gas as a reason to use
public transportation. The second most common reason ACDSS customers reported liking public
transportation is that form of traveling is aligned with a "green" attitude toward the environment. Nearly
twenty percent of respondents also liked the fact that they could do other things while riding on a bus.
Several participants used the opportunity to provide additional feedback about public transportation in
Albemarle County. Most of the responses supported and reiterated data collected from the first two
questions. However, some new information was gleaned and could be considered. The kindness of bus
drivers was specified, which gives insight into the fact that contact with those driving the buses is an
important factor. The other unique factor in this section of the survey identified more than once was for
consideration to be given to implementing some sort of shuttle service for public transportation to ACDSS.
Conclusion
The brief 2008 ACDSS Public Transportation Survey yielded interesting and potentially valuable insights
into the perceptions of the public transportation system available to residents of Albemarle County. This
information could be utilized to lead to closer examination of the current system, as well as to marketing
strategies for publicizing and increasing the usage of the buses and Jaunt within the County. Several
physical or logistical suggestions were made regarding bus availability. Additionally, the respondents
identified several reasons for liking public transportation which are associated with the current "green"
social statement, upon which marketing and or public awareness campaigns could be capitalized.
The participants clearly identified several different factors in their views of public transportation. In
addition to completing the sections of the survey with forced answers, several respondents also provided
their own freely-formed opinions. The responses of the customers of ACDSS are a valuable tool in further
examination of the utilization of public transportation by the residents of Albemarle County.
2008 Public Transportation Survey
May 14,2008
4
ACDSS
Office of Program Accountability
Appendix A. 2008 Public Transportation Survey
( ,.,./{t< "/,~ /, /i-t/n.-r,r .-/ 1,',;-./i'"rr'.-r
~ ~
ACDSS
Public Transportation Survey
1. What are some reasons why you may choose not use public transportation (bus or Jaunt)?
(Circle all that apply.)
a. Cost
b. Routes - buses do not go where I need them to
c. I like to use private transportation (e.g. personal car)
d. Getting on/off a bus is physically difficult for me
e. Route schedules
f. Route timeliness
g. Walking from the 5th Street Bus Stop to County Office Building-5th is too
difficult for me
h. Other:
2. What do you like about using public transportation? (Circle all that apply.)
a. It is better for the environment than using personal cars.
b. It is cheaper than paying for gas.
c. I can attend to other things while someone else is driving.
d. The bus goes where I need it to go.
e. Other:
3. Do you have any other feedback about public transportation in Albemarle County?
~
Thank you for your participation in this survey.
Your feedback is valuable to Albemarle County.
2008 Public Transportation Survey
May 14,2008
5
ACDSS
Office of Program Accountability
Appendix B. Question l.h.Other Responses6
I live on Commonwealth Dr. and there is no evening bus. I have a child and I have to walk a long
way at night from a diff. spot. Sometimes in the dark!!
Sometime I only have to drop off a paper - I have to wait an hour (wasted time) to get back on the
bus. The walkway is also long.
Too crowded
Also too long from. Earlysville; no benches at many stop
I live in a rural area
They need to have other means of where they stop for elderly, handicapp people that has difficulty
getting around
I live in North Garden V A theres no buses
I live 18 miles from town. But I do use the bus when at work.
I live in the Country and have two children I have to get to school. They also have lots of doctor
appointments.
Hard to travel public transportation wi two kids
I live in Crozet
I have 2 kids & it is easier to ride with them in my car then use public transportation
6 These are an exact replication of the comments provided (spelling, punctuation, capitalization, etc...)
2008 Public Transportation Survey
May 14,2008
6
ACDSS
Office of Program Accountability
Appendix C. Question 2.e.Other Responses6
need to come every 15-30 minutes. have to wait too long for it to come
buses dont come soon enough thow.
I never took a bus, but is helpful if my car had problems
Because it is the only transportation I have
Its good if you don't have a vehicle
"C. The bus goes where I need it to go." - most of the time
2008 Public Transportation Survey
May 14,2008
7
ACDSS
Office of Program Accountability
Appendix D. Question 3 Responses6
No. But thank you for helping those of us who dont have cars or who cant get around. Thank you.
Most of the drivers are very kind.
Earlysville need more (intelligible). Giant Shopping Center at Pantops needs a bench.
Yes, Please think about the less fountnat people that needs public transit, and keep in mind about
the people with disability Thank you.
No, I think is a good system how it is.
They have got a bus coming out here now and that is a good thing
No but I would use CTS if I had to.
Great for those w/out transportation
I think It's helpful
Why not have a shuttle bus just for people coming here every half hour. No charge or minimal
charge. Dropping them off at the door.
More people would become bus riders if the stops where not so far from the location they need to
go.
not very informative on routes
think they need to run longer than they do.
not on time sometimes, & takes longer
Making some good advancements!
I have heard people say the buses only make stops at certain times and they do not run all not long
None- so far is has been helpful to me.
Need more buses for routes they don't have now.
Regular shuttles to Crozet and Scottsville would be a big improvement.
2008 Public Transportation Survey
May 14, 2008
8
ACDSS
Office of Program Accountability
Appendix E.
Graph 1. Question 1. Responses
18
16
14
I ::
'0
.8
i
8
6
4
2
o
~
~.. -~ vPo.# ~~ ~~~'IJ.('tJb
~~~~~ v,1)'O'1J
Reasons
(jI#o
Graph 2. Question 2. Responses
35
30
i 25
~ 20
!
'0
I
~ 10
Better for the Cheaper than Attend to Other Bus Glies Other
Environment Gas Things where I Need It
to Go
Reasons
2008 Public Transportation Survey
May 14,2008
9
ACDSS
Office of Program Accountability
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA ITLE:
Albemarle County Sheriff's Office 2007-08 Game
Enforcem nt Summary
AGENDA DATE:
July 9, 2008
ACTION:
INFORMATION:
SUBJECT PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Presentati n of Albemarle County Sheriff's Office
2007-08 G me Enforcement Survey
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: INFORMATION: X
ATTACHMENTS: Yes
STAFF C NTACT(S):
Messrs Tu ker, Elliott, Davis and Sheriff Harding
REVIEWED BY:
---
r
BACKGR UND:
Virginia C de 29.1-202 provides that all "sheriffs, police officers or other peace officers of this Commonwealth shall be
ex officio onservation police officers." Conservation police officers have jurisdiction to enforce state hunting laws as
do game ardens.
The Board agreed to provide County funding for the Sheriff's Department to supplement the effort of the game
wardens d ring the 1998/99 deer hunting season in response to citizen concerns regarding illegal hunting. During
each deer hunting season, the Albemarle County Sheriff's Office conducts game enforcement efforts to ensure
complianc with state and County hunting laws. These activities include patrolling the County to verify that hunters are
properly Ii ensed, responding to E911 calls for service from concerned citizens, issuing warnings/summonses,
conductin special operations and seizing property.
The Sheri s Office has previously provided annual reports regarding the activities resulting from this effort. This
report pro ides the 2007-2008 hunting season statistics.
STRATE Ie PLAN:
Goal 1: E hance the Quality of Life for All Citizens
DISCUSSI N:
During the 2007-08 hunting season, the Albemarle County Sheriff's Office checked a total of 254 hunters with 64 of
these che ks resulting from calls from concerned citizens. Of the 64 calls received from citizens, 31 were complaints
of trespas ing, 22 were complaints of shots fired/heard by land owners, 9 were complaints of road hunting, and 2 were
complaint of spot lighting. Sixty-three (63) summonses were issued for illegal hunting during this period, of which
approxima ely 30 percent involved illegal spot lighting or spot light hunting with a weapon. The Sheriff's Office also
engaged i special operations utilizing decoys, stake outs and increased patrols in known trouble areas of the County.
These op rations further aided in ensuring compliance with state and County hunting laws. The Sheriff's Office
achieved 100 percent conviction rate.
BUDGET MPACT:
The FY20 8 Operating Budget allocated $16,800 to the Sheriff's Office for game enforcement activities with the
majority of these funds earmarked primarily for overtime expenses.
RECOMM NDATIONS:
This repo is for information only.
Sheriff's Office 2007-08 Game Enforcement Report
I
I Attachment A
. -
Albemarle County
Sheriff S Office
2007 -08
Game Enforcement
Final Report
2/17/08
Submitted By Deputy Martin ,
I
. Project Manager
,
I
II
.
,
I
I 1- HUNTER CHECKED
Albemarle County Sheriff's Office Deputies that were involved in the Game
Enforcement program checked 254 hunters this season. Hunters checked were from
normal patrol, and calls for service received from complaints.
I
I
ll- PUBLIC CONTACT
Deputies interfacing with the general public during Game Enforcement operational hours,
in reference to complaints, and providing public information. Total 104.
I
. .
UU-CALLSFORSERVICE/COMPL~S
Total calls for 2007-08 season recorded are 64, listed below in categories:
Trespassing- 31
Shot Fired! Heard by land owners- 22
Road hunting- 9
Spot Lighting- 2
These numbers reflect only call received through E-911, not from the State Game
Commission.
The State Game Commission does not tract calls received in Albemarle County.
i
I
i.
IV-HUNTING SUMMONS ISSUED
Numbers of summons issued for 2007-08 seasons. TOT AL 63.
illegal Hunting-
Spot Lighting- 12
Spot Lighting with weapon- 7
Hunting from vehicle-6
Road Hunting-50' of highway- 2
Hunting after normal hours- 7
A TV-no helmet- 3
Loaded weapons on highway-10
Transporting loaded weapons on highway-8
Hunting on posted property-l
Conspiracy-illegal hunting activities-l
No Blaze Orange- 5
Failto tag-I
I
v- HUNTING WARNING ISSUED
Number of illegal hunting warnings issued. TOTAL 16
Hunting~50' ofhighway~4
ATV- no helmet- 3
Loaded weapons on highway- 3
Hunting on Posted property-l
No Hunting Licenses-l
Fail to tag- 1
Transporting loaded firearms on highway-3
I
VI- TRAFFIC SUMMONS
Traffic summons issued during Game Enforcement. TOTAL 8
Defective equipment-2
No operators license-l
NO operators license in possession- 1
No registration in possession-l
Expired State Inspection-2
No Seat Belt-l
I
VII- SPECIAL OPERATIONS
Decoy deer operations. TOTAL 6
Stake outs, known trouble areas, complaints received from general public. TOTAL 26
Special operations resulted in charges, as noted in Section IV and V.
,
i
I
i
i
I
VIII- PROPERTY SEIZES
Rifles- TOTAL 5
Savage caliber 243- 1
Marlin caliber. 30/30-2
Winchester caliber. 30/30-1
Remington caliber. 22 Mag.-1
On 2/15/08 Judge Barkley ordered these weapons to be seizes by the Commonwealth
Attorneys Office.
On behalf of the Sheriff's Office, requests were made to have weapons turned over to the
Sheriff's Office for sale or trade for replacement duty weapons. Commonwealth
Attorney's Office shall inform us if the State Codes permits request.
Vehicles- Total 1
1995 Toyota 4-Runner
Vehicle was released to owner on 2/15/08, by Deputy Martin.
I
IX- OTHER CRIMINAL ACTIVITIES
Narcotics violations. TOTAL 1
Juvenile was charged with possession of marijuana, charges were disposed of in Juvenile
intake hearing.
I
x- SUMMARY
All of the Deputy's involved in the Game Enforcement for 2007-08 have put forth a team
effort that resulted in a successful year. Operational program was different this year due
to the changes in the type of enforcement needed to combat complaints received. This
year the plan was to be more proactive, rather than be reactive, in our attempt to reduce
calls for service in the rural areas of the County.
The team success is evident by the number of summons issued during special operations.
The calls for service from the previous years show that our efforts have been successful
by minimizing road hunting.
With the aid of the decoy deer and more saturated patrols in troubled areas the trends in
complaint received in 2007-08 are from landowners dealing with illegal hunting on
ATV's.
Our team received 100% compliance on convictions of summons.
The decoy was damaged. and replacement cost has been ordered by the Court in the
amount of $600.00.
In 2008-09 our plans will include more special operations dealing with A TV complaints.
l . . ..
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road, North Wing
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902~4596
Phone (434) 296-5832
Fax (434) 972-4126
June 26, 2008
Mr. John Murphy
823 Old Turner Mtn. Lane
Charlottesville, VA 22901
RE: OFFICIAL DETERMINATION OF PARCELS AND DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS--
Tax Map 58, Parcel 55 (Property of John A. & Margaret S. Murphy) Samuel Miller
Magisterial District
Dear Mr. Murphy:
The County Attorney and I have reviewed the title information for the above-noted
property. It is the County Attorney's advisory opinion and my official determination that
Tax Map 58, Parcel 55 is two parcels of record, each having one (1) theoretical
development right. The basis for this determination follows.
Our records indicate Tax Map 58, Parcel 55 contains 5.30 acres and two dwellings. The
property is not within an Agricultural and Forestal District. The most recent recorded
instrument for this property is recorded in Deed Book 1448, page 714.
This analysis begins with the deed of record in Deed Book 401, page 385 that is dated
September 30, 1964. This deed conveys two tracts of land from Robert H. Blodinger,
Trustee, to Ernest H. & Edna F. Bruce, husband & wife. The deed contains a description
of the two tracts of land described as having "2 acres, more or less", and "1 & 5/16th
acres", respectively, and being the same as described in Deed Book 387, page 299, a
deed of trust. This deed establishes Tract 1 and Tract 2 of Tax Map 58, Parcel 55
as parcels of record, each having one (1) theoretical development right.
The most recent instrument for this parcel recorded prior to the adoption of the Zoning
Ordinance, December 10, 1980, is recorded in Deed Book 414, page 282, and is dated
December 29, 1965. This deed of plat shows the 5.30 acres now known as Tax Map 58,
Parcel 55 as being the two tracts conveyed in Deed Book 401, page 385 to Ernest H. &
Edna F. Bruce totaling 4.70 acres (with the acreage increased by accurate survey) and
a parcel"Y" of .60 acres (acreage claimed by the Bruce's). An examination of the 1937
aerial photo showing the parcel boundaries, includes the .60 acre parcel"Y" as being
part of tract 2. Based on this deed, Tax Map 58, Parcel 55 is determined to be two
parcels of record with a total of two (2) theoretical development rights, one on
each parcel of record.
1:\DEPT\Community Development\Zoning & Current Development Division\Determinations of Parcel\2008\58-55. LOD 2008- 1
009. Murphy.doc
. . } ~
De d Book 1448, page 714, dated December 27,1994, conveyed "4.70 acres and
Pa cel Y containing .60 acres" from Ernest H. & Edna F. Bruce, husband & wife, to John
A. Margaret S. Murphy, husband & wife. The property is described as being the same
as was conveyed by Deed Book 401, page 385 and shown on the plat recorded with
De d Book 414, page 282 on page 292. This transaction had no effect on the
pa eels.
Th parcels are entitled to the noted development rights if all other applicable
re ulations can be met. These development rights may only be utilized within the
bo nds of the original parcel with which they are associated. These development rights
ar theoretical in nature but do represent the maximum number of lots containing less
th n twenty one acres allowed to be created by right. In addition to the development
rig t lots, the parcel may create as many smaller parcels containing a minimum of
tw nty-one acres as it has land to make.
If ou are aggrieved by this determination, you have a right to appeal it within thirty days
of he date notice of this determination is given, in accordance with Section 15.2-2311 of
th Code of Virginia. If you do not file a timely appeal, this determination shall be final
unappealable. An appeal shall be taken only by filing with the Zoning Administrator
the Board of Zoning Appeals a notice of appeal which specifies the grounds for the
eal. An appeal application must be completed and filed along with the fee of $120.
date notice of this determination was given is the same as the date of this letter.
u have a /s, please contact me.
y: Gay Carver, Real Estate Supervisor
~lIa Jordan, Clerk of the Board of Supervisors
I:\DE T\Community Development\Zoning & Current Development Division\Determinations of Parcel\2008\58-55, LOD 2008- 2
009, urphy.doc
la
I
01
...
l:II
la
I
01
...
~ Ji!1
III ..,
la
I
01
~
%
..It
o
~jt,o
la ~~
I
01
e
o I I fD I I I..
~ [ J if ! f f t t f
~'f ~l"!
f. ! i g
if
f
f
~
i
j
~
t
s-
f
A
~ zi--
""
o
o
'"
"
_~.8
.~iil
~!!.~G")
N'C'<"ij)
.,~'"
y,3 Ql ~
~~~~
",,0"
" ,
~ ~.
Memorandum
TO:
FROM:
Members, Board of supeC"W..\ ,
Ella W. Jordan, CMC, Cle~
July 2, 2008
DATE:
SUBJECT: Reading List for July 9,2008
November 14, 2007 -
Mr. Boyd
May 14, 2008
Ms. Mallek
NOTE: Please remember to pull your minutes at the meeting, if they are not read.
Thanks.
/ewj
ORDINANCE NO. 08-18(5)
DINANCE TO AMEND CHAPTER 18, ZONING, ARTICLE II, BASIC REGULATIONS, OF THE
OF THE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA
BE IT ORDAINED By the Board of Supervisors of the County of Albemarle, Virginia, that Chapter 18,
Zonin , Article II, Basic Regulations, is hereby amended and reordained as follows:
ending:
.10.3.2 Exceptions - limited
.17.5 Modification or waiver
Chapter 18. Zoning
Article II. Basic Regulations
Sec. .10.3.2 Exceptions -- limited
The following structures are excepted from the height limitations in the applicable zoning
distric s:
a. Towers, gables, penthouses, scenery lofts, cupolas, similar structures and necessary
nical appurtenances may be erected on a building to a height twenty (20) percent greater than
the Ii it established for the district in which the building is located, provided that no such exception
shall e used for sleeping or housekeeping purposes or for any commercial or industrial purpose; and
provid d further that access by the general public to any such area shall be expressly prohibited.
b. Poles that support outdoor luminaires for lighting athletic facilities, subject to approval
of a odification by the commission as provided in section 4.17.5(a)(3).
Sec. .17.5 Modification or waiver
Modifications and waivers may be granted in an individual case as provided herein: (Amended
1 0-17 01)
a. The commission may modify or waive any standard set forth in section 4.17 .4(a) under
subse tions 4.17.5(a)(1) and (2), and may modify the maximum height of poles supporting outdoor
lumin ires lighting athletic facilities under subsection 4.17.5(a)(3), in the following circumstances:
(Arne ded 10-17-01)
1. Upon finding that strict application of the standard would not forward the
purpo es of this chapter or otherwise serve the public health, safety or welfare, or that alternatives
propo ed by the owner would satisfy the purposes of these outdoor lighting regulations at least to an
equiv lent degree.
2. Upon finding that an outdoor luminaire, or system of outdoor luminaires,
requir d for an athletic facility cannot reasonably comply with the standard and provide sufficient
illumin tion of the facility for its safe use, as determined by recommended practices adopted by the
IlIumin ting Engineering Society of North America for that type of facility and activity or other evidence
if a re ommended practice is not applicable. (Amended 10-17-01)
3. Upon finding that the maximum permitted height of a pole supporting an
outdo r luminaire lighting an athletic facility under the applicable district regulations would prevent the
lumina re from providing sufficient illumination of the facility for its safe use, as determined by the
1
mended practices adopted by the Illuminating Engineering Society of North America for that
f facility and activity or other evidence if a recommended practice is not applicable.
b. Prior to considering a request to modify or waive, five (5) days' written notice shall be
provi ed to the owner, owner's agent or occupant of each abutting lot or parcel and each parcel
imme iately across the street or road from the lot or parcel which is the subject of the request. The
writte notice shall identify the nature of the request and the date and time the commission will
consi er the request.
c. The commission may impose conditions on such a modification or waiver which it
appropriate to further the purposes of these outdoor lighting regulations.
d. The board of supervisors shall consider a modification or waiver of this section only as
1. The denial of a modification or waiver, or the approval of a modification or
waive with conditions objectionable to the developer may be appealed to the board of supervisors as
an ap eal of a denial of the plat, as provided in section 14-226 of the Code, or the site plan, as
provi ed in sections 32.4.2.7 or 32.4.3.9, to which the modification or waiver pertains. A modification
or wa ver considered by the commission in conjunction with an application for a special use permit
shall e subject to review by the board of supervisors.
2. In considering a modification or waiver, the board may grant or deny the
modif cation or waiver based upon the finding set forth in subsection (a), amend any condition
impo ed by the commission, and impose any conditions it deems necessary for the reasons set forth
in su section (a). Otherwise, neither the grant nor denial of a modification or waiver may be appealed
to the board. (Amended 10-17-01)
(Ord. 8-18(1),8-12-98; Ord. 01-18(4), 5-9-01; Ord. 01-18(8), 10-17-01)
I, Ella W. Jordan, do hereby certify that the foregoing writing is a true, correct copy of an Ordinance
duly a opted by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, by a vote of six to zero, as
recor ed below, at a regular meeting held on Julv 9, 2008~ /
W~/LLCvt-
CI rk, Board 0 ounty Supervisors
Aye Nay
y
y
y
y
y
y
2
ZT A 2008-1
Zoning Text Amendment to
provide for a waiver process for
athletic light pole height
Summary of Amendments
. Section 4.10.3.2 within the Zoning Ordinance General Regulations is
amended to add poles that support outdoor luminaires for lighting athletic
facilities to the uses that are excepted from the height regulations of this
section subject to Planning Commission approval.
. Sections 4.17.5 and 4.17 .5(a) within the Lighting Regulations are amended
to add the height of the pole supporting an outdoor luminaire lighting an
athletic facility to the standards that may be modified or waived by the
Planning Commission.
. Section 4.17.5.a. is further amended to direct the Commission to base
waivers for light pole height for athletic facilities on the recommended
practices adopted by the Illuminating Engineering Society of North America.
I . Section 4.17.5 (a) is further amended to provide that the Commission may
I impose conditions on such a modification which it deems appropriate to
, further the purposes of these outdoor lighting regulations.
,
,
I
1
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road, Room 227
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
Phone (434) 296-5832
Fax (434) 972-4126
TO:
Members of the Board of Supervisors
FROM:
John Shepherd, Manager of Zoning Administration
DATE:
June 26, 2008
SUBJECT: ZTA-2008-001 ZTA to Provide for a Waiver of Light Pole Height
This ordinance would amend section 4.10.3.2 by adding poles that support
outdoor luminaires for lighting athletic facilities as a class of structures that are
exempt from district height regulations, provided that a modification is approved
by the Planning Commission. It would also amend section 4.17.5 to establish
procedural and substantive requirements for the Commission to modify the
height of such poles.
On June 3, 2008 the Planning Commission reviewed and recommended that the
Board approve this proposal. In the course of the Commission's consideration of
this proposal, Marcia Joseph noted that Dr. Philip lanna, of the U.Va Astronomy
Department had provided expert consultation during the drafting of the lighting
ordinance and asked for his opinion on this amendment. Since then, Dr. lanna
has reviewed the amendment and offered this supportive comment:
"The changes are very definitely to the good, since taller poles yield a
better design with lower glare to players, increasing safety, and minimize
light trespass beyond the playing area, helping compliance with property
line illuminance requirements."
Thank you for your consideration of ZTA-2008-001. The staff report, the Planning
Commission action memorandum, the Planning Commission minutes and Dr.
lanna's e-mail are attached.
I
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA I-ITLE: ZT A 2008- 001
AGENDA DATES:
Planning Commission: June 3, 2008
Board of Supervisors: July 9, 2008
SUBJECT PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
ZT A to Pre vide for Waiver of Light Pole Height
STAFF CC NTACTIS\:
John Shepherd, Pat Mullaney, Greg Kamptner
ACTION: X
INFORMATION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION:
INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS: YES
REVIEWED BY: McCulley
ORIGIN:
The CounltY Parks and Recreation Department asked Zoning staff to propose a zoning text amendment that
will establ sh a reasonable process with objective standards to review and approve safe and appropriate
athletic lighting. They have potential public athletic field projects which will be dependent on light poles
exceedin~ the current maximum height limitation. In addition, SOCA is pursuing a plan to build new soccer
fields that include lighting in the Belvedere Development. The Board of Supervisors approved a Resolution
of Intent t I> provide for waiver of light pole height on April 2, 2008. (Attachment A)
PROPOS~L:
This ordin~nce would amend section 4.10.3.2 by adding poles that support outdoor luminaires for lighting
athletic facilities as a class of structures that are exempt from district height regulations, provided that a
modificatilm is approved by the Planning Commission. It would also amend section 4.17.5 to establish
procedure I and substantive requirements for the Commission to modify the height of such poles.
PUBLIC F URPOSE TO BE SERVED:
This amer dment addresses Goals #1 and #3 of the Strategic Plan.
Goal #1: Enhance the quality of life for all citizens. Goal #3: Develop policies and infrastructure
improvem~nts to address the County's growing needs.
BACKGRbuND:
In the RA, VR, R-1, R-2, R-4 and R-6 zoning districts, structures cannot exceed 35 feet in height. In the R-
10, R-15, he commercial and industrial zoning districts, structures cannot exceed 65 feet in height. Zoning
OrdinancE Section 4.10.3 provides exceptions to the district height limitations for structures such as
transmissipn towers, television and radio towers, flag poles, steeples and several other classes of
structures Poles for athletic facility lighting are not among the classes of structures excepted from the
district heisht limitations.
In an offic al determination dated June 9, 2006, Zoning staff confirmed that poles for athletic facility lighting
do not fall within one of the classes of excepted structures, and that they are subject to the height limitation
allowed in the applicable zoning district. Prior to this determination, the Planning Commission approved
full-cutoff modifications under Zoning Ordinance Section 4.17.5 to allow athletic facility lighting on poles that
exceeded the district height limitations for St. Anne's Belfield School, Western Albemarle High School,
Monticello High School and Brownsville Elementary School. At some point after these approvals, Zoning
staff was ( sked about light pole height related to a new athletic lighting project and rendered this June 2006
determina ion.
AGENDA ITLE: ZTA 2008- 001
July 9, 20 8
Page 2
This dete mination makes it virtually impossible to construct most athletic lighting under current height
regulatio s. Department of Parks and Recreation staff has found that for our class of play poles can be as
low as 40 feet for a sport such as tennis and as high as 80 feet for baseball and football depending on how
the stadiums are laid out. While the Planning Commission can modify the requirement that luminaires for
athletic Ii hting be full cutoff, a variance is necessary in order to increase the light pole height. Approval of
a varianc is subject to three stringent criteria that relate primarily to the features of the land rather than the
proposed use. Approval of a variance involves a finding that denial of the variance constitutes a hardship
approach ng confiscation of the property and denies the applicant reasonable use of their land.
The Boar of Supervisors approved a Resolution of Intent to pursue these text amendments on April 2,
2008.
MMENT:
In order t safely and effectively light these athletic facilities, the lighting system must provide sufficient
illuminati n to all parts of the field or court so that players can maintain visual contact with the ball. To
accompli h that objective, while minimizing the light projected above the horizontal plane, the luminaires
must be laced high enough above the athletic facility to provide adequate illumination. The 35- and 55-foot
height Iim tations in the zoning district regulations do not allow the luminaires to be placed high enough over
an athleti facility to provide safe illumination for most all sports.
Therefore, to assure that athletic facilities are safely illuminated, staff recommends that the Zoning
Ordinanc be amended to allow poles for athletic facility lighting to be taller than the height otherwise
allowed i the applicable zoning district. Rather than completely exempting these poles from regulation,
Staff reco mends that the Planning Commission be authorized to waive the zoning districts height
limitation n a case-by-case basis and allow poles to be erected at a height determined to be necessary to
safely illu inate the athletic facility, based on recognized standards of the Illuminating Engineering Society
of North merica (IESNA). These standards are specific for individual levels of play for a wide variety of
sports. T e actual amendments to the ordinance are summarized below:
1. ection 4.10.3.2 within the Zoning Ordinance General Regulations is amended to add poles that
su port outdoor luminaires for lighting athletic facilities to the uses that are excepted from the height
re ulations of this section subject to Planning Commission approval.
ections 4.17.5 and 4.17 .5(a) within the Lighting Regulations are amended to add the height of
pole supporting an outdoor luminaire lighting an athletic facility to the standards that may be
dified or waived by the Planning Commission.
3. ection 4.17.5.a. is further amended to direct the Commission to base waivers for light pole
he ght for athletic facilities on the recommended practices adopted by the Illuminating Engineering
S ciety of North America.
4. ection 4.17.5 (a) is further amended to provide that the Commission may impose conditions on
su h a modification which it deems appropriate to further the purposes of these outdoor lighting
re ulations.
It is staff pinion that the Planning Commission is the appropriate body to review and approve a
modificati n or waiver for the entire system of outdoor lighting for an athletic facility, including the pole
height. Th s lighting review would typically occur with the site plan review showing pole location as well as
other rele ant information. The text amendment removes the Board of Zoning Appeals from the process
and recog izes that this particular structure by necessity may need to be higher than other types of
structures The Commission's decision will benefit from the input of the public and staff analysis based on
AGENDA ITLE: ZTA 2008- 001
July 9, 20 8
Page 3
ized standards of the IESNA. Reliance on these standards will assure that any waiver or
n that is granted shall be the minimum that is necessary for any particular application.
Adoption f this amendment will allow the Planning Commission to review and approve lighting for the
proposed soccer fields in the Belvedere development as well as other proposals for athletic lighting in the
future.
AFFORDABILlTY:
nt will have no effect on housing affordability.
IMPLlCA IONS TO STAFFING ISTAFFING COSTS:
This ame dment will result in a minor amount of additional staff and Commission time to review light pole
height m difications. This is not expected to be a frequent application. The amendment will reduce staff
time that ight otherwise be spent reviewing these as variances.
RECOM ENDATION:
Staff reco mends that the Planning Commission recommend approval and the Board adopt proposed
amendm nts to the lighting regulations (Attachment C).
ATTACH ENTS:
A. Resolu ion of Intent
B. Execut ve Summary
C. Propo ed Ordinance Amendments dated May 6, 2008
D. Official Determination of Process to Modify Height of Light Poles
Attachment A
RESOLUTION OF INTENT
WHEREAS, current zoning regulations limit the height of poles for athletic facility lighting to the
max mum height allowed for structures in the applicable zoning district; and
WHEREAS, in order to safely light an athletic facility, outdoor luminaires must provide sufficient
ination to all parts of the field or court and, to do so, the luminaires must be placed high enough over
thletic facility to provide such illumination; and
WHEREAS, in most if not all zoning districts, the maximum height allowed for structures does not
outdoor luminaires to be placed high enough over an athletic facility to provide safe illumination; and
WHEREAS, in order to meet dark skies ordinances and to assure that athletic facilities are safely
iIIu inated, it is desired to amend the Zoning Ordinance to allow poles for athletic facility lighting to be
talle than the height otherwise allowed in the applicable zoning district, provided that the Planning
Co mission grants a waiver of the zoning district's height limitation on a case-by-case basis and
auth rizes the poles to be erected at a height determined to be necessary to safely illuminate the athletic
facili .
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT for purposes of public necessity, convenience,
gen ral welfare and good land development practices, the Board of Supervisors hereby adopts a
reso ution of intent to amend Zoning Ordinance !! 4.10.3.2, 4.17.5 and any other regulations of the
Zoni g Ordinance deemed appropriate to achieve the purposes described herein.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT the Planning Commission shall hold a public hearing on the
zoni g text amendment proposed by this resolution of intent, and make its recommendation to the Board
of S pervisors, at the earliest possible date.
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Attachment B
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
SUBJEC IPROPOSAURE UEST:
Adoption f a Resolution of Intent for a zoning text
amendm nt to Provide a waiver for athletic facility
light pole eight
AGENDA DATE:
April 2, 2008
ACTION:
INFORMATION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: X
INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS: Yes
Yes
REVIEWED BY:
BACKGR UN :
In the RA, VR, R-1, R-2, R-4 and R-6 zoning districts, structures cannot exceed 35 feet in height. In the R-10, R-15, and
the comm rcial and industrial zoning districts, structures cannot exceed 65 feet in height. Zoning Ordinance ~ 4.10.3
provides e eptions to the district height limitations for structures such as transmission towers, television and radio
towers, tla poles, steeples and several other classes of structures. Poles for athletic facility lighting are not among the
classes of structures excepted from the district height limitations.
In an offici I determination dated June 9, 2006, Zoning staff confirmed that poles for athletic facility lighting do not fall
within one of the classes of excepted structures, and that they are subject to the height limitation allowed in the
applicable zoning district. Prior to this determination, the Planning Commission had approved modifications under
Zoning Or inance ~ 4.17.5 to allow athletic facility lighting on poles that exceeded the district height limitations for St.
Anne's Be field School, Western Albemarle High School, Monticello High School and Brownsville Elementary School.
STRATE IC PLAN:
Goal 1 : E hance the quality of life for all citizens.
Goal 3: 0 velop policies and infrastructure improvements to address the County's growing needs.
DISCUS N:
In order to safely light an athletic facility, the lighting system must provide sufficient illumination to all parts of the field or
court and, 0 do so, the luminaires must be placed high enough over the athletic facility to provide the illumination. The
35- and 6 -foot height limitations in the zoning district regulations do not, for most all sports, allow the luminaires to be
placed hig enough over an athletic facility to provide safe illumination.
In order to assure that athletic facilities are safely illuminated, staff recommends that the Zoning Ordinance be amended
to allow pies for athletic facility lighting to be taller than the height otherwise allowed in the applicable zoning district.
Rather tha completely exempting these poles from regulation, Staff recommends that the Planning Commission be
authorized to waive the zoning district's height limitation on a case-by-case basis and allow poles to be erected at a
height det rmined to be necessary to safely illuminate the athletic facility, based on recognized standards of the
lIIuminatin Engineering Society of North America.
PACT:
ment will reduce staff time that would otherwise be spent reviewing these variances.
ATTACH NTS
A - June 9 2006 Official Determination
B - Resolu ion of Intent to Amend the Zoninq Ordinance
Attachment C
Draft: 05/06/08
ORDINANCE NO. 08-18( )
INANCE TO AMEND CHAPTER 18, ZONING, ARTICLE II, BASIC REGULATIONS, OF THE
OF THE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA
BE ORDAINED By the Board of Supervisors of the County of Albemarle, Virginia, that Chapter 18, Zoning,
Articl II, Basic Regulations, is hereby amended and reordained as follows:
By
Sec.
Sec.
Exceptions - limited
Modification or waiver
Chapter 18. Zoning
Article II. Basic Regulations
Sec. .10.3.2 Exceptions --limited
The followinll structures are excent~d from the heillht limitations in the aDDli~12le ZO$1l districts:
a. Towers, gables, penthouses, scenery lofts, cupolas, similar structures and necessary mechanical
ces may be erected on a building to a height twenty (20) percent greater than the limit established for
the . trict in which the building is located, provided that no such exception shall be used for sleeping or
hous keeping purposes or for any commercial or industrial purpose; and provided further that access by the
gene public to any such area shall be expressly prohibited.
m
.17.5 Modification or waiver
.Any staBdafd ef seetiofl 4.17. 4 .R may he m.odified or waf-lea in an individ1:1al ease, Modifications and
. .. i as provided herein: (Amended 10-17-01)
the following circumstances: (Amended 10-17-01)
1. Upon finding that strict application of the standard would not forward the purposes of
pter or otherwise serve the public health, safety or welfare, or that alternatives proposed by the owner
satisfy the purposes of these outdoor lighting regulations at least to an equivalent degree.
2. Upon finding that an outdoor luminaire, or system of outdoor luminaires, required for
etic facility cannot reasonably comply with the standard and provide sufficient illumination of the facility
safe use, as determined by recommended practices adopted by the Illuminating Engineering Society of
America for that type of facility and activity or other evidence if a recommended practice is not
ble. (Amended 10-17-01)
1
Attachment C
Draft: 05/06/08
3. Unon findinl:l: that the maximum nermitted heil:!:bt of a DOle sunnortiml an outdoor
n
b. Prior to considering a request to modify or waive, five (5) days' written notice shall be provided
owner, owner's agent or occupant of each abutting lot or parcel and each parcel immediately across the
or road from the lot or parcel which is the subject of the request. The written notice shall identify the
of the request and the date and time the commission will consider the request.
c. The commission mav imoose conditions on such a modification or waiver which it deems
r
ed. The board of supervisors shall consider a modification or waiver of this section only as follows:
1. The denial of a modification or waiver, or the approval of a modification or waiver with
con tions objectionable to the developer may be appealed to the board of supervisors as an appeal of a denial of
the p at, as provided in section 14-226 of the Code, or the site plan, as provided in sections 32.4.2.7 or 32.4.3.9,
to w . ch the modification or waiver pertains. A modification or waiver considered by the commission in
conj nction with an application for a special use permit shall be subject to review by the board of supervisors.
2. In considering a modification or waiver, the board may grant or deny the modification
or w 'ver based upon the fmding set forth in subsection (a), amend any condition imposed by the commission,
and i pose any conditions it deems necessary for the reasons set forth in subsection (a). Otherwise, neither the
grant nor denial of a modification or waiver may be appealed to the board. (Amended 10-17-01)
(Ord. 98-18(1), 8-12-98; Ord. 01-18(4), 5-9-01; Ord. 01-18(8), 10-17-01)
I, Ell W. Jordan. do hereby certify that the foregoing writing is a true, correct copy of an Ordinance duly
adop ed by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, by a vote of _ to ----:> as recorded
0010 , at a regular meeting held on
Clerk, Board of County Supervisors
~ Nn
Mr.
Mr.
Ms.
Mr.
Mr.
Ms.
2
I'
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Community Development
40] McIntire Road, Room 227
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
Fax (434 972-4126
tephen van Storch
toneking/von Storch Architects
.0. Box 1332
harlotlesville, VA 22902
E: Official Determination of Process to Modify Height of Light Poles
ear Mr. van Storch:
ou have asked if the planning commission may modify the height limitations of the
ural Areas zoning district to allow light poles that exceed 35 feet. It is my determination
tat light poles are not exempt from height limitations, that luminaires are separate from
t ,e poles upon which they are mounted and that the planning commission may only
odify the luminaire used for sports lighting. A modification of pole height requires a
ariance. I have consulted Wayne Cilimberg, Director of Planning, Greg Kamptner,
eputy County Attorney, Amelia McCulley, Zoning Administrator and Webster's New
ollegiate Dictionary.
1. Light poles are structures that are not exempt from height limitations.
lighting pole is a structure. A structure is subject to the area and bulk regulations of
t e zoning district in which it is located. Section 4.10.3.1 lists certain structures that are
xempt from height limitations. Light poles are not on the list. Therefore, the
odification of the height limit for structures set forth in the area and bulk regulations of
district requires a variance.
3.1 DEFINITIONS
Structure: Anything constructed or erected, the use of which requires permanent location
on the ground, or attachment to something having a permanent location on the ground.
This includes, among other things, dwellings, buildings, etc. Fc;>r the purpose of the
determination of setback, signs shall be excluded as a structure. (Amended 7-8-92)
10.4 AREA AND BULK REGULATIONS
Maximum structure height 35 feet
(-
I: DEPT\Community DevelopmentlZoning & Current Development\determinations\Determination GeneraJ\2006\Ll
D termination.doc
AttachDlent D '1
tephen von Storch
une 9, 2006
age 2
4.10.3.1 EXCEPTIONS--EXCLUDED FROM APPLICATION
The structures identified below shall be subject to height limitations as follows:
a. The height limitations of this chapter shall not apply to barns, silos, farm buildings,
agricultural museums designed to appear as traditional farm buildings, residential
chimneys, spires, flag poles, monuments, transmission towers and cables, smokestacks,
water tanks, or radio or television antennas or towers.
. Luminaires are separate from the poles upon which they are mounted.
ection 4.17.3 defines luminaire as, "a complete lighting unit consisting of a lamp or
I mps together with the components designed to distribute the light, to position and
rotect the lamps and to connect the lamps to the power supply. A luminaire is also
ommonly referred to as a fixture."
ebster's New Collegiate Dictionary, copyright 1980, defines fixture as something that
fixed or attached (as to a building) as a permanent appendage or as a structural part
fluorescent lighting fixture or a plumbing fixture).
he term "components designed to distribute the light" in the zoning definition does not
erve to include the pole as part of the luminaire or fixture. Rather, the components
esigned to distribute the light refers to the lamp, lenses reflectors and the like.
he term "to position" in the zoning definition does not serve to include the pole as part
f the luminaire or fixture. Rather, to position refers to the components that attach the
I minaire to the pole and aim the light that emanates from it.
ection 4.17.4.a requires that each luminaire subject to these regulations shall be full
c toff.
. The planning commission may only modify the luminaire used for sports
lighting.
ection 4.17.5.a.2 allows the planning commission to waive any standard of 4.17.4.a for
a hletic lighting based on accepted standards. This section only allows modification of
f II cut off aspect of the luminaire. This section makes no specific reference to poles or
o her elements of the lighting system. This section does make reference to "system of
I minaires." We find that this term refers an array of luminaires used for the lighting of a
fi Id. We do not find that the system of luminaires includes the poles. The referenced
o dinance sections are provided below.
4.17.4 STANDARDS
The following standards shall apply to each outdoor luminaire:
1:\ EPT\Communily Development\Zoning & Current Development\determinations\Determination General\2006\Lig
D termination.doc .
Attachment D 10
.'
Stephen von Storch
June 9, 2006
Page 3
a. Except as provided in section 4.17.6, each outdoor luminaire subject to these outdoor
lighting regulations shall be a full cutoff luminaire. (Amended 10-17-01)
4.17.5 MODIFICATION OR WAIVER
Any standard of section 4.17.4.a may be modified or waived in an individual case, as
provided herein: (Amended 10-17-01)
a. The commission may modify or waive any standard set forth in section 4.17.4.a in an
individual case, and the commission may impose conditions on such a modification or
waiver which it deems appropriate to further the purposes of these outdoor lighting
regulations, in either of the following circumstances: (Amended 10-17-01)
1. Upon finding that strict application of the standard would not forward the purposes of
this chapter or otherwise serve the public health, safety or welfare, or that alternatives
proposed by the owner would satisfy the purposes of these outdoor lighting regulations at
least to an equivalent degree.
2. Upon finding that an outdoor luminaire, or system of outdoor luminaires, required for
an athletic facility cannot reasonably comply with the standard and provide sufficient
illumination of the facility for its safe use, as determined by recommended practices
adopted by the Uluminating Engineering Society of North America for that type of
facility and activity or other evidence if a recommended practice is not applicable.
(Amended 10-17-01)
If you are aggrieved by this determination, you have a right to appeal it within thirty days
of the date notice of this determination is given, in accordance with Section 15.2-2311 of
the Code of Virginia. If you do not file a timely appeal, this determination shall be final
and unappealable. An appeal shall be taken only by filing with the Zoning Administrator
and the Board of Zoning Appeals a notice of appeal which specifies the grounds for the
appeal. An appeal application must be completed and filed along with the fee of $120.
The date notice of this determination was given is the same as the date of this letter.
If you have any questions, please contact me.
Sincerely,
John Shepherd
Manager of Zoning Administration
Copy: SP-2006-8 & Reading File- Light Poles
(
1:\DEPT\Community Development\Zoning & Current Development\determinationslDetermination Generall
Determination.doc Attachment D / I
,
Albemarle County Planning Commission
June 3,2008
The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a meeting and public hearing on Tuesday, June 3, 2008,
at 6:00 p.m., at the County Office Building, Lane Auditorium, Second Floor, 401 McIntire Road,
Charlottesville, Virginia.
Members attending were Marcia Joseph, Eric Strucko, Thomas Loach, Jon Cannon, Vice Chairman; Linda
Porterfield and Calvin Morris, Chairman. Absent was Bill Edgerton. Julia Monteith, AICP, non-voting
representative for the University of Virginia was absent.
Other officials present were John Shepherd, Manager of Zoning Administration; Megan Yaniglos, Senior
Planner; Bill Fritz, Chief of Current Development and Greg Kamptner, Deputy County Attorney.
Call to Order and Establish Quorum:
Mr. Morris called the regular meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. and established a quorum.
Regular Items:
ZT A-2008-0000 1 Pole Lie:htine:
Athletic field lighting - Amend Sections 4.10.3.2 (Exceptions - limited) and 4.17.5 (Modification or
waiver) of the Zoning Ordinance (Chapter 18 of the Albemarle County Code). This ordinance would
amend (1) section 4.10.3.2 by adding poles that support outdoor luminaires for lighting athletic facilities as
a class of structures exempt from the zoning district height regulations, provided that a modification is
approved by the Planning Commission and (2) section 4.17.5 to establish procedural and substantive
requirements for the commission to modify the height of such poles. A copy of the full text of the
ordinance is on file in the office of the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors and in the Department of
Community Development, County Office Building, 401 McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia. (John
Shepherd)
Motion: Mr. Strucko moved, Mr. Loach seconded to recommend approval of ZTA-2008-00001, Pole
Lighting as recommended by staff.
Ms. Joseph noted that one of the reasons she brought up Phil lanna is because he is the one responsible for
the county's lighting ordinance. Lately Mr. Janna has noted that he wishes that the county would allow
taller poles because there would be less lighting. This would be effective in cutting off light pollution.
She expected to see Mr. lanna here.
Mr. Shepherd noted that he would add that to the comment that goes to the Board.
Mr. Strucko pointed out that there is a need for athletic facilities in the community. While land may be an
issue, he thought that lighting can certainly widen the use of existing fields by extending usage hours
reasonably. This is why he supported the zoning text amendment.
The motion passed by a vote of 6:0. (Mr. Edgerton was absent.)
Mr. Morris said that ZTA-2008-00001, Pole Lighting will go before the Board of Supervisors on July 9
with a recommendation for approval.
From: p.ianna@juno.com [mailto~anna@juno.com]
Sent: Friday, June 20, 2008 3:02 PM
To: John Shepherd
Cc: p.ianna@juno.com
Subject: Re: Athletic light pole height zoning text amendment
John,
Thanks for sending the copies of the staff report summary and the
zoning text amendments that modify the pole height limitations for
athletic: facilities. The changes are very definitely to the good,
since taller poles yield a better design with lower glare to players,
increasing safety, and minimize light trespass beyond the playing area,
helping compliance with property line illuminance requirements.
with regards,
Phil
Philip A lanna, Ph.D.
Prof. Emeritus
Astronon~ Dept.,Univ. of Virginia
Charlottesville, VA
434-296-4457
Please note: message attached
ORDINANCE NO. 08-3(1)
A ORDINANCE TO AMEND AND REORDAIN CHAPTER 3, AGRICULTURAL AND FORESTAL
01 TRICTS, ARTICLE II, DISTRICTS OF STATEWIDE SIGNIFICANCE, OF THE CODE OF THE
C UNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA.
B IT ORDAINED By the Board of Supervisors of the County of Albemarle, Virginia, that Chapter 3,
Ag icultural and Forestal Districts, Article II, Districts of Statewide Significance, is hereby amended
an reordained as follows:
B Amending:
Se .3-210 Carter's Bridge Agricultural and Forestal District
Se . 3-221 Lanark Agricultural and Forestal District
Se . 3-224 Panorama Agricultural and Forestal District
Chapter 3. Agricultural and Forestal Districts
Article II. Districts of Statewide Significance
Division 2. Districts
Se .3-210 Carter's Bridge Agricultural and Forestal District.
The district known as the "Carter's Bridge Agricultural and Forestal District" consists of the
foil wing described properties: Tax map 101, parcels 55A, 60; tax map 102, parcels 17 A, 17B,
17 1,170,18,19, 19A, 19C, 20B; tax map 111, parcel 48; tax map 112, parcels 3,15, 15A, 16E,
16 1, 16E2, 16F2, 18H, 19E, 19F, 20, 21, 33A, 370; tax map 113, parcels 1, 1A, 6A, 11A, 11F,
11 1, 11F2, 11F3, 11G, 11G1, 11G2, 11H, 111, 11J, 11K; tax map 114, parcels 25A, 30, 31B, 31C,
31 ,51,55,56, 67C, 670, 67E, 67F, 67G, 67H, 68, 69, 70; tax map 115, parcel 10; tax map 122,
pa els 4, 4A, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 12, 12N, 33, 33A, 36; tax map 124, parcel 11. This district, created on
Ap il 20, 1988 for not more than ten years and last reviewed on July 9, 2008, shall next be reviewed
pri r to July 9, 2018.
(C de 1988, ~ 2.1-40); Ord. 98-A(1), 8-5-98; Ord. 98-3(1), 9-9-98; Ord. 99-3(2),2-10-99; Ord. 99-
3(4 ,5-12-99; Ord. 08-3(1), 7-9-08)
Se . 3-221 Lanark Agricultural and Forestal District.
The district known as the "Lanark Agricultural and Forestal District" consists of the following
de cribed properties: Tax map 90, parcels 12, 14A; tax map 90B, parcel A-11; tax map 91, parcels
21, 21A, 21B, 31; tax map 92, parcels 64, 64A; tax map 102, parcels 33,35, 35A, 35B, 35C, 37, 40,
40 ,40C; tax map 103, parcels 1, 1A, 1B, 1C, 10, 1E, 1F, 1G, 1H, 1J, 1K, 1L, 1M, 2A, 3, 3A, 3B,
3C, 3G, 5, 9, 9A, 9B, 9C, 90, 9E, 9F, 10A, 10B, 100, 43, 43L, 43L 1, 43M, 68 (part). This district,
cre ted on April 20, 1988 for not more than 10 years and last reviewed on July 9, 2008, shall next be
revi wed prior to July 9, 2018.
(Co e 1988, ~ 2.1-4(k); Ord. 98-A(1), 8-5-98; Ord. 98-3(1), 9-9-98; Ord. 99-3(2), 2-10-99; Ord. 99-
3(5,10-6-99; Ord. 08-3(1), 7-9-08)
Se . 3-224 Panorama Agricultural and Forestal District.
The district known as the "Panorama Agricultural and Forestal District" consists of the
foil wing described properties: Tax map 31, parcel 21 E; tax map 44, parcels 9A, 9C, 12, 120, 12X,
12 , 12Z; tax map 45A, section 1, parcel 27. This district, created on April 20, 1988 for not more
tha 10 years and last reviewed on July 9, 2008, shall next be reviewed prior to July 9, 2018.
(6 14-95; Code 1988, ~ 2.1-4(1); Ord. 98-A(1), 8-5-98; Ord. 98-3(1), 9-9-98; Ord. 99-3(3), 3-17-99;
o .08-3(1),7-9-08)
I, lIa W. Jordan, do hereby certify that the foregoing writing is a true, correct copy of an
o dinance duly adopted by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia. by a vote of
si to zero, as recorded below, at a regular meeting e on Julv 9, 2008.
M . Boyd
M . Dorrier
M . Mallek
M . Rooker
M . Slutzky
M . Thomas
Aye Nay
y
y
y
y
y
y
N
,I
1
I;'''"rk Agricul ". ..... /
, , 05 , MIlI/Farestlll D' .
. ',,' " ; M,'.. .strict
2
3
TO:
RE:
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
MEMORANDUM
Albemarle County Board of Supervisors
Larry W. Davis, County Attorney
Greg Kamptner, Deputy County Attorney
June 30, 2008
Carter's Bridge and Lanark Agricultural and Forestal Districts
This memorandum explains some of the transactions that have required that the district ordinances be
ed to include additional tax map and parcel numbers.
Six parcels within the district were subdivided since the district was last reviewed, requiring that the
propo ed district ordinance be amended to identify the affected lands by their new tax map and parcel numbers:
· Tax Map 101 Parcel 60 was subdivided and its lands are now identified as Tax Map 101 Parcel 60 and
Tax Map 112 Parcel 16F2.
· Tax Map 113 Parcel 11 was subdivided and its lands are now identified as Tax Map 113 Parcels llH,
111, llJ, IlK and Tax Map 114 Parcels 31B, 31C and 31D.
· Tax Map 113 Parcell1F was subdivided and its lands are now identified as Tax Map 113 Parcels I1F,
llFl, 11F2 and 11F3.
· Tax Map 113 Parcel11G was subdivided and its lands are now identified as Tax Map 113 Parcels llG,
I1G 1 and llG2.
· Tax Map 114 Parce167C was subdivided and its lands are now identified as Tax Map 114 Parcels 67C,
67D, 67E, 67F, 67G and 67H.
· Tax Map 112 Parcel16E was subdivided and its lands are now identified as Tax Map 112 Parcels 16E,
16E1 and 16E2.
Two parcels were created from parcels within the district and their owners have requested that they be
with awn. Because these parcels were never identified in the district ordinance since they were created after
the la t review in 1998, they do not appear as parcels being withdrawn in the proposed ordinance. Those parcels
are:
!
· Tax Map 112 Parcel 16J, which was created in 2007 and was formerly a part of Tax Map 112 Parcel 16.
Parcels 16 and 16 J are part of Greenmont Farm, which the owners have stated they wish to withdraw
from the agricultural and forestal district because they intend to place the lands under conservation
easement, and being in the district affects the value of the land.
· Tax Map 114 Parcel 31 E, which was created in 2005 and was formerly part of Tax Map 113 Parcel 11.
The owner of both parcels has requested to withdraw them from the district.
After an official determination of development rights determined that Tax Map 112 Parcel 15 was
actua ly comprised of two parcels of record, an additional tax map and parcel number was assigned - Tax Map
112 P~rcel 15A - and this parcel is included to be added to the district.
Lana~k AQricultural and Forestal District
Three parcels within the district were subdivided since the district was last reviewed, requiring that the
propc sed district ordinance be amended to identify the affected lands by their new tax map and parcel numbers:
· Tax Map 103 Parcel 3 was subdivided and its lands are now identified as Tax Map 103 Parcels 3, 3A,
3B, 3C and 3G.
· Tax Map 103 Parcel 10 was subdivided and its lands are now identified as Tax Map 103 Parcels 9A, 9B,
9C, 9D, 9E and 9F. Tax Map 103 Parcel 10 no longer exists and the proposed ordinance deletes the
reference to that parcel.
· Tax Map 103 Parcel 43 was subdivided and its lands are now identified as Tax Map 103 Parcels 43 and
43M.
A number of parcels are being added to the district as the result of a number of boundary line
adjus Iments:
· Tax Map 103 ParcellB is currently in the district. Tax Map 103 Parcels 35, 35A and 35C are proposed
to be added to the district. Portions of what are now Tax Map 102 Parcel 35 and 35C were formerly in
Parcel lB.
· Tax Map 91 Parcel 21 A is currently in the district. Tax Map 103 Parcel 68 is not presently in the
district. A boundary line adjustment between Tax Map 91 Parcel21A and Tax Map 103 Parcel 68
resulted in almost 5 acres being transferred from Parcel 21 A to Parcel 68. The portion of Parcel 68 that
was formerly part ofParce121A is being added to the district, and is identified in the proposed district
ordinance as Parcel "68 (part)."
· Tax Map 103 Parcel10C became part of Tax Map 103 Parcel10D at some point between 1992 and
1999. Parcel 10D is already in the district and the proposed ordinance and the proposed ordinance
deletes the reference to that parcel.
The owners of Tax Map 102 Parcels 40, 40B and 40C, who originally requested their lands be
withd awn from the district, have instead requested that their lands remain in the district. Tax Map 102 Parcel
40 was subdivided in 2001 and its lands are now identified as Tax Map 102 Parcels 40 and 40C. The proposed
distric ordinance reflects the owners' request and shows Parcels 40 and 40B remaining in the district and Parcel
40C b~ing added to the district.
2
I
I
I
Draft: June 30, 2008
ORDINANCE NO. 08-3(1)
A ORDINANCE TO AMEND AND REORDAIN CHAPTER 3, AGRICULTURAL AND FORESTAL
D STRICTS, ARTICLE II, DISTRICTS OF STATEWIDE SIGNIFICANCE, OF THE CODE OF THE
C UNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA.
B IT ORDA~ED By the Board of Supervisors of the County of Albemarle, Virginia, that Chapter 3,
A 'cultural and Forestal Districts, Article II. Districts of Statewide Significance, is hereby amended and
re rdained as follows:
B Amending:
Se .3-210 Carter's Bridge Agricultural and Forestal District
Se . 3-221 Lanark Agricultural and Forestal District
Se . 3-224 Panorama Agricultural and Forestal District
Chapter 3. Agricultural and Forestal Districts
Article II. Districts of Statewide Significance
Division 2. Districts
Se .3-210 Carter's Bridge Agricultural and Forestal District.
The district known as the "Carter's Bridge Agricultural and Forestal District" consists of the following
de cribedproperties: Tax map 101, parcels 55A, 60; tax map 102, parcels 17A, 17B, 17B1, 17D, 18, 19, 19A,
19 , 20B; tax maD 111. Darcel 48; tax map 112, parcels 3, 15, l5A. 16, l6C, HiD, 16E, 16El. 16Eb -l-6F,
16 2 ++,- 18H, 19E, 19F, 19G, 19H, 191, 20, 21, 33A, 37D; tax map 113, parcels 1, lA, 6A, -l--l-; 11A~
11 1 11F2 11F3. 11G. 11Gl. 11G2. 11H. III. 111. 11K; tax map 114, parcels 25A, 30, 31B. 31C. 31D. 51,
55 56, 67C. 67D. 67E. 67F. 67G. 67H. 68, 69, 70; tax map 115, parcel 10; tax map 122, parcels 4, 4A, 6, 7, 8,
9, 10, 12, 12N, 33, 33A, 36; tax map 124, parcel 11. This district, created on April 20, 1988 for not more than
te years and last reviewed on September 9, 1998 Julv 9.2008, shall next be reviewed prior to April 20, 2008
Ju 9 2018.
(C de 1988, S 2.l-4(j); Ord. 98-A(1), 8-5-98; Ord. 98-3(1), 9-9-98; Ord. 99-3(2), 2-10-99; Ord. 99-3(4), 5-12-
99 Ord. 08-3(1), 7-9-08)
Se . 3-221 Lanark Agricultural and Forestal District.
The district known as the "Lanark Agricultural and Forestal District" consists of the following
de cribed properties: Tax map 90, parcels 12, 14A; tax map 90B, parcel A-11; tax map 91, parcels 21, 21A,
21 ,31; tax map 92, parcels 64, 64A; tax map 102, parcels 33, 35. 35A. 35B, 35C. 37, 40, 4GA;- 40B,j-OC; tax
103, parcels 1, lA, lB, 1C, 1D, IE, IF, 1G, 1H, 11, 1K, 1L, 1M, 2A, 3, 3A. 3B. 3C. 3G. 5, 9, 9A. 9B. 9C.
9E 9F -M, lOA, lOB, -l4G; 10D, 43, 43L, 43L1,A3M. 68 (Dart). This district, created on April 20, 1988
not more than 10 years and last reviewed on September 9, 1998 Julv 9. 2008, shall next be reviewed prior
Julv 9.2018.
(C de 1988, S 2.l-4(k); Ord. 98-A(1), 8-5-98; Ord. 98-3(1), 9-9-98; Ord. 99-3(2), 2-10-99; Ord. 99-3(5), 10-6-
99 Ord. 08-3(1), 7-9-08)
Se . 3-224 Panorama Agricultural and Forestal District.
The district known as the "Panorama Agricultural and Forestal District" consists of the following
de cribed properties: Tax map 31, parcel 21E; tax map 44, parcels 9A, 9C, 12, 12Q, 12X, 12Y, 12Z; tax map
45 , section 1, parcel 27. This district, created on April 20, 1988 for not more than 10 years and last reviewed
on ,-+99& Julv 9. 2008, shall next be reviewed prior to 1'\priI20, 2008 Julv 9.2018.
Draft: June 30, 2008
(6 14-95; Code 1988, S 2.1-4(1); Ord. 98-A(I), 8-5-98; Ord. 98-3(1), 9-9-98; Ord. 99-3(3), 3-17-99; Ord. 08-
3( ), 7-9-08)
I, lla W. Jordan, do hereby certify that the foregoing writing is a true, correct copy of an Ordinance duly
ad pted by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, by a vote of _ to _, as recorded
be ow, at a regular meeting held on
Clerk, Board of County Supervisors
Aye Nay
M . Boyd
M . Domer
M . Mallek
M . Rooker
M . Slutzky
M . Thomas
.
.
.
I
Albemarle County Planning Commission
April 22, 2008
T e Albemarle County Planning Commission held a meeting and public hearing on Tuesday, April 22,
2( 08, at 6:00 p.m., at the County Office Building, Lane Auditorium, Second Floor, 401 Mcintire Road,
C narlottesville, Virginia.
Members attending were Marcia Joseph, Bill Edgerton, Eric Strucko, Jon Cannon, Vice-Chairman;
TI omas Loach; Linda Porterfield and Calvin Morris, Chairman. Julia Monteith, AICP, non-voting
representative for the University of Virginia was absent.
o her officials present were Wayne Cilimberg, Planning Director; Elaine Echols, Principal Planner;
SI mmer Frederick, Senior Planner; Bill Fritz, Chief of Current Development; Megan Yaniglos. Planner;
Jc: y Schlothauer, Director of Inspections; Mark Graham, Director of Community Development; Glenn
Brlooks, County Engineer; Amelia McCulley, Director of Current Development & Zoning and Greg
K, mptner, Deputy County Attorney.
Call to Order and Establish Quorum:
M . Morris called the regular meeting to order at 600 p.m. and established a quorum.
Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda from the Public:
M . Morris invited comment from the public on other matters not listed on the agenda.
N4 il Williamson, with the Free Enterprise Forum. said that there was a matter on the consent agenda
regarding the resolution of intent to amend Section 8.5.5.2 of the zoning ordinance that does not have
tin e allocated for public comment that he wished to comment on
M . Morris noted that item has been pulled and it is going to be on the regular agenda and public
comment will be taken.
Tt ere being no further comments, the meeting moved to the next item.
Review of Board of Supervisors Meeting - April 9, 2008.
M . Cilimberg summarized the actions taken by the Board of Supervisors on April 9, 2008.
Consent Agenda:
a. AFD2008-00001 Carter's Bridae Review
The district currently includes approximately 8.906.8 acres in 65 parcels, and is located near
Carter's Bridge and Blenheim. (Scott Clark)
b. AFD2008-00002 Lanark Review
The district currently includes approximately 5,821 acres in 40 parcels, and is located along
Carters Mountain south of Monticello. (Scott Clark)
c. AFD2008-00003 Panorama Review
The district currently includes approximately 272.9 acres in nine parcels, and is located near the
South Fork Rivanna Reservoir. (Scott Clark)
d. AFD2008-0000S Moorman's River Addition
Proposal to add one parcel of 116 acres to the District. (Scott Clark)
e. Approval of Minutes -10-3-06.11-7-06.11-21-06. and 3-18-08
Mr Morris asked if any Commissioner would like to pull an item from the consent agenda for discussion.
M~. Porterfield indicated she would not vote on the minutes since she was not on the Commission at the
tirr e of the meetings.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - APRIL 22, 2008
F"~AL ACTION MEMO
Motion: Mr. Cannon moved, Mr. Strucko seconded, for approval of the consent agenda.
The motion passed by a vote of 6:0: 1. (Ms. Porterfield abstained.)
Item Called Up From the Consent Agenda:
Resolution of Intent - to amend section 8.5.5.2 of the Zonina Ordinance (Greg Kamptner)
Mr. Morris said that this item originally appeared on the consent agenda, but the Commission wanted to
pull it. This is strictly the first step in actually coming up with a resolution of intent. Last week the
Commission requested counsel to take a look at this and draft some language. He thanked Mr. Kamptner
for being so responsive.
Mr. Kamptner summarized the proposed amendment.
Mr. Morris asked if once this is drafted would it come back to the Planning Commission for an open public
hearing.
Mr. Kamptner replied yes, that the Commission could certainly ask that it come back first for a work
session and it could be farmed out to community development to establish a round table type of
discussion that they sometimes do with new regulations. Before it is acted on the ordinance has to come
to the Planning Commission for a public hearing and a recommendation before it goes to the Board of
Supervisors.
Mr. Morris opened the hearing and invited public comment.
Neil Williamson, of the Free Enterprise Forum, spoke. He strongly encouraged the Planning Commission
to direct staff to hold round table discussions with folks who in some cases are unaware of the impacts
this may have on them, how to mitigate those impacts and how to establish vested rights. Also, they need
to have information on what is the actual scope of this amendment. He felt that the best way to move
forward with this and address the frustration that exists is to involve those that are going to be regulated
and have a very open conversation.
Valerie Long echoed Mr. Williamson's comments and expressed great interest on behalf of the
development community and a number of clients she represents who have obtained rezoning approvals
for planned district projects about the significance of this issue and the concern that it has created with
their clients who have invested tremendous amounts of money in projects that have obtained zoning
approval and have spent years and hundreds of thousands of dollars preparing and obtaining zoning
approvals for application plans or master plans for their projects. She knew that there have been ca~es
that have been very frustrating. She was present last week at the Clifton Lakes hearing and she
appreciated their frustration about that. There are a handful of those types of projects. She asked that
they don't throw the baby out with the bath water. Most of the projects of significant size that have been
approved in this community are a planned district. She asked that the Planning Commission not make it
too big of a solution when it is a few number of projects that are causing the problem. They would
welcome the opportunity to participate in discussions on behalf of clients that they work with. Their clients
would as well be interested in participating.
Mr. Morris reiterated that this will come before the Commission again. He closed the public hearing to
bring the matter before the Commission.
Mr. Edgerton said that in response to the comments that it would be very healthy to have a handle on the
number of projects mentioned that do not fit into this situation because they have been approved under
the existing ordinance. It is the projects that are being grandfathered back 30 years that he thought they
were struggling with. He very much would welcome the participation and engagement of the development
community in this process. He felt that it may be important in an effort to be fair to all to try to get a
handle on it by asking the development community to let us know which projects they feel would be
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - APRIL 22, 2008 2
FINAL ACTION MEMO
.
un airly treated under what is being proposed. In the project reviewed last week there has been no effort
in 0 years to vest any rights. As Mr. Kamptner noted under state law it would not qualify for any vesting.
Th yare trying to address a glaring loophole in the ordinance that goes back to stale zoning that does not
exi t any more. Certainly they need to hear about the ones that may feel that they are being challenged
by this.
M tion: Mr. Edgerton moved, Mr. Strucko seconded to approve the resolution of intent to amend section
8. .5.2 of the zoning ordinance.
motion passed by a vote of 7:0.
Mr Morris said that the Commission looks forward to this item coming back.
Public Hearing Items:
ZT -2007-00001 Zero Lot Line Residences in the R-2 to R-15 Zonin District
A end Sections 3.1 (Definitions), 4.11.3 (Reduction of building separation and side yards), 4.11.3.1
(U titled), 4.11.3.2 (Untitled), 4.11.3.3 (Untitled), 14.3 (Area and bulk regulations, 15.3 (Area and bulk
re ulations), 16.3 (Area and bulk regulations), 17.3 (Area and bulk regulations), 18.3 (Area and bulk
re ulations). This ordinance would amend section 3.1 by defining "zero lot line" and "zero lot line
de elopment); sections 4.11.3, 4.11.3.1, 4.11.3.2 and 4.11.3.3 by revising and adding regulations
all wing reducing the minimum building separation and side yards for structures where there is adequate
fir flow and for dwelling units in zero lot line developments; and sections 14.3, 15.3, 16.3, 17.3 and 18.3
by revising the respective district yard regulations to allow minimum side yards to be reduced to zero feet
on one side in qualifying zero lot line developments. A copy of the full text of the ordinance is on file in
th office of the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors and in the Department of Community Development,
C unty Office Building, 401 Mcintire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia. (Elaine Echols)
. M tion: Mr. Cannon moved, Mr. Strucko seconded to recommend approval of the adoption of the draft
or inance for ZT A-2007 -01, Zero Lot Line Residences in the R-2 to R-15 Zoning District as submitted by
st ff with the following caveats and changes:
1. When the ordinance is presented to the Board of Supervisors the Fire Marshal or other expert
official needs to be available to address any concerns with the 10' separation as raised by Mr.
Loach.
2. The staff recommended changes in the language as shown on the screen for sections A and B be
included.
3. Section B2 be removed as unnecessary.
4. Section C be removed since it is inconsistent with the concerns intended to be addressed by the
resolution of intent approved earlier in the evening.
motion passed by a vote of 7:0.
Mr Morris said that ZTA-2007-01 would go to the Board of Supervisors with a recommendation for
ap roval at a date to be determined.
Planning Commission took a break at 7:12 p.m.
meeting reconvened at 7:18 p.m.
.
S -2007-00054 SOCA-AII Weather S nthetic Field-Belvedere Si n # 16 & 49
P OPOSED: Soccer Field and associated parking and spectator seating adjacent to Belvedere and
ac essory building near soccer fields in the floodplain
Z NING CATEGORY/GENERAL USAGE: R-4 (4 units/acre)
AL EMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - APRIL 22,2008 3
FI AL ACTION MEMO
SECTION: Section 15.2.2.4 of the Zoning Ordinance which allows athletic facilities for fill in the R4
District
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE/DENSITY: Neighborhood Density Residential - residential (3-6
units/acre) and supporting uses such as religious institutions and schools and other small-scale non-
residential uses in Neighborhood 2
ENTRANCE CORRIDOR: No
LOCATION: At the northern end of Belvedere Drive off of East Rio Road
TAX MAP/PARCEL: Portion of 62A3-1 and 62-2A
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Rivanna
(Elaine Echols, Summer Frederick)
AND
SP-2007-00058 SOCA-Belvedere/Flood Plain Field (Sian # 16 & 49)
PROPOSED: Floodplain disturbance for 5 soccer fields
ZONING CATEGORY/GENERAL USAGE: R-4 (4 units/acre) and Neighborhood Model District
(residential [3 - 34 units/acre] mixed with commercial, service and industrial uses); FH Flood Hazard
Overlay District - agricultural, recreational, and utility location uses which will not pose a danger to life or
property in the event of a flood
SECTION: Section 30.3.5.2.2.3 of the Zoning Ordinance which allows for fill in the floodplain
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USEIDENSITY: Neighborhood Density Residential - residential (3-6
units/acre) and supporting uses such as religious institutions and schools and other small-scale non-
residential uses in Neighborhood 2.
ENTRANCE CORRIDOR: No
LOCATION: adjacent to south bank of the South Fork Rivanna River at the northern end of Belvedere
Drive which is off of East Rio Road
TAX MAP/PARCEL: portions of 62-2C, 62A3-1, and 62-2B
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Rivanna
(Elaine Echols, Summer Frederick)
Motion on SP-2007 -054:
Motion: Ms. Cannon moved, Mr. Strucko seconded, for approval of SP-2007 -00054, SOCA-AII Weather
Synthetic Field-Belvedere with the following amendments to the staff recommended conditions:
1. The location of the synthetic field shall be in general accord with the conceptual plan
entitled, "Belvedere - SOCA Special Use Permit: All Weather Synthetic Turf Field", and dated
March 28, 2008.
2. Public streets which provide access to the synthetic field and to the parking area shall be
constructed prior to pttbIie use of the field.
3. Public streets which provide on-street parking to accommodate parking requirements for the
synthetic field shall be a minimum of 32' in width or other width as may be required by the
County Engineer and approved as a variation by the Director of Planning.
4. Pedestrian access shall be provided from the end of Belvedere Boulevard. to the synthetic field in
accordance with the Albemarle County Design Manual standards for permanent paths.
5. In conjunction with its review and approval of a site plan or subdivision plat that pertains to or
includes TMP 062A30-00-00-00 1 00, the County may require that Belvedere Boulevard be
extended to provide public street access to TMP 06200-00-00-002AO.
And the following to be covered by additional conditions (language to be finalized before the Board of
Supervisors' meeting):
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - APRIL 22, 2008
FINAL ACTION MEMO
4
.
.
.
I
6. The applicant shall demonstrate as a condition of final site plan approval that the on-site parking
provided for the use, including on-site on-street parking, is adequate for the proposed use.
7. The hours of use for organized activities and events are limited to the time between 8:00 a.m. and
9:30 p.m. (The language to be worked out prior to Board of Supervisors meeting.)
8. A pro-rata contribution to the traffic signal at Belvedere Boulevard and Rio Road, the primary
access to Belvedere, to be worked out before the presentation to the Board of Supervisors.
9. The proposed route of Meadow Creek Parkway (Northern Free State Road) to be designated on
the site plan consistent with the alignment that is shown in the documents.
10. If the use or structure is not commenced by May 14, 2013, this special use permit shall be
deemed abandoned and the authority granted by this permit shall terminated.
Mr Strucko asked for one clarification on the hours of operation for SOCA sponsored soccer events. He
as ed if other type events are being planned for this facility other than SOCA for the synthetic field. He
su( gested that the condition be amended to say SOCA sponsored events or broader kinds of events.
Mr. Kamptner noted that SOCA might not be here forever. He suggested that they use language like
org anized activities and events or something like that. He would like to work with the zoning administrator
to ome up with language so that it is not organization specific.
Mr. Cannon accepted the amendment to the motion, which was seconded by Mr. Strucko.
Th ~ motion passed by a vote of 7:0.
Motion on Critical SloDes Waiver:
Ms Joseph noted that the critical slope was a very small intrusion in this area.
Motion: Ms. Joseph moved, Mr. Cannon seconded, for approval of critical slope waiver for SP-2007-
OO( 54, SOCA-AII Weather Synthetic Field-Belvedere.
Th motion passed by a vote of 7:0.
Mr. Morris stated that the critical slope waiver was approved. SP-2007-00054, SOCA-AII Weather
Sy thetic Field- Belvedere will go before the Board of Supervisors on May 14 with a recommendation for
apl roval.
Mo ion on SP-2007-058:
Mo~ion: Ms. Porterfield moved, Mr. Strucko seconded, for approval of SP-2007-00058, SOCA-
Belr,tedere/Flood Plain Field with the conditions as recommended by staff.
1. The fill in the floodplain shall be as shown generally on the plan entitled, "Belvedere SOCA Special
Use Permit Flood Plain Fields" prepared by McKee Carson and last dated March 25, 2008.
2. If required by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), the applicant shall obtain a map
revision, letter of revision, or letter of amendment. The County Engineer shall be copied on all
correspondence related to changes to the floodplain.
3. Army Corp of Engineers, Virginia Department of Environmental Quality, and other necessary state
and federal agency approvals must be obtained prior to issuance of grading permits.
4. Natural Resources Manager approval of a stream buffer mitigation plan prior to the issuance of a
grading permit prior to placement of any fill in the floodplain, and County approval an erosion and
sediment control plan prior to the issuance of a grading permit for placement of any fill in the
floodplain.
AL ~EMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - APRIL 22, 2008
FI~AL ACTION MEMO
5
5. The 700'-long section of dry-stone wall bounding the inner edge of the floodplain west and northwest
of the proposed flood plain fields as identified in the Phase I Archaeologica/ Survey and
Geoarchaeologica/lnvestigation in Two Portions of the Belvedere Development Property, Albemarle
County, Virginia dated February 6, 2008, shall be retained and preserved. The wall shall be clearly
identified and labeled on the plan of development. The 50' at the northern end of the wall may be
disturbed for the proposed road construction as currently illustrated on the plan. The stone that is
disturbed by the road construction shall be used to repair remaining portions of the wall or to extend
the wall at its south end. A plan detailing the proposed re-use of the stone shall be submitted for
review and is subject to the approval of the Director of Planning prior to the commencement of road
construction. Methods for protecting the remaining wall during construction and for preserving the
remaining wall following construction shall be submitted for review and are subject to the approval of
the Director of Planning prior to the commencement of road construction.
6. Additional archaeological testing, as recommended in the Phase I Archaeological Survey and
Geoarchaeologicallnvestigation in Two Portions of the Be/vedere Development Property, Albemarle
County, Virginia dated February 6, 2008, shall be conducted to more fully assess the extent of
cultural resources in Area B of the Belvedere project area. Based on the findings of this additional
testing, additional archaeological studies and/or treatments may be required. The additional testing
shall be conducted by a qualified archaeologist who meets the qualifications set forth in the Secretary
of the Interior's Professional Qualification Standards. Additional studies required as a result of the
findings of the testing shall be completed prior to disturbance of the site. Treatments required as a
result of the findings of the testing shall be outlined in a treatment plan that is subject to approval of
the Director of Planning.
The motion passed by a vote of 7:0.
Mr. Morris stated that SP-2007-00058, SOCA-Belvedere/Flood Plain Field will go before the Board of
Supervisors on May 14 with a recommendation for approval.
Mr. Strucko left the meeting at 8:58 p.m.
The Planning Commission took a break at 8:58 p.m.
The meeting reconvened at 9:11 p.m.
Regular Items:
SUB-2008-00022 BeUair #5- Preliminary
Request for preliminary plat approval to create 2 lots on 2.066 acres. The property is zoned R-1
Residential. The property, described as Tax Map 76C-02 Parcel 5 is located in the Samuel Miller
Magisterial District on Deer Path Road [Route 809] at the intersection with Old Farm Road [Route 846].
The Comprehensive Plan designates this property as Neighborhood Density in Urban Area 6. (Megan
Yaniglos)
Mr. Edgerton said that he heard staff say loud and clear that all easements have to be shown. If that
needs to be part of this plat. then it needs to be shown with something more than a magic marker. He
would like some assurance that it really has been looked at a little bit more than the critical slopes if there
are other issues. With that in mind he was going to recommend denial. Mr. McDaniel has given us an
interpretation how it is against the regulations to have a septic site any closer than 5' to the property line.
It is hard to determine that from the free hand drawing that shows the potential septic site. He asked that
the Commission be provided with some clear engineering on that. He would very much like to have both
Mr. Crauns here to explain exactly what sort of engineering they have done on this.
Motion: Mr. Edgerton moved, Ms. Joseph seconded, for denial of SUB-2008-00022, Bellair #5
Preliminary as the plat does not comply with the ordinance. It needs to show all of the easements and
clear engineering needs to be provided for the potential septic site.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - APRIL 22, 2008
FINAL ACTION MEMO
6
.
I
Th motion carried by a vote of 6:0. (Mr. Strucko was absent.)
Mr. Kamptner noted for the record that the denial was because the preliminary plat does not meet the
requirements of Section 14-302.a.4 showing the location and dimensions of all private easements.
Ms Joseph noted that it also included the septic location.
Mr. Morris stated that SUB-2008-00022 Bellair #5 Preliminary was denied.
Work Sessions
Pe sonal Wireless Service Facilities
Pre sentation and discussion of Albemarle County's Personal Wireless Facilities Policy. (Bill Fritz)
ThE Planning Commission held a work session to review the Albemarle County Personal Wireless
Fa( ilities Policy. Presentations on the history of the policy and its application were given by staff (Bill
Fri 12') and several members of the public (Steve Blaine and Stephen Waller). Staff presented several
qUE stions and asked for the Commission's input. The Commission received public comment and
pro~ided comments and suggestions. Due to the late hour, the Planning Commission requested staff to
set up another work session in another meeting room at an earlier hour to finish the discussion on the
qUE stions and issues presented.
Old Business:
ThE re being no old business, the meeting moved to the next item.
New Business:
. ThE re being no new business, the meeting moved to the next item.
Adjournment
.
With no further items, the meeting adjourned at 10:56 p.m. to the Tuesday, April 29, 2008 meeting at 6:00
p.rr. at the County Office Building, Room 241, Second Floor, Auditorium, 401 Mcintire Road,
Ch rlottesville, Virginia.
V. Wayne Cilimberg, Secretary
(Recorded and transcribed by Sharon C. Taylor, Clerk to Planning Commission & Planning Boards)
ALE EMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - APRIL 22, 2008
FIN!t\L ACTION MEMO
7
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
STAFF REPORT SUMMARY
Project Name: Staff: Scott Clark
AFD 2008-00001 Carter's Bridge District Review
AFD 2008-00002 Lanark District Review
AFD 2008-00003 Panorama District Review
Planning Commission Public Hearing: Board of Supervisors Public Hearing:
June 17,2008 July 9, 2008
Proposal: Comprehensive Plan Designation:
AFD 2008-0000 I: 10-year AF District review Rural Areas
.
. AFD 2008-00002: 10-year AF District review
. AFD 2008-00003: 10-vear AF District review
RECOMMENDATIONS:
. AFD 2008-00001: The Agricultural/Forestal Districts Advisory Committee recommends renewal
of the Carters Bridge district for a 10-year period.
. AFD 2008-00002: The Agricultural/Forestal Districts Advisory Committee recommends renewal
of the Lanark district tor a 10-year period.
. AFD 2008-00003: The Agricultural/Forestal Districts Advisory Committee recommends renewal
of the Panorama district tor a IO-year period.
I
. t>istrict Reviews:
~FD 2008-00001 Carter's Bride:e District Review
. 'he Albemarle County Code currently contains this dcscription of the Carters Bridge district:
Sec. 3-210 Carter's Bridge Agricultural and Forestal District.
The district known as the "Carter's Bridge Agricultural and Forestal District" consists of the
following described properties: Tax map 10 I, parcels 55A, 60: tax map 102, parcels 17 A, 17B, 17B I, 17D, 18, 19,
19A, 19C, 20B; tax map 112,parcels3,15,16, 16C,I6D,I6E, 16F, 17,18H, 19E, 19F, 19G, 19H, 191,20,21.
33A, 37D; tax map 113, parcels I, I A, 6A, II, 11 A; tax map 114, parcels 25A, 30, 51,55,56,68,69, 70; tax map
115, parcel 10; tax map 122, parcels 4, 4A, 6, 7, 8,9,10,12, 12N, 33, 33A, 36; tax map 124, parcell!. This district,
created on April 20, 1988 for not more than ten years and last reviewed on September 9, 1998, shall next be
reviewed prior to April 20, 2008.
"he district is located near Keene, Carters Bridge, and Woodridge, and most of the parcels are located
t ast of Route 20. The majority of thc district is located in the Ilardware River watershed, but the
~jouthernmost parcels drain to Totier Creek, and a fcw on the northeast to the Rivanna River. Land cover
in thc district is a mix of opcn pasture and forest. Forest lands tend to be deciduous in the western parts
( f thc district, but are mostly pine plantations in thc cast. See Attachment A for a map.
.
, 'he district was created in 1988. Since then, there have been three major additions-in 1990 (3,505
<Jcres), 1997 (169 acres), and 1999 (299 acrcs). At the last revicw, in 1998,3,000 acres were rcmoved
t om the district. It now contains 8,906 acres.
I ddWons and Withdrawals: Landowners can apply to join a District during the review proccss (as well
(1S at other times). The addition received to date is:
[ Tax Map - Parcel -, Acres ~wne!:.--._
111-48 146.81 James Bonnerl
I Addition request received atter AF Committee meeting
-j
I andowners may withdraw their parcels from districts by right during a renewal at anytime before the
[ oard of Supervisors takes tinal action to continue, modify, or terminate the district. Withdrawals
r quested to date are:
.
Tax Map - Parcel
113-11
114-31E
112-16
112-16C
112-16D
112-16F
112-17
AFD 2008-01, 02, 03
p~ Hearing 6-17-2008
Acres
119.78
39.24
145.15
97
62
307.49
13.75
Owner
Petcr D. Nielsen
Petcr D. Nic1sen
Greenmont Farms, LLC I
Greenmont Farms, LLC I
Grecnmont Farms, LLC I
Greenmont Farms, LLC I
Grecnmont Farms, LLC I
--
2
-
112-19G 26.63 Greenmont Farms, LLC'
112-19H 23.53 Greenmont Farms, LLCI
112-191 23.53 Greenmont Farms, LLCI
112-16J 268.85 Coles Vallev, LLCI
Total 1126.95
I Withdrawal request received after AF Committee meeting
The Greenmont Farms and Coles Valley properties are being withdrawn so that the owners can
eventually receive a greater tax benefit for conservation-easement donations. (Being in a District can
reduce the appraised value of the property.) No other owners have stated their reasons for withdrawing.
After the requested withdrawals and additions, the district it would contain approximately 7,926 acres.
The district would be reduced by II percent in area. The withdrawals are located in the central and
western portions of the district, but would not unduly isolate parcel remaining in the district.
Agricultural and Forestal District Sign!ficance: Of the 8,906 acres that comprise the Carters Bridge
District, 1,480 acres are enrolled in the Agricultural category of the land-use taxation program, while
5,430 acres are enrolled in the Forestry category. Enrollment in these tSlX categories is an indicator of
active rural land uses.
Land Use other than Agriculture and Forestry: In addition to agricultural and forestal uses, the Carters
Bridge district includes approximately 34 dwellings.
Local Development Patterns: The district is largely made up of large farm parcels, as are the
surroundings. The area includes some land in smaller residential lots, but is largely rural in character.
Comprehensive Plan Designation and Zoning Districts: The Carters Bridge district is entirely designated
as Rural Areas in the Comprehensive Plan, and the parcels included in the district are zoned RA Rural
Areas.
Environmental Benefits: Conservation of this area will help maintain the environmental integrity of the
County and aids in the protection of ground and surface water, agricultural soils, mountain resources,
critical slopes, and wildlife habitat.
Time Period: The Carters Bridge District is currently on a 10-year review cycle.
Agricultural-Forestal Districts Advisory Committee Recommendation: The Committee
recommended that the Board of Supervisors continue the Carters Bridge District for a 10-year
period.
AFD 2008-00002 Lanark District Review
The Albemarle County Code currently contains this description of the Lanark district:
Sec. 3-221 Lanark Agricultural and Forestal District.
AFD 2008-01, 02, 03
PC Hearing 6-17-2008
3
.
.
.
The district known as the "Lanark Agricultural and Forestal District" consists of the tollowing
described properties: Tax map 90, parcels 12, 14A; tax map 908, parcel A-II; tax map 91, parcels 21, 21 A. 218,
31; tax map 92, parcels 64, 64A; tax map 102, parcels 33,358,37,40, 40A, 408; tax map 103, parcels I, lA, 18,
I C, !D, 1 E. I F, I G, I H, 11, I K, I L, 1M, 2A. 3, 5, 9, 10, lOA. 108, 10C, 10D, 43, 43L, 43L I. This district, created
on April 20, 1988 for not more than 10 years and last reviewed on September 9, 1998, shall next be reviewed prior
to April 20, 2008..
The Lanark district is located on Carter's Mountain and along the val1ey to the east, with a few parcels
est of Carter's Mountain. The lower elevations on the east face of the mountain are in pasture, while
ost of the remainder of the district is in forest (largely pine in the northeast, and deciduous elsewhere).
~ ee Attachment B for a map.
'1 he district was created in April, 1988, and no land has been withdrawn. Additions occurred in 1992
( ,781 acres) and 1999 (39 acres and 154 acres). The district currently contains approximately 5,972
a res.
ilhdrawal.\': Landowners may withdraw their parcels from districts by right during a renewal at
a ytime before the Board of Supervisors takes tinal action to continue, modify, or terminate the district.
ithdrawals requested to date are:
Tax Ma - Parcel
102-40A
102-40
102-40B
102-40C
Acres
7.582
170.25
9,12
~-"--
6.22
Owner
Michaels, Nicholas A Or Gayle Taylor M
Lomnyckyj, Roman W & Margaret
Lomnyckyj, Roman W & Margaret
Lomnj'ckyj, Roman W & Margaret
Total
193.17
fter the requested withdrawals, the district would contain 5,779 acres. The district would be reduced by
3 percent in area. The withdrawals are located at the southwestern edge of the district, and would not
i olate other parcels included in the district.
e landowners have not stated their reasons tor withdrawing.
A rieultural and Forestal District Sign(ticance: Of the 5,972 acres in the Lanark District, 2,554 acres
a e enrolled in the Forestry category of the land-use taxation program, while 747 are enrolled in the
gricuItural category.
L md Use other than Agriculture and Forestry: In addition to agricultural and forestal uses, the Lanark
district includes approximately 43 dwellings.
L cal Development Patterns: The majority of the district is in large forested and farm parcels. The
s rrounding area has the same overall pattern, with some areas of smal1 residential lots. Overal1 the
p Hem remains rural in character.
C mprehensive Plan Designation and Zoning Districts: The Lanark district is entirely designated as
R ral Areas in the Comprehensive Plan, and the parcels included in the district are zoned RA Rural
A eas.
A 0 2008-01, 02, 03
P Hearing 6-17-2008 4
Environmental Benefits: Conservation of this area will help maintain the environmental integrity of the
County and aids in the protection of ground and surface water, agricultural soils, mountain resources,
critical slopes, and wildlife habitat.
Time Period: The Lanark District is currently on a 10-year review cycle.
Agricultural-Forestal Districts Advisory Committee Recommendation: The Committee
recommended that the Board of Supervisors renew the Lanark district for a IO-year period.
AFD 2008-01, 02, 03
PC Hearing 6-17-2008
5
I
/ FD 2008-00003 Panorama District Review
. "1 he Albemarle County Code currently contains this description of the Panorama district:
Sec. 3-224 Panorama Agricultural and Forestal District.
The district known as the "Panorama Agricultural and Forestal District" consists of the following described
properties: Tax map 31, parcel 2 I E; tax map 44, parcels 9A, 9C, 12, 12Q, 12X, 12Y, 12l; tax map 45A, section I,
parcel 27. This district, created on April 20, 1988 tor not more than 10 years and last reviewed on September 9,
1998, shall next be reviewed prior to April 20, 2008.
'I he majority of the Panorama district is located on the west shore of the South Fork Rivanna Reservoir,
i ~ an area largely characterized by open tie Ids. A few parcels are located on the opposite side of the
r'servoir, and are mostly wooded. See Attachment C for a map.
'I he district was created in April 1988. Minor additions occurred in 1995 ( 42.4 acres) and 1999 (7.12
a~res). During the 1998 review of the district, 841 acres were removed. The district now includes 272.9
a~res.
~rlilhdrawals: Landowners may withdraw their parcels from districts by right during a renewal at
artytime before the Board of Supervisors takes tinal action to continue, modify, or terminate the district.
l' 0 withdrawals have yet been requested.
land U\'e other than Agriculture and Forestry: The district includes approximately 8 dwellings.
.
Local Development Patterns: The surrounding area has some large farm parcels, but is increasingly
Cl1aracterized by large-lot residential development.
Comprehensive Plan Designation and Zoning Districts: The Panorama district is entirely designated as
~ ural Areas in the Comprehensive Plan, and the parcels included in the district are zoned RA Rural
J reas.
Environmental Bene}its: Conservation of this area will help maintain the environmental integrity of the
County and aids in the protection of ground and surface water, agricultural soils, mountain resources,
c itical slopes, and wildlife habitat. The Panorama district is especially critical because of its location
a ong the South Fork Rivanna Reservoir, the community's largest source of surface water. Despite the
n duction in the size of the district, it remains an important part of conservation in the Rural Areas, and
tI ere are several large parcels in the area that could be added to the district in the future.
7 'me Period: The Panorama District is currently on a IO-year review cycle.
A~ricultllral-F'orestal Districts Advisory Committee Recommendation: The Committee
r( commended that the Board of Supervisors renew the Panorama district for a IO-year period.
Attachments
.
A. Carters Bridge AF District Map
B. Lanark AF District Map
C. Panorama AF District Map
A D 2008-01, 02, 03
p ~ Hearing 6..17-2008
6
o
cr'
IFlIsHRo~ .' 1
~ . !
" ~
Attachment A
l
Ii
S
~\
~
z
2
~~.~ ...lP"I", \1'
~:'Q.~ . . ./
v~ ......
,fJI >".
/,,:.} .,
". i' ,'"
'li;"'/ ~
8'~ r..:,q
Iv':> . "~. #
9.Q,~'<
~. '-- ~,
"'-.'1.
~J\>o
~
1>.l
,,~fP~
d-Q~
\)
.~~
~ ~~o/
o ~<
J:J (",
~ ~
\ ~ 0
~ ~~
. ,Q-'t ~ J)t)
Q'lJ ~. ~
~.~" .,,~\..
~.. fy"
.:l .l.....
~
Lb
'1-~
"J'
q,
,-".
.~
'.,.
1'0 I)~
' C.li',s
"'k
~~'D~~ ^
b ~v
'J)"SM~'
.. ...'
.:.:
<J.j
!i!
(j
).
oJ::
'"
~.
,
__..l____
_ Carter's Bridge AF District
.. Additions (as of 6-5-08)
. IMthdrawals (as of 6-5-08)
Parcels
Carter's Bridge Amcultural/Forestal District
o 05 1 2 tAiIes
I I I I I
. Pte""..d by Albe...de County C~ni.ty Devoloplll8nt ll<tpt.
Hap cceated by Scott Clack. lIpnl 2009.
.. Note: The map el.l1ents d.pidoed ate gtaphic t"lfprenntat1on5 .nd ,il,ce not
to be construed or used 15 a legal de!Jcrlption. This IMp is fot di$play purposes only.
.. 'arc.l boundairles r_fleet !lOSt recent avai labl. da'ta.
. /Inial photoo 2002 C,*,",,"v...lth of Vuginia
.~
" '.
- .
""'- \ -i~
AFD 2008-01, 02, 03
PC Hearing 6-17-2008
7
.
.
.
~1lt
',,<~
'<I;>.",<\)
~ ,<I'~
0'
I
,~'b) '0,.."",
1-
~
.~
-q,
~ .-:~
.''!:'
~,
'"
,0>" '4<(y! ",.
"", t!(
! "~1.~";'~nark~~~~cb i. . ~
^-VJ Wthdrawals (As of 6-5-08) , ">~
~ #
~ ~~~ ~
~ ~
~€ "4.~", ~
'\0Z.~1'"
\13 2
Lallark Agricultural/Forestal District
o 05 1 2 Miles
I I I
.~
~....
- -
~-- ~
r
.. PtepdC~ Joy Al.bel'l.-tle County CotrbJlUty o.v~lVfXWnt Dept.
H~p ccnt.od by Scot t Chck, Apul 2009.
.. Note: Th.. rNp eluwnts d."icte<:i .lire gt~hic '9prezrentatl.Or.3 .l.r.d ate not
to b. '::onstru.d or u!led a!l . 1.9.al dea:criphon. 1h1S l\ap 15 for dl"play purpcs'l!o~,:.nly.
.. Pdin~l bOlJnd8n_.~ reflect zao"t rec.nt ava11,1ble data.
.. At"rial photl'X" 2002 Cceaoow@"lth of Vlrginta
A D 2008-01,02,03
P Hearing 6-17-2008
8
Panorama ARriculturallForestal District
o 025 0'5 1 Miles
I I I
. '..pared by Al.bHIa<l. County COIlIIlUlU.ty o.ve1~nt Dept.
"ilP c.uted by Scott Cluk. Jun. 2007.
. Notel Th. map .l...nt. depicted a[. 9C~hic ,.pc9nnt.at1.on:5 and are not
to be eonstru.d or u..d as a 1.9..1 d..cription. This Np 13 for display purpo!!l.. only.
.. PaE'cel boundarl.es ref teet II03t recent .-vat l..bl. data.
.. Mrial phot03 2002 C<<*JIonwealth of Vu'ginta
AFD 2008-01, 02, 03
PC Hearing 6-17-2008
11- Ponoro..AF~ II
.
9
Option 2
Maintains land use taxation for Rural Areas
property as Open Space, with certain conditions
Property must commit to maintain land use in one of
three ways (see Attachment A of Executive Summary)
J Enter an A/F District (most property would use this option)
J Enter into a recorded commitment with the County (more
restrictive than AJF District)
] Enter into a perpetual easement ("conservation easement")
Property in Development Areas would not
qualify for land use
1
......... c.-.,.I ~
.....1)0.. ..................
Witt......... '--
2
Staff Questions
JHow effective will this program be in
protecting the rural areas from development?
] IHow will this program affect property values
land County revenue?
] How difficult will it be to implement this
program?
Effectiveness in Protecting
Rural Areas
I A/F District or agreements partially constrain residential
development in short term, but marginally effective in long-
term
- Family divisions still allowed while in A/F District
- 21 + Acre lots still allowed while in A/F District
- Lots can be "cut" from property before remainder is put into A/F District
- Other subdivision of lots possible when property comes out of A/F District
or agreement, with remainder placed back in A/F or agreement.
] Program is not permanent. Future Boards may modify
regulations to allow additional development or restrict
I development.
3
Property Values and
County Revenue
] Sl;lort-Term
- Development Areas: Property removed from land use and taxed at
assessed value. Possibly drops assessed values if "dumped" on
market
- Rural Areas No property removed from land use, but some property
owners may create new lots before "locking up" property in A/F district
or commitment. Possibly drop assessed values if "dumped" on market.
I Long-Term
- Development Areas: Property removed from land use. Some increase
in taxed property values anticipated as a result of Option 2.
- Rural Areas: No property removed from land use, except as property
develops. Little or no change in taxed property values anticipated as a
result of this program.
Implementation Issues
]1 Short-term
- Significant workload for program implementation
1 Property owner education and assistance
J A/F property applications
] New AlF districts created
J Recorded commitments
] I Long-term
Ongoing program maintenance required
J District renewals. much more complicated with more properties entering and
leaving
Property Jdditlons. Jntlclpate more and may be time sensitive
I Recorded commitments
4
Staff Summary
J Program IS not anticipated to significantly alter Rural Areas
development
1 Program IS anticipated to create some short-term fiscal impacts if
Implemented dunng poor market conditions
Program is anticipated to result in additional long-term property tax
revenue from undeveloped property in Development Areas
J Program is anticipated to result in little or no change to long-term
assessed property values and tax revenues from the Rural Areas
, Program is anticipated to require significant staff resources for
Implementation
1 Program is anticipated to require additional staff resources for
ongoing maintenance
5
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
PROPOSED
REVALIDATION
PROGRAM
REVALIDATION
. Submission of forms and/or other
documentation by owners of property in
the Land Use program to establish that
the property continues to meet program
req u i rements
I
1
ADVANTAGES
. Public confidence that
only qualifying parcels
are receiving tax benefits
. Regularly notifies owners
of program participation
and requirements
DISADVANTAGES
. Additional cost to
administer the program
. Failure to meet deadlines
and/or provide proper
documentation will result
in removal from program,
resulting in possible
assignment of roll back
taxes and taxpayer
complaints
COUNTIES CURRENTLY
ADMINISTERING REVALIDATION
PROGRAMS
. Augusta
. Chesterfield
. Fluvanna
. Greene
. Henrico
. James City
. Louisa
. Loudoun
. Nelson
. Orange
. Rockingham
2
RECOMMENDED
IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE
EFFECTIVE 2010 TAX YEAR
. Educational Information:
. October 2008 Tax Sills
. January 2009 Reassessment Notices
. Revalidation Application Forms:
. April 2009 Tax Sills
. Application Due Date:
. September 1/ 2009
. No Fee
. Applications Accepted through December 5, 2009:
. $125 Late Fee
. Revalidation required every two years
REQUIRED DOCUMENTATION
. USDA/FSA farm number and evidence of
participating in a federal farm program
. Federal tax forms related to farm
operations
. Certification of Forestry intent
3
NEXT STEPS
. Board approval of revalidation
implementation process - July 9, 2008
. Board approval of recommended form and
an ordinance amendment to be set for
public hearing
. Public Hearing
. Formal Board Adoption
4
I
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
Land Use Taxation Program - Option 2
AGENDA DATE:
July 9, 2008
ACTION: X
INFORMATION:
SUBJEC /PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Considere ion of setting a public hearing to receive
input on Ii jniting land use value taxation to the Open
Space clal>sification only.
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: INFORMATION:
STAFF CC~NTACT(S):
Tucker, Fe ley, Davis, Herrick, Graham, Wiggans,
Woodzell
/~
I~-
REVIEWED BY: /~tJ I
BACKGR PUND: /
At its work session on May 14, 2008, the Board of Supervisors discussed the land-use value taxation program. At the
conclusior of the discussion, the Board asked that staff review "Option 2," as described in a prior Executive Summary
dated Sep ember 5, 2001 included with Attachment 3, and report back to the Board with additional information and
assessme~t of this option. As described in the prior Executive Summary, Option 2 would allow "Use Value Taxation
for the Op en Space Classification Only." Information regarding the land use classifications in other Virginia localities is
included ir Attachment 4. Recent information on the properties currently in land use is included in Attachment 5.
ATTACHMENTS: Yes
LEGAL R VIEW: Yes
STRATEC: IC PLAN:
Objective: 'By June 30, 2010 increase the protection of the County's rural areas by implementing the key strategies in the
Rural Arees Plan."
DISCUSSlpN:
Attached tp this executive summary is background information and analysis on considering a change in the current
land use p ogram to allow only the open space designation to qualify for land use value taxation. Attachment 1
provides a~ overview and further background information on land use value taxation generally and Option 2
specificall). It also outlines legal requirements and steps that will need to be taken should this option be pursued.
Attachmer + 2 attempts to assess short and long term administrative as well as policy implications of making this
change. \fI hile actual impacts may vary from the analysis included for a number of reasons including the length of time
for implem~ntation, this analysis serves to identify key issues and the potential implications of the proposed change.
In conside ing whether or not to limit land use value taxation to the open space classification, three central questions
will need te be considered by the Board. Staff has included important points from the enclosed analysis to assist in
considerinl answers to these questions.
How effec ive is this strategy in protecting the rural areas?
· Wile this change has the potential to extend the time period that land is restricted from development when
co Inpared to the current program, after 4-1 0 years (depending on time frame established by ordinance), the
lar d can once again be subdivided for development.
· In he short term, this change has the potential to accelerate the pace of subdivision and development in the
rur131 areas for any landowners not willing to accept a restriction on the development of their land beyond one
ye r.
· A I erpetual easement is the only way to fully protect rural property from development.
How are County revenues likely to be impacted?
· If a change is implemented, a portion of development area property that no longer qualifies for land use value
tax~tion will generate additional revenue. However, there is the potential that this change will result in
de lining values on other properties due to new properties suddenly being added to the market. The degree to
wh ch this will occur is difficult to predict and will be impacted by market conditions. It is also important to note
tha of the approximate 4,000 development area acres currently in land use, it is estimated that only about
1, 00 are actually developable and therefore subject to a significantly higher assessment.
· S tting aside the potential for declining values noted above, the amount of additional revenue generated from
th rural areas will obviously depend on the number of landowners with developable properties that choose
n t to pursue the open space designation. It is also important to acknowledge that to the degree additional
r enues are generated from rural area properties, more properties in the rural areas have also been
s bdivided for development.
What im lementation issues need to be considered in making a change?
· In the short term, assuming a one year implementation, staffing impacts are anticipated to be fairly significant
a a result of needed property owner assistance and application processing and review for new
A ricultural/Forestal Districts, property agreements and subdivisions. While this impact may vary based on
th final approach and the length of time for implementation, staff anticipates a significant impact given the
n mber of properties impacted and individual assistance likely to be required.
· In the long run, after initial actions taken by property owners, staff believes the impact will be less significant,
al hough the addition of an FTE dedicated to administering the Agricultural/Forestal Program is anticipated.
BUDGET MPACT:
The budg t impact of this change is outlined in the attached analysis and will depend on the approach to
implemen ation. Based on the assumptions in the attachment and a one year implementation, staff anticipates the
equivalen of 7-8 FTE's in the short run and 1 FTE over the long run. Again, the approach to implementation will
determine the actual impact.
RECOMM NDATIONS:
Given sta s opinion that changes to the land use program through Option 2 will have little impact on improving rural
area prote tion in the long term and are likely to create negative impacts in the short term, staff recommends that
changes t the land use program be limited to establishing a revalidation process.
ATTACH ENTS
Attachme t A - Land Use Taxation - Option 2 White Paper
Attachme t B - Land Use - Option 2 Impacts
Attachme t C - Mav 14, 2008 Executive Summary
Attachme to - Land Use Taxation Proqrams in the Commonwealth
Attachme t E - Land Use Data
Draft: June 30, 2008
ithdrawn from an AFD at the time of the renewal of the district, upon the death of a property
o er, or upon a finding of "good and reasonable cause" after a public hearing. Albemarle
ounty Code ~ 3-205(C) outlines four specific criteria to be considered by the AFD Advisory
ommittee, the Planning Commission, and finally the Board of Supervisors in their respective
r views. All four criteria must be met in order for the land to be withdrawn.
The effect of inclusion in a District is to qualify otherwise eligible properties for use
v lue taxation. See Virginia Code ~ 15.2-4312(A) and ~ 15.2-4406(3). It is important to note
t at an AFD property must otherwise meet the use value requirements (including acreage) to
r ceive a use value assessment.
If Option 2 were implemented, land in AFDs used in agricultural production would
r main in land use under agricultural land use values. Likewise, land in AFDs used in forestal
p oduction would remain in land use under forestry land use values, and land qualifying as open
s ace would remain in land use under open space values, which are identical to agricultural,
h rticultural, or forest use values, as the case dictates.
SLEAC Values
When a property is determined eligible for use value taxation, it is assessed at a lower
v lue determined by the State Land Evaluation and Advisory Council (SLEAC) guidelines. In
lbemarle County, these values vary significantly between uses and from year to year. (See
tachment C) Most notably, the type of forestal land most common in Albemarle County is
v lued between $200-$455 per acre, while the most common agricultural land in the County is
v lued between $90-$120 per acre. Open space properties receive the same SLEAC values as
I d in agricultural, horticultural, or forest use, as the case dictates, regardless of whether any
p oduction occurs on the open space properties. A County of Albemarle Use Value Taxation
S mmary shows the acreages and values of property in land use in 2007 (Attachment C).
In localities without a use value program, properties under an open-space or conservation
e sement do not necessarily receive the lower SLEAC valuations. Instead, such properties
uld be valued at fair market value, taking into account the easement restrictions on the
p operty. While such an assessment would presumably result in a lower value than without an
e sement, fair market value (even with an easement) may be significantly higher than the
S EAC values. This difference in values again highlights the significance of a use value
p ogram, even for properties with protective easements. See Virginia Code ~ 10.1-1011 at
h ://Iea I.state.va.us/cgi-binJlegp504.exe'>OOO+cod+ 10.1-10 11.
However, as long as Albemarle continues to have a use value program (as it would under
o tion 2), properties under an open space easement would continue to be "assessed" under the
10 er SLEAC values for which the land qualified, whether that be agricultural, forestry, or open
s ace value. Likewise, as long as the County has AFDs, land within AFDs would remain
el gible for the use value assessment, provided it continued to be used in agricultural or forestal
p duction, and otherwise met the criteria for use value taxation. In short, under Option 2, land
in any of the three alternatives listed in Virginia Code ~ 58.1-3233(3) (AFD, perpetual easement,
re orded commitment) would remain eligible for the lower SLEAC valuations.
Land Use Option #2 "White Paper" / Page 3
Draft: June 30, 2008
Available Alternatives for Qualification
If the County implements Option #2, and retains land-use taxation only for open-space
u e, many current agricultural, horticultural, and forestal owners not in AFDs may seek to form
o enter AFDs and qualify that way. Owners choosing not to enter an AFD could instead enter a
r orded perpetual easement held by a public body. Owners not opting for either an AFD or a
p rpetual easement could instead request to enter a recorded commitment not to change the use
f4 r period of four to ten years.
Both AFDs and recorded commitments (a) have 4-10 year durations and (b) restrict early
ithdrawal. However, as between the two, recorded commitments are more restrictive in their
s ecific requirements. While AFDs generally prohibit development to more intensive use, the
r quired form of recorded commitments contains several pages of specific use restrictions. For
e ample, under Albemarle County Code ~ 3-202, AFD property owners are specifically allowed
t subdivide their properties into 21-acre lots or family subdivisions, and to otherwise "develop"
t eir property if the use is allowed by-right under rural areas (RA) zoning. By contrast, the
r quired form of recorded commitments prohibits any subdivision (paragraph 2.K) or the
c nstruction of any new structure not related to open-space use (Paragraph 2.C). (See
achment B for the required form of recorded commitments.) In these respects, recorded
c mmitments are more restrictive than AFDs and more restrictive even than the County's open-
s ace (ACE) easements.
Because owners may remain in land use through either AFDs, perpetual easements, or
r corded commitments, the number of properties that would be removed from land use is
d'fficult to predict. However, properties in designated development areas would no longer
q alify for land use taxation under Option 2.
Implementation
At least two steps must be taken to implement Option 2:
1. The County Code would have to be amended to eliminate the agricultural,
horticultural, and forestal categories, leaving only open space as a qualifying
category outside of agricultural and/or forestal districts.
2. A timeline should be established for properties to qualify under the open space
options, either in an AFD, or under a perpetual easement, or recorded
commitment, to avoid properties being removed from land use taxation before
having an opportunity to qualify under Option 2.
A TACHMENTS
A a - Land Use Taxation Reference Chart
A b - VirGinia Administrative Code 5-20-30 (Agreement Form)
A c - SLEAC Values Summary
Land Use Option #2 "White Paper" / Page 4
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA ITLE:
Land Use axation Program - Option 2
AGENDA DATE:
July 9, 2008
ACTION: X
INFORMATION:
SUBJECT PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Considera ion of setting a public hearing to receive
input on Ii iting land use value taxation to the Open
Space cia sification only.
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: INFORMATION:
REVIEWED BY:
~
!
STAFF C NTACT(S):
Tucker, Fo ey, Davis, Herrick, Graham, Wiggans,
Woodzell
ATTACHMENTS: Yes
Yes
BACKGR UNO:
At its work session on May 14, 2008, the Board of Supervisors discussed the land-use value taxation program. At the
conclusion of the discussion, the Board asked that staff review "Option 2," as described in a prior Executive Summary
dated Sept mber 5,2001 included with Attachment 3, and report back to the Board with additional information and
assess me t of this option. As described in the prior Executive Summary, Option 2 would allow "Use Value Taxation
for the Op n Space Classification Only." Information regarding the land use classifications in other Virginia localities is
included in Attachment 4. Recent information on the properties currently in land use is included in Attachment 5.
/
STRATEG C PLAN:
Objective: 'By June 30, 2010 increase the protection of the County's rural areas by implementing the key strategies in the
Rural Area Plan."
DISCUSSI N:
Attached t this executive summary is background information and analysis on considering a change in the current
land use p gram to allow only the open space designation to qualify for land use value taxation. Attachment 1
provides a overview and further background information on land use value taxation generally and Option 2
specifically It also outlines legal requirements and steps that will need to be taken should this option be pursued.
Attachmen 2 attempts to assess short and long term administrative as well as policy implications of making this
change. hile actual impacts may vary from the analysis included for a number of reasons including the length of time
for implem ntation, this analysis serves to identify key issues and the potential implications of the proposed change.
In consider ng whether or not to limit land use value taxation to the open space classification, three central questions
will need to be considered by the Board. Staff has included important points from the enclosed analysis to assist in
considering answers to these questions.
How effective is this strategy in protecting the rural areas?
· While this change has the potential to extend the time period that land is restricted from development when
co pared to the current program, after 4-1 0 years (depending on time frame established by ordinance), the
Ian can once again be subdivided for development.
· In t e short term, this change has the potential to accelerate the pace of subdivision and development in the
rur I areas for any landowners not willing to accept a restriction on the development of their land beyond one
ye r.
· A P rpetual easement is the only way to fully protect rural property from development.
How are C unty revenues likely to be impacted?
· If a change is implemented, a portion of development area property that no longer qualifies for land use value
tax tion will generate additional revenue. However, there is the potential that this change will result in
declining values on other properties due to new properties suddenly being added to the market. The degree to
whi h this will occur is difficult to predict and will be impacted by market conditions. It is also important to note
tha of the approximate 4,000 development area acres currently in land use, it is estimated that only about
1,400 are actually developable and therefore subject to a significantly higher assessment.
. Setting aside the potential for declining values noted above, the amount of additional revenue generated from
the rural areas will obviously depend on the number of landowners with developable properties that choose
not to pursue the open space designation. It is also important to acknowledge that to the degree additional
revenues are generated from rural area properties, more properties in the rural areas have also been
subdivided for development.
What implementation issues need to be considered in making a change?
. In the short term, assuming a one year implementation, staffing impacts are anticipated to be fairly significant
as a result of needed property owner assistance and application processing and review for new
Agricultural/Forestal Districts, property agreements and subdivisions. While this impact may vary based on
the final approach and the length of time for implementation, staff anticipates a significant impact given the
number of properties impacted and individual assistance likely to be required.
. In the long run, after initial actions taken by property owners, staff believes the impact will be less significant,
although the addition of an FTE dedicated to administering the Agricultural/Forestal Program is anticipated.
BUDGET IMPACT:
The budget impact of this change is outlined in the attached analysis and will depend on the approach to
implementation. Based on the assumptions in the attachment and a one year implementation, staff anticipates the
equivalent of 7-8 FTE's in the short run and 1 FTE over the long run. Again, the approach to implementation will
determine the actual impact.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Given staff's opinion that changes to the land use program through Option 2 will have little impact on improving rural
area protection in the long term and are likely to create negative impacts in the short term, staff recommends that
changes to the land use program be limited to establishing a revalidation process.
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A - Land Use Taxation - Option 2 White Paper
Attachment B - Land Use - Option 2 Impacts
Attachment C - May 14. 2008 Executive Summary
Attachment 0 - Land Use Taxation Proqrams in the Commonwealth
Attachment E - Land Use Data
Attachment A
Draft: June 30, 2008
Land-Use Value Taxation: Option 2 "White Paper"
At its work session on May 14, 2008, the Board of Supervisors discussed the land-use
value taxation program. At the conclusion of the discussion, the Board asked that staff review
"Option 2," as described in a prior Executive Summary dated September 5, 2001
(http://www.albemarle.org/uploadlimages/F orms Center/Departments/Board of Supervisors/F 0
rms/ Agenda/20030514/LandU seAttachA.htm), and report back to the Board with additional
information. As described in the prior Executive Summary, Option 2 would allow "Use Value
Taxation for Open Space Classification Only." This memo is to provide further background
information on land use value taxation generally and Option 2 specifically.
Land-Use Value Taxation Requirements Overall
The requirements for land-use value taxation are summarized on the attached Land Use
Taxation Reference Chart (Attachment A).
Title 58.1, Chapter 32, Article 4 of the Code of Virginia enables localities to make special
assessments for land preservation. Specially, Virginia Code 9 58.1-3230
(http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-binllegp504.exe?000+cod+58.1-3230) establishes and defines four
special classifications for real estate devoted to:
1. agricultural use - which must meet uniform standards prescribed by the Commissioner of
Agriculture and Consumer Services
2. horticultural use - which must also meet uniform standards prescribed by the
Commissioner of Agriculture and Consumer Services
3. forest use - which must meet standards prescribed by the State Forester
4. open-space use - which must meet uniform standards prescribed by the Director of the
Department of Conservation and Recreation
Under Virginia Code 9 58.1-3231 (http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-
binllegp504.exe?000+cod+58.1-3231), localities may adopt an ordinance to provide for the use
value assessment and taxation of any or all of these four classes of real estate. By local
ordinance adopted August 23, 1973, Albemarle County elected to allow use value taxation for all
four classes. (Albemarle County Code 9 15-800) Regardless of whether or not such a local
ordinance had been adopted, land used in agricultural and forestal production within an
agricultural and/or forestal district shall be eligible for the use value assessment. Therefore,
regardless of what other changes may be made to land use taxation, at a minimum, land within
AFDs will remain eligible for the use value assessment, provided it continues to be used in
agricultural or forestal production.
Virginia Code 9 58.1-3233 (http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-binllegp504.exe?000+cod+58.1-
3233) imposes additional requirements (most notably minimum acreage requirements) on
property to be eligible for use value taxation:
· agricultural or horticultural use properties must generally consist of a minimum of five
acres;
· forest use properties must consist of a minimum of 20 acres;
Land Use Option #2 "White Paper" / Page 1
Draft: June 30, 2008
. open-space use properties must consist of a minimum of five acres, but a local ordinance
may prescribe a greater minimum acreage. Albemarle County has adopted Albemarle
County Code S 15-804(2), which requires a minimum of20 acres.
Virginia Code S 58.1-3233(3) imposes additional requirements applicable only to open-
space properties. To be eligible, those properties must be either:
1. within an agricultural and/or forestal district (discussed below), or
2. subject to a recorded perpetual easement held by a public body (such as an easement
under the Open-Space Land Act, Virginia Code S I 0.1-1700 et seq.), or
3. subject to a recorded commitment with the local governing body not to change the use to
a nonqualifying use for period of four to ten years. Such an agreement must conform
substantially to the form of agreement found in 4 Virginia Administrative Code 5-20-30
(Attachment B, and available online at http://legl.state.va.us/cgi-
bin/legp504.exe?000+reg+4V AC5-20-30).
Land-Use Value Taxation - Option 2
If the Board chooses to adopt Option 2, property owners could continue to qualify for use value
taxation through any of these three means.
Under the current use value program, the imposition of roll-back taxes provides incentive
for owners to maintain their current use and remain in the program. Specifically, Virginia Code
S 58.1-3237 imposes roll-back taxes equal to the full value of the current and previous five years
of real property taxes plus simple interest if (1) the use changes to a non-qualifying use or (2) the
zoning is changed to a more intensive use at the request of the owner or agent. Only these two
events can trigger the imposition of roll-back taxes. Those properties that may no longer be
eligible for the use value program under Option 2 will not incur roll-back taxes unless the use or
zoning changes.
Agricultural/F orestal Districts
Title 15.2, Chapters 43 and 44 of the Code of Virginia enable localities to create
Agricultural/Forestal Districts. Albemarle County has exercised this authority in Chapter 3 of
the Albemarle County Code. These districts require a core of at least 25 acres (for a district of
local significance) or 200 acres (for a district of statewide significance). The County currently
has 23 districts of statewide significance and one district of local significance. Property owners
formally apply to the Board to either create a new district or join an existing district.
Applications are reviewed by a special AFD committee and the Planning Commission before
being acted upon by the Board of Supervisors. In reviewing applicant properties, the County
may follow the Virginia Land Evaluation and Site Assessment (LESA) System, or may adopt a
local system, and/or may consider "[a]ny other matter which may be relevant." See Virginia
Code S 15.2-4306. In other words, the County has wide discretion in adopting criteria for its
own AFDs. Once a district is established, properties in the district are restricted from more
intensive use for a period of four to ten years by ordinance. Districts are formally reviewed
periodically by the Board at a time outlined in the ordinance. Owners may remove their
properties from a district only under very limited circumstances. Specifically, land may be
Land Use Option #2 "White Paper" / Page 2
Draft: June 30,2008
ithdrawn from an AFD at the time of the renewal of the district, upon the death of a property
o er, or upon a finding of "good and reasonable cause" after a public hearing. Albemarle
nty Code ~ 3-205(C) outlines four specific criteria to be considered by the AFD Advisory
C mmittee, the Planning Commission, and finally the Board of Supervisors in their respective
r views. All four criteria must be met in order for the land to be withdrawn.
The effect of inclusion in a District is to qualify otherwise eligible properties for use
v lue taxation. See Virginia Code ~ 15.2-4312(A) and ~ 15.2-4406(3). It is important to note
t at an AFD property must otherwise meet the use value requirements (including acreage) to
r ceive a use value assessment.
If Option 2 were implemented, land in AFDs used in agricultural production would
r main in land use under agricultural land use values. Likewise, land in AFDs used in forestal
p oduction would remain in land use under forestry land use values, and land qualifying as open
s ace would remain in land use under open space values, which are identical to agricultural,
h rticultural, or forest use values, as the case dictates.
SLEAC Values
When a property is determined eligible for use value taxation, it is assessed at a lower
v ue determined by the State Land Evaluation and Advisory Council (SLEAC) guidelines. In
bemarle County, these values vary significantly between uses and from year to year. (See
achment C) Most notably, the type of forestal land most common in Albemarle County is
v lued between $200-$455 per acre, while the most common agricultural land in the County is
v lued between $90-$120 per acre. Open space properties receive the same SLEAC values as
I d in agricultural, horticultural, or forest use, as the case dictates, regardless of whether any
p oduction occurs on the open space properties. A County of Albemarle Use Value Taxation
S mmary shows the acreages and values of property in land use in 2007 (Attachment C).
In localities without a use value program, properties under an open-space or conservation
e sement do not necessarily receive the lower SLEAC valuations. Instead, such properties
w uld be valued at fair market value, taking into account the easement restrictions on the
p operty. While such an assessment would presumably result in a lower value than without an
e sement, fair market value (even with an easement) may be significantly higher than the
S EAC values. This difference in values again highlights the significance of a use value
p ogram, even for properties with protective easements. See Virginia Code ~ 10.1-1011 at
h ://leal.state.va.us/cai-bin/lea 504.exe?000+cod+ 10.1-1011.
However, as long as Albemarle continues to have a use value program (as it would under
o tion 2), properties under an open space easement would continue to be "assessed" under the
10 er SLEAC values for which the land qualified, whether that be agricultural, forestry, or open
s ace value. Likewise, as long as the County has AFDs, land within AFDs would remain
el gible for the use value assessment, provided it continued to be used in agricultural or forestal
p duction, and otherwise met the criteria for use value taxation. In short, under Option 2, land
in any of the three alternatives listed in Virginia Code ~ 58.1-3233(3) (AFD, perpetual easement,
re orded commitment) would remain eligible for the lower SLEAC valuations.
Land Use Option #2 "White Paper" / Page 3
Draft: June 30, 2008
Available Alternatives for Qualification
If the County implements Option #2, and retains land-use taxation only for open-space
use, many current agricultural, horticultural, and forestal owners not in AFDs may seek to form
or enter AFDs and qualify that way. Owners choosing not to enter an AFD could instead enter a
recorded perpetual easement held by a public body. Owners not opting for either an AFD or a
perpetual easement could instead request to enter a recorded commitment not to change the use
for period of four to ten years.
Both AFDs and recorded commitments (a) have 4-10 year durations and (b) restrict early
withdrawal. However, as between the two, recorded commitments are more restrictive in their
specific requirements. While AFDs generally prohibit development to more intensive use, the
required form of recorded commitments contains several pages of specific use restrictions. For
example, under Albemarle County Code ~ 3-202, AFD property owners are specifically allowed
to subdivide their properties into 21-acre lots or family subdivisions, and to otherwise "develop"
their property if the use is allowed by-right under rural areas (RA) zoning. By contrast, the
required form of recorded commitments prohibits any subdivision (paragraph 2.K) or the
construction of any new structure not related to open-space use (paragraph 2.C). (See
Attachment B for the required form of recorded commitments.) In these respects, recorded
commitments are more restrictive than AFDs and more restrictive even than the County's open-
space (ACE) easements.
Because owners may remain in land use through either AFDs, perpetual easements, or
recorded commitments, the number of properties that would be removed from land use is
difficult to predict. However, properties in designated development areas would no longer
qualify for land use taxation under Option 2.
Implementation
At least two steps must be taken to implement Option 2:
1. The County Code would have to be amended to eliminate the agricultural,
horticultural, and forestal categories, leaving only open space as a qualifying
category outside of agricultural and/or forestal districts.
2. A timeline should be established for properties to qualify under the open space
options, either in an AFD, or under a perpetual easement, or recorded
commitment, to avoid properties being removed from land use taxation before
having an opportunity to qualify under Option 2.
ATTACHMENTS
A-a - Land Use Taxation Reference Chart
A-b - Virginia Administrative Code 5-20-30 (Agreement Form)
A-c - SLEAC Values Summary
Land Use Option #2 "White Paper" I Page 4
g,::!l -
s-8:;a
(t) 0.. 0
(") ::E i!6
I:>"~ en
e;Y'~
~,-,("C
..... <0 =
~'-'~
"o.::Ei!6
_. ("'D 'J).
~=..~
~ ~ (ti
o' ~~
?~c
~ en '1:l
::: 0.. ~
~g.*
_. ::: 0
::: (t) .....
~. 0.. .....
Jg -. ~
::: .....
g,ooo~
() U'l ::to
o 00 0
~ :..- :::
I ~
w......
~ 0'1 '1:l
::: 0'1 ~
~. .0'1 -8
'-<:_0
~$i!6
-< ::!. ~cn
(t) '1:l _.
0" ~ :::
'1:l ::I.!::.
S ~ ~
(t) ::: 9:
::: 0":::
....~()Q
S; ~-g
O';;lg:
:. ~ r)'
i'r 0.. S;
-g g. '1:l
g: ~ ~.
n' ~a
_. :r ('l)
aooo()Q
(t) 0
(ti~e:;;
en. (")
.... ...... 0
w~
~i!6
O'IY'
. -
- _.
~.c
'-' (")
1:>"0
en' ~
8" ~
::L <:
(") a
~ o'
en :::
~ g,
::: ......
(S. ~
'1:l 0..
.8 S;
o 0
en ....
(t) I:>"
en (t)
. .....
S; ~
<8"
_. .....
ce:,.
~ .....
en (t)
en en
~.. g
S' (j
()Q (t)
s';:
.... _.
0- :=:::
(t) '-'
en
I:>"
~
'1:l
S'
()Q
:.:;
>~.
= ....
-;:
=- ....
= ~
.,
qg
~
......
Vl
. '-0'>
~Vl
+:>'00
w.
0-
Ow
~ tv
..... W
"" ......
~ ~.
'Sl
Vl'-O'>
00'-0'>
-
I Vl
woo
N_
W,
W Vol
,--. tv
Nw
Xo
..... ~
'-"
VI '-0'>
00'-0'>
-
, Vl
Vol 00
tv_
W,
ww
,--. tv
tvw
Xo
..... ~
'-"
VI
00 '-0'>
;""'-0'>
, Vl
~?O
w-
w'
,--.w
NN
'-" W
~o
..... ~
'-"
VI
00
, '-0'>
id'-O'>
W VI
woo
,--. .
N -
'-" I
,--. W
=::: N
~~
R<>~
,--.
w
'-"
:::c
~
"Q
= 0
:;. f""9o.
~ =-
= ~
~
=
-
rI.l
"C
a
0..
$::
(')
-
o'
=:l
~ ~ :3
=:l aq $::
0.. ::I. en
0(')-
"';Scr'
,=,,>-(1)
o $:: $::
...; PS en
(1) -(1)
~ 0..
~
--- So
~ 'Eo"Sl So:3
(1) ~ 0 (1) $::
2"'=:l0..cr'~
_Cii$::ocr'
- ~ ~ =:l (1)
o =:l ..... ~
:3o..gt:il~
~ e; 0,=,,>!:2- <0
=:l :=. ...; '" _
:3 en 8-
~ ~
oon 0
o
>-+,
=:l g" S' ~ g" :3
~ a. g. (D ~ ~
('0 (t) 5- 0 ~ t""t-
Q y: S' >-+, ~ g"
~ < (Jq 2' (t' 0..
5.~~ :::.'~ ~
::!l~~~00
o ~ "C >-+, 0.. (D
PS g: Vl ~_ g 0..
I--I(tlV f"""t-l"""t-
"C ~~ =:l :: o' 0
...; $:: '" .... -
o -""'''''::r
0.. ~en 5. 0' (1)
~ ~ yo ...;
en 0..
~8g.gj-@~:3
g~e:ga~~
~ 0.. :::.. -""* cr'
e-' S' ~ '< 0 (1)
(D(1)=:l~:;:0..
~ o..o..=:l So (1)
O'="> ~ 0.. ..... d
en en =:l _
...; - 0 en (1)
Vlo $::0..
- (') -
::rO
"C
~
=:l
~. ~ S' r6 "Sl :3
- w < (1) $::
::ro:S(1)en~
_ -"'l =:l ~
::r~~"C<
(1) =:l ;::' $:: (1)
0' 0.. .... -a 0..
(')(')0~00'
e:...::s oJ r6 ~...;
~ 1;;. ~ en 0
=:l _ g ~ 0
~ (1) '-0'> =... 0 ...;
$::::tVl-
en 00 =:l >-+,
(1) (1) So
-;- 0.. (1)
"C
.,
~
rI.l
~
.,
s:
~
Q.
C"
"<
n
o""n
=:l ". 0
en (Jq :3
$:: ::1':3
:3 8 .....
(1) -en
...; ....... en
'" $:: .....
v. ...; 0
(1) (1) =:l
:;! ~ (1)
..... =:l ...;
(') 0.. 0
Vl >-+,
>-
~.
(') n
So
2" :3
W d ~.
:;! ~ en
=:l en
o' 0.. o'
Vl n =:l
o ~
=:l 0
if! >-+,
:3
(1)
...;
cr'
(1)
$::
en
(1)
0..
~
.en
n
000
:;0 =:l (1) ::j'
(1) r6"C (1)
(') :;! ~ (')
gag Q
::to o' ~ 0
O=:l:=;">-+'
=:l ~ 0 So
=:l >-+, (1)
0..
~~
~ ...
= =
Q. ...
~ =
., =
~=
>e;
~ =
., ...
~ =
(Jel =
~ =
r
o
(')
~
~ ::I.
a.~
5' -'"
~
=:l
(')
(1)
d \/J
..c (1)
$:: (1)
~.~
:3 'Eo
g o'
.......~
en cr'
an;-
\/J
-
~
-
(1)
'Tj
o
...;
(1)
en
-
(1)
...;
tv~
o~
~ en
(') .
...;
(1)
en
en,--.
S"cr'
-'<
(1) ""
~".
:;: 0::
(1)
e:...:3
O'~
:;: ~
en
O'~
...; g
~ c.
;g
- ..
-
(D'
~
en
t:il
<
(1)
~
(')
d
en
'-"
(Jq
(1)
=:l
(1)
...;
e:...
~
t:il
<
(1)
~
(')
...;
(1)
en
(Jq
(1)
=:l
(1)
...;
e:...
~
::tl
<
(1)
~
(')
...;
(1)
en
tv
o
~
(')
...;
(1)
en
8 '208
:3C(1)
:3 en =1
..... $:: en
gS:"B
(1) g (')
::s _ (1)
-o~
0' ~ .(1)
...;
+:>....; 0
1(1)...;
......(')
00
a.
(1)
0..
o
"0
-
o'
=:l
>-e:...
'Tj.
Os
(D'
en
en
.....
=:l
o
"C
-
o'
=:l
>-e:...
'Tj~
Os
(D
en
en
S'
g,,;:;,:,,;:;,:o
ooC'-"~
g en :;: ::to
~ $:: :::.. g
(1)~::r~
=:l (1)'::;'-
- (') -'
--~$::
::r_=:l=:l
ao>-(D'
"C ~ 'Tj 1:5
~ ~ .0
o -a 0
....... (1) ...;
Vl 2"
e:...
o
"C
-
...
=
=
.~
o
"C
.......
o'
=:l
e:...
t""
=
~
e:..
~
6.>
~ o-~
-< (;j' ., r;'
(1)q~E.
en ... = _
~ ., =
- ~ .,
rI.l ~
&t-
-
$::
=:l
(D'
en
en
S'
>-
'Tj
o
io-3
"<
"C
~
o
....
e
rI.l
~
>
(JC
.,
...
~
=
-
-
=
.,
~
-
~
~
=
Q..
~
t"'-l
~
~
~
~
~
.....
-.
c
=
~
~
~
""i
~
=
~
~
n
=-
~
""i
.....
==
=
.,
-
r;'
E.
-
=
.,
~
-
~
=
.,
~
rI.l
-
~
-
o
"Cl
~
=
\/J
"C
~
~
~
.LIS > Administrative Code> 4V AC5-20-30
Page 10f6
Attachment A - b
4V A 5-20-30. Standards for written commitments by landowners to preserve open-
spac land use.
T e written commitment entered into by landowners for the local governing body to
pres rve open-space land use, pursuant to subdivision 3 of 958.1-3233 of the Code of Virginia,
shall onform substantially to the following form of agreement:
o EN-SPACE USE AGREEMENT
T is Agreement, made this..... day of..... 19... between......................., hereafter called the
r, and the [County, City or Town] of......................, a political subdivision of the
Com onwealth of Virginia, hereinafter called the [County, City or Town], recites and provides
1. The Owner is the owner of certain real estate, described below, hereinafter called the
Property; and
2. The [County, City or Town] is the local governing body having real estate tax
jurisdiction over the Property; and
3. The [County, City, or Town] has determined:
A. That it is in the public interest that the Property should be provided or preserved
for [Insert one or more of the following uses: park or recreational purposes;
conservation of land; conservation of (Insert description of other natural resource);
an historic area; a scenic area; assisting in the shaping of the character, direction
and timing of community development; or other use which serves the public interest
by the preservation of open-space land as provided in the land use plan.]; and
B. That the Property meets the applicable criteria for real estate devoted to open-
space use as prescribed in Article 4 (958.1-3229 et seq.) of Chapter 32 of Title 58.1 of
the Code of Virginia, and the standards for classifying such real estate prescribed by
the Director of the Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation; and
http://egl.state.va.uslcgi-binllegp504.exe?000+reg+4V AC5-20-30
6/10/2008
.LIS > Administrative Code> 4V AC5-20-30
Page 2 of6
C. That the provisions of this agreement meet the requirements and standards
prescribed under ~5~. k32:U of the Code of Virginia for recorded commitments by
landowners not to change an open-space use to a nonqualifying use; and
4. The Owner is willing to make a written recorded commitment to preserve and protect
the open-space uses of the Property during the term of this agreement in order for the
Property to be taxed on the basis of a use assessment and the Owner has submitted an
application for such taxation to the assessing officer of the [County, City or Town]
pursuant to ~58.1-3234 of the Code of Virginia and [citation of local ordinance]; and
5. The [County, City or Town] is willing to extend the tax for the Property on the basis of
a use assessment commencing with the next succeeding tax year and continuing for the
term of this agreement, in consideration of the Owner's commitment to preserve and
protect the open-space uses of the property, and on the condition that the Owner's
application is satisfactory and that all other requirements of Article 4, Chapter 32, Title
58.1 of the Code of Virginia and [citation of local ordinance] are complied with.
NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the recitals and the mutual benefits, covenants and
terms herein contained the parties hereby covenant and agree as follows:
1. This agreement shall apply to all of the following described real estate: [Insert
property description]
2. The Owner agrees that during the term of this agreement:
A. There shall be no change in the use or uses of the Property that exist as of the
date of this agreement to any use that would not qualify as an open-space use.
B. There shall be no display of billboards, signs or other advertisements on the
property, except to (i) state solely the name of the Owner and the address of the
Property; (ii) advertise the sale or lease of the Property; (iii) advertise the sale of
goods or services produced pursuant to the permitted use of the Property; or (iv)
provide warnings. No sign shall exceed four feet by four feet.
C. There shall be no construction, placement or maintenance of any structure on the
http://legI.state. va. us/cgi-binllegp504.exe?000+reg+4 V AC5-20-30
6/1 0/2008
.LIS Administrative Code> 4V AC5-20-30
Page 3 of6
Property unless such structure is either:
(1) on the Property as of the date of th is ag reement; or
(2) related to and compatible with the open-space uses of the Property which this
agreement is intended to protect or provide for.
D. There shall be no accumulations of trash, garbage, ashes, waste, junk,
abandoned property or other unsightly or offensive material on the Property.
E. There shall be no filling, excavating, mining, drilling, removal of topsoil, sand,
gravel, rock, minerals or other materials which alters the topography of the Property,
except as required in the construction of permissible buildings, structures and
features under this agreement.
F. There shall be no construction or placement of fences, screens, hedges, walls or
other similar barriers which materially obstruct the public's view of scenic areas of
the Property.
G. There shall be no removal or destruction of trees, shrubs, plants and other
vegetation, except that the Owner may:
(1) engage in agricultural, horticultural or silvicultural activities, provided that there
shall be no cutting of trees, other than selective cutting and salvage of dead or dying
trees, within 100 feet of a scenic river, a scenic highway, a Virginia Byway or public
property listed in the approved State Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan
(Virginia Outdoors Plan); and
(2) remove vegetation which constitutes a safety, a health or an ecological hazard.*
H. There shall be no alteration or manipulation of natural water courses, shores,
marshes, swamps, wetlands or other water bodies, nor any activities or uses which
adversely affect water quality, level or flow. *
I. On areas of the Property that are being provided or preserved for conservation of
land, f100dways or other natural resources, or that are to be left in a relatively natural
or underdeveloped state, there shall be no operation of dune buggies, all-terrain
http://lgl.state.va.us/cgi-binllegp504.exe?OOO+reg+4V AC5-20-30
6/10/2008
,LIS> Administrative Code> 4V AC5-20-30
Page 4 of6
vehicles, motorcycles, motorbikes, snowmobiles or other motor vehicles, except to
the extent necessary to inspect, protect or preserve the area.
J. There shall be no industrial or commercial activities conducted on the Property,
except for the continuation of agricultural, horticultural or silvicultural activities; or
activities that are conducted in a residence or an associated outbuilding such as a
garage, smokehouse, small shop or similar structure which is permitted on the
property .
K. There shall be no separation or split-off of lots, pieces or parcels from the
Property. The Property may be sold or transferred during the term of this agreement
only as the same entire parcel that is the subject of this agreement; provided,
however, that the Owner may grant to a public body or bodies open-space,
conservation or historic preservation easements which apply to all or part of the
Property .
3. This agreement shall be effective upon acceptance by the [County, City or Town];
provided, however, that the real estate tax for the Property shall not be extended on the
basis of its use value until the next succeeding tax year following timely application by
the Owner for use assessment and taxation in accordance with [citation of applicable
local ordinance]. Thereafter, this agreement shall remain in effect for a term of [Insert a
period of not less than 4 nor more than 10] consecutive tax years.
4. Nothing contained herein shall be construed as giving to the public a right to enter
upon or to use the Property or any portion thereof, except as the Owner may otherwise
allow, consistent with the provisions of this agreement.
5. The [County, City or Town] shall have the right at all reasonable times to enter the
Property to determine whether the Owner is complying with the provisions of this
agreement.
6. Nothing in this agreement shall be construed to create in the public or any member
thereof a right to maintain a suit for any damages against the Owner for any violation of
http://legl.state. va. us/cgi-binllegp504.exe?000+reg+4V AC5-20-30
6/1 0/2008
,LIS> Administrative Code> 4V AC5-20-30
Page 5 of6
this agreement.
7. Nothing in this agreement shall be construed to permit the Owner to conduct any
activity or to build or maintain any improvement which is otherwise prohibited by law.
8. If any provision of this agreement is determined to be invalid by a court of competent
jurisdiction, the remainder of the agreement shall not be affected thereby,
9. The provisions of this agreement shall run with the land and be binding upon the
parties, their successors, assigns, personal representatives, and heirs.
10. Words of one gender used herein shall include the other gender, and words in the
singular shall include words in the plural, whenever the sense requires.
11. This agreement may be terminated in the manner provided in 915.1-1513 of the
Code of Virginia for withdrawal of land from an agricultural, a forestal or an agricultural
and forestal district.
12. Upon termination of this agreement, the Property shall thereafter be assessed and
taxed at its fair market value, regardless of its actual use, unless the [County, City or
Town} determines otherwise in accordance with applicable law.
13. Upon execution of this agreement, it shall be recorded with the record of land titles
in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of....................., Virginia, at the Owner's
expense.
14. NOTICE: WHEN THE OPEN-SPACE USE OR USES BY WHICH THE PROPERTY
QUALIFIED FOR ASSESSMENT AND TAXATION ON THE BASIS OF USE CHANGES
TO A NONQUALIFYING USE OR USES, OR WHEN THE ZONING FOR THE
PROPERTY CHANGES TO A MORE INTENSIVE USE AT THE REQUEST OF THE
OWNER, THE PROPERTY, OR SUCH PORTION OF THE PROPERTY WHICH NO
LONGER QUALIFIES, SHALL BE SUBJECT TO ROLL-BACK TAXES IN
ACCORDANCE WITH 958.J-3~37 OF THE CODE OF VIRGINIA. THE OWNER SHALL
BE SUBJECT TO ALL OF THE OBLIGATIONS AND LIABILITIES OF SAID CODE
SECTION.
http://eg1.state.va.us/cgi-binllegp504.exe?OOO+reg+4V AC5-20-30
6/10/2008
LIS> Administrative Code> 4V AC5-20-30
Page 60f6
....................... (SEAL)
Owner
[Name of City, County, Town]
by..... ... ... . . .... .. . ....
(Acknowledgments)
*Paragraphs H and I must be included in agreements for properties which are to be
provided or preserved for natural areas left in undeveloped states, including
f1oodways. These paragraphs are unnecessary for agreements for other types of
land uses, such as for a park or a farm use.
Statutory Authority
~~5a.l~3230 and 1Q.1-1Q4 of the Code of Virginia.
Historical Notes
Derived from VR215-01-01 ~3, eff. January 5,1989.
prey I next I new search I tabl~ ofc:ontel'lts I h()m~
http://legl.state. va. us/cgi -binllegp504.exe?000+reg+4V AC5-20-30
6/10/2008
County of Albemarle Use Value Taxation Summary
2007 2007 2008 2007-2008
Land Use County SLEAC SLEAC Chanoe
Cateaorv: Acreaoe Value Value in Value
Aariculture:
1 181 $220 $130 -40.91 %
2 31,712 $200 $120 -40.00%
3 24,959 $150 $90 -40.00%
4 17,193 $120 $70 -41.67%
5 170 $90 $50 -44.44%
6 11,095 $70 $40 -42.86%
7 6,533 $40 $30 -25.00%
8 11 110 110 0.00%
Use Value 9L854 $13242610
Horticulture I:
1 0 $190 $130 -31.58%
2 496 $160 $120 -25.00%
3 488 $110 $80 -27.27%
4 356 $80 $70 -12.50%
5 0 $60 $50 -16.67%
6 286 $50 $40 -20.00%
7 239 $30 $20 -33.33%
8 0 $10 $10 0.00%
Use Value 1,865 $182990
Horticulture II:
1 0 $200 $130 -35.00%
2 198 $170 $120 -29.41 %
3 79 $120 $80 -33.33%
4 141 $90 $70 -22.22%
5 0 $70 $50 -28.57%
6 93 $60 $40 -33.33%
7 98 $30 $30 0.00%
8 2 110 110 0.00%
Use Value 611 $64 370
Forestrv:
1 65,610 $445 $455 2.25%
2 27,570 $305 $315 3.28%
3 95,717 $195 $200 2.56%
4 68 $75 $75 0.00%
Use Value 188 965 $56275215
Open Space:
1 0 $220 $130 -40.91 %
2 74 $200 $120 -40.00%
3 61 $150 $90 -40.00%
4 45 $120 $70 -41.67%
5 0 $90 $50 -44.44%
6 34 $70 $40 -42.86%
7 38 $40 $30 -25.00%
8 0 $10 i10 0.00%
Use Value 252 $33 250
Total 283,547 $69,798,435
Tax Rate $0.68 $0.71
Tax Revenues $474,629
Attachment A-c....
Attachment B
De
ment
Memorandum
To:
Fro
Dat
Sub ect:
Tom Foley, Assistant County Executive
Mark Graham, Director of Community Development
23 June 2008
Option 2 Land Use Program
In c nsidering Option 2, staff has tried to evaluate the program with respect to incidental or
unin ended consequences. In many cases, it is not possible to accurately quantify the impacts, but I
beli ve consideration is still important. I have divided this into short term and long term impacts, then
prov ded a short summary.
Sho Term Issues:
Sta 's identified impacts tend to fall into one of two categories: Administrative and Property Values.
1. dministrative - Implementation of the program creates a need for staff to provide property owner
ssistance, process applications, and assist in the establishment of new A/F districts. In
stimating this effort, I have tried to make my estimates fairly conservative and the actual effort
ay be somewhat smaller.
a. Property Owner Assistance - This will be a new program for many property owners and
they will undoubtedly have many questions about what is the best for their situation. It will
likely prove confusing to many and frustrating for some. While staff can address most of
the concerns, it is likely that the frustration will spill over into complaints. For staff, this will
translate into significant amounts of "hand holding" while property owners struggle to
understand the implications of the program. Based on experience with recent ordinance
amendments and the serious financial implications with this program, I estimate one-half of
the property owners will require assistance in understanding the program and how a
decision will impact their property. Assuming the average assistance requires two hours
of staff time and 1,500 property owners require this assistance, this is equivalent to 3,000
hours. Rounding up from this estimate, this would be roughly equivalent to two FTEs
working for a year.
b. Application processing, subdivisions - I anticipate that many property owners will make the
decision to subdivide a few lots prior to "locking up" their property for a number of years.
This would cause a surge that requires staff to review many more subdivision plats than
normally seen. As part of this, it should be recognized that review timeframes are
mandated. During consideration of the recent Rural Areas ordinance amendments, we
saw the number of submissions almost double the normal in the period before the public
hearing. If one-fourth of the 4,000+ parcels of land seeking land use agreements sought to
subdivide lots prior to enrollment, this would equate to roughly 1,000 subdivision plats.
Using data from the recently completed Community Development fee study, an average of
ten hours per plat should be estimated. With 1,000 plats at ten hours per plat, this would
be equivalent to 10,000 hours of staff time. That is roughly equivalent to six FTEs working
for a year. To reduce this impact, I note that properties in an A/F district are allowed family
subdivisions. Assuming this provision remains in place, the number of subdivisions would
be dramatically reduced and I estimate the workload may be as small as two additional
FTEs working for a year.
c. Application processing, NF or Agreements - I anticipate there will be NF applications or
agreements for roughly 4,000 properties. Even with a simplified process that uses a "fill in
the blank" form, each application will need to be checked for compliance, consideration in
a staff report, public hearings to allow addition of the property into NF districts, and the
information accurately recorded for tax records. Estimating this will require at least four
hours per application, which is equivalent to 16,000 hours. That is roughly equivalent to
nine FTEs working for a year.
d. Finally, I believe it will be necessary to create several new NF districts to accommodate all
of the properties seeking land use. If it is assumed that creation of each new district
requires 200 hours of staff time and if four new districts are created, this is equivalent to
800 hours or Y:z FTE working for a year.
In summary, the estimate of the administrative resources required to implement this new
program would be in the range of 14-18 FTEs for a year. Stepping back and looking at this
effort comprehensively, I believe that the actual impact would probably be in the range of 7-8
FTEs working for a year. Presumably, much of this work could be contracted rather than
done by County staff, but there is still a cost. I'd estimate the contracting expense as
somewhere between $500,000 and $750,000 for 6-7 people working for a year. If the program
were implemented over a multi-year period, the peak could be reduced, but I anticipate a large
number of property owners will always wait until the final few months to act. Similar to the
April 15th income tax deadline, I expect we would see a rush of applications right before the
deadline and a need for staffing to meet this rush.
2. Property Values - I assume that all of the existing Rural Areas properties under land use will be
able to continue in land use, but recognize some properties may elect not to enter into the new
program or may decide to subdivide some lots as insurance before locking the remaining part of
the property into an agreement. Additionally, it is assumed the Development Areas properties
with land use will not be allowed to continue in the program.
a. Rural Areas - In considering the possible impact on property values, I looked to the 1980
zoning of the Rural Areas for guidance. In that situation, the County saw the number of
lots on the market dramatically increase and lot prices for similar parcels decrease after
the change. While additional lots represent additional assessed value, supply and demand
could result in Rural Areas tax revenues decreasing rather than increasing in the short
term. A hypothetical example can illustrate this possibility. If there are currently 10,000
homesites assessed at an average of $100,000 per homesite, this is an assessed value of
$1 Billion. If an additional 1 ,000 homesites are placed on the market without an increase
in demand, the market might decrease the average selling price of homesites to $75,000.
The end result is 11,000 homesites with an average value of $75,000, which equates to a
total assessed value of $825 Million. To the County, this would represent a decrease in
assessed values of $175 Million. At the current tax rate of $0.71/$100 assessed value,
this would equate to a $1.24 Million decrease in tax revenues. It should be noted this
example also demonstrates this program could result in an increased rate of new home
construction in the Rural Areas in the short term. Staff recognizes this is a hypothetical
situation and market conditions are not a constant. If this program was being proposed
three years ago during the height of the housing boom, speculators might have purchased
all of the new homesites with little, if any, impact on tax revenues. Given the weakness of
the housing market at this time, "dumping" a large number of new lots on the market might
have an even more severe consequence to tax revenue. Finally, staff notes there can be
other consequences that are too complex to speculate on understanding. For example, if
a homebuilder is seeking construction financing for six lots he owns, a 25% decrease in
property values may make it impossible for him to obtain the financing with the property as
collateral. If that in turn means he most "dump" those lots back on the market, we could
see an even larger drop in lot prices. With the recent housing slump, I note that
construction financing has become increasingly complicated and lending institutions are
showing significant concern with any change to the collateral for existing loans.
b. Development Areas - Staff found there are approximately 4,100 acres of land owned by 47
property owners. While staff has assumed none of this land will be eligible for land use
taxation under the proposed program, approximately two-thirds of this area is either land
that is in floodplain and critical slopes (e.g. area next to Dunlora), land that has been
recently rezoned but not yet reflected as such in the tax records (e.g. Biscuit Run), or land
that is tied up in other uses for the foreseeable future (e.g. Birdwood Golf Course). The
remaining property would see an immediate change to property taxes based on assessed
values. I believe a considerable number of these property owners would be either
unwilling or unable to pay the higher property taxes, forcing them to sell the property. If
this had occurred three years ago during the height of the housing boom, that property
would probably have been acquired with little, if any, affect to property values. In the
current market, I fear this situation becomes similar to the hypothetical example used for
the Rural Areas. Given the huge inventory of homesites with approved rezonings and the
limited interest in new projects at this time, staff believes it is possible this could result in a
significant decrease in the value on homesites for the short term. As discussed above, it is
possible this change in property values could affect construction financing or home
mortgages for some property owners.
Lon Term Issues: In considering the long term impacts of this program, I used a 20-50 year
time rame. This would allow for multiple cycles where a property could come in or out of an A/F
distri t or agreement to allow subdivision of property to occur. Additionally, I assumed most property
woul be in A/F districts and allowed to create family subdivisions even when in the A/F program.
Finally, it should be recognized there are currently over 7,500 existing properties in the Rural Areas
with ess than $20,000 in improvements. At the average rate of Rural Areas development seen in the
last ve years, this suggests a 25 year inventory of new homesites without another subdivision being
com leted. Putting these factors together, it appears Option 2 will not restrict the supply of new
hom sites in the Rural Areas over the long term. It also appears that Option 2 would not cap the
amo nt of Rural Areas development over an even longer timeframe.
1. Rural Areas - With the above stated background, I believe this program would not significantly
affect the number of residential lots created in the Rural Areas over the long term.
a. Family Subdivisions. Family subdivisions are one of the most common way new lots
are created in the Rural Areas. Family subdivisions can be used to avoid the need for
road improvements and used as a means to subdivide property that could otherwise
not be subdivided. As the A/F program currently allows family subdivisions even while
the property is in the program, staff believes this program would not have any effect on
those subdivisions.
b. Other Subdivisions. For the remaining properties, the agreements would provide a
limited time period where new lots are created. New lots would be created when the
commitment to the A/F District expires and then the remainder of the property could
reenter the program after lots are subdivided from the property. For each A/F District,
this would presumably lead to a spike in the number of available lots every ten years
with a decrease in the inventory over the ten year period of the A/F district as the new
lots are purchased. Staff is unable to speculate on whether this pattern will encourage
or discourage Rural Areas residential development. The case for more subdivided lots
would suggest that property owners always want to have an ability to quickly recover
some part of the value of their property during the agreement period. This case would
be more appropriate for property owners with higher financial uncertainty and lower risk
tolerance over the ten year time period of the A/F district. The property owner would
maintain lots as insurance against financial uncertainty. The tax burden of those lots
then creates an incentive to sell the lots rather than to indefinitely hold the lots. The
case for fewer subdivided lots would suggest that property owners will tend to keep
their property in the program until there is a need for cash, allowing them to minimize
the taxes on the property and maximize property appreciation. This case would be
more appropriate for property owners who have adequate financial reserves outside of
their property's value. I am not able to speculate on whether the former or latter would
be more representative of County property owners.
c. Administrative - I anticipate this program will create a need for more staff resources
over the long term. As noted above, staff cannot speculate on whether this program
will create more or fewer subdivisions, but it is anticipated that there will be a workload
increase associated with the A/F districts. That workload will also tend to come in
"surges" as property rolls out of A/F districts and property owners to place the property
remnant back into the program as quickly as possible. The administration will also
include tracking properties coming out of the districts and properties reentering the
program after subdividing lots. For those properties that subdivide lots, there will need
to be a new validation of the property remnant prior to reentering the program. With
no history, I am unable to provide a reliable estimate but anticipate this could require
an additional FTE for administration of the A/F program.
d. Property Values - I believe this program would not significantly alter the number of lots
created in the Rural Areas. Thus, over the long term, it would appear this program will
not significantly affect property values or tax revenues from property in the Rural
Areas.
2. Development Areas - Once the initial inventory of property is absorbed, I do not believe this
program will significantly affect property values or administrative workload for the Development
Areas. While it may be possible there would be some ripple effect from the number of Rural
Areas lots, I could find no basis to expect this to be significant.
Summary
I believe this program could result in decreased property values for both the Development Areas and
Rural Areas in the short term. As noted above, market conditions will greatly affect this and I am not
able to speculate on the strength of the real estate market over the next several years. I also noted
significant administrative costs associated with implementation of the Option 2 program and estimated
this could be in the range of 7-8 FTEs for a year or up to $750,000 in contracted services. In the long
term, I believe the number of lots developed in either the Development Areas or Rural Areas will not
be significantly altered by this program and, as such, property values should not be significantly
affected. I noted there will be a continuing administrative cost associated with this program and
estimated this could require an FTE dedicated to administering the A/F program.
I
Attachment C
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA ITLE:
Reviewof and Use Taxation Program
AGENDA DATE:
May 14, 2008 (previously scheduled for April 9, 2008,
but not considered at that time)
ACTION: X
INFORMATION:
SUBJECT PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Decision rE garding appointment of study committee
and/or re-\ialidation of the Land Use Taxation
Program
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: INFOR",ATION:
STAFF CC NTACT(S):
Messrs. Tl cker, Foley, Davis, Graham, and
Wiggans
ATTACHMENTS: Yes
LEGAL RI VIEW: Yes
REVIEWED BY:
BACKGRCDUND:
The Board of Supervisors recently requested that staff bring the County's Land Use Taxation Program to it for discussion
earlier thar currently scheduled in the Community Development Work Plan. Review of this program was included among
the numen us strategies identified in the most recent amendment to the Comprehensive Plan regarding the Rural Areas.
Staff is in t e process of preparing information for the Board's consideration regarding whether to implement are-validation
program in order to eliminate potential abuse. This item was scheduled for Board review at a future meeting. Re-validation
has been discussed a number of times over the past several years, with no clear conclusion from the Board on whether or
not to proc~ed.
Both the b oader policy issue of potential changes to the Land Use Taxation Program and the narrower issue of assuring
the quality of the current program through re-validation was previously discussed by the Board in 2001. The attached
executive ~ ummary and minutes from that meeting (Attachments A and B) provide a good overview of various alternatives
that may be considered in bringing about potential changes to the program, as well as covering the re-validation process.
At the cone lusion of the Board's discussion in 2001, a majority of the Board decided not to consider changes to the Land
Use Taxatipn Program, but agreed to further review re-validation. However, when this item was brought back to the Board
for considE ration, the Board decided not to pursue re-validation. In 2005, the Board again asked for a review of re-
validation c nd once again decided not to pursue it. Finally, in 2007, the Board requested staff to bring forward information
to reconsid er re-validation and subsequently asked for a review of the entire program for various reasons, including the fact
that the pr gram was identified as a potential strategy in the Rural Areas section of the Comprehensive Plan.
STRATEG C PLAN:
Objective: 'By June 30,2010 increase the protection of the County's rural areas by implementing the key strategies in the
Rural Area~ Plan."
DISCUSSlbN:
Given the r umerous discussions the Board has had since 2001 regarding the Land Use Taxation Program, clarification of
the Board'i> objectives for reconsidering the program is needed to determine how to effectively move forward. If the
Board's ob ective is to ensure that only truly qualified land is included in the program in order to eliminate potential abuse,
re-validatic n is an appropriate option to pursue. However, if the Board's objective is focused on reconsidering eligibility for
land to be I laced under land use taxation, the length of time land is restricted from development, or another broader policy
issue, ther are a number of options that could be pursued. The advantages and disadvantages of re-validation and these
other optiohs regarding the eligibility length of time land is restricted from development, etc. are addressed in the 2001
executive c ummary (Attachment A). Based on the Board's discussion and clarification of its objectives for addressing this
program, staff will be able to better assist the Board in moving forward on the issues of policy changes and/or a re-
validation I rogram.
AGENDA TITLE: Review of Land Use Taxation Program
April 9, 2008
Page 2
Staff is prepared to proceed with an evaluation of the entire program or re-validation, depending on the Board's direction.
As previously indicated, reconsideration of the land use program is among many strategies for protection of the Rural
Areas. In order to evaluate this program, this strategy calls for the establishment a committee, whose charge and
membership would need to be determined by the Board. While the Finance Department is prepared to move forward with
re-validation, the much more extensive evaluation involved with reconsideration of the Land Use Taxation Program overall
will have a more significant impact on staff and will require balancing this initiative with other previously approved work
priorities.
I n considering whether to reevaluate the program through the creation of a committee, the Board should prioritize this effort
alongside the work of an already stretched staff. A work session on prioritizing rural area strategies was previously
requested by the Board and is scheduled after the conclusion of the budget process. If the Board wishes to proceed with
the formation of a committee today, it will effectively prioritize this review over other rural area strategies due to the staff
time and effort needed to examine the program through a committee process. Furthermore, in considering whether to
create a committee, the Board should consider whether proceeding is appropriate given the advantages and disadvantages
outlined in Attachment A. In particular, the Board will need to carefully consider the potential consequences to rural area
development with any potential change and also its potential of having the opposite consequence regarding rural area
development, as is outlined in the attached analysis.
BUDGET IMPACT:
The budget impact of this item depends on the direction provided by the Board on how to proceed. However, unless
consultant services are required, staff anticipates a minimal budget impact with either direction the Board may pursue.
RECOMMENDATION:
Given the current staffing levels in Community Development and the fact that re-validation is a step that would address the
issue of potential abuse of the land use program, staff recommends that the formation of a committee be reconsidered
after re-validation is implemented and its impact can be evaluated. If the Board approves this recommendation, a review of
re-validation will be brought before the Board in June.
Should the Board decide to move forward with the formation of a committee to evaluate the Land Use Taxation Program,
staff will need clarification regarding the Board's objectives so that a clear charge can be developed for the committee's
work. If this is the direction the Board chooses, staff will also bring the Community Development Work Plan back to the
Board for re-prioritization and to determine the committee's membership.
ATTACHMENTS
C- A - September 5, 2001 Executive Summary
C- B - September 5, 2001 Board Minutes
I
Attachment C - a..
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA ITLE:
Land Use axation Program
AGENDA DATE:
September 5, 2001
ITEM NUMBER:
SUBJECT PROPOSAUREQUEST:
Update on ~Ibemarle County's Land Use Value Taxation
Program/Options for Changing Land Use Policy and
Implement tion
ACTION: X
INFORMATION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION:
INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS: Yes
STAFF CONTACTlS):
Mr. Tucker Ms. White & Mr. Breeden
REVIEWED BY:
BACKGR OUND:
The attached report on the Land Use Value Taxation Program is brought to the Board in response to several
questions on program implementation, as well as a request for more information on the Sliding Scale Roll-Back
legislatior. This report includes a brief summary of the enabling legislation, the general policies and procedures
and upda ed figures on the size and deferred value of the program. A separate section discusses some of the
same alte rnatives to the current land-use taxation program that were presented to the Board in a 1994 report, as
well as a ~iscussion of an annual revalidation process and the Sliding Scale Rollback legislation.
DISCUS~ ION:
Under the current land-use value taxation policy, the County has approximately 310,319 acres under land use,
approxim ~tely 65% of the County's total acreage. The annual tax deferral to the County is approximately $7.2
million do lars, a deferral that has been exacerbated over the past 10 years by rapidly declining SLEAC values in
horticultu e and agriculture.
Following the program overview, the second part of the report is divided into three sections to address several
policy or itnplementation options:
The first section updates the three options for changing land use eligibility that were discussed in the 1994 Board
report. Thpse three options were:
· EI minate all categories of use value taxation (only eligible land within agricultural forestal districts would
qLalify for land use).
· U~ e value taxation for open space classification only.
. EI minate use value on forest land only.
The seco d section offers two options for tightening land use value taxation eligibility requirements:
· Re quire periodic revalidation of land use properties.
· E) panded review of parcels in the land use program by County staff.
The third ~ection provides an analysis of the new Sliding Scale Roll-Back provision:
· AI ows a longer roll-back period in exchange for a higher tax deferment.
RECOMN ENDATION:
This report is brought to the Board for information purposes only and does not require any action at this time.
Should th e Board be interested in pursuing any of these options, staffwould be prepared to come back to the Board
with a mo e in-depth analysis of the cost, impact, timeframe, etc. of that specific option.
I 01.162
Land Use Value Taxation
Statutory Provisions for Land Use
Under the provisions of Title 58.1-3230 of the Code of Virginia, a county, city, or town may
adopt an ordinance that provides for use-value assessment under four categories: real
estate devoted to agricultural use, horticultural use, forest use and open space use. Land
used in agricultural and forestal production in an agricultural district, a forestal district, or an
agricultural/forestal district is eligible for use value assessment in the absence of a local
ordinance. The State Land Use Advisory Council (SLEAC) was created in 1973 to estimate
the use value of eligible land for each locality participating in a use-value taxation program.
Once a local land use ordinance is adopted for a land use classification, any parcel that
meets the state criteria for that category must be granted use value taxation. The County
does not have the authority to impose additional eligibility requirements based on zoning
restrictions or on the owner's future intentions for the use of the land.
The enabling legislation further states that before use-value assessment is granted, the local
assessing officer must determine that the land meets the uniform standards for agricultural
and horticultural use as defined by the Commissioner of Agriculture and Consumer Services,
for forest use as defined by the State Forester, or for open-space use by the Department of
Conservation and Recreation.
The County adopted all four categories of land use in 1975. Each category of land use must
meet prescribed standards and minimum acreage requirements:
. Aqriculture Use: Land used for agricultural use must consist of a minimum of five acres
and must meet prescribed standards for a bona fide production for sale of crops and/or
livestock or be in an approved soil conservation program.
. Horticulture Use: Land used for horticulture use must consist of a minimum of five acres
and must meet prescribed standards for bona fide production for sale of fruits,
vegetables, ornamental plants and/or ornamental products.
. Forest Use: Land used for forestal use must be a minimum of twenty acres and must
include standing timber and trees devoted to tree growth in such quantity and so
spaced and maintained as to constitute a forest area.
. Open Space: Land in open space must be at least five acres or such greater minimum
acreage, set by local ordinance, and be used to provide or preserve the land for park or
recreational purposes, conservation of land or other natural resources, floodways,
historic or scenic purposes or to assist in the shaping of the character, direction, or timing
of community development, or for the public interest and consistent with the local land
use plan. In 1990, the Board set the minimum acreage for open space at 20 acres.
Application Process
A property owner must submit an application for taxation on the basis of use assessment at
least sixty days prior to the tax year for which the reduced taxation is sought. Anyone
receiving use value taxation must submit a reapplication whenever a change in acreage or
Land Use Report
2
07/02/08
c ntinued losses resulting in net zero returns. A large number of orchards are going out of
b siness in Virginia as market preferences change. The varieties of apples grown in Virginia
ar no longer in demand and most apples in Virginia are being processed or used for juice.
o chards that are staying in business are deriving their income from real estate transactions
or retail "niche" stores. Exhibit B. below summarizes SLEAC value trends in the preceding
d cade.
Exhibit B. Average SLEAC Values in
Albemarle County
700
~
.!!! 600
"0 500
c 400
c
_ 300
5 200
~ 100
<( 0
~Ojrv ~~ rr}Ojro ~ fJ'b ~I;;;)I;;;) ~I;;;)rv
OJ OJ Q) OJ Q) I;;;)
Year
______ Avg. Agriculture
Avg. Horticulture
~Avg. Forestry
A stated above, properties ineligible for use value taxation bear a greater share of the
pr perty tax as a result of the land use program. It is implicit in the concept of land use
ta ation that the tax burden is shifted to other taxpayers, as well as implicit in the program
in ent that the redistribution of the tax burden is in the public interest both to the direct
b neficiaries of land use and to the other taxpayers who derive indirect benefits from land
pr servation. Whether one can demonstrate that land will ultimately be preserved or
pr tected for the long run benefit of the community is a separate question.
Th s part of the report is divided into three sections: the first section presents three options for
c anging categories of land eligible for land use. The second section offers options for
ti htening eligibility requirements - one through an annual revalidation and the other
th ough a dedicated staff person to monitor land use. The third section provides an analysis
of new legislation that allows a longer roll-back period in exchange for a higher deferment.
L nd Use Eligibility
o tion 1: Eliminate all categories of use value taxation
Result: Only eligible land that meets the SLEAC criteria within agricultural/forestal
districts would qualify for land use.
vantages:
· Eliminating all categories of land use would have a large impact on County revenues.
With only 66,100 acres currently enrolled in agricultural/forestal districts with $1.3 million in
deferred taxes, the immediate benefit to the County could be approximately $5.9 million
annually. Roll-back taxes would continue to be collected on parcels that were
previously in land use, but not in the agricultural/forestal districts, for up to five years, if
the use changed to a non-qualifying use. Realized revenues may be substantially lower,
La Use Report 5 07/02/08
since some rural properties would likely join an agricultural/forestal district. (Since this
would have such an immediate and negative impact on the farming community, it is
assumed that the effective date of such a policy change would be deferred to allow
rural parcels to either join an existing agricultural/forestal district or create a new one.)
· Since agricultural/forestal districts are permitted only in the rural areas, land use in the
growth areas would be eliminated. Currently there are 4,371 acres in growth areas with
deferred tax revenues of $334,160 (see Exhibit C.). Of land use acreage in growth areas,
2117 acres are in the urban ring, 797 acres are near airport road, 1269 acres are in Crozet
and 188 acres are east of town, near Boyd's tavern.
Exhibit C.
. Zonino Acreaoe
Ra 1,500
R1 1,923
R2 273
R4 361
R6 190
R15 97
prd 27
These properties are still in the program because they were rezoned by governmental
action where the property owner had no decision in the rezoning. The vast majority were
zoned during the original zoning process, which went into effect in the late 1960s.
Although this option would eliminate land use in the growth areas, targeted properties
over 25 acres with environmental, recreational, scenic or historical benefit to the County
could receive land use by being designated a mini-agricultural/forestal district within the
growth area.
. Requires a 4 to 10 year commitment from bona fide agricultural/forestal parcels and
ultimately gives local government more control over the location and extent of land use
taxation.
Disadvantages:
. Eliminating all categories of land use may have a destabilizing and devastating effect
on the bona fide agricultural community, because uncertainty will be created around
long-term investment return. The impact on the small farmer may be devastating,
since tax increases may rise to levels exceeding a farmer's annual income.
. Potential loss of important natural resources.
. Property owners no longer qualifying for land use may pose the threat of opening up
their land to immediate development. Although some support this view, others argue
that development is linked to demand and that the rate of growth would not change
significantly.
. Administrative problem to rapidly organize and implement new agricultural/forestal
districts.
Land Use Report
6
07/02/08
I
Option 2: Use Value Taxation for Open Space Classification Only
Result: This option would eliminate use value taxation for agricultural, forestal
and horticultural classifications and allow only the open space designation. Based on
a 1989 amendment to the use-value taxation law, a locality may authorize use-value
for open space only. This option could achieve a similar effect as Option 1, which
would eliminate use value except for eligible parcels within the agricultural/forestal
districts. It may also encourage property owners to grant an easement to a public
body in return for the benefit of use value taxation and the assurance that the
property will be preserved as open space.
If his option is chosen, the property must meet one of the following three requirements:
1. be within an agricultural, a forestal, or an agricultural/forestal district;
2. be subject to a recorded perpetual easement that is held by a public body,
and promotes the open space use classification;
3. be subject to a recorded commitment entered into by the landowners with
the local governing body not to change the use to a non-qualifying use fora
time period stated in the commitment of not less than four years nor more
than ten years. The withdrawal procedures for this commitment are similar to
those of the ag/forestal districts.
Advantages:
. May be best alternative from a planning perspecthie, because it increases local
government's capability of directing land use taxation toward the goals of the
comprehensive plan.
· Involves governing body in decisions about land to be included in
agricultural/forestal districts or subject to a contractual agreement. Allows more
Board control over the range and extent of use value taxation through the contract
option.
· Requires a commitment from the property owner to preserve the land for a specific
period of time in exchange for the tax benefits of land use.
Disadvantages:
· Would require current recipients of land use to make a commitment not to develop
their land for a specified period of time. However, length of commitment could be
based on proximity to the paTh of development with a minimum agreement period
of 4 years.
· Administrative problems to either enroll current eligible properties into
agricultural/forestal districts o'r develop individual contracts for Board approval.
Option 3: Eliminate Use Value on Forest Land Only
Result: In Albemarle County, this would eliminate more than 64% of the land
currently enrolled in land use (199,436 acres).
La~'rt Use Report
7
07/02/08
Advantages:
· Would have initial large increase in revenues. Although it is not possible to break out
the deferred taxes on forest land only, assuming the value of forest land at half that
of agricultural land, the realized revenues could be as much as $3.3 million. However,
since much of the forestland might eventually be incorporated into an
agricultural/forestal district, recovered revenues could be significantly less.
· Parcels in agricultural/forestal districts could still qualify for land use taxation, if eligible
under the forest classification.
Disadvantages:
. Forestland provides non-market benefits to the community, i.e. temperature
moderation, reductions in non-point source pollution, critical slopes, natural beauty
and animal habitat.
. The comprehensive plan purposefully established the 21-acre rural lot size in order to
qualify for all types of use value taxation, including forestal.
Land Use Eligibility Standards
Option 4: Require periodic revalidation of land use properties
Once the property has qualified, the governing body may require any property owner to
revalidate annually on any land previously approved for taxation on the basis of land use.
The code also allows a locality to impose a revalidation fee every six years. The revalidation
fee cannot exceed the original application fee. Currently in Albemarle County there is no
revalidation requirement or revalidation fee.
The four types of documentation listed in the application section could be required in a
periodic revalidation process. Currently appraisal staff visits all properties on a biennial basis,
and the parcels are field checked at the time of the appraisal review for compliance to
state standards. Thus, receipt of these documents has never been strictly enforced, and the
need to revalidate land use parcels on an annual basis has never been required.
It has been the policy of the County Assessor's office to monitor all parcels in the land use
program to ensure they meet and maintain all State and local land use standards.
However, it is becoming more difficult for appraisal staff to provide the ongoing supervision
required by the program.
Advantages of requiring revalidation:
. May ensure that necessary qualifying information concerning land use parcels is
accurate on an annual basis.
. Revalidation fee would be a source of revenue. (The current fee would produce
approximately $72,000 every sixth year.)
. Process would notify all property owners (especially new owners) on an annual
basis that they are enrolled in a tax deferral program.
. Proof could be required from the land use participants of a
farming/forestry/horticulture operation (Le., Schedule F, income receipts, farm
numbers, etc.)
. Acts as an annual reminder of the standards of qualifying uses.
Land Use Report 8 07/02/08
Disadvantages of requiring revalidation:
. Revalidation fee can only be charged every sixth year.
· Additional cost to administer the program (i.e., increased staff, office space,
storage space). At a minimum this expense is estimated to be $55,000 per year,
compared to $72,000 in revenue every sixth year.
. Appraisal staff currently visits land use parcels on a biennial basis, which makes
revalidation seem redundant.
· Possible confusion resulting from filing land use application and revalidation form
in the same year, if property is subdivided after revalidation.
. Failure to meet deadline(s) would result in parcel being removed from the
program, resulting in taxpayer complaints.
o tion 5: Ongoing review of parcels in the land use program by a County staff
person devoted solely to assuring program compliance
Currently, County real estate assessors do their best to make sure properties enrolled in
the land use program continue to meet classification standards. County personnel
devoted solely to the land use program were phased out approximately twenty years
ago as the number of new land use program applications declined.
Advantages of specialized land use compliance inspections:
· Increased expertise of inspectors and increased effectiveness of inspections (e.g.
scheduling inspections of agricultural tracts during growing season) could be more
effective in identifying non-complying parcels.
. More cost effective than annual revalidation.
· Places a lesser burden on landowners than revalidation.
Disadvantages:
· Additional cost to administer the program (i.e., hiring an assessor dedicated to
land use compliance).
· Possible redundancy with assessor staff visits.
Additional costs that would be incurred by implementing Option 4 or 5 could be partially
offset by raising the County's land use program application and/or reapplication fee.
Albemarle County currently charges an initial application and reapplication fee of $15
per parcel plus 15 cents for each acre over one hundred acres. This fee has not been
changed since the County adopted the land use program in 1975. The table below
compares the application fee in Albemarle with those of surrounding jurisdictions.
Exhibit D.
Localit
A Iication Fee
er acre over 100 acres
er acre over 1 00 acres
er acre over 1 00 acres
Lan Use Report
9
07/02/08
Exhibit E. below indicates the amount of fees received by Albemarle County for land use
applications and reapplications for the past five years. Relatively few new parcels come
into the land use program because most eligible parcels are already enrolled in the
program.
Exhibit E.
Number of Application Fees Total
Year Applications Collected
New Reaoolv New Reaoolv # of ADOS. Fees
1996 27 252 $ 405 $ 279 $
3,783 4,188
1997 89 174 263
1,335 2,608 3,943
1998 30 251 281
585 3,772 4,357
1999 41 162 203
685 2,435 3,120
2000 32 254 286
480 3,809 4,289
Total 219 1,093 1 ,312 $19,89
$3,490 $16,407 7
Legislative Option
Option 6: Sliding Scale Roll-back Legislation
In recent years the majority of urban localities have experienced rapid growth and have
looked at additional methods of containing sprawl. In 2000 a bill was introduced in the
General Assembly and ultimately signed into law that allows localities, upon adoption of
a local ordinance, to provide for a Sliding Scale Roll-back. The Sliding Scale Roll-back
extends the roll-back from 5 years up to 20 years. In conjunction with this extension, the
deferment is also increased up to 99% of the current use value. To participate, a property
owner must enter into an agreement with the locality and by doing so, gives up their right
to change the use of the property for up to 20 years.
There are several options available for setting the contractual time frame. The deferment
can be increased at a rate of 5% each year up to the 20th year where it would be increased
4% and the deferment held at 99% thereafter. The scale could be set up to give a 50%
reduction for the first 10 years of a 20-year contract and increased to 99% for the last 10
years or the scale could be set up to give 99% reduction every year during the 20-year
contract. It could also be set at a fractional part of the 20-year period, for example 10 or 15
years, with a prorated reduction in the deferment.
To date, only Loudoun County has adopted the Sliding Scale Ordinance. They chose to set
their scale at 50% reduction for 10 years and 99% reduction for the next 10 years. A copy of
Loudoun County's ordinance is attached accompanied by some of their statistical
information regarding program participation (Attachment B). At this time only 9 % of the
eligible applicants have signed up for the program. This equates to about 11 % of the land
available for the program. On average, each applicant saves an additional $246 annually.
Land Use Report
10
07/02/08
Albemarle County would need to conduct its own analysis to determine the costs of
implementing the Sliding Scale Roll-back.
Advantages of the Sliding Scale Roll-back:
. Properties under this agreement might not be developed for up to 20 years.
. The additional tax deferment could be insignificant to the locality.
. The roll-back could be up to 20 years versus the current 5 years, thus a source of
additional revenue.
Disadvantages of the scale:
· Data will have to be maintained for up to 20 years, as opposed to the current five
years.
. The current sliding scale roll-back legislation does not require a participant to
continue in the land use program for the entire 20-year period. The sliding scale
agreement is revocable on the part of the landowner at anytime during the entire
agreement period. For example, if the owner chose to change the use of the
property to a non-qualifying use, the parcel would have to be removed from the
program and a roll-back bill issued.
La Use Report
II
07/02/08
I:
Attachment C - D
September 5, 2001 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 1)
Agenda Item No. 13. Land Use Taxation Program, Presentation.
Mr. Melvin Breeden, Director of Finance, said this report on the Land Use Value Taxation
Program is in response to several questions from the Board on program implementation, as well as a
request for more information about Sliding Scale Roll-Back legislation. Staff included in its report a brief
summary of the enabling legislation, general policies and procedures, and updated figures on the size and
deferred value of the program. A separate section discusses some of the same alternatives to the current
land use taxation program that were presented to the Board in a 1994 report, as well as a discussion of an
annual revalidation process and the Sliding Scale Roll-back legislation.
Mr. Breeden said the County currently has approximately 310,319 acres in the land use program,
or approximately 65 percent of the County's total acreage. The annual tax deferral is approximately $7.2
million, a deferral that has been exacerbated over the past ten years by rapidly declining SLEAC values in
horticulture and agriculture.
Currently, a property owner must submit an application for taxation on the basis of use
assessment at least sixty days prior to the tax year for which the reduced taxation is sought. Anyone
receiving use value taxation must submit a reapplication whenever a change in acreage or a change in
land use occurs. Albemarle County charges a fee of $15 per parcel plus 15 cents for each acre over one
hundred acres for initial applications and reapplication. This does not provide a lot of revenue. In order to
quality, a property owner must certify on the application that the property meets the standards of
classification prescribed by the State Commissioner of Agriculture, the State Director of Conservation and
Recreation, or the State Forester.
Mr. Breeden said the County can require certain items to help in determining eligibility for land
use: USDNASCS farm number; Federal tax forms (1 040F), (4835) or (1 040E); a conservation Farm
Management and/or Forest Management plan; or evidence that gross sales averaged more than $1000
annually over the previous three years. He said the County requests these documents only if a physical
review of the property is insufficient to determine eligibility. It should be kept in mind that most of the
property in the land use program originally qualified in the mid-1970s and there has been no revalidation
of that information since then. (Note: Mr. Dorrier returned to the meeting at 3:51 p.m.)
Mr. Breeden said the major part of the program is the roll-back when land changes to a non-
qualifying use. Between 1991 and 2000, there were 7787 acres on which there was a roll-back and the
County collected $1,250,627 in roll-back taxes. He said that for the year 2001, the deferral was $7.2
million. On a 76 cent tax rate ($676,000 per penny), that equates to 10.5 cents, so the tax rate could be
reduced by that much if there were not land use taxation.
Mr. Perkins asked if there is a committee which works on the application process. Mr. Breeden
said it only deals with some of the equalization and appeal processes. If it is determined that a parcel will
be disqualified, the property owner can appeal to that board. Mr. Davis said it is an advisory board, and
has no legal status. It was created to provide a citizen review of decisions in regard to land use valuation.
Mr. Breeden said the amount of the deferred tax over the years has increased from $4.0 million in
1991 to $7.2 million currently. Fair market values are steadily increasing, but SLEAC values have
continually gone down. The decreases have at times been as much as 50 to 60 percent.
Mr. Perkins said the change from $4.0 million to $7.2 million may look alarming, but in looking at
the County's current budget and the current assessment of property, it is really right in line. Mr. Breeden
said the amount of the deferral will continue to increase. SLEAC values are only used each two years
because of the biennial assessment cycle. If the County was using the 2002 SLEAC values, it would be
looking at a 13 percent decrease on agricultural and a 31 percent decrease on horticultural values, with a
small increase in forestry. He does not think the 2003 values will be much different.
Mr. Dorrier asked if these values are the same throughout Virginia and across the country. Mr.
Breeden said they are consistent. It is hard to compare Albemarle County with others on forestry land
because a lot of the SLEAC values are based on crop values. He said there are counties which have a lot
of commercial crops, but there is not much of that in Albemarle County.
Mr. Breeden said staff also listed some options the Board can consider for the land use program.
Staff does not recommend any of them, but did it only for the Board's information. Option One would be to
eliminate the Land Use Ordinance. Under State law, any land currently part of an agricultural/forestal
district would qualify for land use taxation, but that is all the acreage that would qualify. Of the 310,000
acres in the land use program, only 66,000 acres are currently in those districts. The County would save
about $5.2 million in deferred taxes, but, if the Board did this, there would probably be requests to put
more land in agricultural/forestal districts.
Ms. Thomas asked if there are any properties that could not be in an agricultural/forestal district
that are included in the 310,000 acres currently getting land use taxation. Mr. Breeden said he is not
totally familiar with district requirements, but he believes there are some which would not qualify, lands in
growth areas would not. Mr. Davis said that in the Rural Areas there are some basic size requirements
that have to be met, and there need to be contiguous parcels. It is possible there could be some isolated
parcels where land around it could not be in an agricultural/forestal district. Ms. Sherry Buttrick said the
land has to be within two miles of the core of the district.
Mr. Breeden said Option Two would be to allow use value taxation only for the Open Space
September 5, 2001 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 2)
Classification. He said it would probably give the Board the most control because it would be able to
approve or disapprove those applications. There would need to be a signed agreement by the property
owner not to develop or change the use of the property for a specified period of time. This option could
achieve a similar effect as Option 1, which would eliminate use value except for eligible parcels within the
agricultural/forestal districts. It might also encourage property owners to grant an easement to a public
body in return for the benefit of use value taxation and the assurance that the property will be preserved
as open space.
Option Three is to eliminate use value on Forest Land only. In Albemarle County, this would
eliminate more than 64 percent of the land currently enrolled in land use (199,436 acres). The realized
revenues from this change could be as much as $3.3 million in deferred taxes. However, the land in an
agricultural/forestal district would continue to qualify for that option no matter what the local ordinance
says.
Option Four is to require a periodic revalidation of land use properties. Albemarle County has
never done this. By State law, a fee could be charged for doing a revalidation every sixth year.
Ms. Thomas asked if there is a fee which can be charged other than a revalidation fee because
she had been told that Fauquier has an annual fee. Mr. Breeden said he does not know of any such fee.
The Code allows a revalidation every year, but a fee can be charged only each six years, and it can be no
more than the amount of the original fee. He said this would require more staff and place burdens on
taxpayers to comply. Staff thinks it would cost a minimum of $50,000 to do that every year, and only
$72,000 of that cost would be recovered each six years.
Option Five is an on-going review of parcels in the land use program by a County staff person
devoted solely to assuring program compliance. That person would be monitoring (make sure properties
enrolled in the land use program continue to meet classification standards) the parcels currently in the
program. The property owner would have no new requirements placed on him. If this were done, the
County might try to raise some of the original application fees to recover some of the costs. There have
not been changes in the fee since the program was adopted in the mid-1970s.
Option Six would be to ask for information on the Sliding Scale Roll-back Legislation. He said that
in 2000 a bill was introduced in the General Assembly and ultimately signed into law that allows localities,
upon adoption of a local ordinance, to provide for a Sliding Scale Roll-back. The Sliding Scale Roll-back
extends the roll-back from five years up to 20 years. In conjunction with this extension, the deferment is
also increased up to 99 percent of the current use value. To participate, a property owner must enter into
an agreement with the locality and by doing so, gives up the right to change the use of the property for up
to 20 years. So far there has not been a lot of interpretation of this new legislation. Loudoun County has
adopted something, but has not had much participation in the program. The program looks good, but
about the only person who would take advantage of the option is the person who is not going to develop
their land.
Mr. Dorrier asked the idea behind the legislation. Mr. Breeden said there are several options
available for setting the contractual time frame. The deferment can be increased at a rate of five percent
each year up to the twentieth year where it would be increased four percent and the deferment held at 99
percent thereafter. The scale could be set up to give a 50 percent reduction for the first 10 years of a
20-year contract and increased to 99 percent for the last 1 0 years, or the scale could be set up to give 99
percent reduction every year during the 20-year contract. It could also be set at a fraction of the 20-year
period, for example 10 or 15 years, with a prorated reduction in the deferment.
Mr. Dorrier asked why that legislation would not be good for Albemarle County. Mr. Breeden said
he thinks it is good for the taxpayer if he gets a reduced tax, but he does not think it will stop development
if that is the Board's concern. The person who will develop property, once in the program for six years, if
he stayed in the program for one additional year, would immediately wipe out any savings during the first
six years with the additional deferment. He would have to pay six years of roll-back, plus an extra year of
the full roll-back from fair market value down to the land use value.
Mr. Dorrier asked why Loudoun adopted an ordinance. Mr. Breeden said they have been trying
everything possible to slow down growth. They have said that the only parcels applying are those in the
part of the County where there is little growth going on at this time. He does not think it would work as a
growth tooL
Mr. Davis said the statute does not set out a time frame. It just says there can be a longer period
of time for a lower assessed value. Loudoun chose the eight to 20-year provision in their ordinance. That
ordinance sets out one rate for the first ten years, and another rate for the second ten years. They did not
do a true sliding scale, but a step scale. It is not a widely-used piece of enabling legislation. It has not
been found to be very usefuL
Mr. Perkins said if someone is going to sign up for the program, they will probably choose the
twenty-year period. If someone is thinking about development, he does not believe they would sign up for
the program at aiL Mr. Breeden said the time periods can be set for different commitment periods. If
someone adheres to the period they signed up for, then it goes to a five-year roll-back after they have met
their commitment.
Mr. Bruce Woodzell said if someone in the program decided to stop farming within that time
frame, the County has no choice but to apply the roll-back, and then the agreement is void.
September 5, 2001 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 3)
Mr. Breeden said they still have to meet the classification standards and guidelines. If someone
decided to sign up for agricultural use, and then decided to stop farming, the property is automatically
disqualified and out of the program. He does not know if this information helps the Board, but staff will be
glad to do further research on any of the options. He offered to answer questions.
Ms. Thomas said it bothers her that a lot of people are getting a tax break on 20 of their 21 acres
which they cannot develop anyway because they have no more development rights on the property.
There is not a land use planning tool in that sense, and they are not farming their land. To her, farming is
a minimum of putting fertilizer on the land, keeping up the fences, and getting some produce off of the
land, or letting someone else get produce off of the land. There are no incentives for the owner to do
anything other than bale the weeds they mow, rather than bush hog the weeds they mow down. Because
they are not putting any investment in their land, a farmer who rents pastures for his cows finds the
pastures getting worse year by year because the landowner probably is not putting fertilizer on the land.
Even a farmer who truly wants to farm in the old straight-forward way is having a hard time despite the fact
that there is a lot of land getting the use value tax break.
Mr. Breeden said staff looked at that situation, but it is hard coming to any conclusions on parcels
that are less than 21 acres. Of the parcels in the program, there are about 2000 parcels which contain
less than 21 acres. This is less than 10 percent of the total acreage in the program. Of those parcels,
about 500 contain less than five acres, and they qualify because they are contiguous to a larger tract.
There are 15,000 acres (1400 parcels) in the program which range from five to 20 acres each.
Mr. Perkins said in reference to the 21-acre parcels, one acre is taxed at market value, but in the
Rural Area there must be two acres for a lot. If a person has an undeveloped parcel and wants to create
five, two-acre lots, the Health Department requires two acres, so why does the County allow one acre
parcels. Mr. Breeden said the land use guidelines say that basically all land is eligible. Anything not used
for personal use in the house/yard area would be eligible for the program. He said of the 21-acre lots,
there are only 131 parcelS of this size in the program.
Mr. Perkins asked if a person bought a parcel of 21 acres for $200,000 and could only use two
acres of that parcel, what are the other 19 acres worth without a development right? Mr. Woodzell said
that normally staff considers two acres as the site, and puts the majority of the value on those two acres.
If the property sold for $200,000, the assessment on the site might be $125,000 with the rest being excess
land. The remaining 19 acres would carry the other $75,000. Mr. Breeden said those 21-acre sites are a
small part of the issue. If all of them were eliminated, it would not amount to many dollars.
Ms. Thomas asked if there is any way to use this as a tool to increase the agricultural activity
going on in the community. Since 65 percent of the program is in forestry, there is only 35 percent in
agriculture. She does not like people getting a generous tax break for claiming their land is in an
agriculture use, when it is not. Mr. Breeden said in the 1970s, land use was tried as a farmer's tax break,
and it never passed until it became more of an environmental issue. He said the actual number of
legitimate farmers in Albemarle County is very small.
Mr. Dorrier asked if Mr. Kluge got tax breaks on the 10,000 acres he gave to the University of
Virginia. Mr. Breeden said he did. Ms. Thomas said he was actually farming a lot of that land. Mr.
Breeden said he had one of the most legitimate farming operations in the County.
Mr. Davis said if there is a legitimate agricultural, horticultural or forestry activity on the 21-acre lot,
the State Code does not allow the minimum acreage to be changed. Five acres is the set minimum. The
only category the County can increase acreage on is open space. Albemarle set that at 20 acres, but
State Code minimum is five acres.
Ms. Thomas said she has heard farmers who make a business of farming, say that Fauquier
ocuses on getting an annual report to be sure a person is actually farming the land. Farmers don't have
ny problems doing that because they have other reports for their business, so it does not add a layer of
reporting. For the people who are getting a tax break but barely farming, she would like the Board to think
bout whether this would impress on them that there are responsibilities for calling their land a farm. Mr.
Breeden said he believes that most of the smaller parcels qualify because someone is already farming the
property. Most of the parcels in the low twenties qualify as forestry, not as agriculture. In the current
conomy and farming environment, he does not believe there is anything that can be done from a tax
tandpoint to encourage farming.
Ms. Thomas said she was not saying the County should encourage someone to go into farming,
ut that they do something more responsible with the land. She thinks a lot of land is growing up into
rees, while the remainder is being baled even though it is hardly edible as hay. Mr. Perkins said low use
griculture might be better environmentally than intensive agriculture. He wondered the intent of the
eneral Assembly when the law was enacted. He thinks they expected valuable products to come off of
he land, as well as other benefits; clean air, clean water, etc. He said the County might use Option 5 and
elect 25 parcels for an inspection. In the audit which Westvaco does of its forestry practices, they do not
ook at everything, but visit different job sites to see of their standards of sustainability have been met.
he County might try doing the same thing. If it was found that one of 25 did not meet the criteria for land
se, that probably means that one out of every 25 probably does not meet the criteria either. Mr. Breeden
aid the Board needs to keep in mind its philosophy of the program. If it is intended to encourage
griculture, it's a losing battle. If it's to encourage open space, whether a person is farming or not farming,
t is still not being developed. The question is, how strict does the Board want to be about farming. The
uidelines are set up for Abarely farming= in order to meet the criteria.
September 5, 2001 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 4)
Mr. Perkins said the Board has to forget that there are $7.2 million which could be collected. If
there was no land use program, what would happen with that land? Also, the Board needs to look at the
services the land requires, which are not many. In that regard, the land is more than paying its fair share.
He has a concern that there were a number of parcels created in subdivisions of 21 acres, and they are
getting land use taxation under forestry. But, individual regulations in these subdivisions do not allow them
to cut the trees. He thinks that from a forestry standpoint, if there are trees which are dying and falling
down because they don't want to cut them, that does not seem to be the intent of the General Assembly.
They expected people to practice forestry and in order to do that, trees have to be cut every now and then.
If that person is not following a forestry management plan, maybe they should not be accorded land use
taxation.
Mr. Breeden said he agrees to an extent. However, staff has seen some plans which are as
simple as a one-line statement approved by the Forestry Departmentthat said Atrees should be grown on
this property to avoid soil erosion. That would make it a legitimate, qualified use.
Mr. Perkins said Miller School planted 107 acres in trees this past year on some of the most
productive acres in the County. They will be planting another 100+ acres in trees this coming year
because they are tired of trying to find someone to farm their acreage. They can get more out of trees
than renting the land to a farmer. He hates to see doing away with forest land taxation because he thinks
the County gets the most environmental benefits from forest lands.
Ms. Thomas said she has no interest in removing the forestry category.
Mr. Woodzell said he agrees with Ms. Thomas. If a person has given up all of their development
rights, so what more can they do with the property than what it is designed to do. There is nothing in State
legislation that prohibits the County from not allowing them land use. If the program was written to prohibit
people from developing their property, if the development rights are gone, what are they deferring?
Mr. Perkins said that was not the only intent. Mr. Woodzell said he believes the major intent, the
second time the legislation was presented, was to make sure things remained in an open atmosphere,
and to protect water and air.
Ms. Thomas asked if it is possible to distinguish between those parcels that no longer have any
development rights. Could those parcels be checked to see if there are agricultural or forestal activities
taking place? Mr. Breeden said those parcels could be targeted as the ones to look at, but as long as they
meet the guidelines, there is nothing to be done. Ms. Thomas said the County could change its
enforcement of the ordinance in some way. Mr. Breeden said staff is willing to investigate anything it
becomes aware of. Occasionally, people do call in and ask questions.
Mr. Perkins asked about doing a selective audit; what would that cost? He suggested using the
members of the Land Use Evaluation Advisory Board to do this. Mr. Woodzell said they could certainly go
out with him to view the properties. Mr. Breeden said he thinks staff might conduct the review, and on the
ones which were questionable, then use the Land Use Board.
Ms. Thomas said that before doing that, a package of information should be sent to each person
in the program letting them know the review is about to take place, and explain the steps the property
owner might take to be sure they still qualify for the program. She said the County has not communicated
to the property owners that they have responsibilities if they want this tax break. Mr. Breeden said staff
can look at what it would take to do that. He said that farm management plans are one way to show that a
person is in a farming operation, but if the owner meets the other minimum requirements of the SLEAC
Committee, they would probably qualify without a farm management plan.
Mr. Martin suggested putting together a strategy to do some minor education, and do some
checking, and see what happens.
Mr. Woodzell said the appraisers are on the property every 18 months, and they do try to monitor
land use. However, if they are on the property in the winter, there is no way to tell what goes on in the
summer. If they feel there is a neglect of proper use, they do notify that person and give them an
opportunity to correct that situation.
Mr. Tucker asked if the Board wants another report on what staff decides to do. He said a report
can be put on the consent agenda in the near future.
Ms. Thomas asked if other Board members had problems with this program.
Ms. Humphris said she has always had a basic problem with the program. She has felt that it all
worked to the benefit of the landowner when they had no obligation because there is no contract. They
can go in and out of the program at will. She always felt there should be something. She realizes it is to
the benefit of everybody in the County that these properties be kept undeveloped, but a lot of them do not
have development rights anyway.
able 4.1
and Use Value Assessments for Agricultural, Horticultural, Forestal,
nd 0 en S ace Real Estate 2007
Types of Real Estate Example:
Effective Date Subject to Special Fee for
ocalit of Ordinance" Assessment Application Fee 100Acres
lties (Note: All cities responded to the survey. Those that answered "not applicable" for all items in this table are excluded.)
lexandria 1982 OS None N/A
uena Vista 1984 A, F, H $20 $20
hesapeake 6/24/1975 A. F, H, OS $10 $10
anville 7/1/1987 A, F $10, plus $0.10 per acre $20
ranklin 1988 A, F, H $25 $25
redericksburg 1976 A, F, H, OS $25 $25
ampton 1978 A, H $25 for first time applicant $25
arrisonburg 1983 A, F, H, OS $25 $25
ynchburg 1978 A, F, H, OS $40 $40
anassas 1976 F, H, OS None N/A
etersburg 1974 F, H None N/A
ortsmouth 1977 OS None N/A
aelford 1978 F, H None N/A
oanoke 1977 A $10,plus$0.10peracre $20
taunton 1977 A, F $300 for first time applicant $300
uffolk 1975 A, F, H, OS $50; revalidation and new application $50
irginia Beach 1973 A, F. H, OS None, $10 late filing fee N/A
aynesboro 1986 A, F $25 $25
inchester 1990 A H $30 or $0.30 er acre whichever is reater $30
unties (Note: All counties responded to the survey. Those that answered "not applicable" for all items in this table
a e excluded.)
A mack
bemarle
1984
1974
A,F,H
A, F, H, OS
1980 A, F, H, OS
1976 A,H,OS
1984 A, F, H, OS
A gusta 1977 A, F, H, OS
B th 2004 A. OS
B dford 1978 A. F, H
7/1/1978 A,F,H
1978 A, F, H, OS
1982 A, F, H, OS
3/23/1978 A, F, H, OS
2004 A,F,H
1975 A, F, H, OS
1975 A, F, H, OS
1974 A, F, H
2000 A, F, H, OS
1981 A. F, H, OS
1983 A, F
10/12/1972 A, F, H, OS
1989 A,H
1978 A, F, H, OS
1978 A, F, H, OS
1975 A, F, H, OS
1979 A, F, H
$25
$15 per parcel for first 100 acres, $0.15
per acre thereafter; $125 late filing fee
$10 for first 100 acres;
$0.10 for each additional acre
$10
$10 for first 100 acres;
$0.10 for each additional acre
$12 plus $0.12 an acre $24
$10 $10
$0.15 per acre, min. $15 per individual $15
owner the first year; revalidation every 6th year
$20 for first parcel of land with $20
$0.50 fee for each additional tract
$10, plus $0.10 per acre
$10 for first 100 acres;
$0.10 for each additional acre
$10
$25, plus $0.25 per acre in land Use
$10
$100
$25
$10
$10
$100 for first 25 acres,
$1 for each additional acre
$60, plus $0.60 per acre
$25 for first parcel of land and $5 for
remaining parcels, max. $50;
late fee of $5.00 per parcel after 11/1
$10, plus $0.10 per acre $20
$30 for the first parcel and $5 per additional $40
parcels; $50 max. plus $0.1 0 per acre
$100
$10
Not applicable.
S last page of Table 4.1 for key to abbreviations.
a U less otherwise specified, the local ordinance went into effect on January 1 of the year indicated.
52
Attachment 0
$25
$15
$10
$10
$10
$20
$10
$10
$25
$10
$100
$25
$10
$10
$175
$120
$25
$100
$10
Tax Rat9s 2007
Table 4,1 Land Use Value Assessments for Agricultural, Horticultural, Forestal,
and Open Space Real Estate, 2007 (continued)
Types of Real Estate Example:
Effective Date Subject to Special Fee for
Localitv of Ordinance" Assessment Aoolication Fee 100 Acres
Counties (continued)
Gloucester 1978 A,F,H $20 $20
Goochland 1979-A, H; 1990-F A,F.H $25 $25
Greene 5/27/1976 A, F, H, OS Greater of $15 or $0.15 per acre $15
Hanover 1974 A, F, H, OS $10 $10
Henrico 1977 A, F, H, OS $20 plus $0.10 per acre $30
Henry 1981 A,H $10 $10
Isle of Wight 1976 A, F, H None N/A
James City 1975 A, H $10 plus $0.10 per acre $20
King George 1978 A, F, H, OS $10 plus $0.10 per acre $20
King William 1981 A, F,OS $25 plus $0.10 per acre $35
Lancaster 1995 A $25 per parcel $25
Loudoun 1973 A, F, H, OS Greater of $60 or $0.60 per acre $60
Louisa 1977 A, F, H. OS $10 $10
Madison 1978 A, F, H. OS $50 $50
Middlesex 1978 A, F, H. OS $20 $20
Montgomery 1979 A, F,H $5 plus $0.25 per acre $30
Nelson 1977 A, F, H, OS $50 plus $0.25 per acre $75
New Kent 1989 A, F, H $500 $500
Northampton 2005 A, F, H $300 plus 0.25 per acre $325
Northumberland 1988 A, F, H, OS $20 $20
Nottoway 5/15/1979 A.H.OS $10 $10
Orange 1978 A,F,H Greater of $15 or $0.15 per acre $15
Page 1979 A. F, H, OS $20 plus $0.20 per acre $40
Pittsylvania 1982 A, F, H, OS $10 plus $0.10 per acre $20
Powhatan 1976 A, F, H. OS $10 $10
Prince Edward 7/1/1978 A,H $30 for the first parcel; $5 for each additional $40
parcel; $50 max. plus $0.10 per acre
Prince George 1976 A. F, H, OS $10 for first 100 acres, $0.02 each additional $10
acre
Prince William 1973 A, F, H, OS $10 $10
Pulaski 1980 A $15 plus $0.10 per acre $25
Rappahannock 1998 A. F, H $60 plus $0.25 per acre $92
Also $7 revalidation fee per year
Richmond 1997 A, F, H, OS $25 $25
Roanoke 1976 A. F, H, OS $30, plus $0.30 per acre $60
Rockbridge 7/1/1979 A, F, H. OS $10 $10
Rockingham 1978 A, F, H. OS $60 for initial application, $60
plus $60 each additional contiguous parcel
Russell 1981 A. F, H $10 $10
Shenandoah 1979 A, F, H. OS $0.20 per acre over 50 acres; min. fee of $10 $20
Smyth 1980 A, F, H. OS $10 plus $0.10 per acre $20
Southampton 2006 A, F, H, OS $20 $20
Spotsylvania 1978 A. F, H, OS $15 first 100 acres; $15
$0.10 for each additional acre
Stafford 1979 A, F, H $0.05 per acre; min. $10 $10
Tazewell 1979 A, F, H, OS $10 for each land parcel with $10
$0.50 fee for each additional parcel
Warren 1977 A, F. H, OS $10 $10
Washington 1981 A, F, H, OS $20 plus $0.10 per acre $30
Westmoreland 1983 A, F, H, OS $25 $25
Wise 5/8/2003 A,H $25 plus $0.25 per acre $50
Wythe 1977 A,H $25 plus $0.20 per acre $45
York 1980 A.H $50 first 100 acres; $50
$0.20 for each additional acre
N/A Not applicable.
See last page of Table 4.1 for key to abbreviations.
a Unless otherwise specified, the local ordinance went into effect on January 1 of the year indicated.
Land Use Value Assessments
53
I
r
Tab e 4.1 Land Use Value Assessments for Agricultural, Horticultural, Forestal,
and Open Space Real Estate. 2007 (continued) !
Types of Real Estate Example:
Effective Date Subject to Special Fee for
Loce; lity of Ordinance" Assessment Application Fee 100 Acres
Tow~s (Note: Towns that answered "not applicable" for all items in this table are excluded. For a listing of respondents and non-
respbndents, see Appendix B.)
Abingdon 1981 A,F $25 $25 ,
AltaI ista 1982 F, H $10 $10
Amherst 1984 A, F, H, OS $10 first 100 acres, $0.10 each additional acre $10
Ashl.nd 3/1/1982 A, F, H, OS $10 assessed by Hanover County $10
Blacl~rg 6/11/1991 A,F $150 $150
Bowl ng Green 2002 A, F, H, OS $10 assessed by Caroline County $10
Brids ewater 1986 A, F. H, OS None N/A
Chatnam ... A None N/A
Cher ton 2005 A, F, H, OS None N/A
Chiltlowie 7/1/1989 A $10, plus $0.10 per acre $20
Chrilltiansburg 1980 A, F, H Assessed by Montgomery County $30
Cola ial Beach 1963 F $25 $25
Dayt n 12/4/2000 A, F, H, OS Assessed by Rockingham County; Applications $60
for use-value assessment are made to I
Rocldngham County
Fron Royal 10/8/1979 A, F, H, OS $10 assessed by Warren County $10
Hays 1980 OS None N/A
Honcker 1981 F, H $10 $10
Jone ville 1996 A,OS None N/A
Lebalon 1981 A, F, H None N/A
Lees urg 1984 A, F, H None N/A
Love sville 1973 A, F, H, OS Assessed by Loudoun County $60 I
Lura) 11/28/1964 F, H $10, plus $0.10 per acre $20
Mont oss 1983 A None N/A ,
Pam!lin 1978 A,H None N/A
Peari~burg 1979 A, F, H, OS None N/A
Puladti 1980 F Assessed by Pulaski County $25
PurCE IIville 1973 A, F, H, OS Assessed by Loudoun County N/A
Remi gton 7/1/1997 A, F, H, OS Assessed by Fauquier County $125
Wind or 3/13/1990 A, F, H, OS None N/A :
Wyth ville 1990 A, F, H $10, plus $0.10 per acre $20 I
N/A ~ot applicable.
... Did not reply.
Key tt abbreviations:
: Agricultural land; F: Forestal land; H: Horticultural land: OS: Open space land
a Unle s otherwise specified, the local ordinance went into effect on January 1 of the year indicated.
54
Tax Rates 2007
.L
I
J
I
Attachment E
land Use Comparison, 2001 & 2008
2001 2008
Numb sr of Taxable Parcels in County 35,021 41,372
Parcel ~ in the Land Use Program 4,983 4,880
%ofT axable Parcels in Land Use Program 14.2% 11.7%
Acres n the Land Use Program 310,319 283,547
% ofC ounty Acreage in Land Use Program 65% 59.8%
Tax 01 eferral for Land Use Assessment $7.2 million $18.78 million
JULY 9, 2008
CLOSED MEETING MOTION
I MOVE THAT THE BOARD GO INTO A CLOSED MEEETING
PURSUANT TO SECTION 2.2-3711(A) OF THE CODE OF VIRGINIA
. UNDER SUBSECTION (1) TO CONSIDER
APPOINTMENTS TO BOARDS, COMMITTEES, AND
COMMISSIONS.