Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1993-03-10 FIN A L 7:00 P.M. March 10, 1993 AUDITORIUM, County Office Building 1) Call to Order. 2) Pledge of Allegiance. 3) Moment of Silence. 4) Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda from the PUBLIC. 5) Consent Agenda (on next sheet). 6) SP-92-67. Marie Mahanes. Public Hearing on a request for cat care clinic on 1. 0 ac zoned HC. Property on E side of Rt 29 approx 300 ft N of Woodbrook Dr. TM45, P93B. Charlottesville Dist. (This property is located in a designated growth area.) 7) Public Hearing on the Proposed FY 1993-94 Budget. 8) ZMA-92-13 & SP-93-02. George & William Clark. Public Hearing on a request to rezone approx 102.89 ac from RA to VR & for a' permit for a stream crossing in the flood plain of the South Branch of the Hard- ware River. Property in SE corner of inters of Red Hill School Rd & North Garden Lane (Rts 760/712). Site located in designated growth area (North Garden Village) is recommended for village use (1 du/ac). TM87,P57C&66-76; TM99,P109-116. Samuel Miller Dist. 9) ZTA-93-0l. Public Hearing on a request to amend Section 33.10.2 of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance to consider zoning text amendment petitions by property owners at specified intervals of three months. 10) Discussion: Draft Recommendations for 1993-94 Spring Preallocation Hear- ing for the Six-Year Improvement Program for the Interstate, Primary and Urban Systems. 11) Approval of Minutes: September 2 and November 11, 1992; and January 13, 1993. 12) Other Matters not Listed on the Agenda from the BOARD. 13) Adjourn to March 15, 1993, at 1:00 P.M. CONSENT AGENDA FOR INFORMATION: 5.1 Copy of minutes of the Board of Directors of the Rivanna Water & Sewer Authority for January 25, 1993. 5.2 Copy of Planning Commission minutes for February 9, 1993. 5.3 Letter dated March 3, 1993, from Amelia G. McCulley, Zoning Administra- tor, addressed to T. K. Woods, Jr., Arrowhead Corporation of Virginia, re: Official Determination of Number of Parcels - section 10.3.1, Tax Map 88, Parcel 20 and also currently shown as Parcels 20A, 20B, 20C and 20D (property of Arrowhead Corporation of Virginia). 5.4 Letter dated February 24, 1993, from The Honorable John W., Warner, U. S. Senate, re: resolution adopted by Board of Supervisors concerning proposed EP A regulations on financial assurance requirements as they affect local governments. . ;, \ ., Edward H. Bin, Jr. Samuel Mill r COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Office of Board of Supervisors 401 Mcintire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 (804) 296-5843 FAX (804) 972-4060 Forrest R. Marshall, Jr. Scottsville David P. Bow rman Charlottesvi Ie Charles S. Marlin Rivanna Charlotte Y. umphris Jack Jouett Walter F. Perkins White Hall MEMORANDUM TO: Robert W. Tucker, Jr., County Executive v. Wayne Cilimberg, Director/planning & community Development FROM: Ella W. Carey, Clerk, CMC ,,'" ( e.,), '\ '.~ l. . _.-- DATE: March 11, 1993 Board Actions of March 10, 1993 (Regular Night Meeting) Following is a list of actions taken by the Board at its eting on March 10, 1993 (night meeting): Agenda Item No.4. Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda f om the PUBLIC. There were none. Agenda Item No.6. SP-92-67. Marie Mahanes. Public aring on a request for cat care clinic on 1.0 ac zoned HC. operty on E side of Rt 29 approx 300 ft N of Woodbrook Dr 45,P93B. Charlottesville Dist. APPROVED SP-92-67 with the following two conditions recom- nded by the Planning commission: 1. There shall be no outside activities; and 2. Approval is for a cat care only. Agenda Item No.7. Public Hearing on the Proposed FY 1993- 9 Budget. The Board received comments, no action taken. Agenda Item No.8. ZMA-92-13 & SP-93-02. George & William C ark. Public Hearing on a request to rezone appro x 102.89 ac f om RA to VR & for a permit for a stream crossing in the flood pain of the South Branch of the Hardware River. Property in SE c rner of inters of Red Hill School Rd & North Garden Lane (Rts * Printed on recycled paper To: Robert W. Tucker, Jr. V. Wayne Cilimberg March 11, 1993 2 D~te: P~ge: 7~0/712). site located in designated growth area (North Garden V llage) is recommended for village use (1 dujac). TM87,P57C&66- 7 Ii; TM99, P109-116. Samuel Miller Dist,. DEFERRED ZMA-92-13 to March 17, 1993 to allow the applicant tb address some concerns regarding the lack of a development plan a~d water quantity. APPROVED SP-93-02 for one stream crossing to serve this p operty subject to the following conditions: 1. Department of Engineering approval of hydraulic analysis of the stream crossing to ensure compli- ance with section 30.3; 2. Department of Engineering approval of grading plans and calculations; 3. Water Resource Management Official approval of Water Resource Impact Assessment, and 4. Identification of the location of the stream cros- sing as shown on subdivision plat showing Lots 1- 19 of the George W. Clark property, Samuel Miller Magisterial District, dated November 28, 1980, as prepared by Wm. Morris Foster, Land Surveyor and Land Planner, and initialed VWC on March 10, 1993, with said stream crossing to be located at the boundary line of lot six and seven on that plat. Agenda Item No.9. ZTA-93-01. Public Hearing on a request tc~ amend Section 33.10.2 of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance tc~ consider zoning text amendment petitions by property owners at sl~ecif ied intervals of three months. ADOPTED the attached Ordinance. Amended Zoning Ordinance sleets will follow under separate cover. Agenda Item No. 10. Discussion: Draft Recommendations for 1( 93-94 Spring Preallocation hearing for the Six-Year Improvement Plogram for the Interstate, Primary and Urban Systems. Due to the lateness of the hour this item was moved forward tc March 17, 1993. I . To: Robert W. Tucker, Jr. v. Wayne Cilimberg March 22, 1993 3 D~te: P~ge: Agenda Item No. 12. Other Matters not Listed on the Agenda flr'om the Board. Mr. Martin requested that the Grass and Weed Ordinance be p~aced on the agenda for March 17, 1993. Mr. Cilimberg said he received a request from Mr. Huja, City P~anner, that the Board consider as part of its comments for the Plr'eallocation hearing inclusion of the City's enhancement pro- j~cts list which includes the train station (preservation of bpildings and infrastructure) and three bicycle routes that were d~scussed by the Planning and Coordination Council Technical Cpmmittee (PACC-Tech), the first route which involved Rugby Road and McCormick Road, the second route which involves Alderman Road to Jefferson Park Avenue to Sunset Avenue and a third route along O~d Ivy and Ivy Roads. EWC/jnh Ajttachments (1) cp: Robert B. Brandenburger Jo Higgins Richard E. Huff, II Amelia G. McCulley George R. st. John Bruce Woodzell File 1t- f o R DIN A N C E AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND AND REENACT SECTION 33.10.2 OF THE ALBEMARLE COUNTY ZONING ORDINANCE BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of County Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, that Section 33.10.2 of the Albemarle County 20ning Ordinance be amended and reenacted to read as follows: 33.10 SCHEDULE OF REVIEW * * * * * 33.10.2 The board of supervisors shall consider zoning text amendment petitions by property owners at specified intervals of three (3) months. Hearing times in accord with such intervals shall be established by resolution of the board of supervisors during the month of January of each calendar year following enactment of this ordinance, and said resolution shall be published at least once per week for two consecutive weeks in a newspaper of general circulation in Albemarle County. * * * * * I, Ella W. Carey, do hereby certify that wlr'iting is a true, correct copy of an ordinance Bpard of County Supervisors of Albemarle County, r~gular meeting held on Marc~ 10, 1993. ~ Cle~, ~d ~ c~n~ervisors the foregoing adopted by the Virginia, at a [' ~. ,:' " (~ .. I .. r. \ .:j i ~ < ( "i \'" \ .j v (iF' 11 ~ \!,f ~ (') ! '..r~) \..... f ~ , ." ,.. !..-< . {,-,:::-~ '~~.",' -,~,.:;~~::!_. ;~-1 ~-~ ,~_",,_! . 1 \ 'I; :.1---' '''" 1 \ I' '" '. L'" ,~ { ~.:.r~ ~1'1 /\ R 4- 1 ~ '1 ~) '\' 1\ \ \" , ! \ I. i l--r'r--::;- U L\ L...:_:1 ~__.:=-t COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Zoning 401 Mcintire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22901-4596 (804) 296-5875 . K. Woods, Ir. rrowhead Corporation of Virginia 104 South Pierce Street rlington, VA 22202 OFFICIAL DETERMINATION OF NUMBER OF PARCELS - Section 10.3.1 Tax Map 88, Parcel 20 and also currently shown as parcels 20A, 20B, 20C and 20D (property of Arrowhead Corporation of Virginia) e County Attorney and I have reviewed the title information you have submitted for the above-noted roperty. It is the County Attorney's advisory opinion and my official determination, that at the te of adoption of the Zoning Ordinance, this property consisted of three (3) separate parcels: (1) The parcel lying on the west side of Route 29 South; (2) The parcel lying between Route 29 and the Southern Railway (on the east side of the road and west side of the railroad); (3) The parcel lying on the east side of the Railway. is property was subdivided after December 10, 1980 into what are currently shown as parcels 20A, OB, 20C and 20D. These were subdivided by separate plats by Gary M. Whelan, Land Surveyor proved by the County on October 25th and 26th, 1990. These parcels consist of the following: arcel A of 21.070 acres; Parcel B of 21 acres; Parcel C of 7.176 acres; and Parcel D of 21. 740 acres. f these, only the parcel under 21 acres, parcel C was conveyed with a development right. This results i only four (4) development rights remaining with the parcel 20 lying between Route 29 and the ailway. ch of these lawfully separate parcels is entitled to associated development rights. This determination suIts in two (2) additional parcels than are shown with a parcel number on the 1980 County tax maps. arch 3, 1993 owhead Corporation of V A age 2 is subdivision after the date of adoption of the ordinance does not present the same difficulties as the ushton appeal of the Charles Phillips estate parcel determination. This is distinct from that for two easons: (1) There is no plat which notes that there will be no further division; and (2) All of the ubdivided lots are owned by relatives to the owner of the main parcel, and have consented to the location of development rights. This will be indicated by their signature on a revised plat. is determination considered the fmdings of the Albemarle Circuit Court in the case of Ann H. ford v. Board f Zonin A s of Al m I n Vir inia, and City of Winston Salem v. i kl . 281 2d 667, of the North Carolina Court of Appeals (1981). These cases determined that wnership by another, such as for the Route 29 and the railroad right-of-way, serves to sever the ommon ownership of the property, thereby subdividing it into separate parcels. In this case, both road d railroad right-of-ways are involved, and create three parcels. e owner of this property in 1980 was Anne E. Woods. She acquired title by Deed Book 304, Page 29. This property was described as tract 1, containing 479 acres, more or less. In 1914, the Southern 'lway Company had acquired fee-simple right-of-way by Deed Book 157, Page 188. In Deed Book 78, Page 397 dated 1962, the Commonwealth of Virginia acquired fee-simple right-of-way for Route 9. e following three parcels result: 1) The parcel lying on the west side of Route 29, consisting of approximately 82.5 acres. It is entitled to five (5) potential development rights. ) The parcel lying between Route 29 and the Railway, consisting of approximately 22.8 acres. It is entitled to four (4) potential development rights. ( ) The parcel lying on the east side of the Southern Railway, consisting of approximately 405 acres. It is entitled to five (5) potential development rights. nyone aggrieved by this decision may me a written appeal within thirty (30) days of the date of this I tter. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at your convenience. cc: Ian Sprinkle, Planning Department Gay Carver, Real Estate Department Ella Carey, Clerk of Board of Supervisors Reading File NOTE: o (2) additional parcels; ne (1) by 1980 Tax Map, three (3) by determination ..' ... !'.'.-'" ~Cni!ea -S>!a:!ez -S>ena:!e WASHINGTON,D,C, 20510 February 24, 1993 Ms. Ella W. Carey Albemarle County Board of Supervisors 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 W~{ry) .111' .. '11,1 tW: 1 5'" .;' II,!!. t '. .~ , i ., , i . l " I 6-; iHOAROOF - "~-- SUPER\;,~ , I " --.:.0... Dear Ms. Carey: Thank you for your recent letter and resolution concerning the Environmental Protection Agency's regulations for Subtitle D landfills which require local governments to obtain financial assurance. As you know, in October, 1991, the EPA issued regulations on design criteria, financial assurance and other features required for municipal waste landfills by October, 1993. I have taken the liberty of discussing these requirements with the Agency. I have been advised that the financial assurance requirements do not take effect until April, 1994. You may also be interested in knowing that within the next few months the Agency will be releasing a proposed rule which will provide options for local governments to meet these financial assurance requirements. This new rule will propose a financial test to allow local governments to use their own faith and credit to cover the costs of closure and post closure care and corrective action plans. Another aspect of the rule illay allow localities to set aside funds into a separate account to meet these obligations. Further, a locality may self-insure for a portion of the costs and obtain private insurance for the balance. You may be interested in knowing that Virginia has submitted their state waste management plan to the Environmental Protection Agency for approval. It is my understanding that the Virginia plan does not include financial assurance requirements. As such, it is likely that the Federal financial assurance requirements will be added to the Virginia plan before it is approved by the Agency. .... Ms. Ella W. Carey February 24, 1993 Page 2 Please be assured of my interest in this matter. I will keep you advised when the EPA publishes the proposed rule on financial assurance. If, upon review of the proposed rule, it does not provide adequate relief to local governments, I will consider legislative options to ensure that the financial obligations of local governments are recognized. With best wishes, 1~~ John W. Warner JWW/hcv nistrjtit:~(d tJ ,-:':"'J, (,-':';" ...... J '!-......j --~,~._-"._..- Agen~il 1;,:,1 "J, :...j /; --;;./ !, it i() ~~---:,~----..;;. F bruary 11, 1993 COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Dept. of Planning & Community Development 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 (804) 296-5823 M rie Mahanes 1 06 Peartree Lane C arlottesville, VA 22901 SP-92-67 Marie Mahanes Tax Map 45, Parcel 93B ar Ms. Mahanes: e Albemarle County Planning Commission, at its meeting on bruary 9, 1993, unanimously recommmended approval of the above- ted request to the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors. Please te that this approval is subject to the following conditions: 1 There shall be no outside activities; 2 Approval is for a cat care only. ease be advised that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors II review this petition and receive public comment at their eting on March 10. 1993. Any new or additional information garding your application must be submitted to the Clerk of the ard of Supervisors at least seven days prior to your scheduled aring date. you should have any questions or comments regarding the above- ted action, please do not hesitate to contact me. S ncerely, .,.-) ,//< . \.//: ( (, C / lliam D. Fritz nior Planner F/jcw c Amelia McCulley Jo Higgins Ella Carey Heart Land Tr . .. . t FF PERSON: ING COMMISSION: OF SUPERVISORS: WILLIAM D. FRITZ FEBRUARY 9, 1993 MARCH 10, 1993 ition: Request to establish a cat care clinic [24.2.2(4)] on acre zoned HC, Highway Commercial in the Charlottesville isterial District. Property, described as Tax Map 45, Parcel , is located on the east side of Route 29 approximately 300 t north of Woodbrook Drive. The site is located in a ignated growth area (Neighborhood 1) and is recommended for unity Service This site is the location of the reotypes building. The Ron Martin building is south of this e. Woodbrook is adjacent to the east. Vacant commercial d, currently wooded, is north of this project. liea t's Pro osal: The applicant proposes to establish a erinary clinic exclusively for cats. The facility will vide medical/surgical care, boarding and grooming. Y AND RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff has reviewed this request for pliance with Section 31.2.4.1 of the Zoning Ordinance and ommends approval of SP-92-67 subject to conditions. - Planning Commission approved SDP-78-5 Manley request for mixed commercial. This plan expired. Ma 13, 1986 - Planning Commission approved a site plan for the ex. sting development. F COMMENT: tion 5.1.11 of the Zoning Ordinance provides for certain sures to protect the public health and welfare. Section .11(d) contains specific measures regarding the operation of a clinic in urban settings. Section 5.1.11 is included as achment B. Th.s use is unlike most veterinary clinics. The need for outdoor ru s does not exist and the creation of noise is not likely. st ff opinion is that separate entrances are not required as cats ar typically held or brought in,carriers into vet offices. The ap licant has stated that all activities are indoors. 1 ate regulations. govern this type of use. The Board of terinary Medicine is the regulator and governs items such as t not limited to, X-Ray machines, disposal of deceased animals, olation rooms, ventilation, disposal of chemicals, instruments d tissue. aff opinion is that the proposed use is consistent with the by- r.ght uses of the district and will not have any negative impact "adjacent properties. staff recommends approval of SP-92-67 bject to the following conditions: COMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: 1. There shall be no outside activities; 2. Approval is for a cat care only. A TACBHENTS: A - Tax Map B - Section 5.1.11 of the Zoning Ordinance 2 .' ,,,.-' ALBEMARLE COUNTY \ ATTACHMENT AI 44 SE, 46. leD - ... .;.,_,J, 61 CHARLOTTESVILLE, RIVANNA JACK JOUETT DISTRICTS SECTION 45 , . 5.1. ~l I ATTACHMENT B I _'. __....._..~r'.. .,.,.-..,_~......__.... ....,..-___~........~. COMMERCIAL KENNEL, VETERINARY, ANIMAL HOSPITAL a. Except where animals are confined in soundproofed, air- conditioned buildings, no structure or area occupied by animals shall be closer than five hundred (500) feet ,to any agricultural or residential lot line. For non- soundproofed animal confinements, an external solid fence not less than six (6) feet in height shall be located within fifty (50) feet of the animal confine- ment and shall be composed of concrete block, brick, or other material approved by the zoning administrator; (Amended 11-15-89) b. For soundproofed confinements, no such structure shall be located closer than two hundred (200) feet to any agricultural or residential lot line. For soundproofed confinements, noise measured at the nearest agricul- tural or residential property line shall not exceed forty (40) decibels; (Amended 11-15-89) c. In all cases, animals shall be confined in an enclosed building from 10:00 p.m. to 6:00 a.m. Noise measured at the nearest agricultural or residential property line shall not exceed forty (40) decibels; (Amended 11-15-89) d. In areas where such uses may be in proximity to other uses involving intensive activity such as shopping centers or other urban density locations, special attention is required to protect the public health and welfare. To these ends the commission and board may require among other things: (Amended 11-15-89) -Separate building entrance and exit to avoid animal conflicts; (Added 11-15-89) -Area for outside exercise to be exclusive from access by the public by fencing or other means. (Added 11-15-89) PLEASE REFER TO PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ON THE CONSENT AGENDA ALBEMARLE COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS FY1993-94 PROPOSED OPERATING BUDGET ALBEMARLE COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS FY 1993-94 PROPOSED BUDGET HIGHLIGHTS PRIORITIES ADDRESSED · NO NEW DEBT · TEACHER SALARY SCALE TEACHER SCALE ADJUSTMENT TEACHER SCALE MOVEMENT 5551.377 $3SO.477 SI60.2,32 5297,088 S309.150 S63,186 - SI.I94,032 S765,20S $34.220 510535 S121,s00 S137,405 S47,m S15,OOO S15,9<<>> 550,000 S14O,169 S105,219 SI79,914 · CLASSIFIED/ADMINISTRATIVE SALARY SCALE 1.31j(, SCALE INCREASE CLASSIFIED & ADMINISTRATIVE VESTING · EMPLOYER CON1RIBUTION TO HEALTH CARE · 41j(, MERIT POOL (CLASSIFIED & ADMINISTRATIVE) · GROWl'H BUDGET REQUESTS 21.9 TEACHING POsmONS 1 SPECIAL ED. TEACHING POSmON SUBS1TI'UTE TEACHER WAGES 3 CONVENTIONAL BUSES 7 BUS DRIVERS/FUEUSUPPLIESIINSURANCE SCHOOL-BASED AlLOCATIONS ELEMENTARY FURNISHINGS BROADUS WOOD EXPANSION MIDDLE SCHOOL START-UP · SPECIAL EDUCATION STAfFING GUIDELINES - 4 POsmONS · SMAll. SCHOOL STOP LOSS PROVISION · 21j(, INCREASE IN COST CENTER BUOOETS INCLUDING CATEC UNF1JNDED TOP PRIORITIES (NOT IN PRIORITY ORDER) · COMPRESSION (TO STEP E) 5305.299 · CATEC 548.376 · INSTRUcnONAL INITIATIVE PACKAGE (COMBINATION OF TIlE FOu..OWlNG) GIfTED S243.226 ELEM. MUSIC S157,s00 REMEDIAL EDUCATION S262.S00 TECHNOLOGY S231.OOO VISUAL ARTS SI57,500 fOREIGN LANG 5157,500 · SPECIAL EDUCATION STAFFING GUIDELINES - 4 TEACHING POSmONS $140.264 · LOWER STUDENT ADULT RATIO BY.2S - 11.38 TEACHING POSmONS $398.300 · HUMANmES TEACHER SCHOLAR GRANT . S13.268 PAGE A4 2J23/93 ALBEMARLE COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS FY 1993-94 PROPOSED OPERA TL~G BUDGET HOW WILL THE FUNDS BE USED? TRANSPORTATION 8% OTHER 1 % OPERATIONS" MAINT. 10% SCHOOLS I DIVISION ADMINISTRATION 9% OPERATING OTHER 1% EXPENSES 17% CAPITAL OU11.A Y 1 % COMPENSATION 65% E..\1PLOYEE BENEFITS 16% " ~ ~ ~ .... CD . .... . QIII 0) . -- It) -- III:) C QC) (') It) QC) bz CO rD &6 -- &6 txi en ~ (') QC) (') ~ ~ 11I11I . -- . ... ""'> 0 - - .. 0 011I .... C (') I~~ N (') It) 0 ,Go - - - ::c :: CJ CD en .... QC) . 0) CZ It) it... III .... .... .... 0) Yen It) CD -- CD C 4:) 0 at t9i C\i t9i at ...- Zz In C C 0) (') (') men -III CIl . (') It) q (') - :::)> S2> 0 - 0 - .. CJ ~III .... (') ~ a.~ O~ N (') It) II - - - Q. >z ~-c Zw :::):::) Oz CJw w> ...w a: a: -c ~ :E I w - m .0 ... - > -c N a: II c - ::) - z c W N .., :::) a: c Z w S ID W 2 Q., > w c X w . CJ 0 rn cc . w 2 en c a: I&. w a: wi ! w en :J CD 0 W CD !t;! .... w Z N ~ en 8 I&. d w :J W en j:: ~ w Z > Z z ::) > (,) :r:: w w CE 0 CJ CC (,) > a: 2 w ...J X ;( :::) en w .... I- w w 2 C 0 , a: CE f!! ~ w U) .... w .... z C) 4( S w 4( Q. 5 < 9 Q 8 ::) a: w (I) CJ w en LI. .... . > . < ALBEMARLE COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS FY 1993-94 GROWTH BUDGET SUMMARY ANTICIPATED ENROLLMENT GROWTH. 357 STUDENTS RECURIlL"'iG NO~'RECUR~G ITEMS FUNDED TEACHERS - REGULAR EDUCATION (21.9) $165.205 $34,788 $1,535 $15,450 5114.980 S56,825 51.650 59.700 510500 51,000 $3,740 515,000 S50.ooo 547,217 TEAaIERS. SPECIAL mx;CATION (1.0) SUBS111UI1! WAGES.1EAaIER BUS DRIVERS (7) CONVENTIONAL BUSES AND RADIOS (3) BUS FUEL Ai"ID SUPPLIES AIJ'TO lNSIJ1UNCE - BUSES t."IU.lTIES - BROAOt.'S WOOD MA1EllIALSJSUPPlJ -BROADUS WOOD CUSTODIAL SUPPLIES. BROADUS WOOD a.ASSROOM PUR."fJSHINGS MIDDLE salOOL STAllT.tiP saIOOL-BASED AlLOCATIONS TOTAL S765,2Q5 .:,:'::,~"S34'~':, ;.:.::,:,:'::;.;:,.",:.:~.;':::..;;.;,:;,',::li , ':"F,~sJI')7:s:J5; . -,,- '- " '. --. ..~:.",;.,,:':~::4~,,: . -,;":! ....::::~..". , ,',::::i.-: S124,9IQi,' ....,~~g--,:,.~..:. :':'-'11 ,":-.::! ,-;',b:i.i.~< :,", ,-: _ .'." :.:~ :";'~;'::d.'~.82;:': ::::;:i.;,,-:;.,;;j;P:::,i::.i:; .;''':,::.:(,,, J:'~:::'~:]:I,~!~:; ,....;... ..,.,-;:;.;.-.-., ;:~:~j,L::~~u(:~~:-: ::;':~~~:~ ~;i \ :~:~,:,,:,",,:i. ,: ,". :;. .' :j ::~;;:::;:!~;;:,,~~~t!:; . ""'~":,.~It;":';;;:':"l<:',! ,:'ti:'],;~~~J 'TQTAL~G1l0W1B~ ",;",::';X"i1~~<,~,];t:d;.':;$l44,?2I':'::'e~;.,,~~:.:._~~~#j ')':"'~: 141 zrf'i ITEMS UNFUNDED TEAaIERS - REGULAR EDUCATION (1.0) $34,788 TEAaIERS. SPECIAL EOOCATION (W) S69,s76 SUBS1TI'tJ'l1! WAGES. TEACIERS SIlO SENIOR AUIO MEalANIC (1) 524,401 CUSTODIAN (1) 516.4<44 CLASSllOOM COMPU1ERS (22) 541,250 CONVENTIONAL Bt.:SESlRADIOSJINSURAN~(4) S2,2llO 5166,640 MOBILE Q.ASSRooMS (9) S405.ooo MIDDLE SCHOOL START.UP 5490555 TOTAL tr.'l>'J1JNDED GROWl'll Sln,774 $6l2,D1 iliB ~;::.~:t:~~;~;itili4~ .'.: ~!.~::., ~~::;r~'~~~~?;:~~ :~~.';~::~:',::_~:49I:~ :.;:',i:{~:.!~'J'F::"'tii;j;~.;:;:i::~',.* :::"~.:i';:: ,Sl6,444;,; . ...._,.. - .~ ,. ..,. . .... '.":':$16U40' . ,....>,.;:~:...:.,,"~~::.;,it...,,~...,.,;.o.i _,~.,:,.-,',~:':~':;...."", i"!~!'::" ;"';!,.l ",.,.,';:,,~~~ '. :.,!o;.o,.t.";-..: ".,,<.'"'' ...,,: ,.;,,".."5490555,: ::._;;'-:':'~:::'::-"i'F"/J~ $11",": Pate 81 2J2OIJ3 ALBEMARLE COUNTY PUBUC SCHOOLS FY 1993-94 PROPOSED OPERATING BUDGET ASSUMPTIONS INSTRUCTI N o NUMBER OF APPROVED POsmONS W1U.. BE ADHERED TO o ENROUMENT GROWTIi OF 35'7 mJDENTS IS ANrIClPATED o mJDENr ADUlI STAFFING RATIOS OF: ELEMENrARY-15:1 SECONDARY - 16:1 o SPECIAL EDUCATION srtJDENI'S W1U..BE SERVED IN THEIR HOME SafOOLS WHENEVER POSSIBLE o ONETEAOIER ASSISTANT FOR THE ELEMENrARY AND Mm~SafOOLSANDTWOTEAOIER ASSISTANT POsrrIONS FORTHE HIGH SQ{()OLS(DESlGNATED FOR aASSRooM INsrRUcrION) WD.l. CONrlNUETO BE AJJ..OCATBD OVER AND ABOVElHE STAFf'ING FORMUlA OPERAll0NS o THE SafOOL DMSION WD.l. OPBRAT!! wrrHlNTHE FY 1993-94 BUDGEr APPROPRIATIONS o STAT!! AND LOCAL REVENUE W1LL MEEI' PROJECl'ED LEVELS o PARITY AMONG SCHOOLS WB.LBE MAINrAINED o THE RENOVATION AND EXPANSION OF BROADUS WOOD ELEMENrARY SQlOOL W1U.. BE COMPLEI'ED IN AUGUST 1993 o THE 10 YEAR BUS REPLACEMENl' EFFOKI' AS STATED IN SQlooLBOARD POUCY 4-49 WDL BE WAIVED AND NEWVEHIa.E PURCRUESWDLBE UMmID TO FOUR SPECIAL EDUCATION VEHIa.ES NEEDED TO AUGN MlXI'tJRE OF REG~ AND SPECIAL EDUCATION VEHIa..ES wmi INCREASED SPECIAL EDUCATION ENROlLMENl' o AN ENERGY MANAGEMENT OONSERVATION INrrIATIVE WB.LBE IMPLEMENrED IN AlL SCHOOLS o FUELEmMAT!! WDL BE BASED ON s.n PER GAlLON o A PORTION OF AlL DlSCRETlONARYFUNDS WIlL BE KEPI" IN RESERVETO PROTEcr AGAINST CHANGES IN FISCAL STATUS DURlNGThE YEAR o STAT!! AND FEDERAL REQUlREMENrS, SUaf AS AMERICANS WITH DISABD..lTlES Acr AND OSHA REQUIREMENI'S, WDLHAVEASlGNIFlCANr IMPAcr ONTHE DMSION STAFFING I EMPLOVEE BENEFITS o PAY FOR PERFORMANCBPROORAM WDL BE FUNDED o TEAOIER SALARY SCALE MOVEMENT AND a..ASSlFlED I ADMINlSI'RATlVE VESI'lNG WnL BE FUNDED o EMPLOYER OONTRlBurlON FOR HEALTH CARE WIU..INCREASETO COVER INCREASE IN PREMIUM (MID-LEVEL PLAN) FOR FY 1993-94 o PROFESSIONAL VRS RATE OF 11.36" NON-PROFESSIONAL8.4WJi PAGE Afj 23-Feb-93 ALBEMARLE COUNTY PUBUC SCHOOLS FY 1993-94 PROPOSED OPERATING BUDGET OBJECTIVES o COMMlfTO NO NEW DEBT o INCREASEnIE AMOUNr OFTIlECOBr CBNTER AlLOCATIONS AND INa.11DEFUNDING FOR EXCEmONAL srUOENrS o FUll. YFUNDGROW11i NEEDS o PARl'IAU. Y OR FUll. Y FUND1HE srAflllNG GUlDBUNES FORMtJU o REGULAR EDUCATION o SPECJALEDUCATION o a.ERICAL o ADMlNIsrRATIVE o PARrIAll.YORFUll.Y IMPLBMENT1HE RlKX)MMENDATIONSOF1HE LONG RANGE SAlARY COMMIrI'1!B: oTEAaiER SALARY SCALE o aASSlFIED/ADMJNlSI'RATIVE OOMPRESSlON o PHASE IN fLEXlBLEBENEF1TS - o FUNDTIlEPRlNCIPALPOSlI1ON FOR1HE NEW MIDDLE SaiOOLEFFECrIVEJULY 1,1993 AND RELATED SUPPORT BrAF'FPOsrrIONSAND srAKr-UP COsrsASNECBSSARYDURlNG FY 1993-94 o RBlNsrATE1HE REMAJNlNG PORl"ION OF1HE BrAfFDEVELOPMENr FUNDS REDUCED FROMTIlEFYI991-9Z OPERATINGBUOGET o PROVIDE INCENfIVE FUNDING FOR NEW OR EXPANDED INSI'RUCI'IONAL PROGRAMS: o VISUALARrS o ELEMENTARY INS'I'RUMaiTALMUSIC o FOREIGN LANGUAGES o TECHNOLOGY INmATIVE o ADMINISTRATIVE INTERN PROGRAM o SPECJALEDUCATION o PROVIDE FUNDING FORSELECI'EO BUJE RIBBON COMMISSION RECOMMENDATIONS o ESI'ABLISH AN EQUIPMENrJFURNmJRE REPlJ\CEMENT FUND o CONTINUEnlEAPPUEO ACADEMICS PROGRAM INTHE HIGH SCiOOLS n STRATEGIES USED TO ACHIEVE OBJECTIVES o POSI"PONE 1HE REPLACEMENT OF 18 CONVENI"IONAL BUSES (5729,000) o INCREASETHE PAYROI.l.LAPSEFACfORTO.75"OFTOTALSALARIES(S333,000) o PAKrIAll. Y FUND GROW11i RELATED REQUESI'S PAGE A7 23-Feb-93 ALBEMARLE COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS FY 1993-94 PROPOSED OPERATING BUDGET UNFUNDED ITEMS (AFTER THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE STRATEGIES) GROWTH INSTRUCTIONAL PAGE A8 2123193 ALBEMARLE COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS FY 1993.94 PROPOSED OPERATING BUDGET UNFUNDED ITEMS (AFTER THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE STRATEGIES) STAFFING/BENEFITS . AS STUDENT ADULT RATIO IS LOWERED. ADOmONAL MOBn.E a.ASSROOMS WILL NEED TO BE PURCHASED. OPERA TIONAL PAGE A9 2Il3193 435 Maple View Court Charlotesville, Virginia March 1, 1993 f' ..,': '~u -: Co p ?/.~ c:t::J:'< 1. ;3, . '~s 22902 Mr. David Bowerman 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 fm~ mW ~'G11 '_,';J; _ - 5., , "/ ! Dear Mr. Bowerman: ,.~.9ARD OF SUPERVI , ~ ,. I As the Board of Supervisors struggles with its budget for the upcoming fiscal year, I am writing to urge the County's continued support for the Shelter for Help in Emergency. SHE provides a wLique and badl) needed service to residents of Albemarle Coun'ty. Wi th a modest budget, professional and dedicated staff, and a host of volunteers, SHE is able to provide safe lodging to women and their chidlren who suffer violence in their own homes. In addition, and perhaps more importantl;y, SHE works actively to break the cycle of domestic violence through cl ient counseling and connmmi ty education and outreach. The children's program, designed to teach kids different and healthier behaviors - that life need not be lived cnder a cloud of beatings and verbal abuse is a model for domestic violence programs throughout the state. The special connnitment, sidll mld knowlege of SHE's executive director, Carite Lominack, can be seen not only in the excellent services which SHE provides, but also in her selection to represent the Commonwealth, along with '1a.ry Sue Terry and three Virginia judges, at a national conference of family and juvenile court judges on domestic violence in just a few weeks. These vi tally necessary services need the COlmtJ-' s continued financial support. In a time of limited resources, I know that hard choices must be made. It is hard to imagine a more basic need than that of women and children to be free from violence in their own homes. The Shelter for Help in Emergency is the only resource i.n our area which provides not only emergency shelter for these victims, but also inforamtion and services targeted specifically at helping I,omen lift themselves and their children out of bondage to a violent household. Please help SHE continue to offer safety and hope to the women of Albemarle County. Very truly yours, ~~ hathleen Caldwell ~ Ce-h'" L -y 7" THOMAS JEFFERSON CHILD ADVOCACY GROUP P.O. BOX 7315 CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA 22902 March 9,1993 Albemarle County Board of Supervisors 401 Mcintire Road Charlottesville, VA 22902 Dear Supervisors, The Child Sexual Victimization Task Force, which is a standing subcommittee of Thomas Jefferson Child Advocacy Group, consists of community professionals and concerned citizens committed to public education about and coordination of services to child sexual abuse victims and their families. As a group of professionals with years of experience in dealing with child sexual abuse, its emotional and physical consequences for children, as well as cost to the community, we recognize the benefit of active prevention programs such as C.A.P. which educate children and families in prevention strategies. We strongly urge your careful consideration of full funding to continue this worthwhile program. ~:~~' G~~F~e~ Acting Secretary cc. Annette Grimm, SARA .' , ,? CF~ -:;; " u' ((! ') i~, ! .::> C,'\ \ ... - 'T":\,,",~"l':")"""~'P"'''' 1 no') ..... v."........ \-4..i.! L.", .. w .J '-I Albemarle County Board of Supe=visors County Office Building 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, VA 22901 Dear A~Le hA-/t-e CeuJ7 ~ut4-rr~ c/~ ~ 0 ;p.e""---\J Z~()lL~) As citizens, homeowners, and t;;mpuyers of Albe:rrarle County, we wish to go on record stating our concerns regarding the 1993 assessment of real property. We realize that real and personal property taxes are the County's only source of income. Thus, we understand the need for periodic re-assessment and resultant tax 1ncreases. Nonetheless, we are contesting the method of ssessment and the amount of increase, especially that ortion devoted to land value. the past few years, home values have remained fallen, or posted moderate gains. However, land have escalated. As a result, many long-term have had to reconsider their ability to remain the county. These homeowners have raised two areas of pecific concern: (1) that land value that has increased assessment whether or not improvements have been made, nd (2) that the value of land is often a de facto eflection of land value from another locality. Many cut- f-the-area residents have purchased property frcm a value based on comparison of their locality origin, rather than value intrinsic to Albemarle ounty. This has had the effect of comparing apples and ranges: placing Albemarle property in national ompetition with higher priced localities, although .neome, jOb market, and services are not comparable. While desirous of protecting our property from "nchecked escalation of assumed value, it 1S with a cooperative spirit and an understanding of the need to provide taxes for county business that this letter is witten. Although we realize real property values are d iven by speculation and profit, those homeowners who do t want to sell should not be penalized by this process. that reason, we believe that not only should our c rrent assessments be reviewed and some relief provided, b't an alternative method for assessment be devised. Sincerely yours, ~0~ Jst~ name ~0?Z l../-S-/ ,VLV z.d, UA-- 2-l,-C{:SL. atldress ( If' " ,."':'>,........., ":') .......,.... "1/ ., () 0 ":) ...... t....c....& ...... ,A....! L..., .... -" ...1 o..J Albemarle County Board of Supe~vjsors Cou~ty Office Building 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, VA 22901 De a:::' ') j/ ..-1, , , ../) ) / i-jJ... /\. h LL,.,/2,-(,u" --or L..- \........ - ,-~ -'2-. F l-L~____ As County, r'egarding citizeris/ hameo'tf~ners, and ta;~puyers of A.lbemar-'le we wish to go on ~eccrd stating our concerns the 1993 assessment cf ~eal property. We ~ealize that real and personal property ta}{es are the Countyls only source of income. Thus, we u~derstand the need for periodic re-assessment and resultant ta}c increases. Nonetheless, we are contesting the ~ethod of assessment and the amount of inc~ease, especially that portion devoted to land value. Over the past few years, home values have remained steady, fallen" or posted moderate gains. Howeve:::" land prices have escalated. As a result, ~any long-term residents have had to reconsider thei~ ability to remain in the county. These homeowners have raised two areas of specif ic concern: (1) that land value that has increased in assessment whether or not improvements have been ~ade, and (2) that the value of land lS often a de facto reflection of land value from another locality. Many cut- cf-the-area residents have purchased property frcm a preconceived value based on comparison of thei~ locality of origin, rather than value intrinsic to Albemarle County. This has had the effect of comparing apples and oranges: placing Albemarle property ~n national competition with higher priced localities, although income, job market, a~d services a~e not comparable~ While desirous of unchecked escalation of protecting o-ur assumed val-ue, propertx., f~om it.: s ~4..'r i t h a cOQPc~ative spi~~t ~nQ ~n ~nder~tanding of t~e ~eed to provide ta]ces for county business that this letter is written. Although we realize real property values are driven by speculation and profit, those homeowners who de not want to sell should not be penalized by this process. For that reason, we believe that not only should our current assessments be reviewed and some relief provided, but an alternative method fer assessment be devised. Sincerely yours, (XCi _i!L/ m 1 ~~y z/t~ ~/ name.! I L. in 0 (I ,,/ {( / C' tJ ~, -l- ~, IJ...I . ..-l c'lf1... 2/ .:J~ .:1dd~ess ( .;!:2 9 -3 -2- " ~. f ~ _. ~?U~~~ fr5 T(~: Albemarle County Board of Supervisors Mr. Robert Tucker, County Executive F OM: Pam Starling, President Woodbrook School Parent-Teacher Organization ~ : 1993-94 County Operating Budget D TE: March 10, 1993 The County Executive has described the proposed county operating budget a a baseline budget that maintains current services but fails to fund new i itiatives. However, as far as the school budget is concerned, this is a rEtrenchment budget, not a baseline budget. Increases to the school budget h ve not kept pace with the increased demands of growth in the school system, t e demands of additional students and additional schools that continue to d ain resources from instruction. Rather than maintaining the current level o services, we are losing ground in every instructional area. The instructional needs of our school system, particularly our e ementary schools, are severe. As the percentage of Albemarle's population t at is school-age has increased over the past decade, the percentage of the ccunty's general fund going to the school budget has decreased steadily. Ccgnitive Abilities Tests given to first-graders from 1988-1991 show an i creasingly needy population of elementary students entering our schools. A y fat that might have existed at one time within the school system has been t immed--the administrative staff that two years ago numbered 38 people now n\mbers 20, with those extra positions reverting to the schools themselves for i structional staffing. The superintendent and the school board have done the bEst they can with the little they have but it is time to realize that there a e no more resources to shift. These reductions in administrative staff have a ready dangerously reduced administrative oversight of 22 far-flung and d'sparate schools. Central accounts and central support staff that once e isted for instructional resources, staff development, equipment purchases, a t, music, gifted education, remedial services, and computer technology have bEen significantly reduced or eliminated under the guise of school-based a locations for these purposes. But the amount of money available in school- bised accounts, on a per-pupil basis, remains significantly less than the arount available in school-based accounts before central funds were removed. II addition, the fluctuations in the state economy over the last few budget YEars have required schools to hold 15% of their budgets in reserve for the b\lk of the teaching year as protection against state shortfalls, further rEducing available funds for instruction. I have heard concerns from many of you, just as I hear them from parents aId teachers across the county, about the issue of equity in our school s stem--the notion that any child in this county, regardless of where he or sle attends school, should have access to the same educational opportunities aId curriculum--art instruction, music instruction, physical education, rEmedial support, and enrichment opportunities. But as long as there are no cEntral resources or oversight to insure those opportunities for every child, aId principals must make choices with insufficient funds to meet the priority nEeds of disparate school communities, there will be no equity in this county. TIe proposed budget, which lists over $1.5 million in unfunded instructional iIitiatives--not to mention unfunded growth, staffing, and operational needs-- ... -. fils to point out that those "initiatives" contain some central services c rrently provided that will no longer be provided unless individual schools c oose to pay for them. staff positions currently funded for elementary art w 11 be reduced next year without additional funds, a currently funded science r source teacher who serves all 14 elementary schools is not included in next y ar's budget, current funding for instruction of gifted students is reduced i next year's budget, and current federal funding for remedial education is a so reduced. Albemarle's current tax rate is comparable to that of the average V'rginia county tax rate and results in a collection of revenue per capita at is below the Virginia average. In expenditures per capita, Albemarle unty is also well below the Virginia average for every type of county rvice. Not surprisingly, per county resident, we don't spend as much money education, or any other county service, as most Virginia counties do. In f ct, what we are getting dangerously close to is a county government that has j st enough revenue to sustain its own infrastructure but not enough revenue t actually provide necessary services to the public. In addition to the s vere unmet needs of the school system, this budget describes a social s rvices department that can not afford to participate in matching-grant These reductions might not be so bad if there were anything to reduce, b t the fact is that arts education is already inadequate in Albemarle County e ementary schools and I know that you have already heard those complaints om your constituents. At Woodbrook, as at many of the elementary schools in is school division, much of the art instruction is provided through the Art int program by parent volunteers. The science curriculum at Woodbrook has en funded primarily by parents this year as parents, teachers, and ministrators worked in concert to identify resources needed to support the ate-specified science curriculum. We found that the school lacked materials support major areas of the curriculum and raised over $2000 to furnish a s ience room and hire a part-time teacher aide to staff it. In fact, the odbrook PTO has set a budget this year that increases the school budget by additional 27% in order to address unmet needs of this school. That is no all accomplishment for a school of 192 children, but what is shocking is at we are spending our money on: science materials, additional staff, tors for children struggling with basic skills, rugs for classrooms, lephones, library books, classroom books and other educational materials, c mputer technology, soccer goals to replace existing ones that were unsafe, d staff development--basic furnishings and basic services that one would pect to be paid for by public funds in a public school. Most of the PTOs ross the county find more and more of their budgets used to support such sic services in order to supplement the inadequacies of county funding. en though nearly two-thirds of our elementary schools scored below the state erage in reading or math on last year's Iowa Test of Basic Skills, the only c nsistent remedial services ~e offer our elementary students are federal apter One services, which serve only 400 children county-wide, less than a ird of our need. An administrative proposal for elementary remedial s rvices is unfunded in the proposed budget. This county has failed to comply w'th state requirements for elementary gifted education for the past three y ars while the state Dept. of Education waded through confusion about what s requirements were. That mandate is now clear and must be met by July of is year, but the program to meet it is unfunded in the proposed budget. How you propose that we meet these ethical and legal commitments without ditional funding? -. ~ . p ograms with the federal and state governments to provide job placement or c unseling programs to the disadvantaged, fails to fund critical requests for h using repair programs despite the fact that a significant percentage of c unty housing is substandard, fails to fund any of the requested $4600 for t e Charlottesville Free Clinic that is the only source of primary health care f r nearly 1500 county residents, and fails to fund the Child Assault P event ion program that has been so well administered through SARA in our c unty elementary schools. I am not unsympathetic to the concerns of those county taxpayers who h ve suffered the burdens of skyrocketing real estate assessments, p rticularly difficult for those property owners who may be on fixed incomes. T at issue has been a problem for every locality undergoing growth. But your t sk is to find an equitable way to raise the revenue that this county r quires to provide the services that its growing population needs. Perhaps y u need to be creative in doing that--the idea of dividing the county into u ban and rural service districts deserves discussion. Perhaps the revenue- s aring arrangement with the City of Charlottesville should be reexamined-- t at portion of the county budget increased by 26% over last year and by 234% o er the last ten years. We are giving less and less of the county budget to t e school system and more and more of it to the City of Charlottesville. A bemarle County's share of state funding has also steadily declined over the p st five years as state funding formulas have been redefined to favor more u ban counties. We need to pressure our state legislators to reexamine tax r lief, real estate assessment procedures, and state definitions of a 1 cality's ability-to-pay. But the question before you is the issue of A bemarle County's tax rate: is it sufficient and is it equitable? When we a e faced with a proposed operating budget that numbers millions of dollars w rth of urgent unmet needs, I have to conclude that our revenue is i sufficient. The tax rate should certainly not be reduced and, in the a sence of other sources of revenue, may need to be increased. I urge you to reexamine the resources available to you to increase f nding for the critical needs of the county school system and to reconsider t e direction of county services in general. March 1 0, 1 993 Remarks to the Board Of Supervisors, at Preliminary Budget Hearing, O-n cL Tv ''!l"k< r irh....., ,.; W2~ ~ ~ c:;> <n...o;Z : My name is Rellen Perry I am an advocate for indigenous low income families I join with my neighbors who seek fairness in taxation.. The tar- get is not the Board, but the Virginia Legislature which gives the oard responsibility without authority to choose the best means f taxation for this locality. I, together with the Albemarle Ousing Coalition will go with you to Richmond to ask that Board esponsibility and authority be made equal. ntil that is accomplished we cannot abandon the very real respons- bilities we have to our home communities. is tax relief available to the elderly and the handicapped. here is no relief available to nearly 20% of children in Albemarle ounty who live in grossly degraded and overcrowned housing. Liv- ing in hovels without safe heat, adequate plumbing or living space, t ey arrive at school smelly, ill-prepared with self esteem demol- hed; pariahs, disabled from learning. e most critcal need in our community is for very low income rent- housing in each district and community. is past year the Board appointed a Housing Advisory Committee. ey took testimonty for 13 months and produced a well-detailed port. The Planing Commissions has been holding workshops seeking ans to implement this report. cause folks, like me, have moved here from allover the world t share the beauty of Albemarle County we have put great upward pressure on land and housing costs; added to this is the pressure of 25,000 students seeking rentals annually. Low income families to whom Albemarle has been home for generations, unable to compete fo living space, have been forced out of their home communities. Th y have, already, lost their homes. we have, tacitly - or passively - practiced economic cleansing. A Ousing program - lean and bare bones - but well considered _ is ential to the health of this community. And it must begin with 1993-94 budget; it is already 15 years late (the 1975-77 Albe- Ie Housing Committee cited the need). So please, don't punish the innocent victims of our own free choices; don't blame our Board of Supervisors for their dilemma. Good Boa~d mem ers recognize their responsibilty to all members of their con- sti uencies, including the poor. Until they are free to choose the mos appropriate means for local taxation they must rely on our sen e of community, our respect for the common good, to fund local nee s. a child, born here to an Albemarle family become a pariah took away his room to grow. (over) Adjusted taxes for all struggling horne-owners NEXT year. Let's begin to plan that NOW. But let's not destroy the promise of access to safe, warm, dry housing for each of Albemarle county's children in 1994. .. 1", (' 'ei (- -l ~ I (" -)/1 <; r-:J..d POSITION PAPER OALITION FOR TAX EQUITY ELIVERED TO THE ALBEMARLE COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ARCH 10, 1993 It is no secret that the 1980's were nothing less than an economic backslide for the middle class. Noted journalists like the "Philadelphia Inquirer's" Barlett & Steele in their award winning piece "America: What Went Wrong", and Political Historian, Kevin Phillips, in his more recent book, "Boiling Point", have begun to articulate through hard facts and figures, the general decline in standard of living facing the majority of our citizens. So much so, we are becoming increasingly aware that the celebrated "Baby Boomers" may end up as the first generation in our Nation's history to live life less well-off and secure than did their parents. The future for the next generation appears even less promising. As you are all very well aware, local government has been caught in the squeeze. Despite an 11 % stated increase in revenues from property taxes; well above the current rate of inflation; Bob Tucker's cover letter to the 1993-94 Budget Summary begins with an acknowledgement of the "uncertainty" of revenues in recent years and the fact that ... "new revenue is limited". Historical data demonstrates that local revenues from State and Federal sources have dwindled as a percentage of the total. For instance, FY 1982-83 shows "Intergovernmental Revenues" to be at 90% of the Property Tax revenue, By 1986-87 that fell to about 80% and if the figures in the proposed budget are a match comparison, we are looking at a ten year low of 60%, I think it's safe to say that "Reaganomics" and it's enduring legacy has not been "good" for local government. // -. As property taxes have become, by far, the greatest source of revenue and as growth of other "sources" has slowed or, as Mr. Tucker put it "have been uncertain", the property owner has been asked to provide an ever increasing "contribution". (I believe that's the politically correct term). This is, of course, why the "Coalition for Tax Equity" is before you tonight. I think it is fair to say that the County Government is fortunate that property values have risen so rapidly over the past decade or so. Revenues from property taxes are roughly 3 times in FY 1993-94 what they were in 1982-83, This has had, however, a financially negative impact on many County residents, Had that growth not occurred, I suspect this year's budget proposal would look substantially different, and growth of the budget would naturally have been diminished. The escalation is clearly outstripping the overall rate of inflation and is an increasing contributor to the middle class decline I mentioned at the outset. For some it means just-that-much less will be available to meet necessary, living expenses, while for others it is becoming a burden so great they may be unable to hang on to their homes and property. The "Report" of the "Fiscal Resource Advisory Committee", commissioned by this Board in 1989, made the assumption that ... "operating costs will increase at a rate greater than inflation due to expanded capital facilities ... which carry expanded operating and maintenance costs", For the property owners who are not able to increase income at a commensurate pace, the handwriting is on the wall! While individual tax payers have differing views, levels of frustration and anger, they have joined together in this coalition with two basic goals in mind: The First is to ask for your support and assistance in bringing a proposal to the State Legislature creating a "Homestead Tax Rate". r--. ~ While details will be presented at the appropriate time, the intent is to protect individuals from suffering assessment increases beyond the rate of inflation, applicable, of course, only to their primary residence. The Second is to implore you to make whatever adjustments are necessary to reduce and contain the cost of government in this County so that it's budgetary growth does not exceed the overall rate of inflation, adjusted to accommodate increases in population. Again, it is not our purpose tonight to make specific proposals. There are various members of "the coalition" working with the facts and figures along with the development of strategies to be presented and discussed in the coming weeks. We want to make it perfectly clear - it is the intent of "the coalition" to work with you, not as adversaries. We understand the Board cannot effect change in assessment policies, nor can it enact a "Homestead Tax Rate". The Board can. however support our efforts at the State level to develop and enact the necessary legislation, and it can work with us to decrease the budget and lower the current tax rate. The Board is elected to serve its constituents. We recognize the diversity of population in Albemarle; and therefore the difficulty, even the impossibility of meeting all needs for all residents. In attempting to satisfy those needs, none of you would knowingly vote for an appropriation that would cause even a single citizen to fall toward or below the poverty line or, at worst, lose his or her home - but it is obvious that as long as the County Budget continues to increase at a rate greater than the cost of living, families whose income cannot keep pace will eventually face those ends. You who are responsible for determining the County budget should be acutely aware of the effect assessment increases have on lower income families. Listening to these folks; perhaps even visiting in their homes would serve to reinforce the message. What we seek is a balance between what we'd like to spend and what we can afford to spend. We must work together to achieve that balance. Spending to aid some at a burdensome expense to others serves no positive purpose. ~. I made reference earlier to Kevin Phillips. Mr. Phillips is widely regarded as the pre- eminent political soothsayer. He accurately predicted the rise of "The New Conservatism" that came to fruition in the Reagan years, and later wrote "The Politics Of Rich & Poor" which became the harbinger of change, culminating in Mr. Clinton's victory in November. "Boiling Point" examines the decline of the middle class, brought on by numerous influences, not the least of which is an increasing and disproportionate share of the overall tax burden including Federal, State and local demands. Mr, Phillips draws from history a comparison of our National situation to those great economic powers that have preceded us. His point is clear - the decline of each of the world economic powers of recent history was preceded and, to a great degree, caused by Government's neglect and over taxation of it's society's middle class. "Boiling Point" also assesses the ongoing influence of "Populism" as a force in American Politics, and points out that its emergence inevitably recurs at times when the middle class has suffered political and economic decline. The increased awareness of ordinary citizens and their growing inclination and ability to become more intimately involved in government is historically an indication that significant change is in progress. That change has continually revitalized our political and economic systems. Let us all take part in that revitalization. It is a uniquely American approach that did not escape the sage of Monticello, and as we are all fond of quoting Mr. Jefferson, I will close with his thoughts on the subject ... "I know of no safe depository of the ultimate powers of society but the people themselves; and if we think them not enlightened enough to exercise their control with a wholesome discretion, the remedy is not to take it from them, but to inform their discretion" . Thomas Jefferson .. ..J''' .I r' i' <" 1\/1(1 , '7.! DATE I i' i f , f /~. i I , / ( , / ~GENDA ITEM NO. - I, ',' " ., ( - ~ / I' 't ~, A.GENDA J ' Ii ,( ,.', ITEM NAME ;'~,. ,,' 'v -- ;) " I , ~ - I i , " , f\i DEFERRED UNTIL "- T ~:f~;::~: , i " \.l , Form. 3 7/25/86 , ~ . o R DIN A N C E AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND AND REENACT SECTION 33.10.2 OF THE ALBEMARLE COUNTY ZONING ORDINANCE BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of County Supervisors of Albemarle C~>unty, Virginia, that Section 33.10.2 of the Albemarle County Zpning Ordinance be amended and reenacted to read as follows: 3~.10 SCHEDULE OF REVIEW * * * * * 3t3.10.2 The board of supervisors shall consider zoning text amendment petitions by property owners at specified intervals of three (3) months. Hearing times in accord with such intervals shall be established by resolution of the board of supervisors during the month of January of each calendar year following enactment of this ordinance, and said resolution shall be published at least once per week for two consecutive weeks in a newspaper of general circulation in Albemarle County. * * * * * I, Ella W. Carey, do hereby certify that the foregoing w~iting is a true, correct copy of an ordinance adopted by the Bbard of County Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, at a r~gular meeting held on March 10, 1993. - ,'.. . .':. I cle'rf:, la'o~~d ;;~ co~n~~ferVisors e;~tc;';.".'j ~:; t:Jaid: _.~~2..,::_C3. ()~;>- ("" ~~. i(; i (;:;~ ".;"j _J...,..-'.,.,),..,L,L...:.::...'.._' COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Dept. of Planning & Community Development 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 (804) 296-5823 EMORANDUM Albemarle County Board of Supervisors V. Wayne Cilimberg, Director of Planning & Community Development U{)JG February 19, 1993 ZTA-93-01 he Albemarle County Planning Commission, at its meeting on ebruary 18, 1993, unanimously approved the above-noted zoning ext amendment. Attached please find a staff report which utlines this amendment. f you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. Cjjcw TTACHMENT AFF PERSON: NING COMMISSION: ARD OF SUPERVISORS: WAYNE CILIMBERG FEBRUARY 18, 1993 MARCH 10, 1993 A-93-01: Resolution of Intent to amend Section 33.10.2 of the bemarle County Zoning Ordinance to consider zoning text endment petitions by property owners at specified intervals of ree months. COMMENT: S'nce adoption of the Zoning Ordinance on December 10, 1980, the Bard of Supervisors has considered requests for zoning text a endments two times per year (intervals of six months). On J nuary 6, 1993, the Board adopted the attached resolution of i tent expanding the frequency to four times per year (intervals o three months). Their interest is in providing more o portunity for citizen requests. Section 33.10.2 under 33.10 S hedule of Review would be amended to read: 33.10.2 The board of supervisors shall consider zoning text amendment petitions by property owners at specified intervals of oix (6) three (3) months. Hearing times in accord with such intervals shall be established by resolution of the board of supervisors during the month of January of each calendar year following enactment of this ordinance, and said resolution shall be published at least once per week for two consecutive weeks in a newspaper of general circulation in Albemarle County. T e additional dates for Planning Commission/Board hearings would b August 24/September 15, 1993 and February 22/March 16, 1994 ('n addition to May 25/June 16 and November 23/December 15, 1993) . AFF RECOMMENDATION: e intention of the original six month interval was apparently t allow the new zoning ordinance opportunity to settle into place without being continuously subject to wholesale amendment. S aff experience in recent years is that the volume of citizen r quests for zoning text amendments have not been that great and h e typically been because of a particular need that relates to a development request that is not consistent with the ordinance. T e six month interval many times has created lengthy delay in getting resolution to the issue for the applicant. Staff believes going to a three month interval will be more responsive to public need, will not adversely affect the ordinance and can be managed in the Department of Planning & Community Development wo k program. Staff recommends approval of ZTA-93-01. 1 RES 0 L UTI 0 N o F I N TEN T BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, does hereby state its intent to amend Section 33.10.2 of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance to consider zoning text amendment petitions by property owners at specified intervals cf three months; and FURTHER requests the Albemarle County Planning Corrunission to told public hearing on said intent to amend the Zoning Ordinance, and docs request that the Planning Corrunission send its recorrunenda- tion to this Board at the earliest possible date. * * * * * I, Ella W. Carey, do hereby certify that the foregoing w iting, is a true, correct copy of a resolution of intent UI animously adopted by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle C( unty, Virginia, at a regular meeting-held on January 6, 1993. ~,,(l ~ Clerk, Board of County Supervisors DATE 1\ I/~' " ,( \ / ( AGENDA ITEM NO. AGENDA ITEM NAME DEFERRED UNTIL Form.3 7/25/86 ! C'i t 'j ! t'-~ 1 , l( ; ( \(1 ''', i ' ! i ~ -," -~ , ~\ , " 1 ! ~ ir { . r ( '1 i '~i It:; - i I ,'(>-- I r . i ~'-( I, r0((:..., I ;", 1_", r/ , I i- I 1 " << . ; 'j " ():str;b:,:~:::'~l ~_ lI""IC ,j., .- no'" "41/! i:;-:'I/; Edward H, ain, Jrc Samuel iller COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Office of Board of Supervisors 401 Mcintire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 (804) 296-5843 FAX (804) 972-4060 Forrest R, Marshall, Jr. Scottsville David P, B werman Charlotte ville Charles S, Martin Rivanna Charlotte Y, Humphris Jack Jou tt Walter F, Perkins White Hall M E M 0 RAN DUM T Board of Supervisors F Ella W. Carey, Clerk, CMC t1v~ D March 5, 1993 s Reading List for March 10, 1993 S ptember 2, 1992 - pages 1 - 14 (#15) - Mr. MarshaIIB'r.\Ll pages 14 (#15) - end - Mr. Perkins +-~~-'Ct("i N vember 11, 1992 - pages 25 (#10) - end - Mrs. HumphrisJ-i: r-\C( -., . ..~.-" J nuary 13, 1993 - pages 1 - 10 (end #10) - Mrs. Baint-<('(-c('( *Please note that staff reports are copied in these minutes because the minutes were done prior to the Board decision to no longer include the reports. * Printed on recycled paper S ITH/LEBO, INC. Commercial Real Estate BROKERAGE 2004-A MORTON DRIVE CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 22901 Office: (804) 296-3863 FAX (804) 293-4577 February 8, 1993 . David Bowerman ard Member, Charlottesville District bemarle County Board of Supervisors unty Office Building 1 McIntire Road arlottesville, VA 22901 ar Mr. Bowerman: Re: Adventure Land Family Fun Park TM-45-Parcels 100 & 101 The schedule that Mr. Todd Shields had in place for h's applications for a set-back variance and a special use rmit has been delayed as a result of an oversight on the rt of the Planning Department and/or the Zoning Department. is rather complicated, but it carne about because of an a joining property. It is very important because of contractual commitments tween Mr. Shields and Mr. John Stein, the property owner, at we request the procedure be amended slightly. We request that the Board of Supervisors hear the applicant's quest for a special use permit at the Supervisor's meeting 3/10/93. The BZA will hear a request for a variance at 3:00 3/9/93 and the Planning Commission will review the site an and request for a special use at 7:00 on 3/9/93. We understand that normal procedure would be for the ard to review this on 3/17/93. We ask that you hear the quest a week earlier in an effort to move the applicant's ntractual obligations closer to his commitment. Your consideration of this request :s~~:~~p~~) v Robert T-;' Srcti th c Todd Shields Bill Fritz Babette Thorpe John Stein COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA RAY D, PE HTEL COMMISSIO ER DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION P 0, BOX 671 CULPEPER,22701 THOMAS F, FARLEY DI;TRICT ADMINISTRATOR February 18, 1993 David P. Bowerman, Chairman d of Supervisors McIntire Road lottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 Mr. Bowerman: The Culpeper District preallocation hearing will be held on Fri ay, March 26, at 10:00 a.m. The purpose of this hearing is to sol'cit input on the allocation of fiscal year 1993-94 funds and on upd ting the Six-Year Improvement Program for the interstate, primary and urban systems. The site of the Culpeper hearing is the auditorium in the VDOT rict Office complex. Parking will be available to the left of the ed entrance, in what is called "the pines." The most convenient ding access is at the rear of the building, across from this ing area. We look forward to seeing you on March 26. :lc TRANSPORTATION FOR THE 21 ST CENTURY " ~ COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA JOHN G, M LUKEN CHAIRM N COMMONWEALTH TRANSPORTATION BOARD 1401 EAST BROAD STREET RICHMOND,23219 February 16, 1993 1993 Spring Preallocation Hearings for the Interstate, Primary, and Urban Systems, and for Mass Transit ounty Boards of Supervisors Board Member: Your active participation in the preallocation hearing rocess in previous years has been invaluable to the Commonwealth ransportation Board in the selection and setting of construction riorities. Under the new federal legislation, your participation ecomes even more important because of the fundamental changes hat have occurred in the federal/state relationship. The Board has again scheduled a series of preallocation earings, as indicated on the attached list. We look forward to our advice and comments on both the allocation of fiscal year 993-94 funds and on updating the Six-Year Improvement Program to eflect anticipated future funding through fiscal years 1998-99. The Federal Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act ISTEA), enacted by Congress in 1991, has required a number of hanges with the laws of the Commonwealth governing the allocation, f transportation funds. Last year, the General Assembly provided 'nterim legislative guidance on the use of federal funds, and in 993 the modified language, currently under consideration by the eneral Assembly, will bring even more changes. The major federal funding categories we would like you to ddress are outlined on attachment #2. As in the past years, we will focus on the federal categories nd the Interstate, Primary, Urban, and Mass Transit Systems. earings for secondary projects occur at other times. You are cordially invited s your schedule will permit. s many of the hearings ttachment y: The Honorable Lawrence Douglas Wilder Commonwealth Transportation Board Mr. Leo J. Bevon County Administrators TRANSPORTATION FOR THE 21ST CENTURY , District Fre,kiericksburg Salem Sujfolk (w.n be divided irto three pi ases) Stcunton Ric~ond Cu peper No thern Virginia Br stol (w n be divided i~to three Pl1ases) Ly(lchburg SCHEDULE 1993 Spring Preallocation Hearings Location Tappahannock/Essex Fire Department Route 627 (Airport Road), approx. 0.4 mile west of Route 17 in Tappahannock District Office Harrison Avenue north of Main Street and east of VA 311 in Salem District Office 1700 North Main Street (Route 460) City of Suffolk Augusta County Government Center Route 11 - Verona District Office Pine Forest Drive off Route 1, one mile north of Colonial Heights District Office Route 15, 0.5 mile south of Route 3 in Culpeper Fairfax City Hall City of Fairfax Virginia Highlands Community College Route 372, which intersects with Route 140, 0.5 mile north of 1-81 at Exit 7 in Abingdon District Office Route 501, 0.26 mile south of intersection Routes 460 and 501 south of Lynchburg Date March 15 March 16 March 22 March 23 March 24 March 26 March 31 April 2 April 5 Time 10:00 a.m. 10:00 a.m. Beginning at 10:00 a.m. 10:00 a.m. 10:00 a.m. 10:00 a.m. 10:00 a.m. Beginning at 10:00 a.m. 10:00 a.m. Attachment 2 ....__....-........_-----....,',..._---.---.............----......._--.-.... ,.. ----.--.."...... ..........--.........----.-... ........ -.......,.... . --.... .--..----.--. ----..---"."'. ..---... - . ,--------, ..... ........". .... -- ..". ...--..-.. . .. ........ ... ....----.".,'.. -.-.-,.... .........._..... ____ d'__ .._......"". ... - ----., --- -.--- .... .--.......-. ..... ... ._.. d.... ..._ ...._..... ._ .__._...... _ ......... ........ ._. .---".... ...... ....--- ........ ..------.. ------- -. ..-. ...-..............,... .... .. '....." .....- .........--....,. -----.--.-,- ....._---.-,., .._-------,.. .....----.....".... ._-.-.. ....-.-...... ......."..----.......--.---....,.,.....--.-..".""------.-....-,.---.. .-........-.-.....-..,. . '.',"..'...'."'.','. ',COMPLIANCE WITHlSTEA, '."", ".' '."...'., PROPOSED STATE BUDGET AMENDMENT . ....--- -- .... --... . - --.. .... ..................... ..,. - ....-- - ..... ----------..- . ...... --. .. -.. -......--..--..-.........------........ ... .'..................,.....-----..--.,.......---- .---_.... On December 18, 1991, President Bush signed the Intermodal ansportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA), which changed the course transportation funding for the nation. Virginia's existing location statute could accommodate prior law, but there were eas of conflict between ISTEA and existing statute. VDOT was the same time performing an analysis of the allocation rmula, SJR 188, and it was the consensus of the General sembly and VDOT that major changes should be avoided until the R 188 study results could be properly considered by the sembly. As a result, the 1992 General Assembly enacted two t mporary budget amendments, allowing VDOT to treat the National H.ghway System (NHS) like interstate funds and setting aside the C ngestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) funds for d.stribution only to nonattainment areas. This year the General Assembly has received the initial port for the SJR 188 study. These recommendations call for a udy by the Assembly prior to implementation. In the interim, vernor wilder gave permission for VDOT to request a budget endment, which would temporarily enact the SJR 188 findings ecifically relating to full compliance with ISTEA. This commendation continues the previously approved distributions r the NHS and CMAQ and also provides for the federally mandated ballocations of the Surface Transportation Program (STP) funds. . Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Program (CMAQ) - Provides funding for transportation projects to reduce air pollution in areas that are in nonattainment for ozone or carbon monoxide. These federal monies are set aside prior to statutory distribution, and are attributed directly to the three nonattainment areas. The Metropolitan Planning Organization selects the projects to be funded. Projects may involve highways or other transportation modes. Required matching funds are provided from the regular allocation to the system or mode receiving the federal funds. . National Highway System (NHS) - Congress is establishing a 155,000 mile NHS to succeed the Interstate System. The new system will contain all interstate routes, some other principal arterials, and intermodal connectors. VDOT has completed the required functional classification, and has forwarded the draft results to local governments and regional transportation agencies. Following this review, a recommended system for Virginia will be submitted to the Federal Highway Administration this summer. The Congress will adopt a final system by September 30, 1995. In Virginia the NHS funds are treated like interstate funds. They are set aside prior to the statutory distribution, and required state matching funds are taken off-the-top. . SUrface Transportation Program (STP) - The most flexible of the new federal programs is the STP. These monies may be used for improvements on any transportation mode, and can be reassigned from highways to the other modes without going through a lengthy federal approval process. There are required federal set asides, and suballocations. Ten percent of the STP apportionment must be used for safety improvements. These involve improving conditions at hazardous locations and constructing grade separations at some rail-highway crossings and installing gates and flashing lights at the other crossings. This portion of the STP program replaces the federal safety program. Federal funds will no longer pass through the statutory formula, enabling the State to implement identified projects more rapidly. A second ten percent of the STP apportionment is set aside for enhancement projects. A list of the ten specific project types is established. These projects enhance the physical environment, and allow the State to do more than would normally be done on a proposed project. An enhancement may also be accomplished as a stand-alone venture, although it must relate to a transportation mode and meet the eligibility criteria. The Commonwealth Transportation Board is developing a brochure to more fully describe the program and solicit project recommendations. This will be available following budget approval by the General Assembly and the public involvement process for the program design. Federal funds will be set aside prior to the statutory distribution. Federal law requires that 50% of the STP funds be suballocated according to population. Within areas over 200,000 population, the available funds are attributed to the MPO for project selection, in cooperation with VDOT. Federal law also mandates the aggregate amount that must be obligated in rural areas. The budget amendment being considered by the General Assembly will assign the federally mandated amount for each area. within areas of over 200,000 population, the aggregate amounts are attributed to the MPOs; in other areas, allocations are made directly to the counties, cities, and towns. The remaining thirty percent of the STP apportionment is titled "state flexible". The Board's recommendation, which is under consideration by the General Assembly, would continue to pass these funds through the statutory distribution. . Equity Adjustment Categories - Federal allocation law does not return to each state the exact proportion of monies that it pays in user fees and taxes. Some states, like Virginia, pay in more taxes than are returned. In recognition of this fact, and in order to minimize the impact, Congress implemented a series of equity adjustments designed to return to each state at least 90% of their payments. Each of the five equity adjustments has slightly different distribution criteria, but all complement portions of the STP. within the recommended budget amendment, half of the apportionments available to Virginia are distributed in accordance with the federal STP formula. The other half is distributed to the NHS or other highway and/or transit projects at the discretion of the Board. . Budget status - The General Assembly is expected to adopt a final budget prior to its adjournment on February 27. until final action by the Assembly, VDOT's recommendations remain tentative, under consideration but not accepted. Once the budget is enacted, VDOT will know which recommendations are approved, and which have been further adjusted or denied. **** '" /(:t d c.( t'().~- 3/> 519<] /5 es.. r ... To: Albemarle coun~.t oa~d of supervis.or~ From: John Mesinge . ~r::::-J1.;l~,A/~_ Re: Clark rezoning tition \, Date: 3/10/93 Five days per week the traffic going toward Charlottesville past Rt 711 averages well above 55 mph; probably close to 65 mph, SLI DE 1 For comparisons to follow, the one lane bridge on Rt 712 is 12 FEET WIDE, Rt 711 exists between 29 Sand Rt 712, It begins as a cut between the high, wooded ridge between the south and north lanes of Rt 29, The view to 29 S is restricted. School buses enter from 29 S and cannot see cars leaving Rt 711 until they are very close to the full stop sign, SLI DE 2 The car at the entrance/exit of Rt 711 onto 29 N shows the country lane is up hill, single lane, with poor visibility until the car is at the edge of Rt 29, To go north involves a120 degree turn up hill which causes the rear drive wheels to slip, Careful drivers do not proceed until no traffic is visible on 29 S. Three buses per day enter or leave by this portal: six trips per day, The road is 13 FEET WIDE where the car stands. SLIDE 3 A & B About 100 yards down this lane, traffic on Rt 711 reaches a 90 degree curve on a hill which is blind to traffic from both directions, No bus may pass anything on this curve, The road width where you see the bus is 12 FEET, SLIDE 4 After picking up children for Red Hill, Walton and the high school, the three buses come down this steep, narrow hill to make a greater than 90 degree turn onto Rt 712, Rt 711 is slippery when iced or wet. The deep, uneven, rocky gutters offer a tin hernia to cars that may slip off the road, which is 11 FEET WIDE in parts, SLI DE 5 The bus drivers have to be careful to swing wide left from 711 to 712. They can see traffic from the one lane bridge to the right but visibility from the left is limited, While turning, buses block both roads and use the berms, SLIDE 6 The stretch of road lately proposed for entrance has blind curves and hills until it intersects with Rt 760. Then it gets worse. The road at a recently proposed entrance to the flood plain is 19 FEET WIDE, SLIDE 7 This is a view of the Clark flood plain, river and the upslope beyond it as viewed from 712, ,. 2 SLIDE 8 The other end of Rt 712 entering from Rt 29 requires going up a winding, one lane, dirt road, Fortunately, buses do not carry children on this section, but Rt 711 is no safer, This may be the shortest route from Rt 29 to the recently proposed central entry to the flood plain when traveling from Charlottesville and I 64. According to a local participant, at least one head on collision occured at the brow of this hill. SLIDE 9 When entering Rt 760 from Rt 710 at Red Hill School, one travels down a narrow, winding road. After reaching the bottom land, drivers must start up a more steep, more narrow section of 760 and proceed through a very tight, blind curve of over 90 degrees, The farm gate at the silo is in use by tractors and is designated in the plat the Planning Commission was given as an entrance to the flood plain, The road at this spot is 14 FEET WIDE, SLIDE 10 A & B Whichever way one travels, the curve is blind to oncoming traffic with nowhere to pull off, One hopes to never meet one of the three school buses either way because, careful drivers that they are, they still " take up more room than two vehicles would need to pass, We can only hope and pray that children will not be the victims of, the road conditions.. SLIDE 11 Of course, when we have a heavy rain, roads must be closed, n'H''3f roads ar~ Y'Clt ...)~f.t Y1oVl-hll.e.r?i-bl-Q, I -tUVj (Ay-e Uv1So.:A..-. The projected additional 740 trips/day estimated from rezoning would clearly add considerably to the risks of using these roads. 19 houses would add some risk but nothing to compare with 40, 50 or more homes, The bus drivers are careful, The county scrapes and adds gravel to the roads. North Garden is q gerrymandered village with several problems to be solved for growth to take place, It is I isted last among such vi IIag e's fo r improvements, Why increase everyone's risks by approving a problematic development OVl UV'\s.o...~e road~, . COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Office of Board of Supervisors 401 Mcintire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22901-4596 (804) 296-5843 FAX (804) 972-4060 Forrest R, Marshall, Jr. Scottsville Edward H. Ba n, Jr, Samuel Mill r David P, Bow rman Charlottesvill Charles S, Martin Rivanna Charlotte y, umphris Jack Jouett Walter F, Perkins White Hall Board of Supervisors Ella W. Carey, Clerk, CMC ~~ TE: March 11, 1993 BJECT: Supplement No. 71 to the Zoning Ordinance tached is an amended sheet to be placed in your copy of the ning Ordinance, this change was occasioned by the amendment opted on March 10, 1993. E C/len c Robert W. Tucker, Jr. (1) Robert B. Brandenburger (1) George R. st. John (3) Water Resources Manager (1) V. Wayne Cilimberg (12) Amelia McCulley (15) Clerk (3) 3~.9 3~.10 3~.10.1 3~.10.2 MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED IN REVIEWING PROPOSED AMENDMENTS Proposed amendments shall be reviewed in regard to sections 1.4, Purpose and Intent; 1.5, Relationship to Environment; and 1.6, Relationship to Comprehensive Plan; of this ordinance. SCHEDULE OF REVIEW For the purposes of providing for orderly growth and rea- soned consideration of the potential impact of proposed rezonings, zoning text amendments and special use permits upon the comprehensive plan, the board of supervisors may establish timing procedures for consideration of rezoning applications. The board of supervisors shall consider zoning text amend- ment petitions by property owners at specified intervals of six (6) months. Hearing times in accord with such intervals shall be established by resolution of the board of super- visors during the month of January of each calendar year following enactment of this ordinance, and said resolution shall be published at least once per week for two consec- utive weeks in a newspaper of general circulation in Albe- marle County. -224- a . . . 33.8 33.8.1 33.8.2 33.8.3 POSTING OF PROPERTY Additional notice of public hearings involving zoning map amendments initiated pursuant to section 33.2.1 above shall be provided by means of signs posted on the property pro- posed for rezoning, in the manner prescribed in this sec- tion. POSTING OF PROPERTY - PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING At least fifteen (IS) days preceding the commission's public hearing on a zoning map amendment, the applicant shall erect on the property proposed to be rezoned, a sign or signs furnished by the zoning administrator indicating the change proposed and the date, time and place of the public hearing. The sign shall be erected by the applicant within ten (10) feet of whatever boundary line of such land abuts a public road and shall be so placed as to be clearly visible from the road with the bottom of the sign not less than two and one-half (2 1/2) feet above the ground. If more than one such road abuts the property, then a sign shall be erected in the same manner as above for each such abutting road. If no public road abuts thereon, then signs shall be erected in the same manner as above on at least two boundaries of the property abutting land not owned by the applicant. POSTING OF PROPERTY - BOARD OF SUPERVISORS HEARING Upon receipt of written notice that a public hearing has been scheduled before the board of supervisors for his zoning map amendment, the applicant shall erect, at least fifteen (15) days preceding such hearing, a sign or signs furnished by the zoning administrator indicating the change proposed and the date, time and place of the public hearing. Such sign or signs shall be erected in the same manner as prescribed in section 33.8.1 above. MAINTENANCE AND REMOVAL OF SIGNS Any sign erected in compliance with this section shall be maintained at all times by the applicant up to the time of the hearing and it shall be the duty of the applicant at the hearing to prove by affidavit that he has fully complied with the requirements of this section and has continuously maintained the sign or signs up to the time of the hearing. It shall be unlawful for any person, except the applicant or the zoning administrator or an authorized agent of either, to remove or tamper with any sign furnished during the period it is required to be maintained under this section. All signs erected under this section shall be removed by the applicant within fifteen (15) days following the public hearing for which it was erected. -223- .. . . . 33. c 33. 0 33. 0.1 33. 0.2 MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED IN REVIEWING PROPOSED AMENDMENTS Proposed amendments shall be reviewed in regard to sections 1.4, Purpose and Intent; 1.5, Relationship to Environment; and 1.6, Relationship to Comprehensive Plan; of this ordi- nance. SCHEDULE OF REVIEW For the purposes of providing for orderly growth and rea- soned consideration of the potential impact of proposed rezonings, zoning text amendments and special use permits upon the comprehensive plan, the board of supervisors may establish timing procedures for consideration of rezoning applications. The board of supervisors shall consider zoning text amend- ment petitions by property owners at specified intervals of three (3) months. Hearing times in accord with such inter- vals shall be established by resolution of the board of supervisors during the month of January of each calendar year following enactment of this ordinance, and said resolu- tion shall be published at least once per week for two consecutive weeks in a newspaper of general circulation in Albemarle County. (Amended 3-10-93) -224- Supp. #71, 3-10-93 38.8 . 3b.8.1 . 3~.8.2 3B.8.3 . POSTING OF PROPERTY Additional notice of public hearings involving zoning map amendments initiated pursuant to section 33.2.1 above shall be provided by means of signs posted on the property pro- posed for rezoning, in the manner prescribed in this sec- tion. POSTING OF PROPERTY - PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING At least fifteen (15) days preceding the commission's public hearing on a zoning map amendment, the applicant shall erect on the property proposed to be rezoned, a sign or signs furnished by the zoning administrator indicating the change proposed and the date, time and place of the public hearing. The sign shall be erected by the applicant within ten (10) feet of whatever boundary line of such land abuts a public road and shall be so placed as to be clearly visible from the road with the bottom of the sign not less than two and one-half (2 1/2) feet above the ground. If more than one such road abuts the property, then a sign shall be erected in the same manner as above for each such abutting road. If no public road abuts thereon, then signs shall be erected in the same manner as above on at least two boundaries of the property abutting land not owned by the applicant. POSTING OF PROPERTY - BOARD OF SUPERVISORS HEARING Upon receipt of written notice that a public hearing has been scheduled before the board of supervisors for his zoning map amendment, the applicant shall erect, at least fifteen (15) days preceding such hearing, a sign or signs furnished by the zoning administrator indicating the change proposed and the date, time and place of the public hearing. Such sign or signs shall be erected in the same manner as prescribed in section 33.8.1 above. MAINTENANCE AND REMOVAL OF SIGNS Any sign erected in compliance with this section shall be maintained at all times by the applicant up to the time of the hearing and it shall be the duty of the applicant at the hearing to prove by affidavit that he has fully complied with the requirements of this section and has continuously maintained the sign or signs up to the time of the hearing. It shall be unlawful for any person, except the applicant or the zoning administrator or an authorized agent of either, to remove or tamper with any sign furnished during the period it is required to be maintained under this section. All signs erected under this section shall be removed by the applicant within fifteen (15) days following the public hearing for which it was erected. -223- . . . 33.S 33.]0 33...0.1 33. 0.2 MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED IN REVIEWING PROPOSED AMENDMENTS Proposed amendments shall be reviewed in regard to sections 1.4, Purpose and Intent; 1.5, Relationship to Environment; and 1.6, Relationship to Comprehensive Plan; of this ordi- nance. SCHEDULE OF REVIEW For the purposes of providing for orderly growth and rea- soned consideration of the potential impact of proposed rezonings, zoning text amendments and special use permits upon the comprehensive plan, the board of supervisors may establish timing procedures for consideration of rezoning applications. The board of supervisors shall consider zoning text amend- ment petitions by property owners at specified intervals of three (3) months. Hearing times in accord with such inter- vals shall be established by resolution of the board of supervisors during the month of January of each calendar year following enactment of this ordinance, and said resolu- tion shall be published at least once per week for two consecutive weeks in a newspaper of general circulation in Albemarle County. (Amended 3-10-93) -224- Supp. #71, 3-10-93