HomeMy WebLinkAbout1991-04-17
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Edward H. Bain, Jr.
Samuel Miller
Charlotte Y. Humphris
Jack Jouett
David P. Bowerman
Charlottesville
Board of Supervisors
Walter F. Perkins
White Hall
F. R. (Rick) Bowie
Rivanna
AGENDA
:F I N A L
Peter T. Way
Scottsvil1e
April 17, 1991
7:00 P.M.
Room 7, 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 back of sheet).
6) Hatton Agricultural/Forestal District. Public Hearing on an Ordinance to
amend and reenact Section 2.1-4(a) of the Code of Albemarle after the
eight year review of the Hatton A/F District. The existing district
consists of 2874.0 ac in vicinity of Hatton, Warren & Scottsville.
7) Totier Creek Agricultural/Forestal District. Public Hearing on an Ordi-
nance to amend and reenact Section 2.1-4(b) of the Code of Albemarle
after the eight year review of the Totier Creek A/F District. The
existing district consists of 6071.0 ac in vicinity of Keene, Esmont &
Scottsville.
8) Blue Run Agricultural/Forestal District. To review a proposal to have a
pipeline traverse 5344 ft of Foxport Farm. Review to determine effect
such action would have upon: 1) the preservation & enhancement of
agriculture & forestry, and agricultural/forestal resources within the
district; 2) policy of Chapter 36 of Virginia Code, Agricultural/
Forestal Districts Act. Review is also to determine necessity of
proposed action to provide service to the public in most economical &
practicable manner.
9) SP-90-111. Columbia Gas Transmission Corporation. Public Hearing on a
request to construct 6 mi of underground natural gas pipelines on many
parcels of land zoned RA. This new pipeline will be witl1in the
existing Columbia rights-of-way, however, they must acquire an addi-
tional 20 ft of permanent rights-of-way and 10 ft of additional
construction easement. This request requires the crossing of the
flood plain of Blue Run and a tributary of Happy Creek. The parcels
involved are: TM35,P31; TM36,Ps l,5,6,7,8,9B1,10,12,13,14,19.23,24A.
24,26& 27; TM50,P48; TM51,Ps3.4,5,6,7A,7B,7C,21,22B,22C,22. All par-
cels are in the NE most area of Albemarle County stretching from Rt 20
near the Orange County line eastward to the Louisa County line near Rt
860. The pipeline will cross Rt 20 & Rt 231 which are Entrance Cor-
ridors. (Properties do not lie in a growth area.)
10) SP-91-03. The Gardens Partnership. Public Hearing on a request for a
commercial recreation center within the Gardens Shopping Center zoned
C-1. Property on E side of Rt 29 approx 2000 ft N of Rio Rd. TM45,
P104(part). Charlottesville Dist. (Property lies in a designated
growth area.)
11) SF-91-04. Faith Mission Home. Public Hearing on a request to expand
existing church bldg to include sanctuary, foyer & restrooms. Proper-
ty contains 9.203 ac zoned RA located on W side Rt 601 at Greene
County line. TM3,P1B. White Hall Dist. (Property does not lie in a
growth area. )
12) SP-90~102. Centel Cellular. Public Hearing on a request to construct 300
ft monopole tower for mobile communications. Property contains 36.4
ac zoned LIon S side of C&O Railway behind Acme Visible Records in
Crozet. TM56,P94. White Hall Dist. (Property lies in a designated
growth area.)
13) Public Hearing: An ordinance amending and reenacting Chapter 2.2, ALARMS,
of the Code of Albemarle, by omitting all requirements for registra-
tion and county permits for installation. The ordinance still makes
it a local misdemeanor to intentionally send in a false alarm, and
provides for civil reimbursement of costs for unintentional false
alarms.
14) Transfer of Funds - AHIP.
15) Resolution: To finalize 1991-92 Budget.
16) Resolution: To set tax rates for 1991.
16a) Resolution of Support for the Planning District: Identification of Non-
Point Source Pollution to Groundwater from Pesticides.
17) Appointments.
18) Approval of Minutes: February 6 and February 20, 1991.
19) Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda from the BOARD.
20) Adjourn.
CON S E N T
AGE N D A
FOR. IN:FORHATION:
.5.1
Copy of Planning Commission Minutes for_April 2, 1991.
5.2
Copy of Bond Program Report and Monthly Report from Arbor Crest Apartments
for January, February and March, 1991.
".,
...
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
OFFICE OF BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
401 MciNTIRE ROAD
CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA 22901-4596
M E M 0 RAN DUM
TO: V. Wayne Cilimberg, Director of Planning
and Community Development
FROM: Lettie E. Neher, Clerk )~
DATE: April 18, 1991
SUBJECT: Board Actions of April 17, 1991
At the Board of Supervisors meeting held on April 17, 1991, the following
actions were taken:
Agenda Item No.6. Hatton Agricultural/Forestal District. Public Hearing
on an Ordinance to amend and reenact Section 2.1-4(a) of the Code of Albemarle
after the eight year review of the Hatton A/F District. The existing district
consists of 2874.0 ac in vicinity of Hatton, Warren & Scottsville.
Agenda Item No.7. Totier Creek Agricultural/Forestal District. Public
Hearing on an Ordinance to amend and reenact Section 2.1-4(b) of the Code of
Albemarle after the eight year review of the Totier Creek A/F District. The
existing district consists of 6071.0 ac in vicinity of Keene, Esmont & Scotts-
ville'l) ~ _. 'h-~~_ ~. .k-~
~ /.J'!4-' ~J ~./~
ADOPTJm-the attached ordinance to amend and reenact Section 2.l(a) "Hatton
Agricultural and Forestal District" and Section 2.l(b) "Bh~Q RUR Agricultural
and ForestarDistrict" to add additional parcels. -,0 1i t!/e ~
~~
The Board set a public hearing for June 5~consider extending the time
limit for review of both districts from eight to ten years.
Agenda Item No.8. Blue Run Agricultural/Forestal District. To review a
proposal to have a pipeline traverse 5344 ft of Foxport Farm. Review to deter-
mine effect such action would have upon: 1) the preservation & enhancement of
agriculture & forestry, and agricultural/forestal resources within the district;
2) policy of Chapter 36 of Virginia Code, Agricultural/ Forestal Districts Act.
Review is also to determine necessity of proposed action to provide service to
the public in most economical & practicable manner.
~
Memo To:
Date:
Page 2
V. Wayne Cilimberg
April 18, 1991
The Board found the Columbia Gas pipeline easement in the Blue Run Agricul-
tural and Forestal District (1) to be in compliance with the policy of Chapter 6
of the Code of Virginia; (2) to not have a substantial adverse effect on a
permanent basis on the agricultural and forestal activities in the District; and
(3) that to a degree the need for the service has been documented in the most
economical and practicable manner. Secondly, this determination is based on the
following:
1. The utility corridor preceded the establishment of the Agricultural/
Forestal District;
2. The proposed project would substantially utilize the existing corridor;
3. Due to the underground character of this use, the impact to agriculture and
forestry is primarily temporary. The area can revert to pre-existing
conditions;
4. The temporary impact of construction may be adequately minimized through
conditions attached to the approval of a revised special permit;
5. The long-term impact of this particular use is expected to be negligible
and will not affect the viability and character of the District;
6. Approval of construction techniques by the Marine Resources Committee and
the Corps of Engineers; and
7. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) determination of need.
Agenda Item No.9. SP-90-111. Columbia Gas Transmission Corporation.
Public Hearing on a request to construct 6 mi of underground natural gas pipe-
lines on many parcels of land zoned RA. This new pipeline will be within the
existing Columbia rights-of-way, however, they must acquire an additional 20 ft
of permanent rights-of-way and 10 ft of additional construction easement. This
request requires the crossing of the flood plain of Blue Run and a tributary of
Happy Creek. The parcels involved are: TM35,P31; TM36,Ps1,5,6,7,8,9B1,10,12,
13,14,19,23,24A,24,26& 27; TM50,P48; TM51,Ps3,4,5,6, 7A,7B,7C,21,22B,22C,22.
All parcels are in the NE most area of Albemarle County stretching from Rt 20
near the Orange County line eastward to the Louisa County line near Rt 860. The
pipeline will cross Rt 20 & Rt 231 which are Entrance Corridors.
APPROVED SP-90-11 subject to the following conditions:
1. Construction shall be performed within the existing easement, a new perma-
nent 20 foot easement and a ten foot temporary easement except on Tax Map
35, Parcel 31, where construction shall be performed within the existing 70
foot easement and a new ten foot permanent easement;
2. If herbicides or other agents for the control of vegetation are proposed,
the applicant shall submit for approval a list of proposed herbicides or
other agents and the proposed method of application to the County Engineer
Memo To:
Date:
Page 3
V. Wayne Cilimberg
April 18, 1991
and Virginia Cooperative Extension Service. In any case where a property
owner objects to the use of such method, the applicant shall employ other
methods for the control of vegetation subject to property owner approval;
3. Construction on Tax Map 35, Parcel 31, shall not commence prior to June 15,
1991, and shall be completed by September 15, 1991. The construction
period shall not be more than 15 consecutive days. Provided, however, that
the Director of Planning and Community Development may extend the
construction period due to unforeseen delays in construction which may
include, but shall not be limited to, conditions imposed by federal or
state regulatory agencies, inclement weather or other acts of God. In
considering whether to extend the construction period, the Director of
Planning and Community Development shall consider measures necessary to
assure restoration of the right-of-way area;
4. Approval by all federal, state and local officials of stream crossing and
wetland areas;
5. Virginia Department of Transportation approval of road crossings;
6. Department of Engineering issuance of an erosion control permit, to include
restoration of ten foot temporary easement;
7. Method of vegetative stabilization of the easement on Tax Map 35, Parcel
31, shall be determined by the property owner and Department of
Engineering;
8. No structures shall be removed on Tax Map 35, Parcel 31, for the construc-
tion of the pipeline; and
9. Compliance with Environmental Management and Construction Standards and
practices plan as described in FERC Docket No. CP-90-1513-000.
Agenda Item No. 10. SP-91-03. The Gardens Partnership. Public Hearing on
a request for a commercial recreation center within the Gardens Shopping Center
zoned C-1. Property on E side of Rt 29 approx 2000 ft N of Rio Rd. TM45,
P104(part). Charlottesville Dist.
APPROVED SP-91-03 subject to the following conditions:
1. Use shall be limited to that area shown on Attachment D;
2. No sale of alcoholic beverages will be allowed;
4. Hours of operation shall be limited to the following:
September 1 - May
Monday-Thursday
Friday-Saturday
Sunday
31
11: 00 a.m.
10:00 a.m.
11: 00 a.m.
- 10:00 p.m.
- Midnight
- 9:00 p.m.
.
Memo To:
Date:
Page 4
V. Wayne Cilimberg
April 18, 1991
June 1 - August 31
Monday-Thursday
Friday-Saturday
Sunday
10:00 a.m. - 11:00 p.m.
10:00 a.m. - Midnight
11:00 a.m. - 10:00 p.m.
4. There shall be a minimum of two employees on the premises during all hours
of operation whose primary purpose will be to insure that order is
maintained.
Agenda Item No. 11. SP-91-04. Faith Mission Home. Public Hearing on a
request to expand existing church bldg to include sanctuary, foyer & restrooms.
Property contains 9.203 ac zoned RA located on W side Rt 601 at Greene County
line. TM3,P1B. White Hall Dist.
APPROVED SP-91-04 subject to the following conditions:
1. Expansion shall be limited as shown on site plan dated February 11, 1991;
2. Staff approval of site plan;
3. Department of Engineering approval of grading and drainage plans and calcu-
lations.
Agenda Item No. 12. SP-90-102. Centel Cellular. Public Hearing on a
request to construct 300 ft monopole tower for mobile communications. Property
contains 36.4 ac zoned LIon S side of C&O Railway behind Acme Visible Records
in Crozet. TM56,P94. White Hall Dist.
DEFERRED to June 12.
The Board requested staff to bring back a report before the June 12 meeting
to include the following items:
1. The County Attorney to research the legal aspects of allowing towers in the
County and the possible setting of precedents;
2. Staff to find some knowledgeable person in the field (none of the appli-
cants that have come before the Board) to make a presentation on all of the
aspects relating to towers and if there is a need for all of these towers;
3. Where towers should be located in the County, i.e, concentrated in one area
or scattered sites;
4. Provide a map, outlining the service areas of the towers, any overlap of
services showing dead spots; and
5. How many more requests for towers can be expected.
Memo To:
Date:
Page 5
V. Wayne Ci1imberg
April 18, 1991
Agenda Item No. 13. Public Hearing: An ordinance amending and reenacting
Chapter 2.2, ALARMS, of the Code of Albemarle, by omitting all requirements for
registration and county permits for installation. The ordinance still makes it
a local misdemeanor to intentionally send in a false alarm, and provides for
civil reimbursement of costs for unintentional false alarms.
ADOPTED the attached ordinance to amend and reenact Chapter 2.2, ALARMS.
Agenda Item No. 14. Transfer of Funds - AHIP.
APPROVED the transfer of $13,406 for a Housing Specialist assigned to AHIP.
Agenda Item No. 16a. Resolution of Support for the Planning District:
Identification of NonPoint Source Pollution to Groundwater from Pesticides.
ADOPTED the attached resolution.
Agenda Item No. 19. Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda from the Board.
AUTHORIZED staff to hire an engineering inspector prior to July 1.
LEN:ec
Attachment
cc: Robert W. Tucker, Jr.
Robert Brandenburger
Bruce Woodzell
Amelia Patterson
Richard Moring
George R. St. John
File
-~
(f:.
.-
c
-
"-
l'\:
a
-
c
c
,j:>
Z'1'./lfz."
L
1
I
't/'.f/fz," 2
"i~r....
~
J
r- ~f
)l ~ II
".11
~ t
I/"
(Q
.....
o
.....
"'-
. N
co
.....
Cl
o
,p.
I -<I
J ~ *-;} ~ /'
I~~ 0 1\'( I;J / ./'
l~i~~~1\~./' /
,~..'~ x.1l-~ ./'
~_ ~S\~~
I C- '\1
.R ,.. nm
j -< \1\2. ~
i~ ~ j~
'il
o
N
*
~
:l>
n
:t
s:
m
:z;
,.....
..
;...-.' '''\ ;,,'" """"'" ,.', '\ \~.. '.,{ :,' j'
, " '" ,;. \, .1 c.' ,,1\ l 1 /
I,' t, i~ ~ .\ (~ ; ~~ ~ ~ ~ .~, ,~
",L,.". H' ~,,J! j '~WI
t~ ~ti~b" \
'. lJ] l~) ~ IJ
'F",~~
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
OFFICE OF BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
401 MciNTIRE ROAD
CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA 22901-4596
MEMORANDUM
TO: Robert W. Tucker, Jr., ~unty Executive
FROM: Lettie E. Neher, Clerk ~
April 18, 1991 I
DATE:
SUBJECT: Board Actions of April 17, 1991
At the Board of Supervisors meeting held on April 17, 1991, the following
actions were taken:
Agenda Item No. 13. Public Hearing: An ordinance amending and reenacting
Chapter 2.2, ALARMS, of the Code of Albemarle, by omitting all requirements for
registration and county permits for installation. The ordinance still makes it
a local misdemeanor to intentionally send in a false alarm, and provides for
civil reimbursement of costs for unintentional false alarms.
ADOPTED the attached ordinance to amend and reenact Chapter 2.2, ALARMS. A
copy has been sent to Melvin Breeden and John Miller.
Agenda Item No. 14. Transfer of Funds - AHIP.
APPROVED the transfer of $13,406 for a Housing Specialist assigned to AHIP.
An appropriation form has been requested from Melvin Breeden.
Agenda Item No. 15. Resolution: To finalize 1991-92 Budget.
ADOPTED the attached resolution. A copy has been sent to Melvin Breeden.
The Board requested the following information:
1. What are the plans for CA-TEC and where will the monies allocated go?
2. Staff look at the possibility of semi-annual appropriations, what are the
problems, if any. A way to make sure that programs requested for funding
are being funded once an appropriation is made.
~
~
Memo To:
Date:
Page 2.
Robert W. Tucker, Jr.
April 18, 1991
Mr. Bain suggested that it may be necessary to schedule a meeting with the
School Board and the CA-TEC Board in late May to discuss what is happening at
CA-TEC.
Agenda Item No. 16. To set tax rates for 1991.
ADOPTED the attached resolution. A copy has been sent to Melvin Breeden as
required by State Code.
Agenda Item No. 16a. Resolution of Support for the Planning District:
Identification of NonPoint Source Pollution to Groundwater from Pesticides.
ADOPTED the attached resolution. The resolution has been forwarded to
Nancy O'Brien.
Agenda Item No. 17. Appointments.
APPOINTED Eleanor Santic to the TJSPARE as the County representative.
Agenda Item No. 19. Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda from the Board.
AUTHORIZED staff to hire an engineering inspector prior to July 1.
LEN:ec
Attachments
cc: Ray B. Jones
Peyton Robertson
Roxanne White
Robert Brandenburger
RES 0 L UTI 0 N
BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle
County, Virginia, that the operations budget for the County for the
Fiscal Year beginning July l, 1991, be approved as follows:
Total
$ 3,667,570
1,229,612
5,952,930
1,518,700
3,789,858
2,415,462
1,666,185
3,277,350
67,500
1,000,000
150,000
4,329,518
56,592,020
$85,656,705
General Government Administration
Judicial
Public Safety
Public Works
Human Development
Parks, Recreation and Culture
Community Development
County/City Revenue Sharing
Refunds
Capital Improvements
Debt Service Reserve
Education - Debt Service
Education - Operations
* * * * *
I, Lettie E. Neher, do hereby certify that the foregoing
writing is a true, correct copy for a resolution adopted by the
Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, at a regular
meeting held on April 17, 1991.
--//
(b~
of County Supervisors
RES 0 L UTI 0 N
BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle
County, Virginia, does hereby set the County Levy for the taxable
year 1991 for General County purposes at Seventy-Two Cents ($0.72)
on every One Hundred Dollars worth of real estate; at Four Dollars
and Thirty Cents ($4.30) on every One Hundred Dollars worth of
assessed value of personal property; at Four Dollars and Thirty
Cents ($4.30) on every One Hundred Dollars worth of assessed value
of machinery and tools; at Seventy-Two Cents ($0.72) on every One
Hundred Dollars worth of assessed value on mobile homes; and at
Seventy-Two Cents ($0.72) on every One Hundred Dollars worth of
assessed value of public service assessments; and
FURTHER orders that the Director of Finance of Albemarle
County assess and collect on all taxable real estate and all
taxable personal property, including machinery and tools not
assessed as real estate, used or employed in a manufacturing
business, not taxable by the State on Capital; including Public
Service Corporation property except the rolling stock of railroads
based upon the assessment fixed by the State Corporation commission
and certified by it to the Board of Supervisors both as to location
and valuation; and including all boats and watercraft under five
tons as set forth in the Code of Virginia; and vehicles used as
mobile homes or offices as set forth in the virginia Code; except
farm machinery, farm tools, farm livestock, and household goods as
set forth in the Code of Virginia, section 58.1-3500 through
Section 58.1-3508.
* * * * *
I, Lettie E. Neher, do hereby certify that the foregoing
writing is a true, correct copy for a resolution adopted by the
Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, at a reguiar
meeting held on April 17, 1991. ~. -~,t::~.
Clerk, Board of County Supervisors
RESOLUTION OF SUPPORT
FOR
IDENTIFICATION OF NONPOINT SOURCE
POLLUTION TO
GROUNDWATER FROM PESTICIDES
WHEREAS, pesticides are used widely in residential and agricultural
land uses in Albemarle County; and
WHEREAS, pesticide loss into groundwater is greater in some areas
than others; and
WHEREAS, these areas of Albemarle County which are particularly
sensitive to certain pesticides are unknown; and
WHEREAS, the knowledge of pesticide vulnerable areas and the
production of a local pesticide management plan will reduce the pesticide loss
from residential and agricultural land uses; and
WHEREAS, the delineation of sensitive areas will help to implement the
1990 Farm Bill, the Virginia Nonpoint Source Pollution Management Program
and the Environmental Protection, Public Information, Education, Monitoring
and Analysis recommendations of the Virginia Pesticide Subcommittee; and
WHEREAS, the knowledge of pesticide vulnerable areas will be
helpful for comprehensive planning and zoning decision making in Albemarle
County.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Albemarle Board of
County Supervisors supports the application of the Thomas Jefferson
Planning District to delineate areas sensitive to certain pesticides and the
involvement of the Albemarle County Extension Office to help develop
pesticide management plans.
* * * * *
I, Lettie E. Neher, do hereby certify that the foregoing writing is a
true, correct copy of a resolution adopted by the Albemarle Board of County
Supervisors at a reguffir meeting ~.?~4
Clerk, Board of ~::pervisors
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
OFFICE OF BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
401 MciNTIRE ROAD
CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA 22901-4596
.. ~
;', \ ~ ';'.j
~ t,". '; ~ \ .\
1.\\1t V\l
l ~\! 't ~ .'
~-""",l,l' 'ft....~v
,
" i
,
'\_0)
M E M 0 RAN DUM
TO: Melvin Breeden, Director of Finance
FROM: Lettie E. Neher, Clerk jyJ
DATE: April 18, 1991
SUBJECT: Board Actions of April 17, 1991
At its meeting on April 17, 1991, the Board of Supervisors
took the following actions:
APPROVED the transfer of $13,406 for a Housing Specialist
assigned to AHIP. Please provide us with an appropriation form to
reflect this action;
ADOPTED the attached resolution approving the operations
budget for the County for the Fiscal Year beginning July 1, 1991;
ADOPTED the attached resolution setting the County Levy for
taxable year 1991; and
ADOPTED the attached resolution to amend and reenact Chapter
2.2, ALARMS, of the County Code.
LEN:ec
Attachments
,.
RES 0 L UTI 0 N
BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle
County, Virginia, that the operations budget for the County for the
Fiscal Year beginning July 1, 1991, be approved as follows:
Total
$ 3,667,570
1,229,612
5,952,930
1,518,700
3,789,858
2,415,462
1,666,185
3,277,350
67,500
1,000,000
150,000
4,329,518
56,592,020
$85,656,705
General Government Administration
Judicial
Public Safety
Public Works
Human Development
Parks, Recreation and Culture
Community Development
County/City Revenue Sharing
Refunds
Capital Improvements
Debt Service Reserve
Education - Debt Service
Education - Operations
* * * * *
I, Lettie E. Neher, do hereby certify that the foregoing
writing is a true, correct copy for a resolution adopted by the
Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, at a regular
meeting held on Aprill?, 1991. ~~ >~
lerk, Board of County Supervisors
. .
RES 0 L UTI 0 N
BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle
County, Virginia, does hereby set the County Levy for the taxable
year 1991 for General County purposes at Seventy-Two Cents ($0.72)
on every One Hundred Dollars worth of real estate; at Four Dollars
and Thirty Cents ($4.30) on every One Hundred Dollars worth of
assessed value of personal property; at Four Dollars and Thirty
Cents ($4.30) on every One Hundred Dollars worth of assessed value
of machinery and tools; at Seventy-Two Cents ($0.72) on every One
Hundred Dollars worth of assessed value on mobile homes; and at
Seventy-Two Cents ($0.72) on every One Hundred Dollars worth of
assessed value of public service assessments; and
FURTHER orders that the Director of Finance of Albemarle
County assess and collect on all taxable real estate and all
taxable personal property, including machinery and tools not
assessed as real estate, used or employed in a manufacturing
business, not taxable by the State on Capital; including Public
Service Corporation property except the rolling stock of railroads
based upon the assessment fixed by the State Corporation commission
and certified by it to the Board of Supervisors both as to location
and valuation; and including all boats and watercraft under five
tons as set forth in the Code of Virginia; and vehicles used as
mobile homes or offices as set forth in the Virginia Code; except
farm machinery, farm tools, farm livestock, and household goods as
set forth in the Code of Virginia, Section 58.1-3500 through
Section 58.1-3508.
* * * * *
I, Lettie E. Neher, do hereby certify that the foregoing
writing is a true, correct copy for a resolution adopted by the
Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, at a regular
meeting held on April 17, 1991. ~. _~ ~~.
Clerk, Board of County Supervisors
Fiscal
Year
Calculated
Payment
Cap
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
82-83 1,293,552 N/A
83-84 1,664,067 1,530,991
84-85 1,635,984 1,579,753
85-86 1,909,389 1,875,179
86-87 1,942,509 1,956,554
87-88 2,417,318 2,277,953
88-89 2,513,521 2,368,027
89-90 2,900,073 2,693,120
90-91 3,128,917 2,802,359
91-92 3,644,347 3,277,350
Cap
Apply?
Amount of
Payment
N/A 1,293,552
Y 1,530,991
Y 1,579,753
Y 1,875,179
No 1,942,509
Y 2,277,953
Y 2,368,027
Y 2,693,120
Y 2,802,359
Y 3,277,350
f 2.1/ 'C/O,?t3
Payment due by January 31 of Fiscal Year
~,
/q 12-
/~U4'C:--~ 13b
q/r 171
&~
Increase
Percent
N/A
237,439 18.36%
48,762 3.18%
295,426 18.70%
67,330 3.59%
335,444 17.27%
90,074 3.95%
325,093 13.73%
109,239 4.06%
474,991 16.95%
COUNTY of ALBEMARLE
401 MCINTIRE ROAD
CHARLOTTESVillE, VIRGINIA
22901-4596
ROBERT J. WALTERS, JR., CPA
DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF FINANCE
A PUBLIC AFFAIRS
MESSAGE
from
R. L YNWOOD
COFFMAN
Baptist Minister, SBC
TELEPHONE
(80.&) 2gS-!58!51
~ 17/ J9crl
1K)UGHrS ON ALBEMARIE' S ''REVENUE
SHARING", FY 82-83 'lD FY 91-92
/
Fellow citizens of Albemarle County:
SAY X NO! to "revenue shering". Let's not defeat ourselves and our own children.
On May 18, turning thumbs down on revenue sharing will do everyone a DOUBLE FAVOR because
you likewise turn thumbs down on the unconstitutional 1979 "tribute-or-else" annexation State law
lathered by lawmaker Tom Michie and supported by Del. James Murray. The 14th Amendment
prohibits unequal tr"tment of citizens by the States. Citizens 01 cities and counties. 01 urban and
non-urban counties, must all receive lair and equal treatment, privileges and immunities. Mr. Mich-
ie's 1979 annexation law is filled with inequities. It clearly grants prelerences to cities and full
Immunity Irom annexation to some counties but not to Albemarle and 23 other non-urban counties.
This indisputably runs against the spirit and philosophy of the 14th Amendment guarantee 01 equal
rights 01 all citizens which cannot be denied by the Slate 01 Virginia to its citizens who live in non.
urban counties like Albemarle. II this Michi.Murray 1979 State annexation law which denies consti-
tutionally guaranteed equal rights for all the citizens 01 Virginia were to be taken to federal court, it
would be held unconstitutional.
More than a decade 01 debete has shown lhat the mergerl revenue sharingl annexatlonl consolida-
tion issue Is one on which Albemarle citizens hold fenent and irreconcilable views. With our consti-
tutionally guaranteed equal rights now on the line, we deserve and demand that they be lully
championed by the Albemarle Board 01 Supervisors, all 01 whom took an oath to support and defend
the U.S. Constitution which guarantees us these rights.
That's why I'm taking this means to ask you to help do your part by getting involved In this lar-
reaching, vital matter. Your "voter voic." can make a dillerence. Here's what I'm asking you 10 do:
1. Say "NO" to the revenue sharing ptoposal on May t 8, 1982. We can't win if you don't play'
2. Sign your name(s} on the petition below. Cleerly print your name and address on the petillon.
3. Clip the petition and mail it to: CITIZENS WHO CARE
P.O. Box 5661
Charlottesville, Va. 22905
4. Can you send $1, $5, or even $10? It is desperately needed to wage this battle. I hope you can...
and will. PI"se make checks payable to CITIZENS WHO CARE.
Publication 01 this public allairs message was paid lor by R. Lynwood Collman in the interests 01
Citizens Who Care, P.O. Box 5661, Charlottesville, Va. 22905.
. _ _ _ _ _TIME IS SHORT! PLEASE CUP AND MAIL IMMEDIATELY!... ...
I PETITION .
I TO ALBEMARLE COUNTY I
I BOARD OF SUPERVISORS I
I To lully ptotect Albemarle citizens and luture generations from being victimized by pr<H:ity annexa.
tlon lew:, r..enue conlltcation echemes and probable Sta'" 01 Virginia denial of Fourt...nth Amond- I
I ment constitullonal guarantees 01 equal rights, (I, we) want you, our elected representatives, to act .
on our behall by having the Michi.-sponsored-Murray-supported 1979 State annexation law chal-
I lenged In the federal courts by the County of Albemarle, Virginia. .
. Following defeat of the revenue sharing proposal, the Board 01 Supervisors should employ an out- .
. standing constitutional lawyer to liIe suit in lederal court asking lor an overturn 01 the Michi.spon- .
sored-Murray-supported 1979 State annexation law. You should enlist as many as possible 01 the
I other 23 counties In Virginia victimized by Michie's 1979 State law to annexation by a city, 10 join .
with Albemarle In challenging this inequitable law in the lederal courls.
I As a voter in your district, (I, we) will be watching this issue very closely. .
. SIGN HERE Mail all replies to: I
. .
I (YOUR SIGNATURE) .
. NAME CITIZENS WHO CARE .
. ADDRESS P.O. Box 5661 .
. CITY Charlottesville, Va. .
. STATE . ZIP' 22905 .
I...................._-~
To avoid annexations of urban
Albemarle , voters on May 18, 1982
agreed to a negotiated ''Revenue
Sharing" agreement with the City
of Charlottesville. As a guarantee
against further annexations, Albe-
marle property tax rates are to
always have an added 10C per $100
to be paid to Charlottesville.
For the first decade of ''Revenue
Sharing", Albemarle taxpayers have
paid property taxes to Charlottes-
ville arrmmting to
~$2l,640, 793~
By payment of this $21. 6 million
to Charlottesville, Albemarle
taxpayers have avoided paying the
TIU.lch higher Charlottesville pro-
perty tax rates, currently $1.11
per $100 of fair market value, the
sarre tax rate as Fairfax Cotmty.
In addition to paying TIU.lch lower
taxes, Albemarle citizens have
enjoyed freedom from ftmding
public housing projects in the
county, and have provided $21.6
million to Charlottesville to
use in providing public housing
for the Central Virginia area.
CR.
-r4,
C>tr-
't't'J -, 2 V~
1J
i ·
w~ ~~ Lllli!?1
Red. Ink Realities in Fairfax
EVERYWHERE in Greater Washington the
fisc.al message this year is a !i~'it of painful
optIons to make ends meet. I he example
today is Fairfax County, where the supervisors
are looking at a budget that would make deep
cuts in money for the schools and would freeze
employee salaries to eliminate a projected $60
million deficit next year. There isn't one supervi-
~.or who relishes this prospect, but neither is
there any great list of palatable alternatives.
Massive layoffs would do the job, of course, but
that's not a step politicians want to take. To
a void cuts in the school budget, for example,
cfficials estimate that about 1,000 county work-
ers would have to lose their jobs.
There is, however, an important distinction
between layoffs and unfilled positions. There are
950 vacancies currently in the county's work
force of 11,000. Eliminating as many of these as
possible can realize long-term savings. Supervi-
sor Thomas M. Davis is among those urging
action on this front: "If we don't eliminate some
positions, we've really lost an opportunity. We
Illay have to take a run at some programs, but
what's bothering me the most is not cutting from
the base. Just deferring things is unacceptable."
But these necessary parings of positions do not
have enough of an immediate impact to make the
necessary difference in the budget about to be
set. Deferrals of employee raises-not a pleasant
step to advocate but part of the austerity thinking
in other local jurisdictions-are necessary. As
Board Vice Chairman Martha V. Pennino ob-
serves, leaving salaries at current levels in the
face of inflation is a form of "salary decrease, but
it's better to do that than lay people off."
In the long run-even a long run that brings
better economic news-Fairfax should take a
hard look at all ways to shrink the county work
force, including reorganizing agencies and con-
solidating functions wherever possible. These
decisions will test the cohesiveness of the cur-
rent board, which has not been a model of cool,
concerted thoughtfulness over the past few
years. In turn, how the members come out on
these questions will be judged later in this elec-
tion year-which already looms as fascinatingly
uncertain.
Fairfax County
Faces Budget
Of Bare Bones
-- ----~..._-
Fairfax Confronts Cuts
In Popular Services
List of Cuts Includes
Schools, Libraries
FAIRFAX, From 81
"That's what happens when you have a gun held to
your head," said Supervisor Joseph Alexander (D-Lee).
When it was released five weeks ago, the county's
proposed $1.4 billion budget for fiscal 1992 was bal-
anced. Because a host of tax revenue, particularly real
estate and personal property tax receipts, are lower
than expected, the budget recommends spending about
$60 million more than the county will bring in.
The board will hold three days of public hearings on
the budget starting on Monday.
In addition to the cuts suggested yesterday, the su-
pervisors met with the county School Board to empha-
. size the seriousness of the county's economic plight and
warn that the $666.2 million in county funding prom-
ised to schools next year probably will be cut, perhaps
as much as $30 million.
That message got a chilly response from School
Board Chairman Kohann H. Whitney, who said after-
ward that her board would not tell the supervisors what
programs would be cut until after the supervisors de-
cided how much money to give the schools.
Ed Hoole, chairman of the county's Citizen Budget.
Overview Committee, said the School Board had
"stonewalled" the supervisors. Hoole's committee re-
leased a report yesterday that caUed the school budget
"far from austere" and recommended the supervisors
cut it "to accomplish equitable burden sharing" with
cuts in county programs.
The two boards also heard proposals to freeze county
and school employee salaries-in effect, canceling au-
t:;rn:;tl.:: J::ii.lvri:j pay .1dbe::;-;:hat wouid save about
$22.7 million next year. The supervisors said they
would be reluctant to pass such a measure, which has
been bitterly attacked by county and school workers,
unless the School Board did as well.
"It's taken a long time to get to the point where our
teachers are paid professional, competitive salaries,"
Whitney said, "and this would put us at a competitive
disadvantage" with nearby school systems.
County staff members said that agency heads
throughout the government had been ordered to reduce
their budgets as much as possible without cutting into
personnel. The reductions proposed yesterday, accord-
ing to chief financial officer James P. McDonald,
brought county spending for fiscal 1992 to "the bare
bones before we have to go into layoffs" of county work.
I ers.
By John Ward Anderson
Washinllton Poat Staff Writer
~
The Fairfax County Board of Su-
pervisors, wrestling with how to
close a $60 million gap in next year's
budget, yesterday debated $22 mil-
lion in program cuts that would in-
clude early Sunday closings of re-
gional libraries and elimination of
county garbage collection centers.
A popular program in which the
county fir~artment collects haz-
ardous wastes from homeowners
would be abolished, there would be
no beefed-up security patrols at the
new government center when it
opens next January, four new sum-
mer child-care centers for 180 chil-
dren would not open this summer
and services for 600 substance
abusers would be curtailed.
Supervisors said during a 31/2-
hour budget work session that al-
though some pro-'!rams would he
spared, the county's dire financial
situation means most cuts would
have to be implemented.
The conference room filled with
groans as the supervisors came to
grips with the depth of cuts that
would have to be made this election
year in some of the county's most
popular constituent programs. The
board is up for reelection this No-
vember.
"Oh, my God," said Elaine N. I
McConnell (R-Springfield) after read-I.
ing a proposal to cut $127,000 from
programs to control gypsy moths.
"Those little buggers are eating ev-
erything in my district."
See FAIRFAX, 85, Cot 5
A
~T4
D!:.tri')\~~'o,j t~ .~.?t!~/.
~:~8:1;;<. f';D, __?-Lp.f./.Z__.5:;;-
300 East Lombard Street
Suite 1100
Baltimore, Maryland 21202
(301) 659-7500
~ '\ L
.
April 3, 1991
I ~ t"\; ."
\ : : \ .
,
; t'
hD"l
J,; 1\
P \':H
.. : ill'
, .. '. ...
, .
I,
. I.
! \:
I, I
I, ,
t: ,
l.-
Mr. Bob Richardson
Sovran Bank, N.A.
Post Office Box 26904
Richmond, Virginia 23261
! ;
I
, \
!', L/
Re:
F). (-'I ,\, :~:~. r': (', F ~::: l.) ~.:: ~:_~; \,/ ; S~) c\ S
Arbor Crest Apartments (Hydraulic Road Apt~~) -"
Dear Mr. Richardson:
Enclosed please find the Bond Program Report and Monthly Report
Pursuant to Section 7(a) of the Deed Restrictions for the months
of January and February 1991.
If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me
at 301-659-7500.
Sincerely,
c1~OJL Ii vfJ[UMwL
Sheila A. Hannah
Project Monitor
jsah
enclosures
cc: ~If.~~
Clerk of the Board of Supervisors
Albemarle County Office Building
40l McIntire Road
Charlottesville, VA 2290l
"
Effective January 31, 1991
MONTHLY REPORT PURSUANT TO
SECTION 7(a) OF THE DEED RESTRICTIONS
TO: ABG Associates, Inc.
300 E. I..crnbard street
Baltimore, Maryland 21202
RE: Hydraulic Road Apartments - Aroor Crest Apa.rt:.rrents
Charlottesville, Virginia
Pursuant to Section 7(a) of the Deed Restrictions (the "Deed
Restrictions"), as defined in an Indenture of Trust dated as of
April 1, 1983, between the Industrial Development Authority of
Albemarle County, Virginia (the "Authority"), and your bank, as
trustee, the undersigned authorized representative of
Richmond-Albemarle Limited Partnership, a Virginia Limited
Partnership (the "Purchaser"), hereby certifies with respect to
the operation and management of Hydraulic Road Apartments,
Charlottesville, virginia (the "Project"), that as of the date
shown below:
1) The number of units in the Project occupied by
lower income tenants is 16
2) The number of units in the Project unoccupied and
held available for Lower Income Tenants is -0-
3) The number of units rented and the number of units
held available for rental other than as described in
(1) and (2) is 50
4) The percentage that the number of units described in
(1) and (2) hereof constitute of the total number of
units in the Project is 24%.
5) The information contained in this report is true,
accurate and correct as of the date hereof.
6) As of the date hereof, the Purchaser is not in
default under any covenant or agreement contained
in the Deed Restrictions or in an Agreement of Sale
dated as of April 1, 1983, between the Authority and
the Purchaser.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has signed this Report as of
February 5, 1991 ~iiil
RICHMOND-ALBEMARLE LIMITED
PARTNERSHIP, a Virginia
limited partnership
By: df~ -z:4'--:1d~
Authorized Representative
BONO PROGHiU\\ RE.PORT
Monlh
January
y (1991
"-
Propeny: Arbor Crest Apartments (Hydraulic Road Apts.)
Locllion: Charlottesville, VA
Loretta Wyatt
MlnAQ4r
Proi~t .: 051-35371
Numb-er of Units 66
Effective 1/31/91
Subml"td by:
February 5, 1991
O.Te
Total Occupied
Bond Occupied
66
16
I. LOWfR INCOME
The lollowlng Unit) hl~ been d~Sl9nAled .~ "10_1 Income" units
1 Arbor Crest Dr. 2t Eleanor Blair 41 ~t.
'2 4 Arbor Crest Dr. n Margaret Q. Sandford42 ~2.
J 5 Arbor Crest Dr. 23 Fannie G. Tisdale <I) eJ.
4 6 Arbor Crest Dr. 24 George C. Barnett << ~.
~ 9 Arbor Crest Dr. 25 Virginia Burton <15 O~.
6 12 Arbor Crest Dr. '25 G. Robert Stone 46 M.
7 . 15 Arbor Crest Dr. 21 Jane Wood 41 67.
0 20 Arbor Crest Dr. 2a Evelyn Mandeville 48 M
9 24 Arbor Crest Dr. 29 Gertrude Breen 49 69.
10 ~ Arbor Crest Dr. 30 Katherine M. Borman ~ 70.
It 78 Arbor Crest Dr. 31 Ernest M. Nease ~1 71.
12. 84 Arbor Crest Dr. 32 Juanita Boliek ~2. 72.
IJ 86 Arbor Crest Dr. :n Mary A. Hoxie ~3 73.
14 90 Arbor Crest Dr. J<I Florence Wheeler ~ 74.
IS 94 Arbor Crest Dr. 35 .Sarah E. Fischer ~5 7~.
15 106 Arbor Crest Dr. 36 Katherine T. Nowlen S6 70.
1 7 :11 51. 77.
IlL 38 58. 78.
19 39 - 59 7a.
~'O 40 60 80.
1 nf! cnan~5 110m p,ev10lls rcpo't I~llccted in the above lIstIng are
Oelellona Add IUon.e
,. , , 1 t.
"2 12 2 t2.
-J \) 3 t3.
.. 14 4. 1..
5 15 5 15.
6 16 6 to.
7 17 1 11.
e 18 8. t8..
i 19 9 ti.
10 20 to. 20.
. ,.
Effective February 28, 1991
MONTHLY REPORT PURSUANT TO
SECTION 7(a) OF THE DEED RESTRICTIONS
TO: ABG Associates, Inc.
300 E. Lombard Street
Baltimore, Maryland 21202
RE: Hydraulic Road Apartments - Aroor Crest Apa.rt::Irents
Charlottesville, Virginia
Pursuant to Section 7 (a) of the Deed Restrictions (the "Deed
Restrictions"), as defined in an Indenture of Trust dated as of
April 1, 1983, between the Industrial Development Authority of
Albemarle County, Virginia (the "Authority"), and your bank, as
trustee, the under signed author iz~d representative of
Richmond-Albemarle Limited Partnership, a Virginia Limited
Partnership (the "Purchaser"), hereby certifies with respect to
the operation and management of Hydraulic. Road Apartments,
Charlottesville, Virginia (the "Project"), that as of the date
shown below:
1) The number of units in the Project occupied by
lower income tenants is 16 .
2) The number of units in the Project unoccupied and
held available for Lower Income Tenants is -0-
.
3) The number of units rented and the number of units
held available for rental other than as described in
(1) and (2) is 50 .
4) The percentage that the number of units described in
(1) and (2) hereof constitute of the total number of
units in the Project is 24%
5) The information contained in this report is true,
accurate and correct as of the date hereof.
6) As of the date hereof, the Purchaser is not in
default under any covenant or agreement contained
in the Deed Restrictions or in an Agreement of Sale
dated as of April 1, 1983, between the Authority and
the Purchaser.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersi~ned has signed this Report as of
March 6, 1991 ,tiill.
RICHMOND-ALBEMARLE LIMITED
PARTNERSHIP, a Virginia
limited partnership
By: X~-../ 'l'f~;T~
Authorized Representative
BONO PROGRAM R~PORT
Month
February
y 1991
M(_
Arbor Crest Apartments (Hydraulic Road Apts.)
Pro~rty: Project .:
loc.lion: Charlottesville, VA
Submlned Dy: Loretta Wyatt
Mlr\A~r
051-35371
I. lOWER INCOME
Number of Units
March 6, 1991 Effective 2/28/91
OITe
Total Occupied
Bond Occupied
66
66
16
The following units ".~ ~n de-signaled as "'tower Income" units
1 Arbor Crest Dr. 21 Eleanor Blair
41 81.
7 4 Arbor Crest Dr. n Margaret Q. Sandford
42 62.
J 5 Arbor Crest Dr. 73 Fannie G. Tisdale 43
63.
4 6 Arbor Crest Dr. 24 George C. Barnett 44
&4.
5 9 Arbor Crest Dr. 25 Virginia Burton 45
65.
6 12 Arbor Crest Dr. 26 G. Robert Stone
46 &e.
7 . 15 Arbor Crest Dr. 21 Jane Wood 41
87.
a 20 Arbor Crest Dr. 2a Evelyn Mandeville 43
ea
9 24 Arbor Crest Dr. 29 Gertrude Breen 49
69.
10~ Arbor Crest Dr. 30 Katherine M. BormanSO
70.
11 78 Arbor Crest Dr. 31 Ernest M. Nease
51 71.
12 84 Arbor Crest Dr. 32 Juanita Boliek 52.
72
13 86 Arbor Crest Dr. 3) Mary A. Hoxie
53 73
14 90 Arbor Crest Dr. 34 Florence Wheeler 54
74,
15 94 Arbor Crest Dr. 35 Sarah E. Fischer 55
. 75.
16 106 Arbor Crest Dr. 36 Katherine T. Nowlen
56 78.
11 37 51. 77.
ilL J8 !le. 78.
19 39 59 78.
-
~'O . 40 60 eo
T /'Ie c/'Ianges 'rom plevlous repOfl r~'Ie-cled in the lbove "sling are
Oelellon. Addt1lone
t H I.' 11.
7 12 2 12.
3 13 3. 13.
4 14 4.
14.
5 15 5 15.
6 16 6 1&.
7 17 7 17.
e ta a la..
I 19 9 18.
10 20 10. 20.
to _~:(~:71
t{p,';r.!: H:,;(i r:j~~!Z:-!'/E ~2--
300 Ea;t Lombard Street
Suite 1100
Baltimore, Maryland 21202
(301) 659-7500
\
.,
,.' ~ ).M
April 8, 1991
Mr. Bob Richardson
Sovran Bank, N.A.
Post Office Box 26904
Richmond, Virginia 23261
Re: Arbor Crest Apartments (Hydraulic Road Apts.)
Dear Mr. Richardson:
Enclosed please find the Bond Program Report and Monthly Report
Pursuant to Section 7(a) of the Deed Restrictions for the month
of March 1991.
If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me
at 301-659-7500.
Sincerely,
~, A..lI(t;fLf~
Sheila A. Hannah
Project Monitor
jsah
enclosures
~~~k.
Clerk of the Board of Supervisors
Albemarle County Office Building
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, VA 2290l
BONO PROGRAM Rf.PORl"
. ')
Month
March
v..( 1991
Arbor Crest Apartments (Hydraulic Road Apts.)
Property:
Subm.Utd tly:
Project .:
Number of Unit.
April 5, 1991
OaTe
Total Occupied
Bond Occupied
051-35371
localion: Charlottesville, VA
Loretta Wyatt
66
Effective 3/31/91
M.ra~r
I. lOwtA INCOME
66
16
The lollowlng untlS h.~ been deslgnaled as "lower Income" un.ts
1 Arbor Crest Dr. 21 Eleanor Blair 41
61.
4 Arbor Crest Dr. 22 Margaret Q. Sandford
2 42 62.
3 5 Arbor Crest Dr. 23 Fannie G. Tisdale 43
63.
4 6 Arbor Crest Dr. 24 George C. Barnett 44
&4.
5 9 Arbor Crest Dr. 25 ~irginia Burton 45
e~.
6 12 Arbor Crest Dr. 26 G. Robert Stone 4f)
ee.
7 . 15 Arbor Crest Dr. 21 Jane Wood 47
67.
8 20 Arbor Crest Dr. 28 Evelyn Mandeville 48
64
9 24 Arbor Crest Dr. 29 Gertrude Breen 49
69.
10~ Arbor Crest Dr. 30 Katherine M. Borman ~
70.
\1 78 Arbor Crest Dr. 31 Ernest M. Nease ~1
71.
12. 84 Arbor Crest Dr. 32 Juanita Boliek 52.
72
13 86 Arbor Crest Dr. 33 Mary A. Hoxie 53
73
14 90 Arbor Crest Dr. 34 Florence Wheeler 54
74.
15 94 Arbor Crest Dr. 35 Sarah E. Fischer 55
- 75.
16 106 Arbor Crest Dr. 36 Katherine T. Nowlen ~
76.
17 :17 57 77.
ilL 38 ~- 78.
19 39 59 78.
-
~'O . 40 60 eo.
T I'le ct1an~s Irom prevIous repo.. If'lIecled in !he Above "Sling .re
O.,.tlona AddlUone
t 11 1.- 11.
2 12 2 12.
3 13 3 13.
4 14 4. 14.
5 15 5 15.
6 16 6 16.
7 17 7 17.
e t8 8. 18..
I 19 9 11.
10 20 10. 20.
. ..
Effective March 31, 1991
MONTHLY REPORT PURSUANT TO
SECTION 7(a) OF THE DEED RESTRICTIONS
TO: ABG Associates, Inc.
300 E. Lombard street
Baltimore~ Maryland 21202
RE: Hydraulic Road Apartments - Aroor Crest Apart::ments
Charlottesville, Virginia
Pursuant to Section 7(a) of the Deed Restrictions (the "Deed
Restrictions"), as defined in an Indenture of Trust dated as of
April 1, 1983, between the Industrial Development Authority of
Albemarle County, Virginia (the "Authority"), and your bank, as
trustee, the undersigned authorized representative of
Richmond-Albemarle Limited Partnership, a Virginia Limited
Partnership (the "Purchaser"), hereby certifies with respect to
the operation and management of Hydraulic Road Apartments,
Charlot tesvi lIe, Virg inia (the "proj ect"), that as of the date
shown below:
1) The number of units in the Project occupied by
lower income tenants is 16.
2) The number of units in the Project unoccupied and
held available for Lower Income Tenants is -0-
.
3) The number of units rented and the number of units
held available for rental other than as described in
(1 ) and (2) is 50
4) The percentage that the number of units described in
(1) and (2) hereof constitute of the total number of
units in the Project is 24%.
5) The information contained in this report is true,
accurate and correct as of the date hereof.
6) As of the date hereof, the Purchaser is not in
default under any covenant or agreement contained
in the Deed Restrictions or in an Agreement of Sale
dated as of April 1, 1983, between the Authority and
the Purchaser.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the unde,~~i~ned has signed this Report as of
April 5, 1991 ~
RICHMOND-ALBEMARLE LIMITED
PARTNERSHIP, a Virginia
limited partnership
By: ~~ 74~~
Authorized Representative
DATE
~IL;I 17, {'1'11
q{1 tif7. y~
-To+, i v ~- (-fr;GHtn A- / f 01 S ~~Js
I
AGENDA ITEM NO.
AGENDA ITEM NAME
DEFERRED UNTIL
Ph (-tIej J U IlL 5"
h:,y k/\ "/ I[ ~
I
rt (j /t.u...J
Form. 3
7/25/86
1-'7-"11
..
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Dept. of Planning & Community Development
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22901-4596
(804) 296-5823
October 4, 1991
Mr. Steve Blaine
McGuire, Woods, Battle and Boothe
Court Square Building
Post Office Box 1288
Charlottesville, VA 22902
RE: Columbia Gas Transmission Gasline Corporation
Dear Mr. Blaine:
. .
I am in receipt of your letter to Dr. Young of September 30,
1991, which he has in turn signed. I believe the letter
appropriately summarizes conditions for the gasline's
construction as we discussed in the field. With Dr. Young's
conct~rrence verified by his signature, I am authorizing
construction to proceed as per the conditions outlined in
the September 30 letter (attached). Please contact me
should you have anything further on this matter.
aerelY, .. . ' .
v. W~berg
Director of Planning
and Community Development
VWC/blb
cc: File
Am~ia Patterson
~ard of Supervisors
'f
McGuI REWOODS
BATTLE&BooTHE
World Trade Center
Norfolk. VA 23510
Transpotomac Plaza
1199 North Fairfax Street
Alexandria. VA 22314
3950 Chain Bridge Road
Fairfax, VA 22030
Court Square Building
P.O. Box 1288
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902
One James Center
Richmond. VA 23219
8280 Greensboro Drive
McLean. VA 22102
(804) 977-2500
Fax: (804) 980-2222
137 York Street
Williamsburg, VA 23185
The Army and Navy Club Building
1627 Eye Street, N~.
Wilshlngton. DC 20006
October 3, 1991
Mr. V. Wayne cilimberg
Director of Planning & Development
county of Albemarle
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, virginia 22901
Re: Columbia Gas Transmission corporation Gasline Construction
Dear Wayne:
Enclosed is a copy of my letter dated september 30, 1991, to
Dr. Young and signed by him in connection with "above matter. If
you need to discuss this any further, please give me a call the
first of the week.
very truly yours,
c1~~~11!~/.JflJ
SWBjitm
Enc.
swb11003.1tr
l-rwqJ
4 1991
PLANNING DIVISION
tv1cGuI RE\\booS
BATTLE & BooTH E
(CQJ\P1f
World ThIde Center
Norfolk, VA 23S10
ThInspOtomac Plaza
~ North Fairfax Street
~cxandrl.. VA 22314
ISO Chain Bridie Road
Fairfax, VA 22030
Court Square Building
P.O. Box 1288
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902
One James Center
Richmond, VA 23219
1280 Greensboro Drive
Mclean, VA 22102
(804) 977-2500
Fax: (804) 980-2222
137 York Street
Williamsburg, VA 2318S
The Army and Navy Club Bulldlna
1627 Eye Street, N~.
Washlnaton, DC 20006
September 30, 1991
Dr. Harold E. Young, Jr.
Liberty Angus Cattle Company
Foxport Farm
Barboursville, Virginia 22923
Re: Columbia Gas Transmission Corporation Gasline Construction
Dear Dr. Young:
I am writing on behalf of our client, Columbia Gas
Transmission Corporation and at the suggestion of Wayne cilimberg.
In accordance with our meeting at your farm last Thursday, this is
to confirm our understandlng of the schedule and special
considerations for the gasline construction.
1. Actual construction activity, clearing, grading and
ditching will not begin until October 2~. A survey crew may come
through the property anead of that schedule to stake the pipeline
and right-of-way. The contractor has allowed fifteen working days
for completion, subject to interruption for inclement weather.
2. Construction through the wooded area (west of the calf
and bull lots) will be conducted over the existing right-of-way to
avoid removal of the wire fence currently running along the
southern edge of the right-of-way. If sections of the fence must
be removed~ you will be notified and extra precaution will be taken
to avoid discarded staples which may cause injury to cattle.
3. The ditching and storing of soil during construction in
the hayfield area will be done in such a'way to minimize erosion
due to runoff, and to maximize the area for haying.
4. Columbia will supply, or reimburse you for the costs of,
seed and crusher stone to be used in restoripg the right-of-way
area.
5. Columbia will relocate at your direction, or reimburse
you for costs in connection with the relocation of the bull lot
fencing to accommodate the construction activity and to protect the
two large sires.
IDr~.Harold E. Young, Jr.
~ september 30, 1991
Page 2
Please let me know if I have left anything out. If the
foregoing summarizes our meeting, please execute a copy of this
letter enclosed and I will advise Wayne Cilimberg accordingly.
ve~rs,
steven W. Blaine
SEEN AND AGREED:
k~~~
Harold E. Young, ~ M.D.
SWB/itm
Enc.
cc: Mr. V. Wayne Cilimberg
Mr. William D. Fritz
Mr. Dee Hehner
!j:Fi;'~'~~~{~~~~'0j ,
" r,(: /\r/(~ <)~ ''''91 li';1
· : 'i )'T~;);;;:[;';;_TC:i i1
: . ~ '~, \,1 .~' ",") '~(~:
HAROLD E. YOUNG. JR.. M.D.
LIBERTY ANGUS CATTLE COMPANY
FOXPORT FARM.
BARBOURSVILLE. VA. 22923
TELEPHONEt7031832-2222
August 28, 1991
H. D. Hehner
Chief Inspector
Columbia Gas Transmission Corp.
P.O. Box 35800
Richmond, Virginia 2)235
Dear Dee,
In reference to your letter dated August 21, post marked
Au~uBt 26 an~ receiTed today, Au~ust 27, 1991, you referred to
your phone call to me at which time you adTised me that a jud~e
mi~ht rule in favor of Columbia Gas proceeding with the new pipe-
line across Foxport Farm. You stated that you would ~et back to
me immediately if her ruling allowed the project to proceed, since
I was most concerned Flbout the total construction time and its
effect on my cattle operation extending beyond the September 15th
d eadllne set by the Albemarle County Board of ::~uper..,.i sors. Between
September 15 and October 15 the entire herd will be Taccinated and
worked 1n the pens. The herd sires Hill be placed in '\he bull lot
away from the herd, all calTes will be wel~hed serarately qnd
Taccineted and two different ~roups of calves will be weaned,
requlrin~ ti~ht re-establishment of present fencln~ for cow-calf
separation. This ~eans that your entire proje~t on our farm, not
1ust the R.O.W. clearin~ or pipeline layin~ but also final ~rading,
seedln~, an~ re-fencing, would have to be complet~d by Uctober 1,
lQ91, if I glTe Columbia Gas a two week extension on the presently
established deadline for completion of your project on our farm.
I personally think that it is nearly impossible to complete
the project by O~tober 1st and I am most concerned about the
disruption to our c~ttle operation and extension of the project well
beyond the established September 15 deadline, or the tent8t\~ely
mentioned October 1st date. You know how to contact me iMmediately
Nhen needed.
Gradin~, ditchln~, re-fencing, etc., to my satisfaction has
been guaranteed throu~hout the year since our first meeting.
Sincerely,
IA ~
t. '-. (} ~-----
Har61d E. Ynun~, Jr., M.D.
HEY:LEH
cc: F. R. Bowie, Chairman
AI~emarle Council
Board of Super~ifors
tJistrib!lteC.J to Board: ~ /?'" ~
Item No. '~.~-,~I#Z:Q
..
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Dept. of Planning & Community ,Development
401 Mcintire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22901-4596
(804) 296-5823
April 4, 1991
Charles T. Lebo
The Gardens Partnership
2004-A Morton Drive
Charlottesville, VA 22901
RE: SP-91-03 The Gardens Partnership
Dear Mr. Lebo:
The Albemarle County Planning Commission, at its meeting on
April 2, 1991, by a vote of 4-1, recommended denial of the
above-noted request to the Board of Supervisors.
Please be advised that the Albemarle County Board of
Supervisors will review this petition and receive public
comment at their meeting on April 17, 1991. Any new or
additional information regarding your application must be
submitted to the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors at least
seven days prior to your scheduled hearing date.
YOU OR YOUR REPRESENTATIVE MUST BE PRESENT FOR THIS MEETING.
If you should have any questions or comments regarding the
above noted action, please do not hesitate to contact me.
Sincerely,
vA ;;17
william D. Fritz
Senior Planner
WDF/jcw
cc: Lettie E. Neher
Amelia Patterson
Richard Moring
.
STAFF PERSON:
PLANNING COMMISSION:
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS:
WILLIAM D. FRITZ
APRIL 2, 1991
APRIL 17, 1991
SP-91-03 THE GARDENS PARTNERSHIP
Petition: The Gardens Partnership petitions the Board of
Supervisors to issue a special use permit for a commercial
recreation center [22.2.2(1)] on a portion of eight acres at
the Gardens Commercial Development, zoned C-1, Commercial
and subject to the Entrance Corridor district. Property,
described as Tax Map 45, Parcel 104 (part), is located on
the east side of Route 29 approximately 2,000 feet north of
Rio Road in the Charlottesville Magisterial District. This
site is in the designated growth area of Neighborhood 2.
Character of the Area: The site is currently under
development. The properties to the north and south are
developed with Floor Fashions and Albemarle Square.
Woodbrook Subdivision is located to the west of this site.
APPLICANT'S PROPOSAL:
. ../
I~
The applicant is proposing aJA0000 square-foot recreation
center. The center will inciude such items as an indoor
miniature golf course, football pass and kick, basketball
alley, paddle tennis, and major league pitch. A more
detailed description of the activities to be provided is
included in Attachment C. The applicant proposes to sell
food and beverages. The food is intended as snack food and
not a luncheon or dinner format. The sale of beer and wine
is also proposed.
SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff has reviewed this
request for compliance with Section 31.2.4.1 of the Zoning
Ordinance and recommends approval subject to conditions.
PLANNING AND ZONING HISTORY:
The Gardens has an extensive history. The following is a
summary of the most significant approvals.
April 20, 1989 - The Board of Supervisors approved the
Gardens Phase II Preliminary Site Plan on appeal. The
Planning Commission denied the request on March 21, 1989.
December 20, 1989 - The Board of Supervisors approved
SP-89-85 allowing a drive-thru window for Taco Bell.
1
~
January 17, 1990 - The Board of Supervisors approved
SP-89-106 allowing a drive-thru window for Central Fidelity
Bank.
June 21, 1990 - The site plans for Taco Bell and CentT~1
Fidelity were administratively approved.
December 12, 1990 - A minor site plan amendment for pier One
was administratively approved.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: This site is recommended as Community
Service in Neighborhood 2. A commercial recreation center
is consistent with a Community Service land use designation.
SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATION: The applicant's proposed use is
to be located in the southern end of Building C at The
Gardens. A sketch showing the general interior layout is
included as Attachment D. Staff has reviewed this request
for compliance with Section 31.2.4.1 of the Zoning Ordinance
and can offer the following comments:
a. Special use permits for uses as provided in this
ordinance may be issued upon a finding by the Board of
Supervisors that such use will not be of substantial
detriment to adjacent property.
Due to the distance to adjacent residential lots,
approximately 500 feet, and due to the enclosure of the
recreational activities within the building this use
will have minimal impact on residential property.
During the initial review of the Gardens, the developer
was required to install fencing and plantings designed
to discourage access from Woodbrook. The presence of
these obstacles will further reduce any pedestrian or
bike impact the proposed use may have on Woodbrook as
well as the potential for loitering in the subdivision.
The proposed hours of operation are:
September - May
Monday-Thursday
Friday-Saturday
Sunday
11:00 a.m. - 10:00 p.m.
10:00 a.m. - Midnight
11:00 a.m. - 9:00 p.m.
June - August
Monday-Thursday
Friday-Saturday
Sunday
10:00 a.m. - 11:00 p.m.
10:00 a.m. - Midnight
11:00 a.m. - 10:00 p.m.
2
7
Due to similar hours of operation to that of the
existing theatre, distance and obstacles ~O residential
properties as well as poor bike and pedestrian access
this use will not be of substantial detriment to
adjacent properties;
b. that the character of the district wi~l not be changed
thereby
As stated above this use will have hours of operation
similar to that of the theatre. The existing zoning
immediately adjacent to this is PD-SC, Planned
Development - Shopping Center, and C-1, Commercial.
Based on the existing development adjacent to this
site, this use will not change the character of the
district;
c. and that such will be in harmony with the purpose and
intent of this ordinance, with the uses permitted by
right in the district
The proposed use is in harmony with the purpose and
intent of the ordinance as stated in Section 1.4, 1.5
and 1.6. The C-1 district contains a wide variety of
uses allowable by right. The proposed use is in
harmony with the other uses permitted in the district;
d. with additional regulations provided in section 5.0 of
this ordinance, and with the public health, safety and
general welfare.
Section 5.0 does not contain any additional regulations
regarding this use. The applicant is proposing the
sale of both wine and beer on site. The sale of
alcohol may be inconsistent with the public health,
safety and general welfare. However, discussions with
the Albemarle County Police Department and the Virginia
Alcohol Beverage Control Board indicates that with the
appropriate conditions the possible negative effect of
alcohol sales can be addressed. Staff recommends that
alcohol sales shall cease than one hour prior to
closing and that alcohol consumption shall be limited
to the concession and stadium seating area. These
conditions could be enforced by both the County and
Virginia ABC. With these conditions the Police
Department believes that alcohol sales should not
present a problem.
Based on the above findings, staff op~n~on is that this
request complies with the provisions of Section 31.2.4.1 of
the Zoning Ordinance and therefore, staff recommends
approval subject to the following conditions:
3
.
RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL:
1. Use shall be limited to that area shown on Attachment
D;
2. Sale of alcohol shall be limited to the following
hours:
September 1 - May 31
Monday-Thursday
Friday-Saturday
Sunday
June 1 - August 31
Monday-Thursday
Friday-Saturday
Sunday
11:00 a.m. - 9:00 p.m.
10:00 a.m. - 11:00 p.m.
11:00 a.m. - 8:00 p.m.
10:00 a.m. - 10:00 p.m.
10:00 a.m. - 11:00 p.m.
11:00 a.m. - 9:00 p.m.
3. Consumption of alcohol shall be limited to the
concession and stadium seating areas;
4. Hours of operation shall be limited to the following:
September 1 - May 31
Monday-Thursday
Friday-Saturday
Sunday
June 1 - August 31
Monday-Thursday
Friday-Saturday
Sunday
ATTACHMENTS:
A - Location Map
B - Tax Map
C - Description of Request
D - Interior Sketch Plan
11:00 a.m. - 10:00 p.m.
10:00 a.m. - Midnight
11:00 a.m. - 9:00 p.m.
10:00 a.m. - 11:00 p.m.
10:00 a.m. - Midnight
11:00 a.m. - 10:00 p.m.
4
44
)\\'Nl'i."K{l~. -~"'''~.~~~ 63 .~ t- ;'
o ~ C 1.0r ._ "'1.. '" / /
J\,*, ..,~SVII.I. :ro-o--r;3A::Y '30 137 ". // 1_ _"
., '1\\'b.....:. ~/ ~. '13 ~ ~'"
c>'~: . :L -Y;;:~5~"q.,,~ ~~ cif"J' / ~;;;;t;:}~_ [ATTACHMENT AI
"l.1 ~ ~ . "\ '0' , I. r ~ 39A'
.. 5F4 . 67'~ '00 'OC'08 .C>.tj '0 ~ ~~ .._. .
5F3 e; .OE / I . 39C' ~_ --..,~ /rf/f J(! ~__v 66
SF ~~ "1l'C7'\]-\ 34H-~'- ~ rc'"
tl2 I'. ~. ~( ,.... 38 ~ 34G 36D 1 36[ I 67 A _--....
II' :).J,. It.i ". .~ ClN o~ "Jk ~08""
If 111 ~ ' ~~. 31 34 '4. \ '4'" l\ C:MMl.onhWnU 0__ ~++.. ~'..I If, B.. ....
· 178 110 \ /'./'- ~ 3Be 36' V 688 -9: SEE
., "'14"0 .....~ 01 3!A .. _ 'If . ~
~I "". i 32 3'8 34E 368 30G ~... ..... -t 'OoIlC
-, .n 181 ,)5. . ~
., 5 SA 'TT,~ 1,,,\,.. .., \ ~or3H 34C T34D \~~.. ~OH! ) 0803 ':::-...~
t " ~'~ i'~~ . ,., ,,,. q 31U ! !' 1 36. i aJ 680 ~~~
i ~ ~~' .~ ~\',. ":. ,)1 ~ :,:' 1~::.:JJf) '''~ ~, ": l. ~
~.- ! V '0' \\0_ j/ 31W (1\ -'-<:...:J~ ~ __Q
i~, · ~~ "'-::'''''.''~i-~''~'' "n":~~)~-CCI-'8;
~ ~~. ..-. ~ J/ ~ '7.. 1t';~G:oo~,,~xl >/ ,,~.;'~ '~" .~~;. ' 11I1III
Q I. ~~ / 31M '''" ""';,;;~ It;-j~~.~ ~ :: 8 81 '" ~_____...-'l
1 I 51' '- X:" L--' 1'~5" 6
t!:'. 70 ~1' ". ~~ ff~ 'V~.. "2[ ~ "Cr/,J
- . ~ ~.~ ( j I'(31E <<' ~ ~ 78 .' .-.::::;i<-. '~6"
l --1\~.:;;Y j~~" ':i-1'" ",~~ ~
:.- r- '" ~,r i; rr--.. ..If I <.' · -.'-j'lf ,'~ !:it '''~
~ 1'<, ~~ ~~;,:,[",,/ ~ ....:~.. 9" ..'~ .
l .; ~ 18) .. ;'''E'' ./' 25 ~>""'^". ~ 11
~ ',< ,,''',," ". < :~.. - . \'t;.~
~ .8. IILI'. Iooo~ ,,~'" ~ ~ ',27 ~1i:< 9. 94A \ ,\\ ,\~
~BM ~ "Y\-!!!... ~ - :~?.. ~ ~~ '" .,t. ) ~.SECTION 4,e ((I
I 19~ '81 18. /I :\i&1~ '/..,c;~~~~~~. -.y. ~.;.~ ,n /J,~O 1\\\ \\~'
~ 20. I IIH L." 16~. "', "r::;~ '\ ,'/. \ . (~.. '" " t.. ..... ---1,(\ ~ ~\'~ \\ ,\ ~eTIO. .;.r-
- ry . ~ '9'h ...;" 28 ( 2 " ~,.. ~~B ..... 'I,...y~ ,\\ \\ '""
>/,8' ---_ '10 "0 " )K.~;.,~ " :\\.. \\
tBD 118 '7 'SJ . llll. ~
./ ~ II 22 i-I"'.... , 7~ 0; . ....Wl \\ ~ ~
/1. II ~:.; ""~'i"< - I 12. _ <. _"'.... ~
..:.f--,. '- :::::SEC.:=- - -- ~/!///I ~ 1200 '''0_ .. IZlE ~~
~ /. E~ ~XI a/~ _ . II 120, 122 "
"---- /. 618' ~FOU 11 ' "
2C 20\ ,/." ~SE~ ~ '~, "
'- /~I sr.e..,.... .' " /3, \~./ - "AI.T"E
WlIJ.' '4:~"V,If;~ " ~ ~::ii:~" " '''., ~"-':" ~,"
10 II I "0 L - ....^' ~,\,\\
.. "'<.(1111111111 IIO:=::"'- II SEe.6IM 7/Jr fJ';f". ~
' .;)~v r2f'./.jllll/J 19 Ill/Ill I III lBE"KU.EY <i ;;<",,,~ '~128 ~
!A ,<,,., 2S, I/11I1111I';'.j~~:o/U1 11/ ~COMMU.'ry ". - / ~ 12., ~278 ;;; ,"'...." sr.eTi':>. 62A'\;:
1\;...., I II II I I!. 0 .,. II '''' I/" ___ NOATHFI~L.DS
2S . II III! I~~r~." ~ V\'\."
" , . IIII~; :/f, ,....~ ' "'~.. "",,"" ~ '" ,,' "",\'$;,,"~
~~.~ ~E ~ ~ 1.0Af/11,l. (~I I~ I////h ~ 1 /:. ~~~ A ,. ~ '\ %2~' /
\ ~7 r 2f> "Sd I. "'c- = ~ 1":
' ....... II a., f. I.' '" y /
... 'I 'zoo" / I ""
III~ I "" GO'. --i
~CTION O!WI ~ ~ '\ .L' . J 160
N" 39~ ~ ~~IW SEC:61~~ . BR;JfZ~~~~is ~~v~~. l~ :
~ ~ ~~~ ~ - IIl{{~/, ~ l'l "' \~\-
.. : ~c,.;;: ~ ~ ~ ~~ . .;" ~i11111 "" "I' I.l IKJ'" ,"8 ----1:
'>':'~"::: ;21J ~ ~ :-.::: v'~ // ~.~ ------
.~'f..o ~~~ ~ ~,T1QN 61 ~: ...:::=:-.- 'i>/'>~';- 'I, II ~~. r ,,"'- "U
~"'II~.B~'" ~~~_~~:...; -,~ ~~:?:~~)Ih ~~f\~ '44., ~ '''~{~:
- ~.~~ = --~~......<~: ~-...:;.~ - ,""". ," 1\1 ..L----"'-:;;;
----- ~~~ l.\"'liS ~.IliE """:::: ~ I lsa ,-~
"-......... ~~.... , 00"",_ : ~ - --. 'L ~
-:;:; ;:i<............ ~::::: . , ~ ~ '~I41
<...:: ~ ~ . - \' ~-C1 :-....:>- - ~ I '\. X 164A
:k ~\ " <.,;;; ~ ~ ., ~- = ~,,~ , _ /",~I' b..../. .
?::,Ec.:~~ ~ ~ ..... +" . ".. ~"f~t...."",:::::T '.....0
I~. .' .' '^. "" --,,- 7' ~ SP-91-03 -f
~,. 7/ - THE GARDENS PARTNERSHIP ~
~ ,. ~
~ ........ .7 _,. . .......... I
'(-.---........ ~E I~
J a;::" Z
61 1-'" ~ ~
46
L-_
I.
I~
/. i
Iii
/~
'"
. \ ~ ~"", --....... I
~
IATTACHMENT BI
-[
\
'fi
"'o_~?5g i
~r,\\
)i
'i
\i
~ 't
I.
,~,
'"
,
"'-
J~1600J
\
\.
..
'~,
/ \
\(
'\~",
'.
".
'~
":J_
J
~
"-.
e.,' r6iOl
, .....:..." T'----~
\'~-':.....'7 ~"".- ~
I" , _
I I)~
~. ~<~~1.21
\521! \
, \
-0 "-
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
~17g :
____-,..-- +---0
I
"-
c '"
S'-<J--
~
~
Vj
"-
'-,
"
I
\\,7
0-
\
Call "I Min.
F.T.
,......'..
-
. .
ATTACHMENT 1
2807 Woodmont Drive
Midlotbian. VA. 23113
Office (804) 3304480
Car (804) 3J7-i15"'"
ProPark, Ltd.
'~1 Sports Entertainment Facility"
IATTACHMENT cl
Ken Evans
President
ProPark Ltd. is a holding company for both ProPark Sports and ProPark
Entertainment. Both centers offer a unique blend of family entertainment to be located
in select shopping malls and strip centers. ProPark Sports is designed for large regional
shopping malls while ProP ark Entertainment is designed for strip centers. Both facilities
will provide three main functions to the developments they occupy.
- Provide complete family entertainment in a "All American Sports Tradition"
- Add benefit to shopping malls / strip centers looking for a marketing edge
- Increase traffic flow and revenues to a given development
ProP ark has a large blend of sports entertainment, all in an attractive design. ProPark
is a safe, well lit, and fun for all ages and has tremendous customer appeal. ProPark's
activities include:
* Football Pass & Kick * Baseball Pitch * Miniature Golf * Golf Driving Cages
* Basketball Alley *.Paddle Tennis * Billiards * Air Hockey * Foosball
* Select Video Games * Toddler Play Area * Grand Stand Viewing Area * Vendor Stands
ProPark complexes will range in size from 12,000 to 14,000 square feet and vary in
specific layout and design. ProPark's goal is that of a retail entertainment center to
draw, entertain, and retain shoppers / customers to a given development while providing
outstanding customer service, and doing so for a reasonable profit.
Please call today to arrange a meeting to see the full range of benefits and positive
impact ProPark can have on your development.
:?z
t
Ken Evans
President,ProPark Ltd.
IATTACHMENT cl [page 2~
INTRODUCTION
The concept behind ProPark Ltd. facilities is to provide a unique indoor family
entertainment center that appeals to all ages and market groups. Although we are not
everything to everybody, we believe the SPORT format has a tremendous appeal to a large
segment of America's market. While their are alternatives in the entertainment /
amusement sector, ProP ark will fill a void in the market place. The alternatives are usually
large amusement complexes. .outdoor miniature golf, and video arcades. Large amusement
facilities are not designed for shopping complexes, inconvenient for customers, and are
usually very costly. Video arcades are easy to install and inexpensive, but can be
undesirable because of the lack of complete family entertainment.
What ProPark centers will accomplish, is that of a complement to a current center mix.
We will draw, but more importantly sustain shoppers, entice family outings, and bring
excitement to a given mall or center without a major cost burden to the developer. ProPark
centers will also increase the number of trips to a development and cater to the local area
effectively with periodic contests and charitable promotions.
By limiting our size to 12,000 - 14.000 square feet, we will not take away from a center
but rather provide an area in which a family can relax, have fun, and extend a given trip
to the center. With the combination of a playing area, viewing area, toddler area, and
concession stand, our facility will be appealing to the whole family.
Our concept is not right for every mall or center, but can impact positively the right center
for the following reasons:
Unique blend of sport action entertainment
Limited capital investment by developer
New and exciting
Safe, clean "All American" fun
Quick installation
For these reasons alone, our facilities will create a successful market niche within the retail
entertainment industry, and become a new focal point for developers searching for that
missing link.
.
PRODUCT Or:ERING
~TTACHMENT C11page 3
Our product offering is unique, being an action oriented complex, rather than a video
arcade or amusement park. All games will be housed indoors in an open environment
entitled ''The Playing Field", with games being monitored by a referee. All games with
the exception of the coin operated machines and miniature golf will be on timers activated
by tokens.
''The Playing Field" will have 14 feet or higher ceilings. be well lit, open, clearl and safe.
TY Video monitors will be located in select viewing areas, so all customers can watch live
sports action while playing or waiting in line. Generic floor plans and draws are attached,
but may differ slightly from location to location. The main games are as follows:
FOOTBALL PASS & KICK:
This game simulates a football end zone, complete with field goal and players in a 35' x
15' area. A player receives five footballs for $1.00 then attempts to throw as many
touchdown passes as possible. For each touchdown pass, the player receives a free field
goal attempt. This game can be played by one or more players.
BASKETBALL ALLEY:
This exciting feature includes three 10'x 20' basketball courts with mesh dividers and baskets
of 8' and 9'. These courts will be on timers, and has a maximum of two players per court.
PADDLE TENNIS:
Also a 10' x 20' court, this is table tennis come to life. This game is on a timer and has
a maximum of four players.
MAJOR LEAGUE PITCH:
This simulation of a pitching mound is 40' x 8' complete with mound and rubber. At the
plate - catcher, batter and umpire make this more than a carnival throw. A radar gun will
clock the speed of each pitch.
..
IATTACHMENT Cllpage 4\
GOLF DRIVING CAGES:
These driving cages are 12' x 15' and allows golfers of all calibers to test their skills indoors.
Using real clubs and balls, each player gets to swing away. Using microwave technology,
the digital readout lets the player know what kind of shot he/she hit (slice, hook, dead on,
etc. as well as distance).
MINIATURE GOLF
Just as it says, 18 holes of one of America's favorite family games-INDOORS!
All of our action games are designed for multiple audiences. First is the competitor,
players looking for a competitive game to test their skills, have fun, and play with a friend.
Second is the educator, one who wishes to teach the skills to one of the above games in a
controlled, safe environment. Third, those who just want to have fun, and lots of it... with
the array of games offered at ProPark facilities.
Along with the action games are some of our favorite coin operated machines:
Billiards
Ping Pong
Air Hockey
Foosball
Select popular video games
We also include a toddler play area full of fun and games for those under four years old.
". '.. \'
IATTACHMENT cl [Page 51
The other part of our facilities feature the "Grand Stand" viewing area. . This area is
centered around a 60" high fidelity television and sound system, that simulates stadium
style seating. The Grand Stand ""ill feature both live and prerecorded sporting events as
well as select listening features. Along with the television, we will have a "Sports-Ticker"
with on-line scores and news from around the country. The "Sports-Ticker" will also display
hourly trivia questions, with winners receiving gifts.
Next to the Grand Stand will be the "Vendor Stand", serving food and beverage
refreshments. The menu will be on the order of snack food similar to a bowling alley,
and not a luncheon or dinner format.
Our unique product mix will provide a complete family entertainment complex in an "All
American Sports Tradition" catering to a large target audience. With efficient space
planning and architectural design, ProParks will be appealing to our customers, safe, and
. maximize returns per square foot thus becoming the premier indoor sport park in the
country.
'.. ... '1'
"~
<.J:
.-
I ~
I ~ ~:~~/
~~=! 0 1\"{ Q /'
7:~~~~~~/'/
-0 . ~"'.... - ~ l-=
"I i~ '~ '%:. ~~
~j J\"'" ~
E r '0
~ t- r\ 1\1 ,...
j ~ '" %.. -\
_;?5 ~ l ~
c
-
"-
f'.:
0:
.......
c
c
..,
't'1',t/(z," ~
,i --;:'0.
~
J
~ fl
JI "' II
".11
~ t
.,.
(!J
.-.
o
.....
"
N
CD
.....
CJ
o
,po.
. '<:l
o
N
*
~
>
(")
::t
s:
m
z
~
t:I
.,
iVJ..LSCELLNEOUS
11.u./1v-e ,1. /j es '1/ /7/91
L/{.{.6
SP 91-03 Pro-Park (The Gardens) - Mr. Keeler explained that
the applicant for this project (which had been denied at the
April 2nd meeting), had withdrawn his request for the sale
of alcoholic beverages. He asked if the Commissions'
denial had been based solely on the sale of alcohol, or if
there had.been other concerns also. The Commission
confirmed that there had been no other concerns and
authorized staff to pass on to the Board that "if that
aspect of the application had been removed, our
recommendation would likely have been for approval rather
than disapproval."
Distributed to Board: ~#.v
Ager.daJt~m.No. 9/ ~f//;:{?'cJ
, '. . . - , ('
r-- ~ . '.
~r
f f
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Dept. of Planning & Community Development
401 Mcintire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22901-4596
(804) 296-5823
'...,~ ,..'
April 4, 1991
Faith Mission Home
HCR 1, Box 114
Free Union, VA 22940
RE: SP-91-04 Faith Mission Home
Dear Sir:
The Albemarle County Planning Commission, at its meeting on
April 2, 1991, unanimously recommended approval of the
above-noted request to the Board of Supervisors. Please
note that this approval is subject to the following
conditions:
1. Expansion shall be limited as shown on site plan dated
February 11, 1991;
2. Staff approval of site plan;
3. Entrance shall be upgraded in accordance with the
comments of the Virginia Department of Transportation;
4. Department of Engineering approval of grading and
drainage plans and calculations.
Please be advised that the Albemarle County Board of
Supervisors will review this petition and receive public
comment at their meeting on April 17, 1991. Any new or
additional information regarding your application must be
submitted to the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors at least
seven days prior to your scheduled hearing date.
Faith Mission Home
Page 2
April 4, 1991
YOU OR YOUR REPRESENTATIVE MUST BE PRESENT FOR THIS MEETING.
If you should have any questions or comments regarding the
above noted action, please do not hesitate to contact me.
Sincerely,
1/~J?~ ,
William D. Fritz
Senior Planner
WDF/jcw
cc: Lettie E. Neher
Amelia Patterson
Richard Moring
Eugene Schloback
~
'"
STAFF PERSON:
PLANNING C~~~ISSION:
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS:
WILLIAM D. FRITZ
APRIL 2, 1991
APRIL 17, 1991
SP-91-04 ?AITH MISSION HOME
Petition: Faith Mission Home petitions the Board of
Supervisors to issue a special use permit to allow the
expansion of the existing church building to include
sanctuary, foyer and restrooms [10.2.2(35)] on 9.2 acres
zoned, RA, Rural Areas. Property, described as Tax Map 3,
Parcel 1B is on the west side of Route 601 at the Greene
County line in the White Hall Magisterial District. This
site is not in a designated growth area.
Character of the Area: The site is currently developed
with the Faith Mission Home facilities. Several dwellings
are located in Greene County near this site.
APPLICANT'S PROPOSAL:
The applicant is proposing to add an approximately 2,800
square foot addition (40 x 70 feet) to the existing church.
The proposed addition is to include sanctuary, foyer and
restrooms. The application has obtained a variance
(VA-89-35) to allow the construction of a septic field on
slopes of 25% and greater.
SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff has reviewed this
request for compliance with Section 31.2.4.1 of the Zoning
Ordinance .and recommends approval.
PLANNING AND ZONING HISTORY:
May 9, 1989 - Board of Zoning Appeals approved variance
request to allow septic system on slopes of 25% and greater.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: This site is located in Rural Area I.
The Comprehensive Plan discourages development in the Rural
Areas of the County note related to bona fide
agricultural/forestal use. The Comprehensive Plan does not
speak to expansion of existing uses supporting the rural
area population. This expansion is intended to improve
current facilities, but not increase church membership.
1
'"
SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATION:
staff opinion is that certain uses such as churches, day
care, and schools contribute to the well-being and moral
fibre of the community. In this posture, staff review is
confined to issues of physical development while other
considerations of appropriateness of the use to a given
location is a matter of legislative discretion.
This request is intended primarily to improve the facilities
of the church. No significant increase in membership is
anticipated and therefore traffic volumes and general
activity on the site should not substantially change.
Existing traffic on this portion of Route 601 is 96 vehicle
trips per day based on 1986 traffic counts.
The slopes of the area for the proposed expansion exceeds
25%. The applicant has submitted a building elevation
showing the proposed expansion being built into the slope of
the land. The Engineering Department has reviewed the
request and has stated that it can support the request.
There is limited area on site which would allow for
additional construction. The only area available which is
in slopes of less than 25% is used for a parking lot and no
replacement area is available if parking were lost. The
proposed construction technique, building into the slope, is
preferable to the flattening of the site. In addition, no
area is available in slopes of less than 25% which are
available for expansion. Staff is able to support the
proposed construction for the above reasons.
Staff opinion is that expansion of the existing building
will not result in substantial detriment to adjacent
properties and will not change the character of the
district. In order to ensure the public health, safety and
welfare, staff recommends that the entrance be upgraded in
accord with the comments of the Virginia Department of
Transportation (Attachment C).
Staff opinion is that this request is consistent with
Section 31.2.4.1 of the ordinance and therefore staff
recommends approval subject to the following conditions:
RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL:
1. Expansion shall be limited as shown on site plan dated
February 11, 1991;
2. Staff approval of site plan;
2
~
.
3. Entrance shall be upgraded in accordance with the.
comments of the virginia Department of Transportation;
4. Department of Engineering approval of grading and
drainage plans and calculations.
ATTACHMENTS:
A - Location Map
B - Tax Map
C - Virginia Department of Transportation Comments
D - Building Elevation
3
M . Jo ~.
~ARLE , COUNTY
ALBEMARLE
'{ATTACHMENT Al
"-..
.~
"\ ..
'-~:,>
~
...
'"
"
"-.....~
""
" ....*'
'\ J
\ "':4. I I
~ \ :. ~ -:::::..
""--~ '-\ ,/{/ '\
~ ~.~ \
'" \\ .
'--~ ~.~
~ '0 "- --s:::- -=-- - -..... .'
r/ / "'-
i~' ;/- :-- -
..,? /"" '--.
~
~
~
5
G /
'~N'(
.~
.~o,.
~
"- .1",..
. 7' '-- .-...-..
,--~.", ./"'-.. --..><
\ 8 .~". "'../
./ \ ~". 10 "<--..
SP-91-04
FAITH MISSION HOME
I
6
HALL OISTR lOT
7
SECTION 2 ,.
---
SC ALE IN F[[T
... .... I'" ....
,
WHITE HALL 01
[ATTACHMENT BJ
~)
?/
~
"-
~
~
o
v
...
G
I?
~
~
~
~
~
(,
'"
~
c
~
..) \.
( ""'-
2'
~ .
3.70
MOUNi AIN
>>
"
@ill .~.n ,
\,~
SP-91-04
FAITH MISSION HOME
@],(/
l-
.
TP> 1E@lUWrn'1iil
IATTACHMENT CI
COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA
PLANNING DIVISION
RAY D. PETHTEL
COMMISSIONER
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
P. O. BOX 2013
CHARLOTTESVILLE. 22902
D. S. ROOSEVELT
RESIDENT ENGINEER
March 14, 1991
Special Use Permits
& Rezonings
April 1991
Mr. Ronald S. Keeler
County Office Building
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, VA. 22901
Dear Mr. Keeler:
The following are our comments:
1. SP-89-64 Lois Stewart-Wiebe, Route 810 - The design of the crossing of the river
should be such that it does not cause flooding to Route 810. Some cutting and/or
clearing of vegetation along the ~ast side of Route 810 is needed to the north to
insure that 250 feet of sight distance is maintained.
2. SP-91-04 Faith Mission Home, Route 601 - The entrances to this property are at
the Albemarle/Greene County line. The section of Route 601 in Albemarle County is
tolerable, while the section in Greene County of Route 601 is a non-tolerable gravel
road. This request could result in some increase in traffic. The entrance on the
west side of Route 601 that serves the existing sanctuary only has 110 feet of sight
distance to the north. A minimum of 150 feet of sight distance is needed and to
obtain this would require major grading of a steep bank. The Department recommends
that the sight distance be obtained should this request be approved. .
3. SP-90-102 Central Cellular, Route 240 - The existing main entrance on Route 240
for Acme Visible is adequate for access to this request.
4. ZMA-90-28 Church of God, Route 631 - This section of Route 631 is currently
non-tolerable. The Comprehensive Plan shows the piece of property in this request
to be low density residential. This 0.98 acres could generate approximately 200-250
VPD under the CO zoning. Under the R-4 zoning there would be approximately 30 - 40
VPD generated from this property.
Yours truly,
Sr.a.~
J. A. Echols
Ass't. Resident Engineer
JAE/ldw
IJ..
~
r--
<.D
I'-
~
0,
~[
,I
t'
/
/
'" /';- "-
'" / /
.~ / /
~ \=; '- <0/./
Z :::l / <' 0 "?-/. ./ /
:::l0 /'V~r////
:3 L> / "'<,; / / / /
w . . / ~"?- / ",// / '
W .-J ./ v C::;/ / / //
~ ~ / / / ' ''-._L;/ / / / /
W ~ / // // / /;
a: w ,,; .// //-
(? CS //, \... ,0/ //,
0/ I Y //
I // ./ -....
I .I / / ./~/
I (//////
1//
" I
I' /.L.( I <.0
1 ,.... >- z
,\ ~J
I " -~ \ Ii; ~
\ _ '"
\
\
\
/
V/ .", --
/"
;'
/
I
,O.i?//
\ \
\
\ \
\ \
\
\
\
/--
,/
(/
I
I ...-
/ /,.,...-
I I I
, ,
, I 1
I I
I I
,--)
\ I I
I \ I
\ I
\ j' \
/);U
/
I
/
/
/
\
\
j" 8,
,0,
0/9
I Iv
I
i
I
,
l-
J
.0:
:c
Q.
r.n
.0:
.0.
so.
c
DATE
(J-p ri I
/71 /19/
91,()'-I!7 ~I
S p- C; () - / () ;J (J e~t./U
~t.-L eLl! 9'7/
AGENDA ITEM NO.
AGENDA ITEM NAME
DEFERRED UNTIL
&~JQ,'-
Form. 3
7/25/86
, "
Edward H. Bain, Jr
Samuel Miller
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Office of Board of Supervisors
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22901-4596
(804) 296-5843 FAX (804) 979-1281
April 22, 1991
Walter F. PerkinS
White Hall
David P Bowerman
Charlottesville
F. R. (Rick) Bowie
Rivanna
Peter T. Way
Scof!sville
Mr. Robert L. Laslie
Vice President - Supplements
Municipal Code Corporation
1700 Capital Circle, S.W.
P. O. Box 2235
Tallahassee, Florida 32316
Dear Mr. Laslie:
Enclosed is a copy of an ordinance amending the Code of
Albemarle Chapter 2.2, Alarms. Please include these in the next
issue of the supplement.
If there are questions, please contact me.
Sincerely, C
all / ~//
,(::t;~ ';;;::;:;~j/~
~ettie E. Neher, Clerk
Board of Supervisors
LEN:ewc
Enclosure
..
..
AN ORDINANCE
AMENDING AND REENACTING THE CODE OF ALBEMARLE
IN CHAPTER 2. 2, KNOWN AS "ALARMS"
BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia,
that Chapter 2.2, "Alarms", in the Code of Albemarle be amended and reenacted to
read as follows:
Sec. 2.2-1. Definitions.
For the purposes of this article, the following words and phrases shall
have the meanings respectively ascribed to them by this section:
"False alarms." Means an alarm that causes a police response, when the
responding officer finds no evidence of a criminal offense or attempted criminal
offense. Excluded from this definition are:
(1) Alarms occurring during electrical storms, hurricane, tornado, bliz-
zards and acts of God; or
(2) Electrical power disruption or failure; or
(3) Alarms caused by a failure of the equipment at the Emergency Opera-
tions Center.
Sec. 2.2-2. Intentional false alarms a criminal offense.
It shall be a criminal misdemeanor for any person to knowingly and without
just cause activate a security or fire alarm to summon the police department or
fire and rescue service in situations where there is no actual or threatened
criminal or fire activity requiring immediate police or fire response.
Sec. 2.2-3. Charges for false alarms.
After two false alarms in any twelve month period, users shall be charged
for each subsequent false alarm which results in a police department response,
in such amount as is reasonably calculated to reimburse the county for the costs
of responding to such false alarms. Such amount may be computed and recomputed
by the county executive from time to time, on the basis of the average time,
manpower and equipment devoted to police response to false alarms. This charge
is to reimburse the county for costs expended; it is not a fine, and is not
dependent upon a criminal conviction under section 2.2-2 above.
Sec. 2.2-4. Payment for false alarms.
Charges for false alarms shall be paid to the director of finance.
Sec. 2.2-5. Administration.
Administration of this chapter shall be the joint responsibility of the
chief of police and the director of finance under the supervision of the county
executive.
.
- Page 2 -
Sec. 2.2-6. Appeals.
Any charge for a false alarm, or notice of withdrawal of consent or order
to disconnect, as provided hereinabove, may be appealed to the board of super-
visors by application of the owner filed with the county executive within ten
days of the date of notice of such charge or order. Upon receipt of such
appeal, the county executive or his designee may grant relief from such charge
or order, or may place the matter on the agenda of the board of supervisors for
hearing.
,;'()~**-!(
I,
correct
County,
Lettie E. Neher, do hereby certify that the foregoing writing is a true,
copy for an ordinance adopted by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle
Virginia, at a regular meeting held on April 17, 1991. ~ //C;;-;; ~
~?~~
Clerk, Board '~C~:Y Supervisors
f
", 't.
, ,
: f
'..' ;/'"
i
~ ,
I f
LJ
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
OFFICE OF BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
401 MciNTIRE ROAD
CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA 22901-4596
'. I
v _ "
~ ~ ;"---"~.~ I~' ~:,~ _~- - ~ ,~".".
""l(\,;';lj
'~>OUl...;1 \,~...~I'\ t..J
M E M 0 RAN DUM
FROM:
John Miller, Chief of Police
Lettie E. Neher, Clerk~prJ
April 18, 1991
TO:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
False Alarm Ordinance
At its meeting on April 17, 1991, the Board of Supervisors
adopted the attached ordinance to amend and reenact Chapter 2.2,
ALARMS, of the Code of Albemarle.
LEN:ec
Attachment
cc: Municipal Code
Lester Wilson, III
<t'
AN ORDINANCE
AMENDING AND REENACTING THE CODE OF ALBEMARLE
IN CHAPTER 2. 2, KNOWN AS "ALARMS"
BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia,
that Chapter 2.2, "Alarms", in the Code of Albemarle be amended and reenacted to
read as follows:
Sec. 2.2-1. Definitions.
For the purposes of this article, the following words and phrases shall
have the meanings respectively ascribed to them by this section:
"False alarms. " Means an alarm that causes a police response, when the
responding officer.finds no evidence of a criminal offense or attempted criminal
offense. Excluded from this definition are:
(1) Alarms occurring during electrical storms, hurricane, tornado, bliz-
zards and acts of God; or
(2) Electrical power disruption or failure; or
(3) Alarms caused by a failure of the equipment at the Emergency Opera-
tions Center.
Sec. 2.2-2. Intentional false alarms a criminal offense.
It shall be a criminal misdemeanor for any person to knowingly and without
just cause activate a security or fire alarm to summon the police department or
fire and rescue service in situations where there is no actual or threatened
criminal or fire activity requiring immediate police or fire response.
Sec. 2.2-3. Charges for false alarms.
After two false alarms in any twelve month period, users shall be charged
for each subsequent false alarm which results in a police department response,
in such amount as is reasonably calculated to reimburse the county for the costs
of responding to such false alarms. Such amount may be computed and recomputed
by the county executive from time to time, on the basis of the average time,
manpower and equipment devoted to police response to false alarms. This charge
is to reimburse the county for costs expended; it is not a fine, and is not
dependent upon a criminal conviction under section 2.2-2 above.
Sec. 2.2-4. Payment for false alarms.
Charges for false alarms shall be paid to the director of finance.
Sec. 2.2-5. Administration.
Administration of this chapter shall be the joint responsibility of the
chief of police and the director of finance under the supervision of the county
executive.
.. ..
- Page 2 -
Sec. 2.2-6. Appeals.
Any charge for a false alarm, or notice of withdrawal of consent or order
to disconnect, as provided hereinabove, may be appealed to the board of super-
visors by application of the owner filed with the county executive within ten
days of the date of notice of such charge or order. Upon receipt of such
appeal, the county executive or his designee may grant relief from such charge
or order, or may place the matter on the agenda of the board of supervisors for
hearing.
-Ie * * * ,I(
I,
correct
County,
Lettie E. Neher, do hereby certify that the foregoing writing is a true,
copy for an ordinance adopted by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle
Virginia, at a regular meeting held on April 17, 1991.' ~,~~~ ~
~.?t/'~
Clerk, Board ~C~ty Supervisors
"'l
Distnbuted to Board: ~ #- ;; /
Agenda No. j1~ /~~~~..;::?77
AN ORDINANCE
AMENDING AND REENACTING THE CODE OF ALBEMARLE
IN CHAPTER 2.2, KNOWN AS "ALARMS"
BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia,
that Chapter 2.2, "Alarms", in the Code of Albemarle be amended and reenacted to
read as follows:
Sec. 2.2-1. Definitions.
For the purposes of this article, the following words and phrases shall
have the meanings respectively ascribed to them by this section:
UAtt~oma~ie-alarm-deviee~U--Any-deviee-or-eombina~ion-of-deviees-tha~-will
ttpon-ae~iva~ion-either-meehanieally,-eleetrieally,-atttomatieally-or-by-any-o~her
mean~-eanse-any-attdible,-visible-or-other-signal-~o-be-initiated-a~-any-orfiee
or-~he-eottnty-or-i~s-poliee-department~--Ei3-i~i~bj
UAl1~omatie-eommttniea~ion-deviee~u --Any -deviee -or -eombination -of -deviees
~ha~-will,-ttpon-aetivation,-either-meehanieally,-eleetrieally,-atttomatieally-or
by-any-other-means-ini~iate-the-ealling,-dialing-or-eonnee~ion-~o-a-nttmber,-line
or-ins~rttment~--Ei3-i~i~aj
"False alarms. " Means an alarm that causes a police response, when the
responding officer finds no evidence of a criminal offense or attempted criminal
offense. Excluded from this definition are:
(1) Alarms occurring during electrical storms, hurricane, tornado, bliz-
zards and acts of God; or
(2) Electrical power disruption or failure; or
(3) Alarms caused by a failure of the equipment at the Emergency Opera-
tions Center.
u~elephone-nttmber~U--Stteh-~erm-inelndes-any-addi~ional-nttmbers-assigned-by
a -pttblie -tt~ility -eompany -engaged -in -~he -bttsiness -or -pro':riding -eommttnieations
ser':riees -and -faeili~ies -~o -be -nsed -by -means -of -a -ro~ary -or -other -system -~o
eonnee~-wi~h-~he-sttbseriber-to-the-primary-nttmber-when-stteh-nttmber-is-in-ttse~
03-h4j
See~--~~~-~~--€onsen~-of-eottn~y-prere~ttisi~e-~o-ins~alla~ion---deviees-eonnee~ed
~o-lines,-ete~,-assi~ned-~o-eottn~y~
-----I~-shall-be-ttnlawfttl-for-any-person-~o-nse-or-opera~e,-eanse-to-be-nsed-or
operated,-arrange,-adjttst,-program-or-otherwise-pro':ride-or-install-any-att~omatie
eommttniea~ion-de':riee-wi~hin-Albemarle-€ottnty-whieh-shall-initiate-the-ealling,
dialing -or -eonneetion -~o -any -telephone -nttmber, -line -or -ins~rttmen~ -assigned -~o
~he -eonnty -or -its -poliee -department, -or -~he -loeal -911:. -Emergeney -8perations
€enter,-withottt-the-prior-written-eonsent-of-the-ehief-of-poliee~--Ei3-i~~aj
See~--2~2-3~--Same---de':riees-whieh-re~ister-alarms-at-eonnty-offiees-or-poliee
department~
-----It-shall-be-ttnlawrttl-for-any-person-to-nse-or-operate,-eanse-~o-be-nsed-or
opera~ed,-arrange,-adjtts~,-program-or-o~herwise-provide-or-ins~all-any-att~oma~ie
alarm-deviee-whieh-~hall-register-any-~ype-of-alarm-at-any-orfiee-of-the-eottnty
or-its-poliee-department-withottt-prior-wri~~en-eonsent-of-the-ehief-of-poliee~
03-h~~bj
t
- 2 -
See~--~~~-4~--6ondition~-for-issttanee-of-eonsent~
-----Written-eonsent-may-be-isstted-by-the-ehief-of-poliee-ttpon-his-determination
that-the-system-ttnder-eonsideration-will-benefit-the-more-effieient-operation-of
the-pol~ee-department,-btt~-ttnder-no-eirettmstanees-w~ll-any-atttoma~~e-eommttniea-
tion-de~iee-or-other-att~oma~~e-alarm-dev~ee-be-eonsidered-for-any-pttrpose-other
than-to-alert-the-poliee-department-to-the-eommission-of-an-offense~--E13-1~3~aj
A -non-refttndable -reg~strat~on -fee -per -eaeh -alarm -sH~e -in -the -amottnt: -of
$~5~88-shall-be-a-pre-eondition-for-issttanee-of-eonsent~
See~--~~~-5~--Notiee-of-withdrawal-of-eonsent,-diseonneetion-of-de~iees~
-----The-eottnty-may-withdraw-its-eonsent-by-written-notiee-to-the-person-to-whom
the-eon~ent-wa~-gi~en-and-~tteh-person-shall-ha~e-the-de~iees-diseonneeted-within
~e~en -day~ -of -reee~pt: -of -stteh -written -notiee -of -wH:hdrawal:' --Approval -for
rein~tatement -w~ll -be -based -on -term~ -est:abl~shed -by -the -eh~ef -of -poliee~
EB-l~3~bj
Sec. ~~~-6~ 2.2-2. Intentional false alarms a criminal offense.
It shall be a criminal misdemeanor for any person to knowingly and without
just cause activate a security or fire alarm to summon the police department or
fire and rescue service in situations where there is no actual or threatened
criminal or fire activity requiring immediate police or fire response.
Sec. ~~~-t~ 2.2-3. Charges for false alarms.
After two false alarms in any twelve month period, users shall be charged
for each subsequent false alarm which results in a police department response,
in such amount as is reasonably calculated to reimburse the county for the costs
of responding to such false alarms. Such amount may be computed and recomputed
by the county executive from time to time, on the basis of the average time,
manpower and equipment devoted to police response to false alarms. This charge
is to reimburse the county for costs expended; it is not a fine, and is not
dependent upon a criminal conviction under section ~~~-6 2.2-2 above.
Sec. ~~~-8~ 2.2-4. Payment for false alarms.
Charges for false alarms shall be paid to the director of finance.
Sec. ~~~-9~ 2.2-5. Administration.
Administration of this chapter shall be the joint responsibility of the
chief of police and the director of finance under the supervision of the county
executive.
Sec. ~~~-9~ 2.2-6. Appeals.
Any charge for a false alarm, or notice of withdrawal of consent or order
to disconnect, as provided hereinabove, may be appealed to the board of super-
visors by application of the owner filed with the county executive within ten
days of the date of notice of such charge or order. Upon receipt of such
appeal, the county executive or his designee may grant relief from such charge
or order, or may place the matter on the agenda of the board of supervisors for
hearing.
,
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Office of County Attorney
416 Park Street
Charlottesville, Virginia 22901
Telephone 296-7138
JAMES M. BOWLING, IV
DEPUTY COUNTY ATTORNEY
March 19, 1991
GEORGE R. ST.JOHN
COUNTY ATTORNEY
';"::'"."'""\.
Mr. Robert W. Tucker, Jr.
County Executive
POUNTY OF ALBEMAR"'i
Re: Alarm Ordinance
Chief John Miller
Albemarle County Police
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22901-4596
Dear Bob and Chief Miller:
You will each find enclosed a copy of a draft of the "False
Alarm" ordinance, which omits everything having to do with
registration, county permits for installation, and all of that.
The only thing we are doing here is making it a local misdemeanor
to intentionally send in a false alarm, and provide for civil
reimbursement of costs, for unintentional false alarms.
If this looks good to you, then you should go ahead and put
it on the agenda for the appropriate Board meeting.
s~c::~.~ vii?
G~~St. JO~/ -
County Attorney
~-....
GRStJ/tlh
Enclosure
\.
J..r~ () PI' H\'ANCE
hfv.Et"DING THE CODE Of ALBE!liARLE COUNTY, VIRGHJII.,
BY THF ADDl'rIOt~ 'I'HERETO OF CHAP'I'ER 2.2, KNOWi': AS II ALA R:r.:S at
CONCEF},ING jI,DTO!lJ.;t Ie Cor....J1UNI CATIOl\ AND ALAR~ rEV I CBS
;'" A
BE IT ORDAINED by the Beard of Supervisors of Albemarle
County, Vi 19 ir:ia, tba t the Code of p,lbema rl e County be amended by
the addition thereto of Chapter 2.2, "Alarmsn to read as follows:
Sec. 2.2-1. DefiLitions.
------~--'-_._._~--~-,._.-
For the purposes of this article, the following words and
phrases shall have the meanings respectively ascribed to them by
t:r: i ~ see t:i or. :
nFalse alarmsn.: ~eans an alarm that causes a police
response, when the responding officer finds no evidence of a
criminal offense or attempted criminal offense. Excluded from
this definition are:
( 1 )
tornodo,
AlarITiE occurring during electrical
blizzards and acts of God; or
storms,
hurricane,
(2) Electrical power disruption or failure; or
(3) Alarms caused by a failure of the equipment at the
Emergency Operations Center.
See 2.2-2.
Intentional False alarms a criminal offense.
It shall be a criminal misdemeanor for any person to
knowingly and without just cause activate a security or fire
alarm to summon the police department or fire and rescue service
in situations where there is no actual or threatened criminal or
fire activity requiring immediate police or fire response.
See 2.2-3. Charges for false alarms.
After two false alaYITis in any twelve month period, users
shall be charged for each subsequent false alarm which results in
a police department response, in such amount as is reasonably
calculated to reimburse the county for the costs of responding to
such false alaYITis. Such amount may be computed and recomputed by
the County Executive from time to time, on the basis of the
average time, manpower and equipment devoted to police response
to fal se alarms. This charge is to reimburse the County for
costs expended; it is not a fine; and is not dependent upon a
criminal conviction under Section 2.2-2 above.
See 2.2-4.
Payment for false alarms.
Charges for false alarms shall be paid to the Director of
Fir,ance.
/tIA ' \ '.
-.. ----.'-' '-~_.._-----_.-~__ ~._~__ _.__.. __..___._m.____
See 2.2-5. ha.rrir~istratic!r.
Administration of t}Jis C]-"apter shall be the joint
responsibility of the Chief of polict and the Director of Finance
Lnder tte Eupe~viEi0n of tte County Executive.
S ~~_._ 2 .? - ~'_ __~-:E1?ea 1 E .
Any charge for a false alarm, or notice of withdrawal of
consent or order to disconnect, as provided hereinabove, may be
appealed to the Board of Supervisors by application of the owner
fi:'ed with the County Executive within ten days of the date of
notice of such charge or order. Upon receipt of such appeal, the
County Executive or his designee may grant relief from such
c :ba.r 9 e or or de:::, or TIlay place the ma t ter on t:he agenda of the
Board of Supen;:sors for hearing.
This ordinance shall take effect on
1991.
RES 0 L UTI 0 N
BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle
County, Virginia, does hereby state its intent to amend the
Albemarle County Code, Chapter 2.2, "Alarms", to delete the
requirement for registration of automatic alarms.
* * * * *
I, Lettie E. Neher, do hereby certify that
is a true, correct copy of a resolution adopted
Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, at a
held on March 13, 1991.
the foregoing writing
by the Board of
regular meeting
.., ~~;:>
./A ~~ ~~
~~oar of count~erVisors
.
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
POLICE DEPARTMENT
ALARM ORDINANCE
STATUS REPORT
March 4, 1991
2' ttC\ \
Cj(). iOld,,)]7
'tiN n /1;. (.., f\
"
'<.,'
.
ALARM ORDINANCE - STATUS REPORT
INTRODUCTION:
After reviewing the results of the first workload allocation
study, the Albemarle County Police Department recommended to
the Board the adoption of an alarm ordinance. The ordinance was
enacted in November 1990.
The ordinance requires the registration of specified alarm
systems with the police department, and allows the County to
charge a false alarm fee for more than two avoidable false alarms
in a twelve month period of time. The administrative process
was implemented on January 18, 1991, and enforcement of the
ordinance is scheduled to begin on May 1, 1991.
SCOPE OF PROBLEM:
The police department's first workload allocation study was
conducted in January 1990, with a main focus being the identifi-
cation of categories of calls for service where demand could be
reduced. One major problem identified was the area of false
alarm responses. During calendar year 1989, the police depart-
ment responded to 2081 alarm calls, with 2067 of them (or 99.3%)
being false alarms. The Department responded to a total of
26,054 calls for service in 1989, with false alarm responses
representing 7.93% of the total workload. The average alarm call
in 1989 took approximately 21 minutes to handle (dispatch time to
cleared time). The majority of alarm calls are a two unit re-
sponse due to their nature, therefore each false alarm could
require 42 man-minutes to handle. During 1989, 1446.9 manhours
were potentially lost due to false alarms. An analysis of alarm
calls for calendar year 1990, and the first two months of 1991
(shown below) shows that this trend continues.
YEAR
FALSE
ALARMS
TOTAL CALLS % FALSE ALARM
FOR SERVICE COMPARED TO TOTAL
CALLS
MANHOURS
CONSUMED
89
2067
26,054 7.93%
1446.9
90
2055
25,998 7.90%
1438.5
91*
285
3,542 8.05%
199.5
* 1991 Data covers period - January 1 - February 25, 1991
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A second and more pressing concern is the improvement of
officer safety when dealing with alarm calls. It is only human
nature for an officer to "assume" that an alarm activation is
"false" when the frequency of false alarms is so high. The
reduction in the number of false alarms will prevent the officer
from falling into this trap, and perhaps avoid injury to respond-
ing officers.
A third consideration is the priority that alarm calls are
now given. Due to the high false alarm rate, all alarms are
given a low priority when demand for police service is at its
peak, due to the high probability that the alarm is false. This
means that during busy periods, a true or founded alarm could be
held until a sector unit becomes available to handle the call.
ALARM REGISTRATION:
The alarm ordinance requires that any automatic alarm device
must be registered with the Police Department, and it shall be
unlawful for any person to use or operate an alarm prior to this
registration. A one-time registration fee of $25.00 is charged
to help offset administrative costs of the registration, as well
as the cost of tracking false alarms. There is an exemption to
the registration requirement. Any system. that does not require a
DIRECT RESPONSE by the Department is exempt from the registration
requirement. If the alarmed premises is PHYSICALLY checked by a
third party PRIOR TO the police department being notified, then
the alarm premises does not need to be registered. All alarm
systems (either silent or audible) that are intended to notify
police, and initiate a police response, must be registered.
A major benefit of alarm registration is the collecting of
information that will improve the response to alarms. Prior to
the registration requirement, the Department had no estimate as
to the number of alarms in Albemarle County, or their locations.
Directions to the alarmed premises are provided during the regis-
tration process, as well as emergency contact information. This
information is invaluable in an emergency, and will aid the
officer in a more timely response. The registration process also
provides the Department with the party responsible for the prem-
ises, so the false alarm fees may be fairly charged.
A total of 54 alarm permits have been issued as of February
26, 1991, with 43 of those being residential locations, and 11
business locations. The total revenue collected to date is
$1350.00
Information obtained through the registration process is
confidential and will be retained and used by the Police Depart-
ment for public safety purposes only.
FALSE ALARM FEE - ASSESSMENT POLICY:
~
The enforcement of the alarm ordinance is scheduled to begin
on May 1, 1991. Prior to this date, multiple media releases will
be made to ensure that the public understands the enforcement
process, as well as the intent of the ordinance. A false alarm
service fee will be assessed for any false alarm, after the
second false alarm in a twelve month period of time. False alarm
means an alarm that causes a police response, when the responding
officer finds no evidence of a criminal offense or attempted
criminal offense. Excluded from this definition are: (1) Alarms
occurring during electrical storms, hurricane, tornado, blizzards
and acts of God; or (2) Electrical power disruption or failure;
or (3) Alarms caused by a failure of the equipment at the Emer-
gency Operations Center.
Police officers responding to the alarm will determine if
the alarm is false, as defined above, and will forward this
information to the Administrative Services Division. After two
false alarms (within 12 months) at a particular location, the
alarm permit holder will be notified in writing of assessments
due, and a bill will be sent by the Finance Department. The
Department will be realistic in the enforcement of the ordinance.
IF there is any doubt that the alarm was caused by one of the
conditions that would exempt it, then the alarm will NOT be
counted as a false alarm. The County Executive or his designee
may grant relief from such charges, or he may place the matter on
the agenda of the Board of Supervisors for hearing.
CONCLUSION:
The adoption of the alarm ordinance, in conjunction with an
equitable enforcement process, will reduce unnecessary demands on
police resources, and improve the response to actual alarms. The
ordinance will not by any means totally eliminate false alarms,
but it will have a significant impact on false alarms that are
caused by human error and negligence. The alarm ordinance and
its enforcement will be continuously monitored by Police Depart-
ment staff, and if the goals and objectives are not being met as
planned, the process will be reevaluated.
[alarm.rpt]
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
401 MCINTIRE ROAD
CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 22901
FOR OFFICE USE ONLY
PERMIT #
FEE
DATE
SECURITY ALARM SYSTEM PERMIT
APPLICANT
NAME
ADDRESS
CITY
TELEPHONE HOME (
STATE
BUSINESS
ZIP
)
CONTACT PERSON(S) TO CONTACT IN THE EVENT OF AN ALARM
NAME
ADDRESS
CITY STATE ZIP
TELEPHONE HOME ( BUSINESS ( )
NAME
ADDRESS
CITY STATE ZIP
TELEPHONE HOME BUSINESS )
PREMISES PROPERTY OWNER AND ADDRESS OF BUSINESS OR RESIDENCE WHERE
ALARM IS ACTUALLY LOCATED
NAME
ADDRESS
CITY STATE ZIP
TELEPHONE HOME ( ) BUSINESS )
DIRECTIONS TO PREMISES
DESCRIPTION Describe Alarm System. Include whether it is audible or
silent. If monitored, by whom, and give address and phone.
MONITOR
ADDRESS
CITY
TELEPHONE (
ALARL"VI TYPE
STATE
AUDIBLE
INTRUSION HOLD-UP
ZIP
SILENT
BOTH
The undersigned is authorized to represent the person, firm or corporation
applying for this permit and does acknowledge that the undersigned has
read the Albemarle County Alarm Ordinance, as may be amended and other
requirements and conditions noted on the reverse side of this application.
The undersigned further acknowledges that he authorized by the person, firm
or corporation applying for this permit to accept the conditions and
obligations contained therein as binding upon the person, firm or corp-
oration making application.
SIGNED
DATE
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------.----------------------------------------------
APPROVED BY
DATE
ISSUED BY
DATE
Police Dept. - White
Finance Dept. - Yellow
Applicant - Pink
. ,
Di~tritTted to Board: -f/-// #
No.~,1 ?/'f// Z?,?
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
MEMORANDUM
TO: Albemarle County Board of Supervisors ~
FROM: Robert W. Tucker, Jr., County EXeCUtiVeft I
DATE: April 11, 1991
RE: Transfer of Funds - AHIP
Funding for a Housing Specialist assigned to AHIP is
currently being held in a contingency fund in the Board of
Supervisors account code. This funding was placed in your
contingency account pending receipt of a Community Development
Block Grant which was finalized in December, 1990.
Staff recommends you take official action authorizing the
Director of Finance to transfer $13,406 from your contingency
account (code 1000-11010-999999) to AHIP (code 1000-89000-563100).
The position was filled last July with the understanding that the
County would provide one-half of the cost once the Block Grant was
obtained.
RWTJr/RBJ/bat
91-1.34
c: Melvin Breeden
. "
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
OFFICE OF BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
401 MciNTIRE ROAD
CHARLOTTESVILLE. VIRGINIA 22901-4596
M E M 0 RAN DUM
FROM:
Lettie
Breeden, Director of Finance
E. Neher, Clerk/~
1991 )'r
TO:
Melvin
DATE:
May 6,
SUBJECT: Appropriation for AHIP
At its meeting on April 17, 1991, the Board of Supervisors
approved the transfer of $13,406 for a Housing Specialist assigned
to AHIP. Attached please find the signed appropriation form
reflecting that action.
,
LEN:ec
Attachments
-P
r;) LAU\ 11'-- -\-e-
(! C; i~o'f- 0-"-- ,0-
APPROPRIATION REQUEST
.
FISCAL YEAR
90/91
NUMBER
.9000291
TYPE OF APPROPRIATION
. ':-;-1 .,
-.-'-.- ; ".,
ADDITIOti~~' I , :
TRANSFEij.';' ; ~y '2 '991 " i I i
, :, .I. I" i
NEW . : 1"'-1"-'-" .I i! i
J L. , " l,~L:; I L_-U..p......n" I L i .
YES [3 C) ~ (', ;' ,- -~.~ ,,'" L..:.:J L..:J
- .1.. Lit- 'sllj,'c"f;>\/I(,')p.
NO X. L., -'L. ':.:.
ADVERTISEMENT REQUIRED ?
FUND
GENERAL
PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION:
TRANSFER OF FUNDS FROM B.O.S. CONTINGENCY TO AHIP.
EXPENDITURE
COST CENTER/CATEGORY DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
************************************************************************
1100011010999999 B.O.S. CONTINGENCY ($13,406.00)
1100089000563100 AHIP 13,406.00
TOTAL
$0.00
REVENUE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
************************************************************************
TOTAL
$0.00
************************************************************************
REQUESTING COST CENTER:
EDUCATION
APPROVALS:
SIGNATURE
DATE
DIRECTOR OF FINANCE
ff~g-
5-2.-9/
- ,
~~b -,~
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
...,
RES 0 L UTI 0 N
BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle
County, Virginia, that the operations budget for the County for the
Fiscal Year beginning July 1, 1991, be approved as follows:
Total
$ 3,667,570
1,229,612
5,952,930
1,518,700
3,789,858
2,415,462
1,666,185
3,277,350
67,500
1,000,000
150,000
4,329,518
56,592,020
$85,656,705
General Government Administration
Judicial
Public Safety
Public Works
Human Development
Parks, Recreation and Culture
Community Development
County/City Revenue Sharing
Refunds
Capital Improvements
Debt Service Reserve
Education - Debt Service
Education - Operations
* * * * *
I, Lettie E. Neher, do hereby certify that the foregoing
writing is a true, correct copy for a resolution adopted by the
Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, at a regular
meeting held on April 17, 1991. ~..~ ~
~~~
~k, Board of County Supervisors
"
to 8oard: ~ //: ~
Agcrdn rio. 11/./// ff ..303
RES 0 L UTI 0 N
BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle
County, Virginia, that the operations budget for the County for the
Fiscal Year beginning July 1, 1991, be approved as follows:
General Government Administration
Judicial
Public Safety
Public Works
Human Development
Parks, Recreation and Culture
Community Development
County/City Revenue Sharing
Refunds
Capital Improvements
Debt Service Reserve
Education - Debt Service
Education - Operations
Total
$ 3,667,570
1,229,612
5,952,930
1,518,700
3,789,858
2,415,462
1,666,185
3,277,350
67,500
1,000,000
150,000
4,329,518
56,592,020
$85,656,705
~
.r==--~--=-=.-"
THE DAILY PROGRESS, Charlottesville. Virginia, Tuesday, April 2. 1991 AS
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA
PROPOSED BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEAR BEGINNING
JULY 1, 1991
A HEARING will be held by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, at 7:00 P.M. on
WEDNESDAY, APRIL 10, 1991, in the Auditorium of the County Office Building, 401 Mcintire Road,
Charlottesville, Virginia, on the proposed 1991-92 budget. This budget synposis is prepared and
published for informative and fiscal planning purposes and will not be approved, adopted, or ratified by
the Board of Supervisors Virginia Code Sections 15.1-160 and 15.1-162).
ESTIMATED EXPENDITURES
)
J
GENERAL GOVERNMENT:
ADMINISTRATION:
Board of Supervisors ............................................. 287,480
County Executive ................................................ 367,523
Data Processing ................................................. 784,241
Elections ....................................................... 127,235
Finance ...................................................... 1,689,479
Legal Services .................................................. 191,472
Personnel ...................................................... 220,140
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT:
Albemarle Housing Improvement .................................... 275,430
Bus Service ..................................................... 31,491
Gypsy Moth Program ............................................... 9,695
Housing ....................................................... 154,535
Monticello Community Action Agency ................................. 36,085
Planning ....................................................... 648,615
SoillWater Conservation ............................................20,283
VPI Extension Service ............................................. 89,449
Watershed Management ........................................... 41,575
Zoning ................................ '. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 313,542
T JPDC ......................................................... 45,485
HUMAN DEVELOPMENT:
AIDS Support Group ............................................... 5,000
CVCDA .............................. ." . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7,340
Ch'ville/Albemarle Legal Aid ......................................... 10,405
Children and Youth Commission ..................................... 15,215
District Home .................................................... 31,200
Employment Services Program ...................................... 58,157
Family Services................................................... 5,100
Fuel Assistance .................................................. 17,505
Health Department. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 496,000
Jefferson Area Board for the Aging ................................... 89,350
Jefferson Area United Transportation ................................ 140,340
Madison House ................................................... 3,785
Medicaid Program ................................ ~ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 152,806
Mental Health ................................................... 197,000
Outreach Counseling .............................................. 21,430
Piedmont Va. Community College ..................................... 6,600
SARA .......................................................... 12,500
Shelter for Help in Emergency ....................................... 32,135
Social Services ................................................ 2,454,340
United Way Scholarship Program .................................... 40,250
JUDICIAL
Circuit Court ..................................................... 53,2aO
Clerk Circuit Court ............................................... 394,875
Commonwealth Attorney .......................................... 293,619
General District Court ............................................... 9,990
Juvenile Court ................................................... 36,542
Magistrate ........................................................ 4,265
Sheriff. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 437,041
PARKS. RECREATION AND CULTURE:
Library ....................................................... 1 ,376,405
Literacy Volunteers ................................................. 9,200
Parks & Recreation .............................................. 846,760
Piedmont Council of the Arts _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . " nnn
.. .... ,. ..
RES 0 L UTI 0 N
BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle
County, virginia, does hereby set the County Levy for the taxable
year 1991 for General County purposes at Seventy-Two Cents ($0.72)
on every One Hundred Dollars worth of real estate; at Four Dollars
and Thirty Cents ($4.30) on every One Hundred Dollars worth of
assessed value of personal property; at Four Dollars and Thirty
Cents ($4.30) on every One Hundred Dollars worth of assessed value
of machinery and tools; at Seventy-Two Cents ($0.72) on every One
Hundred Dollars worth of assessed value on mobile homes; and at
Seventy-Two Cents ($0.72) on every One Hundred Dollars worth of
assessed value of public service assessments; and
FURTHER orders that the Director of Finance of Albemarle
County assess and collect on all taxable real estate and all
taxable personal property, including machinery and tools not
assessed as real estate, used or employed in a manufacturing
business, not taxable by the State on Capital; including Public
Service Corporation property except the rolling stock of railroads
based upon the assessment fixed by the State Corporation Commission
and certified by it to the Board of Supervisors both as to location
and valuation; and including all boats and watercraft under five
tons as set forth in the Code of virginia; and vehicles used as
mobile homes or offices as set forth in the virginia Code; except
farm machinery, farm tools, farm livestock, and household goods as
set forth in the Code of Virginia, Section 58.1-3500 through
Section 58.1-3508.
* * * * *
I, Lettie E. Neher, do hereby certify that the foregoing
writing is a true, correct copy for a resolution adopted by the
Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, at a reguiar
meeting held on April 17, 1991. ~ _~ p~
Clerk, Board of County Supervisors
..
to Board: , <<-/~
i~g:nda Item No. f?/' ?J3..) $: 2'f:l
RES 0 L UTI 0 N
BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle
County, Virginia, does hereby set the County Levy for the taxable
year 1991 for General County purposes at Seventy-Two Cents ($0.72)
on every One Hundred Dollars worth of real estate; at Four Dollars
and Thirty Cents ($4.30) on every One Hundred Dollars worth of
assessed value of personal property; at Four Dollars and Thirty
Cents ($4.30) on every One Hundred Dollars worth of assessed value
of machinery and tools; at Seventy-Two Cents ($0.72) on every One
Hundred Dollars worth of assessed value on mobile homes; and at
Seventy-Two Cents ($0.72) on every One Hundred Dollars worth of
assessed value of public service assessments; and
FURTHER orders that the Director of Finance of Albemarle
County assess and collect on all taxable real estate and all
taxable personal property, including machinery and tools not
assessed as real estate, used or employed in a manufacturing
business, not taxable by the State on Capital; including Public
Service Corporation property except the rolling stock of railroads
based upon the assessment fixed by the State Corporation Commission
and certified by it to the Board of Supervisors both as to location
and valuation; and including all boats and watercraft under five
tons as set forth in the Code of Virginia; and vehicles used as
mobile homes or offices as set forth in the Virginia Code; except
farm machinery, farm tools, farm livestock, and household goods as
set forth in the Code of Virginia, Section 58.1-3500 through
Section 58.1-3508.
..
r-~"""~
.'
~ r-~",~ r
-,
Edward H. Bain, Jr.
Samuel Miller
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Office of Board of Supervisors
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22901-4596
(804) 296-5843 FAX (804) 979-1281
April 18, 1991
Charlotte Y Humphns
Jack Jouell
David P Bowerman
Charlottesville
Walter F. Perkins
White Hall
F. R (Rick) Bowie
Rivanna
Peter T Way
Scottsville
Ms. Nancy O'Brien
Executive Director, Thomas Jefferson
Planning District Commission
413 East Market Street, Suite 102
Charlottesville, VA 22901
Dear Ms. O'Brien:
At its meeting on April 17, 1991, the Board of Supervisors
adopted the attached resolution supporting the Thomas Jefferson
Planning District's application to delineate areas sensitive to
certain pesticides and the involvement of the Albemarle County
Extension Office to help develop pesticide management plans.
verY,5rulY yours(/_:;7
<4/ .~/ ~/
%jA~ (~/;<_/-;~~(?1?
Lettie E. Ne~ .
Clerk
LEN:ec
Attachment
..
RESOLUTION OF SUPPORT
FOR
IDENTIFICATION OF NONPOINT SOURCE
POLLUTION TO
GROUNDWATER FROM PESTICIDES
WHEREAS, pesticides are used widely in residential and agricultural
land uses in Albemarle County; and
WHEREAS, pesticide loss into groundwater is greater in some areas
than others; and
WHEREAS, these areas of Albemarle County which are particularly
sensitive to certain pesticides are unknown; and
WHEREAS, the knowledge of pesticide vulnerable areas and the
production of a local pesticide management plan will reduce the pesticide loss
from residential and agricultural land uses; and
WHEREAS, the delineation of sensitive areas will help to implement the
1990 Farm Bill, the Virginia Nonpoint Source Pollution Management Program
and the Environmental Protection, Public Information, Education, Monitoring
and Analysis recommendations of the Virginia Pesticide Subcommittee; and
WHEREAS, the knowledge of pesticide vulnerable areas will be
helpful for comprehensive planning and zoning decision making in Albemarle
County.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Albemarle Board of
County Supervisors supports the application of the Thomas . Jefferson
Planning District to delineate areas sensitive to certain pesticides and the
involvement of the Albemarle County Extension Office to help develop
pesticide management plans.
* * * * *
I, Lettie E. Neher, do hereby certify that the foregoing writing is a
true, correct copy of a resolution adopted by the Albemarle Board of County
Supervisors at a regular meeting ~l ? ~
Clerk, Board of ~~A.:pervisors
..
,); st 4 117 h I
RESOLUTION OF SUPPORT
FOR
IDENTIFICATION OF NONPOINT SOURCE POLLUTION TO
GROUNDWATER FROM PESTICIDES
WHEREAS, pesticides are used widely in residential and
agricultural land uses in Albemarle County: and
WHEREAS/ pesticide loss into groundwater is greater in some
areas than others; and
WHEREAS, these areas of Albemarle County which are particularly
sensitive to certain pesticides are unknown; and
WHEREAS, the knowledge of pesticide vulnerable areas and
the production of a local pesticide management plan will reduce
the pesticide loss from residential and agricultural
land uses; and
WHEREAS, the delineation of sensitive areas will help to
implement the 1990 Farm Bill/ the virginia Nonpoint Source
Pollution Management program and the Environmental Protection/
Public Information, Education, Monitoring and Analysis
recommendations of the Virginia pesticide subcommittee; and
WHEREAS, the knowledge of pesticide vulnerable areas will be
helpful for comprehensive planning and zoning decision making
in Albemarle county; and
BE IT RESOLVED THAT, the Albemarle County Board of supervisors
supports the application of the Thomas Jefferson planning
District to delineate areas sensitive to certain pesticides and
the involvement of the Albemarle County Extension Office to
help to develop pesticide management plans.
Date:
chair, F.R. Bowie
-
i
t
Edward H. Bain. Jr
Samuel Miller
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Office of Board of Supervisors
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22901-4596
(804) 296-5843 FAX (804) 979-1281
April 22, 1991
~ ': ~
~ \:;.
;) ) \ ('
.'t,. ~...,,..,.... .;."<l....... ''Po' .,'
"
~ ' _'0, 1 l
1 " I i
:1 t ~ ~ ~
l_D,arlotte!:(,J Humph"s
,Jack ,Jouett
David P Bowerman
Charlottesville
Walter F Perkins
White Hall
F. R (Rick) Bowie
Rivanna
Peter T. Way
Scollsville
Ms. Eleanor Santic
7 Helios Path
Barboursville, VA 22923
Dear Ms. Santic:
At the Board of Supervisors meeting held on April 17, 1991,
you were appointed as the County representative to the Thomas
Jefferson Study to Preserve and Assess the Regional Environment
(TJSPARE) .
On behalf of the Board, I would like to take this opportunity
to express the Board's appreciation for your willingness to serve
the County in this capacity.
Sincerely,
JrJ2g~
F. R. Bowie
Chairman
LEN/ec
cc: Nancy O'Brien
L;;7 ~ -h v C"-.): { sc"__
..
~ ~hl/ ~rU4 tf)~
17 -fl~ ~ ;;;;:;:;t Ud-. ~ jt1.l
(~.lL- )tJiAf~ ,7.;Z1Ji ~5lzY3 .
~. ?Jf/ 'P-jl-Z0 : ,.; , .
Di.~hh~'~.~d to ~:;~rd: <..[. I 0 '~.L
Agenda Hem fio. q{,o~o~{8y,
/1
l C/7JVfn(.,.;JUL1n-.'
, i
1- / _.:' .~
C' ~ . ~'-','
'PIaroh :l;.4:J 1991
Mr. F. R. (Rick) Bowie
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, VA 22901
Dear Mr. Bowie:
The Planning District Commission is preparing a regional
environmental assessment and plan. Entitled the "Thomas Jefferson
study to Preserve and Assess the Regional Environment (TJSPARE), the
resulting document will provide your locality with helpful
information with which to make land use and related decisions.
Enclosed is an Executive Summary of the proposal. A complete
prospectus is being sent to your County Executive.
It is a very exciting project. To date we have involved
interested citizens from every locality and many different
backgrounds. Soil conservationists, planning commissioners, National
Park personnel, environmental scientists, and interested citizens
are all part of an Advisory Panel working with the staff to develop
the program.
I am writing to request the Albemarle County Board of
Supervisors appoint a person from your locality as the official
representative or liaison. The person could be one of those already
interested (see enclosed list) or someone else of your choice.
If you want to discuss this in more depth, please call me or
Michael Collins at the planning district office. The staff is
willing and interested in making a presentation to your board should
your schedule permit. Thank you for your assistance.
U&
Edward H. Bain, Jr.
Chairman, TJPDC
Supervisor, Albemarle County
Enclosures
cc: Chief Administrative Officer
-,/1'
J.,./...~*"(./..)~.",:..L
. " prlP'icd on rtcvchd pap!!r
~, :; 'l
., .., -1 I'
'-.tI'U'""L'J I ,-,AM it:~. J !.,Ll. ,
.-
, ., J .
;/~(.,./'.l'~ f:~{ \. ,P( ,'Ll:: 4 ,'jj.('ptl./ l V'CA./~.:..'~ ,.
-;'. (',
~T.a..;~ L ,,-,..../,
" '
/V.(A..kJi l,)~<.':t.,..
/
~
.
i'
Thomas Jefferson Study to Preserve and Assess
the Regional Environment
(TJSPARE)
Prospectus
February 28, 1991
Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission
413 East Market Street, Suite 102
Charlottesville, VA 22901
(804) 972-1720
Nancy K O'Brien, Executive Director
Hannah Twadell, Senior Planner
Michael C. Collins, Environmental Planner
TJSPARE: Executive Summary
Plan for the Sustainable Management of Growth
The Thomas Jefferson Study to Preserve and Assess the Regional Environment (TJSP ARE) is
conducted under the auspices of the Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission (TJPDC).
The work will culminate in the production of a regional environmental plan which will recommend
strategies for the sustainable management of growth within the Thomas Jefferson Planning
District. A full discussion of the contents of the study is contained in the Prospectus.
Intent of the Study
The primary intent of the study is to provide local governments knowledge of the constraints which
their natural and cultural resources place upon expected future populations as determined from
existing land use. The study will also provide a model for the development of regional growth
management plans based upon the carrying capacity of the region's resources. The study will
address many of the concerns currently being discussed by the Virginia Commission on Population
Growth and Development.
Advisory Panel
The TJSP ARE Advisory Panel has been formed to carry out the study. Its membership includes
local planning commissioners and local government staff, faculty from Virginia universities, staff
from local and regional conservation organizations and private citizens.
Mission
The purpose of TJSP ARE is to:
. Identify regionally significant natural and cultural resources;
. Characterize regionally significant natural and cultural resources;
. Project consumption and preservation demands on natural and cultural resources
under regional build-out scenarios;
. Compare current availability of natural and cultural resources-vs.-future demand
through carrying capacity analyses;
. Provide information necessary for natural and cultural resource education and decision
making to local governments and private citizens;
. Produce land use strategies to protect and preserve regionally significant natural and
cultural resources today for a sustainable tomorrow.
Phases of the Study
The project is divided into six phases. Whenever possible, phases of the study will be undertaken in
a fashion which builds on the completion of previous phase(s).
.........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
TJSPAREProspectlls TJPDC,413EastMarket a
2/28/91 Charlottesville, VA 22901
Phase I
Resources to be evaluated, termed "data layers", will be selected. The following nine data layers
have been preliminarily identified as those resources which will be modeled to determine the
impact of build-out population growth in the region:
. Surface Water Quality
. Surface Water Quantity
. Groundwater Quality
. Groundwater Quantity
. Significant Plant and Animal Habitats
. Parks and Wilderness Areas
. Historic and Archeologically Significant Lands
. Air Quality
. Significant Soils and Farmed Areas
Subcommittees will complete a work plan for each of the data layers, identify funding sources and
provide ongoing technical assistance for each portion of the study.
Phase II
Critical or sensitive areas for each of the data layers will be determined. Models will be developed
to estimate amounts and concentrations of pollutants reaching the air, land and water as a function
of changes in build-out populations.
Phase III
Existing landuse will be determined from local government maps, field inspection, aerial
photography and satellite imagery. A regional build-out map will be constructed based on existing
zoning and undeveloped platted lots. Once build-out populations have been calculated and
displayed, associated demands and impacts on resources will be calculated and displayed.
Phase IV
Future resource demand will be compared to current resource availability. Future demand will
vary due to changes in assumptions made about utilities extensions, percent of maximum build-out
modeled, and changes in the development potential of zones based on anticipated changes in
allowable density.
Phases Vand VI
Findings will be published and disseminated to local governments, interested organizations and
individuals. Additional public participation will be sought through informational meetings and
public hearings. The Thomas Jefferson Planning District, in association with each local
government, will prepare regional and local land use strategies and options based on the results of
the study and the direction provided by the jurisdictions. These will form the culmination of the
study, the Regional Environmental Plan.
b
TJPDC, 413 East Market
Charlottesville, VA 22901
TJSP ARE Prospectus
2128191
Table of Contents
I. In trod u cti on............. ...... ....................... ........... ........ ...................................................................... ........... 1
II. His tory................ ....... ......... ................................. ............................ .............. ....... ...................... .............. 3
III. Th e Carrying Capacity Concept.................. ........................................................................................ 5
IV. Geographic Information System................... ......... .............. ..... .................... .............................. ....... 6
V. Project Phasing.... ..... ...... ...................... ........................... .......................................................... ......... .... 7
Phas e I: S tu dy Development ......................................................... ........................................................ 7
Phase II: Assessment ...... .... .............. ...................... ................................................................................ 7
Phase III: Existing Landuse and Regional Build-out......................................................................... 8
Phase IV: Human Demand vs. Resource Supply............................................................................... 8
Phase V: Information Dissemination....... .................. .......................................................................... 9
Phase VI: Preparation of the Regional Environmental Plan ........................................................... 9
VI. Scope 0 f Work...... ..... .......................... ............ ............... ........................................................... ............ 9
Phase I: Study Development ......... ............. ........ ................................................................................. 10
Ph as e II: Assessment ............................................................................................................................ 10
A. Surface Water ...... .......... ...... ......... ................................................................................................ 11
1 ) Critical Watersheds.... ...................................... ................................................................. ....... 11
2 ) Water Quantity ................... ............... ....................................................................................... 12
B. Groundwater... ......... ...... ............... ............................................... ................................................. 12
1 ) Pesticide Vulnerability .... ............ .............. ............ ............................... ................................... 12
2) Vulnerability to other Contamination Sources.................................................................... 13
3 ) Water Quantity .......................................................................................................... ............... 14
C. Significant Plant and Animal Habitats......................................................................................14
D. Parks and Wilderness Areas ......................................................................................................15
E. Historically and Archeologically Significant Lands ................................................................ 16
F. Air quality....... ....... .......... ............. ................................................................................................. 16
G. Significant Soils and Farmed Areas .......................................................................................... 17
Phase III: Existing Landuse and Regional Build-out .................................................................. 18
A. Exis ting landuse and build -out........ ........................................................................................... 19
B. Surface Water ....................................................................... ........ .............. ............ ..... ................. 19
C. Groundwater................ ................................................................................................................. 19
D. Significant Plant and Animal Habitats ..................................................................................... 20
...TjSPAi~jj.p~:O~p~~l~~S.................................................................TjpjjC,..4ij'ji-;;stMd;k~t................................................................................................................i
2/28/91 Charlottesville, VA 22901
E. Parks and Wilderness Areas ......................................................................................... ..............20
F. Significant Soils and Farmed Areas........................................................................................... 20
Phase IV: Comparison of Future Resource Demand to Present Resource Availability............ 21
A. Surface Water Quality ................................................................................................................. 21
B. Surface Water Quantity.................. ..................................................... ...................... .......... ........ 21
C. Groundwater Quality..... .......... .......... .......................... ........................ ........................................ 21
D . Groundwater Quantity..... ................... ......................... ................ ............................................... 21
E. Significant Plant and Animal Habitats...................................................................................... 22
F. Parks and Wilderness Areas .......................................................................................................22
G. Historic and Archeologically Significant Lands ...................................................................... 22
H. Air Quality.............. ............. .................. ....... ......................... ....................................................... 22
I. Significant Soils and Farmed Areas ................................................................................... .........22
Phase V: Information Dissemination...... .............. .................. ................. ....................... ............ ....... 23
Phase VI: Preparation of the Regional Environmental Plan .........................................................23
VII. S tm cture to Accomp lish Study... ....... ................................... ................ ................................... ........ 24
VIII. S tu dy Timeline ............................... ..................... ......... ..... ........................................................ ....... 25
IX. Value of Study of Data Layers to Localities after Completion.................................................... 26
.........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
ii TJPDC, 413 East Market TJSPAREProspectus
Charlottesville, VA 22901 2/28/91
I.INTRODUCfION
In July of 1990, the Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission included in its Fiscal Year
1991 Work Program the establishment of a regional environmental program. This prospectus
outlines a program which will culminate in the production of a regional environmental plan. The
plan will recommend strategies for the sustainable management of growth within the Thomas
Jefferson Planning District.
The title of this study is the Thomas Jefferson Study to Preserve and Assess the Regional
Environment (TJSP ARE). The primary intent of this study is to provide local governments
knowledge of the constraints which their natural and cultural resources (hereafter referred to as
resources) place upon expected future populations as determined from existing landuse. The study
will also provide a model design for the development of regional growth management plans based
upon the carrying capacity of this region's resources.
The study will model the build-out population of the region. The capability of the air, land and
water to support this population will then be determined. Armed with information on resource
capability, localities and the state will be able to anticipate regional population limitations and to
plan accordingly to either manage growth and/or natural resources to avoid demand in excess of
supply.
The study will determine the capability of nine data layers to accommodate population growth in
the Planning District. Each of these layers will be overlaid on a primary build-out layer of the
region as determined from existing landuse:
. Surface Water Quality
. Surface Water Quantity
. Groundwater Quality
. Groundwater Quantity
. Significant Plant and Animal Habitats
. Parks and Wilderness Areas
. Historically and Archeologically Significant Lands
. Air Quality
. Significant Soils and Farmed Areas
Build-out methodology has been developed from a demonstration project completed in the fall of
1990 in Greene County, Virginia (TJPDC, Greene County Land use and Build-out Analysis, 1990).
The importance of these resources has long been recognized by local governments and
organizations such as the League of Women Voters, the Piedmont Environmental Council, the
Sierra Club and the Citizens for Albemarle. Recently, on the state level, the Commission on
Population Growth and Development has been convened to consider the impact of growth on the
environment.
.........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
TJSPARE Prospectus
2/28/91
TJPDC, 413 East Market
Charlottesville, VA 22901
1
This study will address many of the concerns of the Commission. In the study, resources will be
identified along with regulatory and non-regulatory programs to protect them. The financing of
these programs along with the appropriate level of government to implement them will also be
considered.
The study will include pilot projects to build each data layer which will implement many of the
findings of the Commission. These projects will show how preservation of the environment can
occur through regional cooperation. They will also show the specific impacts of growth on resource
based industries in the region.
Whenever possible, methodology developed will utilize existing data sources. Many of the data
layers can be constructed from information available on existing maps and in reseach publications.
Tax parcels for the district presently available on county tax maps will be digitized. The digitizing
process is expected to be cost effective since exact locations and acreage is not required for
regional and local environmental planning.
Volunteers will be used extensively on projects in which they have interest. High school, college
and adult conservation groups will be relied upon for providing labor for some tasks. Training and
supervision will provide an assurance of quality data input. In this way, not only will the needs of
the study be met, but the public will gain a valuable education on the benefits of planned growth in
the Commonwealth.
The study is designed to be simple. The focus of the evaluation of each data layer will be on the
delineation of sensitive or vulnerable areas. Consequently, more complex and data intensive
models required for site specific prediction of amounts, concentrations and precise locations of the
the resource under consideration will not be required.
The study will also stand scrutiny from the public and private sector. Although area assessments for
potential areas will be the focus of most of the data layers, these areas will be tied to tax parcels
through the overlay capability of a Geographic Information System (GIS). This will enable data
produced in the study to be utilized in most county level planning processes.
Finally, the study will contain methodology which will be adaptable for export to other areas of the
state. If the study is to serve as a demonstration project of the Commission on Population Growth
and Development, it should be as useful in Arlington County as in Nelson County.
...............................................................................................................u........................................................................................................................................................................
2 TJPDC, 413 East Market TJSPARE Prospectus
Charlottesville, VA 22901 2128191
II. mSTORY
The formation of the TJSP ARE Advisory Panel has been facilitated by the Thomas Jefferson
. Planning District. The Panel has held three meetings in recent months to discuss regional
environmental issues in the City of Charlottesville, and in Greene, Albemarle, Nelson, Louisa and
Fluvanna Counties. The Panel members as of February, 1991 are listed below:
Dr. Tim Beatley
Mr. Steven Bliley
Mr. Pete Bradshaw
Mr. James Butler
Ms. Sherry Buttrick
Ms. Gwyn Caouette
Mr. Blake Caravati
Mr. Doug Coleman
Dr. Keith Echleman
Mr. Bill Gladden
Mr. Everett R. Haney, Jr.
Mr. John Hermsmeier
Mr. James Klein
Dr. Jack Marshall
Mr. Geoff Pitts
Mr. William Porter
Dr. John Randolph
Mr. Peyton Robertson
Ms. Annie Quattlebaum
Mr. Sandy Rives
Ms. Eleanor Santic
Mr. John Scrivani
Dr. V.O. Shanholtz
Dr. Hank Shugart
Mr. Eben Smith
Ms. Vivian Thomson
Mr. David Tice
Mr . Wayne Wampler
Mr. Gordon Yaeger
Professor of Environmental Planning, UV a.
Subdivision Ordinance Committee, Nelson County
Environmental Planner, McKee/Carson
Culpeper Soil and Water Conservation District
Piedmont Environmental Council
Nelson County Litter Committee
Charlottesville Planning Commission
Conservationist, Wintergreen
Assistant Professor, Environmental Science Department, UVa.
Tidewater Manager, The Nature Conservancy
Fanner, Greene County
Tandem Center for the Environment
Professor of Landscape Architecture, UVa.
President, Citizens for Albemarle
President, Ace Contracting
Louisa County Administrator
Center for Coal and Energy Research, Virginia Tech
Watershed Manager, Albemarle County
Chair, Solid Waste Committee, Nelson County Sierra Club
Shenandoah National Park
Natural Resources Committee, League of Women Voters
Virginia Department of Forestry
Information Support Systems Lab, Virginia Tech
Chairman, Environmental Science Department, UVa.Citizens for Albemarle
Citizens for Albemarle
Director, Earth 2020
President, North American Resource Management
ASCS, Fluvanna County
SCS, Albemarle County
The Panel should be considered a technical committee staffed by the Planning District. In addition
to staff, Ms. Shannon Spencer, a graduate student in the Department of Urban and Environmental
Planning will assist the Panel through an independent study to begin in
the spring of 1991.
Funding proposals for each of the data layers are being submitted to appropriate funding sources
as opportunities occur. Cooperative efforts with Va. Tech, the University of Virginia, the Virginia
Department of Forestry, the Virginia Division of Soil and Water Conservation, the Virginia
TJSP ARE Prospectus
2/28/91
TJPDC, 413 East Market
Charlottesville, VA 22901
3
Remote Sensing Lab, the Information Support Systems Lab, Council on the Environment, other
state agencies and planning districts are being explored.
The panel has approved the mission statement below.
The purpose of TJSP ARE is to:
1) Identify regionally significant natural resources;
2) Characterize regionally significant natural resources;
3) Project consumption and preservation demands on natural resources under regional build-out
scenanos;
4) Compare current availability of natural resources - vs.- future demand through carrying capacity
analyses;
5) Provide information necessary for natural resource conservation education and decision making
to local governments and private citizens;
6) Produce landuse strategies to protect and preserve regionally significant natural resources today
for a sustainable tomorrow.
...;;............................................................................................................Tjpj5c,.4ij'E;StM~~k~t....................................................................TjSPAiiji'P;~;pe~~;
Charlottesville, VA 22901 2128191
ill. THE CARRYING CAPACITY CONCEPT
The charge to comprehensive planners has traditionally been to look into the short-term future,
determine needs and assets, and then to alter or reinforce current land use strategies depending on
the need for change. Due to predictive data limitations, twenty years into the future is as far as
most plans are developed.
The concept of carrying capacity is based on the notion that land use classification densities are
generally permanent, or will remain certainly longer than twenty years. (Although reduction in
densities or downzoning occasionally occurs, the tendency is to do the opposite or increase density,
commonly called upzoning. Thus, the use of existing land use to calculate build-out should yield
conservative estimates). Since areas eventually build-out, or fully develop to the limits of present
zoning capacity and subdivided land, it is useful to examine the natural resource demands of the
potential population allowed under present day land uses. Using carrying capacity methodology,
the resource demands would be compared to the resource capabilities of the area in which the
population is based. Then, critical population thresholds could be identified beyond which
continuation of growth or development at greater densities would initiate the deterioration of
important natural resources such as air, water and land. Adoption of carrying capacity
methodology to ascertain long-term needs of a region--those resources necessary for consumption
and preservation at build-out--could be used today as proof of the need to set aside certain
quantities and qualities of natural resources for the future.
TJSPARE Prospectlls
2/28/91
TJPDC, 413 East Market
Charlottesville, VA 22901
5
IV. GEOGRAPIDC INFORMATION SYSTEM
Critical to the success of the project is the acquisition of a Geographic Information System (GIS).
A GIS will be critical for data storage and manipulation. Support from the Information Support
Systems Lab (ISSL) and the Virginia Council on the Environment will be sought for GIS
development to create a user friendly system with adequate data to be used immediately in the
study.
The study will be built on the United States Geologic Survey (USGS) quadrangle 1" = 24,000"
maps. This scale provides adequate detail for the accurate delineation of critical areas. It is also of
a large enough scale to not exceed the resolution of other data sources. Mapping of tax parcels in
the District will require a computer which can readily retreive a great deal of data.
The Planning District currently has no GIS capability. The following hardware will be the
minimum necessary to undertake the study:
. Intel 80386 microprocessor at 33 Mhz or workstation
. Intel 80387-20 math coprocessor
. 320 Mh. hard disk
. four Mh. RAM
. VGA 16 graphics adapter, capable of 256 color, 1020 X 780 resolution
. 19 inch monitor
. 10 Mh. Bernoulli Box II with ten 20 Mh. 5 1/4 removable cartridges
. Mouse
Through cooperative efforts still under investigation, the use of a digitizer, digitizing software and
a plotter will be sought until funds to purchase these peripherals can be located
The system chosen will need to be able to manage, manipulate and display thematic maps for the
nine data layers as well as do the following:
. Overlay sensitive areas on regional tax parcel map
. Retreive and manipulate 50 to 100,000 tax parcels in the region quickly
. Tag and calculate acreage of overlapped areas
. Interface with hydrologic models
. Scenario test to determine the impact of different build-out scenarios on natural and
cultural resources
.........................................................................u..............................................................................................................................................................................................................
6 TJPDC, 413 East Market TJSPARE Prospectus
Charlottesville, VA 22901 2/28/91
v. PROJECT PHASING
GENERAL
The project is divided into six phases. Whenever possible, each of the phases of the study will be
undertaken in a fashion which builds on the completion of previous phase( s). The completion of
each data layer will depend on funding cycles. These cycles may not always coincide with the
project timetable. Each of the data layers in phases II through V will be completed to produce a
regional environmental plan which will include a comprehensive assessment of the carrying
capacity of the region.
PHASE I: STUDYDEVEWPMENT
Resources to be evaluated, or "data layers", have been chosen from a priorities survey of
environmental and cultural topics generated by the Advisory Panel and sent out to 85 Chief
Administrative Officers, Planning Commissioners and elected officials in the region.
Subcommittees are now being established for each of the data layers. Each subcommittee will
establish a work plan for the completion of the data layer for which it is responsible.
PHASE II: ASSESSMENT
Critical or sensitive areas for each of the data layers examined in the study will be determined.
Through screening techniques such as pesticide vulnerability mapping, watershed vulnerability
mapping, DRASTIC and habitat potential mapping, the size of the areas modeled for build-out
impact will be kept to a manageable size.
These critical areas will then be modeled to determine actual impact on the environment. The GIS
will allow the impact of various build-out scenarios on each of the data layers within these critical
areas to be evaluated.
In this phase, appropriate hardware and software for non-parcel based natural resource planning
and modeling will be developed. Technology employed in this project is intended to serve as a
model primarily for regional planning. From this study, a greater understanding of an appropriate
role for GIS in existing and future policies and programs of Virginia's 22 Planning District
Commissions will be gained.
Recent pollution models from the Information Support Systems Lab at Virginia Tech, The
University of Virginia Environmental Science Department and other sources, will be identified
and form an essential component of this phase.
Model use and development will focus on two strategies:
1) Delineation of environmentally vulnerable or sensitive areas.
2) Prediction of amount and concentrations of pollutants reaching the air, land and water at
current development levels.
TJSPARE Prospectus
2/28/91
TJPDC, 413 East Market
Charlottesville, VA 22901
7
PHASE III: EXISTING lANDUSE, REGIONAL BUILD-OUT AND FUTURE RESOURCE DEMAND
Existing land use will be determined from local government maps, field inspection, aerial
photography, satellite imagery or some combination thereof. Aerial and satellite data collected will
be utilized in as many data layers as possible.
In addition to land use, a regional build-out map will be constructed based on existing zoning and
undeveloped platted lots. The build-out analysis will be used to predict total future resource
demand and to identify areas where development activity overlaps critical resources.
Once build-out populations have been calculated and displayed, associated demands and impacts
on resources will be calculated and displayed. Per capita or per area demand ratios will be
established. Estimates of future resource demand will hinge on the ability to define "quality of life".
Having a good "quality of life" has traditionally described areas that have a fit or pleasing human
environment. In 1974, the Montgomery County, Maryland Planning Board cited six parameters
assiciated with growth which directly affect quality of life: people, jobs, shelter, community
transport and nature. To carry out this study, it will be necessary to quantify this nature component.
For example, how much open space does each person need in this region? How much park land?
Some of these questions have been considered previously by other localities in the nation and
through university research. Consideration of appropriate per capita resource levels in this region
will, in addition to research, require a community forum. Such a forum would provide an
appropriate setting to debate the per capita resource needs of this region.
To consider these questions and assist in the production of a regional build-out map, the
University of Virginia Department of Urban and Environmental Planning has given preliminary
approval to supplement the efforts of this phase with a Planning Application Course (PLAC) to be
taught in fall of 1991. In this course, students could delineate existing landuse boundaries and types
for counties in the region by grouping landuse categories accurately according to tax map
boundaries. To this will be added subdivided, undeveloped lots and vacant zones, or areas where
development has not reached allowable densities. Students may also assist in researching policy
questions associated with the study.
PHASE IV: FUTURE RESOURCE DEMAND VS. PRESENT RESOURCE SUPPLY
Once existing landuse for the region has been determined, maximum population of the region as
determined through build-out has been ascertained and total demand for each resource has been
calculated, the GIS can be used to compare current resource availability to estimated future
demand. Future demand can be varied due to changes in assumptions made about utilities
extensions, percent of maximum build-out modeled, and changes in the development potential of
zones based on anticipated changes in allowable density. Changes in these variables could produce
a wide range of resource surplus and deficit scenarios.
The methodology developed in Phase III and IV to determine future resource demand in
comparison to present resource availability will provide a design for a program to protect
Virginia's environment for future generations.
.........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
8
TIPDC, 413 East Market
Charlottesville, VA 22901
TISP ARE Prospectus
2/28/91
PHASE V: INFORMATION DISSEMINATION
Findings will be published and disseminated to local governments, interested organizations and
individuals. Workshops with each local government will be held to explain the implications of the
study findings and to seek guidance from the locality for use in Phase VI.
PHASE VI: PREPARATION OF THE REGIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL PLAN
The Thomas Jefferson Planning District staff, in association with each local government, will
prepare regional and local land use strategies and options based on the results of the study and the
direction provided by the jurisdictions. These strategies, in addition to technical reports on the
findings of the study, will be incorporated into the culmination of the study, the Regional
Environmental Plan.
TISP ARE Prospectus
2/28/91
TJPDC, 413 East Market
Charlottesville, VA 22901
9
VI. SCOPE OF WORK
PHASE I: STUDY DEVELOPMENT
General:
The scope of the study will be determined. The scope is dependent on the extent of participation
from residents of the region and funding.
Period of Work: 1/91-9/91
Goals:
1) Panel adopts generalized work program.
2) Form data layer subcommittees.
3) Subcommittees initiate study of data layer methodology.
4) Subcommittees investigate funding.
Strategies:
1) Request each locality to appoint one representative to the Panel (in addition to agency and
organization representative and interested citizens who participated in earlier meetings).
2) Elect a chairperson.
3) Review project description; amend and approve.
4) Finalize list of resources to be evaluated.
5) Hold individual and joint subcommittee meetings as well as bimonthly panel meetings to discuss
ideas and information gathered.
6) Investigate funding from Clean Water Act sections 2050), 319, 319(i), 604, private foundations
and localities.
7) Acquire a Geographic Information System.
...io..........................................................................................................fipjj'c,'.'4iTEastMw-ket....................................................................fisPARE.P;ospectus
Charlottesville, VA 22901 2/28/91
PHASE II: ASSESSMENT
General:
Methods to delineate critical or vulnerable areas will be developed as the first step in the
evaluation of each of the data layers. For some of the data layers, additional procedures will be
developed to quantify the impact of future population growth on the environment.
Pel10d of Work: 9/91-9/93
Goals:
1) Assessment subcommittees will assist staff with the research of projects required to characterize
each resource.
2) Subcommittees and staff meet with experts in each resource area to develop detailed work plan.
3) Submit proposals to funding organizations.
4) Delineate critical or vulnerable areas.
5) For selected data layers, develop models to quantify impact on the environment at build-out.
A) Surface Water
1) Critical Watersheds
General:
The impact of build-out on streams and rivers in the region will vary depending on the
nonpoint source pollution potential of each watershed. In early 1991, a proposal to identify
critical watersheds in the region will be submitted to the Division of Soil and Water
Conservation for EP A Section 319 funds.
Once the critical watersheds have been identified, a later project to model the impact of
build-out on the surface water quality of selected streams and rivers in the region will be
undertaken. To accomplish this, a model capable of predicting changes in nonpoint source
pollution with changes in landuse will be developed. Once the nonpoint discharges can be
modeled, additional efforts will be required to predict the impact on water quality.
The Information Support Systems Lab, the University of Virginia, the Virginia Water
Control Board and Planning District staff may cooperate on the project.
Strategies:
1) Determine boundaries of study, i.e. should areas outside the planning district political
boundaries be included if they are within the watershed?
2) Identify critical watersheds to nonpoint source pollution in a GIS environment.
.........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
TJSPARE Prospectus TIPDC, 413 East Market 11
2/28/91 Charlottesville, VA 22901
3) Calibrate a distributive parameter nitrate and other loading model for the critical
watersheds using existing landuse.
4) Identify point source pollution sources.
5) Calibrate a model to determine water quality impact with existing landuse.
2) Water Quantity
General:
The Virginia Water Control Board has already identified water quality deficits and
surpluses in its Water Supply Plans for the state. However, the reports project water
demand to the year 2030, not to build-out. Using data available from the Rappahannock,
York and James water supply plans and working with the Rapidan Service Authority and
the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority, an estimate of surface water availability at
build-out can be estimated.
The impact of recommended minimum in-stream flows as determined through the
Tennant, Fish and Wildlife Service or other method will be modeled when considering
future surface water availability. The VWCB will be consulted to determine how
minimum in-stream flow should be considered.
The VWCB, Virginia Tech Department of Fisheries and Planning District Staff are some
of the agencies which might cooperate on this project.
Strategies:
1) Locate current and potential surface water withdrawal sites.
2) Develop methodology for considering impact of minimum in-stream flow on safe yield.
3) Develop methodology to link existing landuse to surface water demand in a GIS
environment.
B) Groundwater
1) Pesticide Vulnerability
General:
In December of 1990, the Planning District in cooperation with Virginia Tech submitted a
pilot proposal to determine sensitive areas to particular groups of pesticides in Albemarle
and Fluvanna Counties. The project will last one year in duration and will produce maps
delineating vulnerable areas in addition to Pesticide Management Plans for the two
counties. Many of the necessary data layers already available at the Information Support
Systems Lab (ISSL) will be utilized in the project.
...1i.'............,",..........."...,......,................................................................fipDC,.'4i3"EastMa;ket....................................................................fisPARE.P;ospecfus
Charlottesville, VA 22901 2/28/91
Once vulnerable areas to pesticides are determined, further funding will be considered to
develop a model linking landuse to pesticide infiltration into groundwater and impact on
groundwater quality within the critical areas.
The Information Support Systems Lab, Va. Tech Department of Agricultural Engineering
and Planning District staff are the cooperating agencies on the project.
Strategies:
1) Submit proposal to VWCB (see Attachment I)
2) Complete project
3) Apply for additional funds to repeat the procedure in the remaining three counties.
4) Delineate areas for entire region in a GIS environment.
2) Vulnerability to Other Contamination Sources
General:
By September of 1991, pollution potential maps (DRASTIC) of Greene, Louisa and
Nelson counties will be completed. DRASTIC is a methodology which permits the
groundwater pollution potential of hydrogeologic settings in the United States to be
evaluated. These maps have been used in states other than Virginia to identify aquifers
vulnerable to septic systems, underground storage tanks, solid waste facilities and animal
feedlot lagoons.
Once groundwater critical areas are determined, development of models to predict the
impact of build-out on groundwater quality within the vulnerable areas may be undertaken.
Future work in this area may involve planning district staff, Va. Tech, the Virginia Water
Control Board (VWCB) and other ~ncies.
Strategies:
1) Meet with VWCB to determine interest in performing general groundwater pollution
potential screening assessments in Albemarle and Fluvanna Counties.
2) Research assessments other than DRASTIC.
3) Apply for funding.
4) Determine vulnerable areas in a GIS environment.
TJSP ARE Prospectus
2/28/91
TIPDC, 413 East Market
Charlottesville, VA 22901
13
3) Water Quantity
General:
Groundwater constitutes 67.1 % of all water used in the Planning District in 1980.
Through use of vulnerability models such as DRASTIC and testing programs used by the
Farm Bureau and the Virginia Cooperative Extension Service, an increased understanding
of groundwater quality will be gained. However, little is known about the quantity of
groundwater in the Piedmont. Although yields are typically low in the Blue Ridge and
Piedmont physiographic provinces, it has traditionally been thought that adequate
groundwater for low density development is available. In this study, the amount of
sustainable groundwater available for domestic consumption will be determined through
an appropriate methodology.
Understanding the geologic structure of the bedrock of the Piedmont through the
observation of lineaments, or linear features on the surface of the earth, is a key element
controlling the availability of groundwater. The Division of Mineral Resources has
knowledgeable personnel to conduct lineament mapping exercises, however, the full utility
of this technique would have to be evaluated in a pilot project. If confidence in the
predictive powers of the procedure can be gained, a complete regional project could be
undertaken.
The University of Virginia, Division of Mineral Resources, Virginia Water Control Board,
United States Geologic Survey (USGS) and Planning District staff are agencies who may
contribute to the project.
Strategies:
1) Consult with the Loudoun County Department of Natural Resources and the USGS for
research help.
2) Develop proposal with interested agency or organization.
3) Determine total water availability.
4) Using lineament or other predictive tool, work with the Division of Mineral Resources
and the Virginia Water Control Board to develop a pilot project to predict the highest
yielding groundwater areas in the region in a GIS environment.
C) Significant Plant and Animal Habitats
General~
The Panel will define "significant habitat" for this region. For example, rare or endangered
plant and animal species might be considered a resource of regional significance.
Similarly, old growth forests, large contiguous areas of open space, unfragmented habitats,
or areas never under the plow could also be considered to have regional value although
not currently designated by a conservation organization.
..']"4.'....."'....."'...'...'."..'..'.......................................................................fipDC..'4T.iEast'jiw-ket....................................................................fisPARE.P;ospectus
Charlottesville, VA 22901 2/28/91
Through already available information on topography, wetlands, soils, geology, aspect and
aerial or satellite landuse and land cover data, combined with the spatial and non-spatial
capabilities of a GIS, significant habitats will be delineated;
With help from the Heritage program, the Game Department, herbariums and
knowledgeable persons in the area and state, potential habitats for rare plants and animals
could be identified. Once potential areas have been identified, the Panel could work with
localities to conduct field investigations into potential areas.
The Virginia Department of Forestry, the National Park Service, the Extension Service,
the Nature Conservancy, The University Department of Landscape Architecture, the
Tandem Center for the Environment, Citizens for Albemarle, local volunteers and
planning district staff are some of the agencies and organizations who may have interest in
the project.
Strategies:
1) Define significant habitat.
2) Collect data layers.
3) Consult knowledgeable persons and agencies.
4) Identify potential habitat areas in a GIS environment.
D) Parks and Wilderness Areas
General:
It is unknown which areas around the periphery of the Shenandoah National Park have an
impact on the resource values the Shenandoah National Park was created to protect.
Realizing this, the Isaac Walton League, in conjunction with the University of Virginia
Department of Landscape Architecture has proposed to undertake a related lands study.
The study would identify critical habitats and landuses threatening park resources. Once
these critical areas were identified, the park officials could work with local governments to
develop strategies to protect these resources. Although the proposal was not funded, the
Park is still continuing to pursue funding for the project.
Some of the data layers which will be developed as a portion of this study could provide
valuable data for the Park's initiative. If a revised portion of the Related Lands Initiative
were to be undertaken as a portion of TJSP ARE, other data layers from the study could be
used to keep the costs of the project to a minimum. The landuse and habitat data layers
developed for other TJSP ARE resources would be particularly valuable.
Other parks and wilderness areas will be inventoried and digitized. The adequacy of these
resources at build-out will be determined in Phase IV.
.........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
TlSPARE Prospectus TIPDC, 413 East Market 15
2/28/91 Charlottesville, VA 22901
The University of Virginia Department of Landscape Architecture, National Park Service,
National Parks Conservation Association, Isaac Walton League and Planning District staff
are some of the agencies and organizations who might cooperate on the project.
Strategies:
1) Meet with National Park Service staff to determine the needs of their study.
2) Consult with the Landscape Architecture Department at the University of Virginia to
determine how the goals of the regional study could support the related lands initiative.
3) If appropriate, a proposal should be submitted by the planning district and the
Shenandoah National Park to provide data for the related lands initiative.
E) Historic andArcheologically Significant Lands
General:
Research on the locations of large family owned farms, civil war battlefields and
encampments, historic structures and archeology sites throughout the region will be
conducted. Criteria for designation as regionally significant lands and structures will be
determined.
The University of Virginia School of Architecture, the Virginia Department of Historic
Resources, the Tandem Center for the Environment and Planning District staff are some
of the agencies and organizations who may cooperate on the project.
Strategies:
1) Consult with the Virginia Department of Historic Resources, the Preservation Alliance
of Virginia and other agencies to determine methodology and research funding sources.
2) Survey the region for historic properties and structures.
3) Where appropriate, determine areas adjacent to properties necessary for preservation
of viewscape.
F) Air Quality
General:
There is some evidence that ozone concentrations are increasing in the Blue Ridge
Mountains. These increased concentrations may be having a detrimental effect on Blue
Ridge Mountain habitats.
There has also been a recent increase in proposals to construct cogeneration plants East of
the Blue Ridge Mountains. The potential impact of these plants on Blue Ridge Mountain
habitats is presently under debate.
16
TIPDC, 413 East Market
Charlottesville, VA 22901
TISP ARE Prospectus
2/28/91
The completion of this data layer would provide a link between existing landuse and
population and air quality in the park. The Planning District, perhaps in cooperation with
Earth 2020, the state climatology lab at the University of Virginia and corporate sponsors
in the region could work jointly on this project.
Strategies:
1) Research the topic.
2) Proceed with funding request if appropriate.
3) Link air quality in the Blue Ridge Mountains to Piedmont land use in a GIS
environment.
G) Significant Soils and Farmed Areas
General:
An assessment of significant soils and farmed areas will be conducted. The Land
Evaluation and Site Assessment (LESA) or comparable methodology will be used.
Strategies:
1) Define significant soils and farmed areas.
2) Identify and calculate the total acreage in the region using a methodology such as LESA
TISP ARE Prospectus
2/28/91
TJPDC, 413 East Market
Charlottesville, VA 22901
17
PHASE III: EXISTING LANDUSE, REGIONAL BUILD-OUT AND FUTURE RESOURCE DEMAND
General:
The linchpin of the study will be the delineation of existing land uses and the determination of
build-out populations for the region. To accomplish this, the 53,650 tax parcels in four counties of
the District (excluding Charlottesville and Albemarle County which is proceeding with E-911
implementation) will be digitized by a subcontractor. Existing land use and build-out land use data
layers will be constructed for the region at a scale of 1" = 24,000". The subcontractor will"fit" the
tax maps to natural resouces as shown on the United States Geologic Survey (USGS) Quad Sheets.
A pilot build-out project has been completed for Greene County using similar methodology.
For counties in the region with traditionally less development pressure such as Nelson, the
build-out projections will be easy to ascertain. However, in Louisa, Greene and Fluvanna
Counties, the project will be time consuming due to greater development activity. A GIS will be
utilized to store and manage the land use data. The subdivision and zoning boundaries for each
county will be digitized by a subcontractor. Although the study could be conducted without tax
parcel specificity, the ability to reference natural resorces to identifiable properties will be very
benefical to localities.
The determination of future resource demands will take place through calculations based on
estimates of build-out populations. Future demands will vary with changes in build-out scenarios
creating variability in future population projections. The impact and demand of build-out
populations on surface water quality and quantity, groundwater quantity, significant plant and
animal habitats and parks and wilderness areas and significant soils and farmed areas will be
determined. Due to the difficulty of estimating per capita historic lands, air quality and
groundwater quality demands, the future population impact on these resources will be primarily
spatially determined.
Planning district staff in conjunction with a subcontractor will perform the work.
Period of work: 10/91-3/94
Goals:
1) Determine maximum future population levels based on existing landuse policies.
2) Estimate per capita resource needs.
3) Calculate total future resource needs and impacts for different build-out scenarios.
4) Present estimates to the Panel and local governments/others as needed by Assessment
subcommittees
..........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
18 TIPDC, 413 East Market TISPARE Prospectus
Charlottesville, VA 22901 2/28/91
A) Existing Landuse and Build-out
Gene~
Existing land use coverages at a 1":24,000" scale will be constructed for each locality in the
Planning District. In addition to residential, industrial and commercial land uses available
from the local governments, forestry, crop and pasture will also be required. These
overlays are available from the Department of Forestry, the Information Support Systems
Lab at Virginia Tech and the Remote Sensing Lab at William and Mary. Tax maps will be
fitted or stretched to conform to the regional landscape. The Information Support Systems
Lab has quoted an estimate of $1.00 per parcel to digitize, adjust boundaries and fitting to
the landforms. Planning District staff perhaps in conjunction with the University of
Virginia Department of Urban and Environmental Planning and the Virginia Remote
Sensing Lab will carry out the project.
1) Determine methodology for land use data entry into GIS.
2) Submit proposal to augment National Endowment for the Arts funding for satellite data
if needed.
3) Digitize tax parcels.
4) Tag each parcel for land use and other data.
5) Fit parcels to USGS quad sheets.
6) Use the GIS to calculate acreages for vacant lands and platted, undeveloped lots.
B) Surface Water
1) Estimate loadings for significant rivers and streams in Virginia for changes in landuse
and build-out scenarios using above mentioned models.
2) Estimate water quantity for entire region at build-out, considering changes in
storIIlwater discharge and minimum in-stream flow (MIF) requirements.
3) Estimate water quality for significant streams and rivers considering point source
discharge quality, nonpoint source discharge quality and stormwater discharge volume and
quality at build-out.
4) Estimate impact of changes in surface water quality on significant in-stream ecosystems,
ecosystem dependent populations and recreational uses at build-out.
C) Groundwater
1) Estimate groundwater quality at build-out.
2) Estimate groundwater demand at build-out. Include the impact of potential MIF
requirements on the projection of future groundwater demand.
TISP ARE Prospectus
2/28/91
TIPDC, 413 East Market
Charlottesville, VA 22901
19
3) Determine the impact of potential MIF requirements on raw water demands for
localities with changes in land use and build-out scenarios.
D) Significant Plant andAnimal Habitats
1) Convene community forums to establish per capita or per area demand ratios.
2) Determine the demand for habitats at build-out.
E) Parks and Wilderness Areas
1) Convene community forums to establish per capita or per area demand ratios.
2) Determine the demand for parks and wilderness areas at build-out.
F) Significant Soils and Farmed Areas
1) Convene community forums to establish per capita or per area demad for farmland in
this region.
2) Determine the demand for farmland at build-out..
20
TIPDC, 413 East Market
Charlottesville, VA 22901
TISP ARE Prospectus
2/28/91
PHASE IV: COMPARISON OF FUTURE RESOURCE DEMAND TO PRESENT RESOURCE
AVAILABILITY
General:
The inventories of resources conducted in Phase II will be compared to future demands as
calculated in Phase III. The future demand for surface water, groundwater, habitats and parks and
wilderness areas will be compared to present supply. The spatial encroachment of build-out
development on critical watersheds, vulnerable groundwater areas and historic and archeologically
significant lands will be displayed. In addition, the impact of build-out populations on
surfacewater quality, groundwater quality, Blue Ridge Mountain air quality and significant soils
and farmed areas will also be examined.
Period of Work: 1/1/92-3/1/94
Goals:
1) Utilize GIS spatial and non-spatial capabilities to compare future resource needs to current
availability.
2) Utilize GIS spatial capabilities to overlay critical areas on build-out maps.
3) Utilize GIS spatial and non-spatial capabilities to estimate the impact of build-out populations
on the quality of current resources.
Strategies:
A) Surface Water Quality
1) Overlay critical watershed data layer on build-out data layer.
2) Determine impact of build-out population on water quality in critical watersheds using
water quality models.
B) Swiace Water Quantity
1) Compare build-out surface water demands to current resource availability.
C) Groundwater Quality
1) Overlay vulnerable groundwater areas on build-out data layer.
2) Determine impact of build-out population on water quality in vulnerable areas using
water quality models.
D) Groundwater Quantity
1) Compare build-out groundwater demands to available supply.
.....................................................................................u...................................................................................................................................................................................................
TISP ARE Prospectus TJPDC, 413 East Market 21
2/28/91 Charlottesville, VA 22901
E) Significant Plant and Animal Habitats
1) Compare build-out habitat demands to current supply.
2) Overlay potential habitats on build-out data layer to determine spatial impact.
F) Parks and Wilderness Areas
1) Compare build-out park demands to current supply.
2) Overlay park and wilderness areas on build-out data layer to determine spatial impact.
G) Historic andArcheologically Significant Lands
1) Overlay significant lands on build-out data layer to determine spatial impact.
H) Air Quality
1) Determine impact of build-out populations on air quality in the Blue Ridge Mountains
I) Significant Soils and Farmed Areas.
1) Overlay Significant Soils and Farmed Areas on build-out data layer to determine
spatial impact.
.'.22'.........,.....,..."...,................................................................................fipjj'c,.'4i'3"EastMw-ket....................................................................fisPARE'j;;.ospectus
Charlottesville, VA 22901 2/28/91
PHASE V: INFORMATION DISSEMINATION
Period of Work: 10/94-12/94
Goals:
1) Compile data into user friendly formats.
2) Disseminate maps and data to Local Governments, State and Regional Governments and
private groups.
PHASE VI: PREPARATION OF THE REGIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL PLAN
Period ofWork.ZO/94 -12/94
Goals:
1) Formulate work plan for production of regional and/or locallanduse strategies prepared by
planning cormnittee and approved by Panel.
2) The Planning Committee and the Thomas Jefferson Planning District will work with local
governments to draft innovative programs to conserve identified natural resources.
3) Results will be presented to jurisdictions and others.
Strategies:
1) Prepare composite data layers through GIS.
2) Determine resource surplus and deficit.
3) Recommend strategies to augment deficit resources in each locality.
4) Recommend strategies to conserve deficient resources.
5) Recommend strategies to conserve anticipated needed amount of surplus resources.
6) Recommend strategies to redistribute surplus among the region or into other ones.
7) Suggest regional future growth patterns based on available resource supply and projected future
need.
8) Calculate sustainable maximum future population scenarios for each locality and the region.
9) Compare carrying capacity of this region to estimates of other regions.
....................................................................................................................................................................u...................................................................................................................
TJSPARE Prospectus TJPDC, 413 East Market 23
2/28/91 Charlottesville, VA 22901
VI. STRUCfURE TO ACCOMPLISH STUDY
The Advisory Panel will make recommendations to the Thomas Jefferson Planning District
Commission based on the findings of the study. The panel consists of the Assessment Committee
and the Planning Committee.
ASSESSMENT COMMITTEE
The assessment committee has been divided into eight subcommittees, each responsible for one of
the data layers of the project. Each assessment subcommittee will be responsible for the planning,
operation and evaluation of needed science oriented investigations and will work with the Planning
District staff to develop proposals to fund their data layer.
Each subcommittee will be activated by the Chair as funding opportunities to evaluate the data
layer arise. TIle subcommittee will work with staff to develop proposals and guide the work once
begun. Each subcommittee will seek to foster the cooperation of interested agencies to fund the
acquisition of data in a format useful to the greatest number of groups possible.
PLANNING COMMITTEE
The planning committee work with each local government to prepare landuse strategies for the
regional environmental plan. The Planning Committee will also be responsible for the planning,
operation and evaluation of environmental and landuse planning projects.
This committee will wrestle with some of the policy issues raised by the Commission on Population
Growth and Development such as the financing of resource protection programs, means for
cooperative resource conservation programs between jurisdictions and the appropriate role of
state, regional and local governments in population growth and development strategies.
LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS
The League of Women Voters acts a non-profit sponsor for various study phases and/or projects.
The League has taken an active role in the development of the study.
THOMAS JEFFERSON PLANNING DISTRICT
The purpose of the Planning District is to staff each of the subcommittees and to assist the Chair in
project coordination. The Planning District will also provide secretarial and administrative staff.
In addition, the Planning District will act as a central repository for the storage and manipulation
of documents and data.
24
TIPDC, 413 East Market
Charlottesville, VA 22901
TISP ARE Prospectus
2/28/91
.
VII. STUDY TIMELINE
The timeline is intended to be a general guide only. The intervals shown below for each Phase will
include the production of reports and maps for each of the data layers. Each data layer will be
completed as funding is provided.
QUARTERS
'91 '92 '93
Phase I 123
Phase II 34 123 123
Phase III 34 1234 1234
Phase IV
Phase V
Phase VI
'94
'95
1
23
4
1234
... ........................................................................................................................................................................................................~.............................................................................
TJSPARE Prospectlls TJPDC, 413 East Market 25
2/28/91 Charlottesville, VA 22901
lhnibuted to Board: ~ #' - ? /
Agenda item No.
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
OFFICE OF BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
401 MciNTIRE ROAD
CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA 22901-4596
M E M 0 RAN DUM
TO:
Board of Supervisors R. )
Lettie E. Neher, Clerk1J1
.
FROM:
DATE:
April 11, 1991
SUBJECT:
Reading List for April 17, 1991
February 6, 1991 - Pages 12 - 23 (#8) - Mr. Bain
February 20, 1991 - Pages 1 - 10 (#8) - Mr. Bain
LEN:ec
~~
STATEMENT TO THE COMMONWEALTH TRANSPORTATION BOARD
F, R. (RICK) BOWIE~ CHAIRMAN
ALBEMARLE COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
Good Morning Secretary Milliken and members of the Common-
wealth Transportation Board. I am Rick Bowie~ Chairman of the
Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County~ and I do want to
thank the Board for your courtesy in allowing us a few brief
comments. I know you have a full agenda and I will try to delay
it as little as possible,
As you know~ Albemarle County has requested a rehearing
on the Board's decision concerning Route 29 North and the
bypass around that portion of Route 29~ north of the City of
Charlottesville. While there is a disagreement between our
County Attorney and the Transportation Board's attorney as to
whether we have a "right" to a rehearing~ we will~ of course~
accept the Attorney General's decision. We have not yet~ as of
this date~ received an official notification~ but we assume you
have. Our request for a rehearing was based on two factors:
FirstJ we believe there never was a public hearing on the
recommende(j solution. It is true that there was a Joint Transpor-
tation Committee composed of members of the City CouncilJ the
Board of Supervisors and the University of VirginiaJ which
worked with the consultants during the entire period of the
study, We wereJ howeverJ seeking information and holding
dialogues on as many as a dozen different options. The Joint
Transportation Committee never specifically addressed VDoT
staff's recommended solution. AlsoJ while there were several
public information hearings and one public hearingJ those making
comments were addressing a myriad of options without being able
to focus on anyone. While at Natural Bridge in OctoberJ 1990J
you did grant both Mr. Lindstrom and myself the courtesy of
briefly addressing the Transportation BoardJ our comments were
received before the full disclosure of staff's recommendations.
The second reason for our request expands somewhat on the
first. We believe that there is an interpretation of data which
- 2 -
has never been presented to the Commonwealth Transportation
Board, All information relating to Option 10 was summarized by
VDoT staff and presented to the Board. I wish to assure this
Board that we in no way are impugning anybody/s integrity or the
validity of the summarizations. We simply feel that what
happened is much akin to a prosecuting attorney interviewing all
defense witnesses and then telling the court "I have interviewed
the defense witnesses and will summarize their testimony for you~
therefore~ the court does not need to hear from the defense."
Despite the integrity and high ideals of the prosecuting attorney~
the jury never receives the full picture or the opportunity to
weigh opposition testimony themselves,
In closing~ we realize that you have many varied and
weighty decisions to make in an effort to maintain state-wide
transportation systems and our problem is but one of these
issues. We thank you again for this opportunity to address the
- 3 -
Board and continue to request that you grant us a rehearing so
that we can present our side. Whatever your decision then~ we
will at least know we were heard.
Thank you very much.
- 4 -