Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
2000-05-03
ACTIONS Board of Supervisors Meeting of May 3, 2000 May 4, 20O0 1. Call to order. AGENDA ITEM/ACTION 4 Other Matters not Listed on the Agenda from the PUBLIC. · John Martin asked the Board to schedule a work session in the near future to discuss County representation on the RWSA Board of Directors. · Wilson Cropp asked the Board and VdoT to look at different options for maintenance of Route 769, Rocky Hollow Road. 5.1 Appropriation: HUD Section 8 Housing Assistance, $322,668 Form ~;~9069). APPROVED. 5.2 Appropriation: Allocation of Budgeted Decompression Funds to Departments, $129,550 (Form #99071). APPROVED. 5.3 Appropriation: Education, $89,978.82 (Form ~J9072). APPROVED. 5.4 Appropriation: School CIP Fund, $44,300 (Form #99073). APPROVED. 5.5 Appropriation: General Fund - Republican Primary for Seventh Congressional District, $10,975 (Form #99074). APPROVED. 5.6 Appropriation: Education, $12,601.64 (Form #99075). APPROVED. 5.7 Hydrogeologic Testing Report (Report on Verifying Adequate Groundwater for Rural Subdivisions and Establishment of a Technical Groundwater Committee), authorize staff to establish Groundwater committee. AUTHORIZED staff to develop technical committee to study groundwater issues in the County. The committee to be facilitated by the Department of Engineering & Public Works staff. 5.8 Adopt Resolution accepting FY 2000-2002 Virginia Juvenile Community Crime Control Act (VJCCCA) Funds and Authorize County Executive to Execute Plan. ADOPTED the attached resolution (Attachment 1) affirming the County's intent to participate in the VJCCA program and authorized the County Executive to approve a local plan on behalf of Albemarle County. 5.9 February 2000 Financial Report for the General, School and Capital Funds. ACCEPTED. ASSIGNMENT Meeting was called to Order at 9:05 a.m., by the Chairman. All BOS members present. Clerk: __ Acknowledge comments. Clerk: Forward to Melvin Breeden and copy appropriate persons. Bill Mawyer/David Hirschman: Develop technical committee in accordance with staff's recommen- dations. Clerk: Schedule update on committee's work on the December 6, 2000 agenda. Clerk: Forward adopted resolution to Roxanne VVhite. None. Roxanne White/Anne Gulati: Work on final budget numbers with the School Division and incorporate the additional funding into the Annual Appropriation Ordinance to come to the Board for approval in June. Clerk: Forward signed copy to Sheriff and Scottsville Town Administrator. 5.10 Request to Fund Fifth Bright Stars Four-Year Old Program at Scottsville Elementary School. APPROVED request to initiate plans for fifth Bright Stars program at Scottsville Elementary School for the fall of FY 2001, which would require a funding allocation of approximately $23,250 from the BOS. 5.11 Authorize County Executive to sign Memorandum of Understanding regarding the Scottsville Police Department. APPROVED. Clerk: Forward to Melvin Breeden and copy appropriate persons. Clerk: Forward to Melvin Breeden and copy appropriate persons. Clerk: Forward to Melvin Breeden and copy appropriate persons. Clerk: Forward to Melvin Breeden and copy appropriate persons. Clerk: Forward to Melvin Breeden and copy appropriate persons. 5.12 Resolution to accept Summer Lane in Earlysville Meadows Subdivision into the State Secondary System. ADOPTED the attached resolution. (Attachment 2) 5.13 Proclamation recognizing April 30 through May 6, 2000 as Municipal Clerks Week. ADOPTED. 5.14 Proclamation recognizing May 9 through May 15, 2000 as Small Business Week. ADOPTED. 5.15 Proclamation recognizing May 14 through May 20, 2000 as Emergency Medical Services Week. ADOPTED. 5.16 Proclamation recognizing June 1 through June 8, 2000 as Nursing Assistants' Week. ADOPTED. 5.16a Proclamation recognizing May 14 through May 20, 2000 as Business Appreciation Week. ADOPTED. 5.19 Copy of Resolution adopted by Scottsville Town Council concerning the placement of a fire station to serve the southern part of the County. Mr. Dorrier suggested a joint meeting with Town Council to discuss the issue, or someone from County staff attend a Town Council meeting and make a presentation. 7a Discussion: Earlysville Road (Route 743) Truck Restriction. AUTHORIZED staff to begin the necessary steps to officially request VdoT to restrict through trucks on Route 743 between Route 631 and Route 606. 7b Presentation: Route 250 West Corridor Study. ADOPTED the attached resolution. (Attachment 3) 7c Other Transportation Matters. Mr. Perkins thanked VdoT for reducing the speed limit on Route 810 and for the extensive brush cutting. He asked VdoT to look at cutting some overhanging brush on Route 680. Mr. Dorrier asked that VdoT look at other areas on Route 20 South were the speed limit could be reduced from 55 mph to 45 mph. Ms. Tucker responded that the entire corridor is being reviewed. She will advise the Board after the study has been completed. · Ms. Thomas thanked Ms. Tucker for assistance with Morgantown Road. · In response to Mr. Cropp, Ms. Tucker suggested meeting with the property owner, who has not granted the easement, to see if something can be worked out. Mr. Martin said he would be willing to attend the meeting with Ms. Tucker. · Mr. Martin asked about access to the staging area near the South Fork Rivanna Bridge. Ms. Tucker said VdoT does not own the right-of-way; the contractor doing the bridge project made arrangements with the private landowner. 8 School Board Presentation. RECEIVED. · Ms. Thomas suggested the School Division look at non- . monetary ways to address teacher retention. Clerk: Forward resolution and SR-5(A) Form to Glenn Brooks. None. Clerk: Forward proclamation to Jane Dittmar at Chamber. Clerk: Forward proclamation to Diane Mullins for distribution. Clerk: Forward proclamation to Cheryl Cooper. Clerk: Forward proclamation to Lee Catlin. County Executive st. afl: Coordinate County staff presentation to Scottsville Town Council on the placement of fire station to serve the southern part of the County. Clerk: Advertise public hearing for June 14 and post notice on Courthouse door. Clerk: Forward resolution to MPO and VdoT, advertise for applications, send to Route 250 Committee members thanking them for service and asking if they wish to be considered for this new committee. Juan Wade/Wayne Cilimber,q: Develop charge and make-up of committee. Clerk: Include in letter to Angela Tucker. Mr. Tucker: To ask Parks and Recreation to look into whether the landowner will permit the County to use this as a permanent boat launching area. None. 9 PUBLIC HEARING to consider an ordinance to amend and reordain Chapter 4, Animals and Fowl, Article II, Dogs and Other Animals, of the Code of Albemarle, in Section 4-213, in certain areas, to add subsection (38) Westmont Subdivision as one of those areas where dogs are prohibited from running at large. ADOPTED the attached ordinance. (Attachment 4) 10 SP-00-010. Charlottesville Catholic School (Sign #47). APPROVED SP-00-010 subject to the three conditions recommended by Planning Commission. (Attachment 5) 11 Appeal: ARB-F(Sign)-2000-10. Jim Price Chevrolet Co sign. Review for new faces on existing internally illuminated pylon sign situated at S end of site. Located on W sd of Rt 29 N, just S of Wal-Mart store. Znd HC & EC. TM45, P68. Rio Dist. APPROVED the request as proposed with a non-illuminated sign. 12 Presentation from the Virginia Piedmont Technology Council (VPTC), David Kalergis. RECEIVED. 16 Appointments. CONFIRMED the appointment of Ruth Stone as the joint City/County appointee to the Commission on Children and Families, with term to expire on May 2, 2003. 17 Presentation by Davenport & Company, LLC, Financial Advisors. RECEIVED. 18 Discussion: Development Areas Initiatives Steering Committee (DISC) Implementation Schedule. ACCEPTED the process recommended by staff. 19 Discussion: Acquisition of Conservation Easements (ACE) Program Proposed Ordinance. CONSENSUS of Board to set public hearing for June 14m. 20 Request to set a public hearing to amend the service area boundaries of the Albemarle County Service Authority for water only service to Patricia Flowers (TM60A,Sec9,P20). SET public hearing for June 7m, 10:45 a.m. 21 Cancel Board of Supervisors meeting of May 10, 2000. CANCELLED May 10 Board meeting. 22 Other Matters not Listed on the Agenda from the Board. - Mr. Tucker mentioned two remaining budget items. One was a request from the Library Board to fund its pay plan. The other was a request from the Small Business Development Council for $10,000. Staff supports the Library's request, but not the request from the Development Council. CONSENSUS of Board to support the Library's request only. ZMA-99-18. Charlottesville First Assembly of God. APPROVED as proffered. (Attachment 5) · SP-99-75. Charlottesville First Assembly of God. APPROVED subject to the five conditions recommended by the Planning Commission. (Attachment 5) · ZMA91-04. Forest Lakes Associates. DIRECTED County to request Forest Lakes Associates to execute Proffer #2. Clerk: Forward to County Attorney for inclusion in next update of County Code. Forward copy to Animal Control Officer. Clerk: Clerk: Forward conditions to Planning. Forward action to Planning. Wayne Cilimber.q/Planning: Proceed with recommendations. Schedule work session and public comment with Planning Commission on June 7th. Clerk: Advertise public hearing for June 14tn. Clerk: Advertise public hearing. Clerk: Notify Planning Department. Anne Gulati/Melvin Breeden: Add Library funding to Appropriation Ordinance. Clerk: Include as part of actions to Planning. Clerk: Include as part of actions to Planning. County Attorney: Send letter making request. County Executive staff: Staff and consultant to get together and bring back additional information in the next couple of weeks. Clerk: Update Boards and Commissions, send out appointment letter and copy appropriate persons. County Executive staff: Put together a committee to meet with Mr. Kalergis to develop a plan. Mr. Bowerman and Mr. Dorrier said they would like to be a part of the committee. 23 Joint meeting with Charlottesville City Council. AUTHORIZED Chairman to execute Fire Services Agreement BetWeen the City of Charlottesville and Albemarle County. 25 Adjoum. Meeting was adjourned at 6:10 p.m. Clerk: File original. /ewc Attachment 1 - Attachment 2 - Attachment 3 - Attachment 4 - Attachment 5 - Resolution Accepting FY 2000-2002 VJCCCA Funds Eadysville Meadows Subdivision Resolution Route 250 West Resolution Ordinance for Westmont Subdivision Actions on Planning items JOHN COLLIER MARTIN 5115 CATTERTON ROAD FREE UNION, VIRGINIA 22940 (804) 978-2872 FAX: (804) 978-4107 May 3, 2000 The Honorable Charles S. Martin, Chairman The Honorable Sally H. Thomas, Vice-Chairman The Honorable David P. Bowerman The Honorable Lindsay S. Dorrier, Jr. The Honorable Charlotte Y. Humphris The Honorable Walter F. Perkins Albemarle County Board of Supervisors 401 Mclntire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 Re: County Representation On The Rivanna Water & Sewer Authority Board of Directors Dear Members of the Board of Supervisors: The purpose of this letter is to suggest, as a member of the public, that a Work Session be scheduled in the near future, to discuss and consider the matter of County representation on the Rivanna Water & Sewer Authority (RWSA) Board of Directors. Specifically, it is suggested that the Board consider, the question of whether the Executive Director of the Albemarle County Service Authority (ACSA) should continue to serve as a member of the RWSA Board of Directors, or whether the Board should exercise an option reserved to it under a Concurrent Resolution entered with the City in 1986, to appoint an Albemarle County Department head to serve in the ACSA Executive Director's place. This suggestion is made in the belief, that as a result of the passage of time, and development of the responsibilities and expertise of the County Department of Engineering and Public Works, the conduct of such a review would be both logical and rational, and that review of a decision made by a prior Board of Supervisors nearly 15 years ago, would be in the public interest. At the time RWSA was founded by Concurrent Resolution of the City and the County in 1972, the RWSA Articles of Incorporation provided that the RWSA Board of Directors would include the County Executive and the County Engineer, but not the Executive Director of the ACSA. The pertinent provision of the 1972 Articles of Incorporation provided: ~ (c) The powers of the Authority shall be exercised by a board of five members consisting of the four persons holding the offices, from time to time, of City Manager and Director of Public Works of the City of Charlottesville and County Executive and County Engineer of Albemarle County and a fifth person appointed by the concurrent action of the Council of the City of Charlottesville and the Board of County Supervisors of Albemarle County. [emphasis added]. As initially conceived, therefore, the City was to be represented on the RWSA Board of Directors by two City employees, and the County was to be represented by two County employees-the County Executive and the County Engineer. The fifth member of the Board was intended to be a person selected jointly by the City and the County. Thereafter, in 1985, the ACSA came before the Board of Supervisors to request that the Executive Director of the ACSA be placed on the RWSA Board of Directors in lieu of the County Engineer. The matter was discussed at a meeting of the Board of Supervisors on October 9, 1985, at which the ACSA advanced its reasons for the suggested change in RWSA Board Membership. Minutes, Vol. 25 at pp. 40-41 (copy attached). The County Engineer was completely agreeable with this suggested change (see, Minutes, Vol. 25 at p. 41), and in the summer of 1986, the Board of Supervisors approved the change apparently without any substantial controversy. See, Minutes, Vok 25A at p. 189. Following agreement with the City, this change in the composition of the RWSA Board of Directors was accomplished by execution of the "Second Restated Articles of Incorporation of R ivanna Water and Sewer Authority," signed by the City and the County on August 29, 1986. (Copy attached)g~ The Second Restated Articles of Incorporation, under which the RWSA presently operates, provides in pertinent part: (c) The powers of the Authority shall be exercised by a board of five members consisting of the four persons holding offices, from time to time, of City Manager and Director of Public Works of the City of Charlottesville, and County Executive and the Executive Director of the Albemarle County Service Authority, or such Albemarle County Department head as the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County may appoint in the Executive Director's place, and a fi_~h person appointed by the concurrent action of the Council of the City of Charlottesville and the Board of County Supervisors of Albemarle County. ~ The "first" Restatement of the RWSA Articles of Incorporation was executed by the City and the County on December 16, 1985. The purpose of the initial restatement was to place certain limits on the powers of the RWSA. Although the ACSA had first suggested placing its Executive Director on the RWSA Board of Directors in lieu of the County Engineer prior to the execution of the 'Tarst" Restatement of the Articles of Incorporation, the "first" Restatement did not include any changes to the composition of the RWSA Board of Directors. The reason as to why the City and the County did not include this change in the "first" Restatement, and instead incorporated the change in a "second" Restatement executed in August 1986, is unknown to this writer at this time. 2 [emphasis added]. The term of the member of the board serving as such by virtue of his office with the Albemarle County Service Authority shall expire upon his ceasing to hold such office or upon the decision of the Board of Supervisors that a County Department head shah serve on the board in the Executive Director's place. Any person hereafter holding the office of Executive Director of the Albemarle County Service Authority shall automatically succeed to the membership of his predecessor in such office on the board of the Authority, unless the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County has elected to appoint a County Department head to serve on the board in the Executive Director's place. [emphasis added]. Wisely, therefore, the Board of Supervisors in 1986 reserved unto future Boards of Supervisors the option to replace the Executive Director of the ACSA with a County Department head on the RWSA Board of Directors should any future Board deem such an action to be in the best interests of the County and its residents. As this option is structured under the plain language of the Second Restated Articles of Incorporation, the County may exercise this option unilaterally, and without the necessity for agreement by the City. One might also surmise, that these provisions were included by the 1986 Board of Supervisors upon the assumption, that with the passage of time, and with changes in County governmental structure, review of the composition of the RWSA Board of Directors might be necessary and appropriate, at some future time. Clearly, the Board of Supervisors in 1986 took great pains not to tie the hands of future elected representatives with respect to actions they might deem necessary and appropriate. With this background, it is simply suggested here, that the Board of Supervisors review at a Work Session, a decision made 15 years ago. The purpose of this review would be to determine whether reasons advanced in 1985, for the substitution of the ACSA Executive Director for an Albemarle County Department head on the RWSA Board of Directors, remain valid and justifiable, and whether that decision continues today, to serve the overall best public interest. Whereas the responsibilities and duties of the ACSA have remained essentially unchanged since the time of the 1973 "Four Party Agreement," it has been the observation of this writer and others, that the County Department of Engineering and Public Works has assumed significant new responsibilities, and it has developed new expertise, relating to watershed management and protection-matters of extreme public importance. Since 1986, the County has passed the Water Protection Ordinance, and it has adopted Chapter II of the Comprehensive Plan setting forth this Community's vision regarding the protection of natural resources and cultural assets. Although the ACSA can adequately represent the interests of the water customers it serves, including residential, commercial and industrial customers, it may well be, that the Director of the Department of Engineering and Public Works, in conjunction with the County Executive On the RWSA Board of Directors, could more adequately represent today, the broader spectrum of interests within the community, and give voice to their concerns. 3 Accordingly, your consideration of this suggestion for a review of the present composition of the RWSA Board of Directors would be appreciated. After obtaining the views of the ACSA, the RWSA, County Staff, and perhaps with some public input, this Board could make an informed decision as to whether to maintain the status quo with respect to County representation on the RWSA Board of Directors, or whether a change in the level of County representation might be advisable due to the passage of time and changes in circumstance. Whatever the final result of the Board's review, concerned consideration and deliberation of these issues would be healthy for this community, especially during this time when the fi:agile nature of that which this County has inherited is being so painfully exposed, and when it is so vitally important that all of our governmental entities work effectively and efficiently together to promote the common good. el) t 4 .40 October 9, 1985 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 15) in the Albemarle County part of Scottsville, would that be a legitimate distinction on which to deny that application. Mr. St. John said yes. Mr. Lindstrom said the Board is not then setting a precedent by approving this request. Mr. St. John said absolutely not. Roll was called and the foregoing motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Lindstrom and Way. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Henley. Agenda Item No. 13. Request from Albemarle County Service Authority Board of Directors concerning membership on the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority Board of Directors. The following letter dated September 26, 1985 from Mr. Robert R. Humphris, Chairman, Albemarle County Service Authority Board of Directors, was received by the Board of Supervisors: "Attached is a resolution (on file) adopted by the Albemarle County Service Authority Board of Directors on September 19, 1985 requesting Service Authority representation on the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority (RWSA) Board of Directors. At the time the RWSA was formed the naming of the county executive and county engineer as the County's representa- tives was the logical decision since both of these officials administered the day-to-day operations of the Service Authority. At that time (1973), the Service Authority served 2026 customers and collected annual revenues of $427,645. In the 12 years since then the number of customers has increased to 6624, the annual revenues exceed $3,500,000, and the Authority has hired its own administrative staff. It is the opinion of the Board of Directors that the interests and requirements of the Service Authority can most effectively be communi- cated to the regional authority by direct representation on its Board of Directors and that the Service Authority should have the power.of the vote in matters directly affecting it. In asking that the Service Authority's executive director replace the county engineer on the RWSA Board, the Service Authority acknowledges the important contributions of the previous and present county engineer in the development of this community's water and wastewater systems." Mr. Robert Humphris addressed the Board. Mr. Humphris said it has become increasingly obvious to the Albemarle County Service Authority Board and staff that there is a need for representation by the Service Authority on the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority because a lot of decisions are made that affect the Albemarle County Service Authority. When the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority was set up in the early 1970's, the Articles of Incorpor- ation allowed for five members, one member chosen jointly by the City and the County, two City staff representatives, and two County staff representatives. At that time, those were very logical choices because Mr. J. Harvey Bailey, the County Engineer, was intimately associated with all of the workings of the Service Authority, and so was the County Executive~ Since that time, the County has grown, the Service Authority has grown, and today the County Engineer is not intimately associated with the concerns and interests of the Service Authority. There are many decisions made that affect the Service Authority's operations, rate structures~ etc. As a result, the Service Authority is requesting that the County Engineer be replaced by the Executive Director of the Service Authority on the Rivanna Board. Presently, either the Service Authority's Executive Director or its engineer attend these meetings as an observer and frequently make comments. If this was not done, the lack of communication would~! be bad and affect the Service Authority in many ways. This change would improve communica- tions and the effect of the power of the Service Authority's vote on matters which affects them. The Director of Public Works in the City is a member of the Rivanna Board. Also, none~ of the county members have that close of an attachment to the Service Authority's oPerations and daily workings. This would be a step in the right direction. Mr. Fisher asked Mr. Humphris to give the Board an example of where communication difficulties have lead to a problem for the Service Authority. Mr. Humphris said before the Service Authority started sending an observer to every meeting the Service Authority received!i minutes from a meeting held several months earlier and found that there had been a change in the rate structure. The increase affected the cost of the water and the Service Authority was not aware of the decision until several months later. Mr. Fisher said the Director of Public Works for the City has responsibilities for water and sewer and also has other responsibilities which are internalized in that position, which would not be the case with either the County Engineer or the Director of the Service Authority. The following letter dated October 3, 1985 from Mr. George R. St. John to Ms. Lettie E. Neher, Clerk, was received by the Board: "This letter is in reply to your memorandum of September 26, 1985, in which you asked me to forward a memorandum to your office explaining what the Board of Supervisors would need to do to grant the request of the Albemarle County Service Authority to place the Service Authority's Executive Director on the Board of Directors of the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority. In order to effectuate this change, it will be necessary for both the Board Of Supervisors of Albemarle County and the City Council of the City of Charlottesville to adopt concurrent ordinances or resolutions amending the two body's previous resolutions creating the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority. It also will be necessary to amend the Articles of Incorporation of the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority. This .can be done in the amending ordinances or resolutions. Prior to adoption, Virginia Code Section 15.1-1243 requires publication of the ordinance October 9, 1985 (Regular Day Meeting) (Pa~e_!6) ...... _ ............... Mr. Bowie said he assumes from the County Attorney's memorandum dated October 3, 1985, that action such as changing the number of members still requires a change in bylaws. Mr. Lindstrom said this request does not change the number of members, it substitutes one member for another. Mr. Humphris said this change would make the Rivanna Board more equal because the City Public Works level is very similar to the Service Authority. Mr. Fisher said he would like to have comments on this from the County Executive. Mr. Agnor said he and Mr. Brent have discussed this over a period of time. This change certair makes sense administratively as well as practically because of the evolution of the Service Authority as a separate agency with its own executive director. The following letter dated October 2, 1985, from Mr. Donald J. Wagner, was received the Board: "Currently, the County Executive and the County Engineer are members of the Board of Directors of the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority. The Board of Directors of the Albemarle County Service Authority has recently requested that in this function you replace the County Engineer witk the Executive Director of the Service Authority. I was responsible for bringing the idea to the attention of the Service Authority Board, and would like to explain my reasons for making the suggestion. Thanks to your appointments, I am on the Board of Directors of the Service Authority and was a member of the Land Use Regulations Committee (LURC). I believe the suggested change would be helpful in the efficient operation of both the Service Authority and the Engineering Department. First, from my Service Authority viewpoint, the actions of the Rivanna Board have far reaching effects on the County Service Authority, but the Servioe Authority has no direct input to their deliberations. I believe it would be helpful to both bodies to have the Director of the Service Authority sit as a member of the Rivanna board. I have mentioned this to Mrs. Cromwell, and she was receptive to the suggestion. At the same time, from the LURC study, I know there is broad agreement that the County Engineer individually and his department in general has more than enough to do in land use matters and other concerns in which there is day to day involvement. I believe that at the time the Rivanna board came into being, Harvey Bailey was County Engineer, and had a history of long involvement in county water systems. That is certainly a valid historic reason for the present arrangement, but it seems to me it is time for a change. I have discussed this with both Bill Brent and Maynard Elrod, and they have both indicated general agreement with the idea. If I can provide any further information to help you in your consideration, please let me know." Mr. Agnor said he received a letter from Mr. Maynard Elrod, County Engineer. In the letter Mr. Elrod said he is completely agreeable with the idea of the Executive Director of the Albemarle County Service Authority becoming his replacement on the Rivanna Authority Board. He does not want anyone to be under the impression that his service on the Rivanna Authority Board is a burden and affeots his other duties. Mr. Elrod felt that having the knowledge and awareness of water and sewer issues is a benefit to him and his operation in terms of overall County planning and in terms of dealing with developers, etc. Mr. Agnor said he thinks the representation would be more equitable as a parallel to the Director of Public Works because that person is assigned to be specifically in charge of water and sewel and Mr. Brent being on the Rivanna Board would be the counter part to that.position. Mr. Fisher recommended that the Board take this under advisement and discuss the reques as a personnel matter in executive session, and try to figure out what would give the County th~ best representation for the interests that have to be considered, and make a determinat~ next month if possible. One month or two will not make a difference as this request is not that urgent. Mr. Bowie said if the expertise and communications require that the membership and She by-laws be changed, there are two ways to change them, one being to increase the size and th other changing one of the jobs. He would like to think about this a little bit. He also ha not seen Mr. Elrod's memorandum and would like to hear what he has to say. Mr. Lindstrom commented that he has heard rumors that the City would like to justify a change in the Four-Party Agreement in order to revise it from stem to stern. Mr. Lindstrom asked if this request would require any changes in the Four-Party Agreement. Mr. Agnor said it would require an amendment. Mr. Agnor said the County would have to take the action suggested by Mr. St. John in his letter. Mr. Agnor said the Four-Party Agreement sets out the responsibilities of all of the parties to the Rivanna Authority. The concern is that there could be some effort by the Cit to minimize those areas of participation and responsibility. Mr. Lindstrom asked if there i any problem anticipated from the City because of this request. Mr. Agnor said he does not believe there would be. He has had a brief discussion of the request with the City Manager. Mr. Lindstrom said this is a simple change but he feels City Council may be looking for an opportunity to fuss about the rest of the agreement. Mr. Agnor said the City Manager said h has not discussed this with the City Council, so he did not know what their reaction would be. Mr. Brent said he has had no conversations with the City. Mr. Fisher suggested this item be deferred until November 13, 1985. CONCURRENT RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE AND THE BOARD OF COUNTY SUPERVISORS OF ALBEMARLE COUNTY TO AF~END AND RESTATE THE ARTICLES OF INCORPORATION OF RIVANNA WATER AND SEWER AUTHORITY WHEREAS, by concurrent resolution of the Council of the City of Charlottesville (the City) and the Board of County Supervisors of Albemarle County (the County) and a certificate of incorpora- tion issued by the State Corporation Com~,ission, pursuant to the Virginia Water and Sewer Authorities Act (the Act), the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority (the Authority) was incorporated as a public body politic and corpQrate in 1972; and W~EREAS, the City and the County amended and restated the Articles of Incorporation of the Authority in December 1985 to limit its powers regarding the treatment and transmission of potable water and the treatment and disposal of sewage; and WHEREAS, the City and the County desire to amend and restate the Articles of Incorporat~ion of the Authority t~ptace the Execu- tive Director of the Albemarle County Service Authority, or such Albemarle County Department head as the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County may appoint, on the Board of the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority in lieu of the County Engineer of Albemarle County; BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF TEE CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE AND T~E BOARD OF COUNTY SUPERVISORS OF ALBEM3~RLE COUNTY, IN SEPARATE MEETINGS ASSEMBLED: 1. The Council of the City of Charlottesville and the Board of County Supervisors of Albemarle County hereby indicate their intention to amend and restate the Articles of Incorporation of the AUthority as provided herein. 2. The Executive Director of the Albemarle County Service Authority, or such Albemarle County Department head as the' Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County may appoint in the Executive Director's place, shall serve on the Board of the Authority in lieu of the Albemarle County Engineer'. The Executive Director's term of office shall begin at such time as a certificate of amendment and restatement is issued by the State Corporation Commission. 3. The Articles of Incorporation of the Authority as amended and restated shall be substantially as follows: SECOND RESTATED ARTICLES OF INCORPORATION OF RIV~NNA WATER AND SEWER AUT~0RITY The Council of the City of Charlottesville and the Board of County Supervisors of Albemarle County having created an Authority pursuant to the Virginia Water and Sewer Authorities Act (Chapter 28, Title 15.1, Code of Virginia of i950, as amended),-as a public body politic and corporate, and having signified their intention to amend and restate its Articles of Incorporation, hereby certify: (a) The name of the Authority is "Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority" and the address of its principal office shall be Char- lottesville, Virginia. 2 (b) The names of the incorporating political subdivisions are the City of Charlottesville and Albemarle County. (c) The powers of the Authority shall be exercised by a board of five members consisting of the four persons holding the offi- ces, from time to time, of City Manager and Director of Public Works of the City of Charlottesville, and County Executive and the Executive Director of the Albemarle County Service Authority, or such Albemarle County Department head as the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County may appoint in the Executive Directors's place, and a fifth person appointed by the concurrent action of the Co~nci! of the City of Charlottesville and the Board of County Supervisors of Albemarle County. current members are as follows: Name Guy r. Agnor, Jr. (Alben.arle County Executive) The names and addresses of the 23 Orchard Road Charlottesville, Virginia John W. Brent (Executive Director, Albe- marle County Service Authority) D. Cole Bendrix (Charlottesville City Manager) Judith M. Muetler (Charlottesville Director of Public Works) 2535 Milton gills Drive Charlottesville, Virginia 1D4 Grover Court Charlottesville, Virginia 503 Second Street N.E. Charlottesville, Virginia The terms of the members of the board serving as such by virtue of their offices with the City and the County shall expire upon their, ceasing to hold such offices. Any person hereafter holding any such office 'shall automatically succeed to the member- 3 ship of his predecessor in such office on the board of the Authority. The term of the member of the board serving as such by virtue of his office with the Albemarle County Service Authority shall expire upon his ceasing to hold such office or upon the decision of the Board of Supervisors that a County Department head shall serve on the board in the Executive Director's place. Any person hereafter holding the office of Executive Director of the Albemarle County Service Authority shall automatically succeed to the membership of his predecessor in such office on the board of the Authority, unless the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County ha~ elected to appoint a County Department head to serve on the board in the Executive Director's place. The current term of the appointed member shall expire on May 1, 1988, and bis successor shall be appointed for a term of two years, except ~hat a vacancy shall be filled only for the unexpired term. The appointed member shall hold office until his successor has been appointed and qualifies and he shall be eligible for reappointment to succeed himself. The appointed member shall receive such compensation not to exceed $1,800 per year as the board of the Authorit~ may deter- mine, but those members who are employees of the City or the County or the Albemarle County Service Authority shall serve without compensation. Each member shall be reimbursed the amount of his actual expenses necessarily incurred in the performance of his duties. (d) The purpose for which the Authority is formed is to acquire, finance, construct, operate and maintain facilities for developing a supply ,of potable water for the City of.Charlottesr ville and Albemarle County and for the .abatement of pollution resulting from sewage in the Rivanna River Basin, by the impound- ment, treatment and transmission of potable water and the inter- ception, treatment and discharge of waStewater, together with all appurtenant equipment and appliances necessary or suitable therefor and all properties, rights, easements or franchises ~relating thereto and deemed necessary or convenient by the Authority for their operation. Excep% to the extent of providing incidental services and the sale of excess products, the Author- ity's powers are limited to providing wholesale services to the City and the County. The Authority may contract with the City, the County, any sanitary district thereof or any authority therein created pur- suant to the Act, to furnish water and to treat sewage delivered to its facilities upon such terms as the Authority shall deter- mine; provided, however, that any such contract shall include as parties thereto' the City and the County (or any agency ~f the county .designated for that purpose by its Board of County Super- visors). The Authority is expressly prohibited from contracting with' any other party desiring service in the City or the County, except upon the written consent of the City or County (or any agency of the County designated for that purpose by its Board of County Supervisors), respectively. (e) The Authority shall cause an annual audit of its books and records to be made by the State Auditor of Public Accounts or an independent certified public accountant at the end of each fiscal year and a certified copy thereof to be filed promptly with the' Council of the City of Charlottesville and the Board of County Supervisors of Albemarle County. IN WITNESS W~EREOF, the Council of the City of Charlottes- ville and the Board of County Supervisors of Albemarle County have caused these Res:tared Articles of Incorporation to be executed in the names of the City of Charlottesville and Albemarle County,. respectively, by their presiding officers and their seals to be affixed and attested by their clerks this ~"~' day of/~F~, 1986. (SEAL) Attest: (SEAL) Clerk, Board of County Supervisors CITY.~CH~LOTTESVILLEBy~--' _ Mayor ALBEMARLE COUNTY, VIRGINIA ~./Chairman Board of County Supervisors 4. Public hearings on this proposed resolution have been held in Council Chambers by the .Council of the City at 7:30 P.M. on August 4 , 1986, and the Board of County Supervisors at 1:30 P.M. on August 13 , 1986, in Room 7, County-Office Build- ing, 401 McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia. Immediately following such public hearings or any adjournment thereof, each governing body shall cause to be filed with the State Corporation Commission a record of the proceedings thereof which shall indi- cate whether such governing body desires to proceed with the amendment and restatement of the Articles of Incorporation of the Authority and whether such governing'body called for a ~ef'erendum pursuant to Section 15.1-1244 of the Act. A copy of this resolu- tion shall have been published one time at least 30 days prior to the date of such public bearings in "The Daily Progress,' a news- paper havin~ general circulation in the City of Charlottesville and Albemarle County, preceded by a notice as follows: NOTICE OF PUBLIC BEARINGS Notice is hereby given that public hearings will be held by the Council of the City at 7:30P.M. on August 4, 1986, in the Council Chamber, City Ball, 7th and Main Streets, Charlottesville, Virginia, and by the Board of County Supervisors of the County at ~-_~P.M. on Auqust 13, , 1986, in Room 7, County Office Building, 401 McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia, on.a Con- current Resolution proposed to be adopted by the Council of the City of Charlottesville and the Board of County Supervisors of 7 Albemarle County on amending and restating the Articles of Incor- poration of the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority. SECOND RESTATED ARTICLES OF INCORPORATION OF RIVANNA WATER AND SEWER AUTBORIT¥ The Council of the City of Charlottesville and the Board of County Supervisors of Albemarle County having created an Authority pursuant to the Virginia Water and Sewer Authorities Act (Chapter 28, Title 15.1, Code of Virginia of 1950, as amended), as a public body politic and corporate, and having signified their intention to amend and restate its Articles of Incorporation, hereby certify:' (a) The name of the Authority is "Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority" and the. address of its principal offi~ shall be Char- lottesville, Virginia. (b) The names of the inCorporating political subdivisions are the City of Charlottesville and Albemarle County. (c) The powers of the Authority shall be exercised by a board of five members consisting of the four persons holding the offices, from time to time, of City Manager and Director of Public Works of the City of Charlottesville and County Executive and Executive Director of the Albemarle Count~ Service Authority, or such Albemarle County Department head as the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County may appoint in the Executive Director's place, and a fifth person appointed by the concurrent action of the Council of the City of Charlottesville and the Board of County Supervisors of Albemarle County. current members are as follows: Name Guy B. Agnor, Jr. (Albemarle County Executive) The names and addresses of the- Address 23 Orchard' Road Charlottesville, Virginia John W. Brent (Executive Director, Albe- marle County Service Authority) D. Cole ~endrix (Charlottesville City Manager) Judith M. Mueller (Charlottesville Director of -Public Works) 2535 Milton ~ills Drive Charlottesville, Virginia 104 Grover Court Charlottesville, Virginia 503 Second Street N.E. Charlottesville, Virginia The terms of the members of the board serving as such by virtue of their offices with the City and the County shall expire upon their ceasing to hold such offices. Any person hereafter holding any such office shall automatically succeed to the mem- bership o'f his predecessor in such office on the board of the Authority. The term of the member of the board serving as such. by virtue of his office with the Albemarle County Service Authority shall expire upon his ceasing to hold such office or upon the decision of the Board of Supervisors that a County Department head shall serve on the board in the Executive Director's place. Any person hereafter holding the office of Executive Director of the Albemarle County Service Authority shall automatically succeed to the membership of bis predecessor in such office on the board of the Authority, unless the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County has elected to appoint a County Departmen~ head to serve on the 9 board in the Executive Director's place. The current term of the appointed member shall expire on May 1, 1988, and his successor shall be appointed for a term of two years, except that a vacancy shall be filled only for the unexpired term. The appointed member shall hold office until his successor has been appointed and qualifies and he shall be eligible for reappointment to succeed himself. The appointed member shall .receive such compensation not to exceed $1,800 per year as the board of the Authority may determine, but those, members who are employees of the City or the County or the Albemarle County Service Authority shall serve with- out compensation. Each member shall be reimbursed the amount of his actual expenses necessarily incurred in the performance of his duties. (d) The purpose for which the Authority is-formed is to acquire, finance, construct, operate and maintain facilities for developing a supply of potable water for the City of Charlottes- ville and Albemarle County and for the abatement of pollution resulting from sewage in the Rivanna River Basin, by. the impound- ment, treatment and transmission of potable water and the inter- ception, treatment and discharge of wastewater, together with all appurtenant equipment and appliances necessary or suitable there- for and all properties, rights, easements~ or franchises relating thereto and deemed necessary or convenient by the ~uthority for their operation. Except to the extent of providing incidental services and the sale of excess products, the Authority's powers 10 are limited to Providing wholesale services to the City and. the County. The Authority may contract with the City, the County, any sanitary district thereof or any authority therein created pur- suant to the Act, to furnish water and to treat sewage delivered to its facilities upon such terms as the Authority shall deter' mine; provided, however, that any such contract shall include as parties thereto the City and the County (or any agency of the County designated for the purpose by its Board of County Super- visors). The Authority is expressly prohibited from contracting with any other party ~esiring service in the City Or the County, emcept upon the written consent of the City or County (or any agency of the County designated for that purpose by its Board of County Supervisors), respectively. (e) The Authority shall cause an annual audit of its books and records to be made by the State Auditor of Public Accounts or an independent certified public accountant at the end of each fiscal-year and a certified copy thereof to be filed promptly with the Council of the City of Charlottesville and the Board of County Supervisors of Albemarle County. IN WITNESS W~EREOF, the Council of the City of Charlottes- ville and the Board of County Supervisors of Albemarle. County have caused these Restated Articles of Incorporation to be executed in the names-of the City of Charlottesville and Albemarle County, ~espectively, by their presiding officers and their seals to be 1I affixed and attested by their clerks this 1986. day of (SEAL) Attest: HARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA Mayor ALBEMARLE COUNTY, VIRGINIA Board of Supervisors (SEAL) /~l~r~, Board of Supervisors 12 APPROPRIATION REQUEST FISCAL YEAR: 99~00 TYPE OF APPROPRIATION: ADVERTISEMENT REQUIRED ? FUND: PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: FUNDING FOR 50 ADDITIONAL HOUSING VOUCHERS. NUMBER ADDITIONAL TRANSFER NEW 99069 X YES NO X GRANT EXPENDITURE CODE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT 1 1227 81922 579001 HOUSING ASSISTANCE PAYMENTS $322,668.00 TOTAL $322,668.00 REVENUE CODE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT 2 1227 33000 330017 SEC. 8-003 FAMILY UNIFICATION $322,668.00 TOTAL $322,668. 00 TRANSFERS REQUESTING COST CENTER: HOUSING APPROVALS: DIRECTOR OF FINANCE BOARD OF SUPERVISOR SIGNATURE DATE APRIL 10, 2000 COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AGENDA TITLE: Appropriation - HUD Section 8 Housing Assistance SU BJ ECT/PROPOSALIREQUEST: Request approval of Appropriation 99069 in the amount of $322,668.00. STAFF CONTACT(S): Messrs.Tucker,Walker, Breeden,Walters; Ms.White AGENDA DATE: May 3, 2000 ACTION: CONSENT AGENDA: ITEM NUMBER: INFORMATION: BACKGROUND: ACTION: X INFORMATION: ATTACHMENTS: REVIEWED BY: The Section 8 Housing Program is an ongoing rental assistance program offered by the Federal Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). The Section 8-003 Family Unification Program has recently been awarded an additional 50 vouchers. DISCUSSION: The 50 additional vouchers are funded by a $322,668.00 federal grant. There is no local match. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of appropriation 99069 in the amount of $322,668.00. 00.076 APPROPRIATION REQUEST FISCAL YEAR: 99/00 TYPE OF APPROPRIATION: ADVERTISEMENT REQUIRED ? FUND: PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: ALLOCATION OF DECOMPRESSION FUNDS. CODE 1 1000 11010 110000 1 1000 12010 110000 1 1000 12013 110000 1 1000 12141 110000 1 1000 12142 110000 -1 1000 12143 110000 1. 1000 12144 110000 1 1000 12145 110000 1 1000 12000 110000 1 1000 31012 110000 1 1000 31013 110000 1 1000 31016 110000 1 1000 32011 110000 1 1000 32013 110000 1 1000 34000 110000 1 1000 41000 110000 1 1000 41030 110000 1 1000 43001 110000 1 1000 43003 110000 1 1000 53011 110000 1 1000 53012 110000 1 1000 53013 110000 1 1000 '53014 110000 1 1000 53015 110000 1 1000 71011 110000 1 1000 71012 110000 1 1000 71014 110000 1 1000 81010 110000 1 1000 81017 110000 1 1000 81030 110000 1 1000 81040 110000 1 1000 95000 999977 EXPENDITURE DESCRIPTION BOARD OF SUPERVISORS COUNTY EXECUTIVE COMMUNITY RESOURCES FINANCE -ADMINISTRATIO FINANCE-ASSESSMENT FINANCE-ACCOUNTING FINANCE-REAL ESTATE FI NAN CE-PU RC HASI NG INFORMATION SERVICES POLICE-COMM. SVCS. POLICE-PATROL SVCS. POLICE-ANIMAL CONTROL FIRE RESCUE-ADMINISTRAT FIRE RESCUE-PREVENTION INSPECTIONS ENGINEERING WATER RESOURCES STAFF SVCS.-ADMINISTRATI STAFF SVCS-CUSTODIAL DSS-ADMINISTRATION DSS-BENERFITS DSS-SERVICES DSS-EMPLOYMENT SVCS DSS-MEDICAID PAR KS-AD M I N I STRATI O N PAR KS-MAINT. PARTS-RECREATION PLANNING PLANNING-E911 HOUSING ZONING TRANSFERS NUMBER ADDITIONAL TRANSFER NEW YES NO GENERAL. X X 99071 AMOUNT COMPRESSION COMPRESSION COMPRESSION COMPRESSION COMPRESSION COMPRESSION COMPRESSION COMPRESSION COMPRESSION COMPRESSION COMPRESSION COMPRESSION COMPRESSION COMPRESSION COMPRESSION COMPRESSION COMPRESSION COMPRESSION COMPRESSION COMPRESSION COMPRESSION COMPRESSION COMPRESSION COMPRESSION COMPRESSION COMPRESSION COMPRESSION COMPRESSION COMPRESSION COMPRESSION COMPRESSION COMPRESSION ADJUSTM ADJUSTM ADJUSTM ADJUSTM ADJUSTM ADJUSTM ADJUSTM ADJUSTM ADJUSTM ADJUSTM ADJUSTM ADJUSTM ADJUSTM ADJUSTM ADJUSTM ADJUSTM ADJUSTM ADJUSTM ADJUSTM ADJUSTM ADJUSTM ADJUSTM ADJUSTM ADJUSTM ADJUSTM ADJUSTM ADJUSTM ADJUSTM ADJUSTM ADJUSTM ADJUSTM ADJUSTIV $760.00 4,220.00 1,380.00 2,460.00 11,640.00 2,740.00 10,140.00 550.00 1,690.00 410.00 52,760.00 970.00 2,240.00 460.00 1,810.00 1,700.O0 1,290.00 140.00 220.00 1,390.00 4,090.00 940.00 470.00 1,490.00 2,100.00 1,120.00 2,260.00 4,620.00 200.00 4,860.00 8,430.00 -129,550.00 REVENUE TOTAL $0.00 CODE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT TOTAL $0.00 TRANSFER8 REQUESTING COST CENTER: COUNTY EXECUTIVE APPROVALS: DIRECTOR OF FINANCE BOARD OF SUPERVISOR SIGNATURE DATE APRIL 12, 2000 COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AGENDA TITLE: Appropriation - Allocation of Budgeted Decompression Funds to Departments SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Request approval of Appropriation #99071 in the amount of $129,550, which allocates budgeted decompression funds to departments. STAFF CONTACT(S): Messrs. Tucker, Breeden; Mss. White, Gulati AGENDA DATE: May 3, 2000 ACTION: CONSENT AGENDA: ACTION: X ATTACHMENTS: Yes REVIEWED BY: ITEM NUMBER: INFORMATION: INFORMATION: BACKGROUND: As a result of implementing the 1996 Hendricks pay plan and previous pay studies, some county employees with varying years of experience have been "corn pressed" relatively close to one another within their respective pay grades. In April, 1997, based on employee concerns expressed to the Board of Supervisors, a combined local government/school work team was organized to look at the pay scale compression issue. The group determined that there was a compression problem, and went on to develop a decompression formula that both Boards approved, and which will be implemented over a three-year period, beginning in July, 1998. As part of the FY 1999/2000 Budget, the second year of implementation, the Board approved allocations to general government of $202,734. DISCUSSION: Based on analysis of actual compensation increases received in July 1999, $129,550 of the budgeted $202,734 "decompression pot" will need to be allocated to various County Departments to cover the cost of implementing decompression for FY 1999/2000. This amount reflects the cost of implementing the decompression formula. RECOM MEN DATION: Staff recommends the Board of Supervisors approve the appropriation transfer, totaling $129,550, as detailed on Appropriation #99071. 00.074 APPROPRIATION REQUEST FISCAL YEAR: 99/00 NUMBER 99072 TYPE OF APPROPRIATION: ADDITIONAL TRANSFER NEW X X ADVERTISEMENT REQUIRED ? YES NO X FUND: PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: FUNDING FOR SCHOOL DONATIONS AND PROGRAMS. SCHOOL/PROGRAMS CODE EXPENDITURE DESCRIPTION ~ AMOUNT I 2112 62110 312100 ProfSvc Legal Fees $5,250.57 I 3104 60201 580000 Misc. Expenses 250.00 1 3104 60252 580000 Misc. Expenses 150.00 1 3104 60253 580000 Misc. Expenses 588.00 1 3104 60252 312500 Prof Svc Instruction 2,000.00 -1. 3142 60410 312700 Prof Svc Consultant 23,576.00 ~.. 3116 63348 132100 TeacherWages 4,207.62 1 3116 63348 210000FICA 321.88 1 3116 63348 600200 Food Supplies 500.00 1 3116 63348 601300 Ed/RecSupplies 1,176.50 1 3103 61101 112100 Salaries Teachers 10,951.00 1 3103 61101 132100 PtWages-Teacher 27,146.16 1 3103 61101 210000 FICA 2,932.58 1 3103 61101 221000 VRS 1,575.14 1 3103 61101 231000 Health Ins 895.16 1 3103 61101 232000 Dental Ins 25.68 1 3103 61101 312000 Tuition Fees 146:00 1 3103 61101 520100 PostaISvcs 119.43 1 3103 61101 520302 Telephone-LD 270.90 1 3103 61101 550100 Travel-Mileage 1,201.36 1 3103 61101 601300 Ed/Rec Supplies 4,327.50 1 3103 61311 115000 Salaries-Ofc Clerical 1,638.71 1 3103 ~61311 210000 FICA 125.36 1 3103 61311 221000 VRS 218.58 1 3103 61311 231000 Health Ins 156.48 1 3103 61311 232000 Dental Ins 5.04 1 3103 61311 601700 Copy Supplies 223.17 CODE 2 200O 24000 2 3104 24000 2 3104 24000 TOTAL $89,978.82 REVENUE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT 240212 VA DOE Due Process $5,250.57 240362 Grant-Broadus Wood 250.00 240361 Grant-Henley 150.00 2 3104 24000 240356 Grant-Jouett 588.00 2 3104 18000 181221 Misc Revenue Donation 2,000.00 2 3142 24000 240360 ISAEPGrant 23,576.00 2 3116 18000 189900 AdultEd 6,206.00 2 3103 24000 240257 Migrant Ed Grant 51,958.25 TOTAL $89,978.82 TRANSFERS REQUESTING COST CENTER: EDUCATION APPROVALS: DIRECTOR OF FINANCE BOARD OF SUPERVISOR SIGNATURE DATE APRIL 17, 2000 COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AGENDA TITLE: Appropriation - Education SUBJECTIPROPOSAL/REQUEST: Request approval of Appropriation #99072, totaling $89,978.82, for various school grants, donations, and programs. STAFF CONTACT(S): Messrs. Tucker, Castner, Breeden; Ms. White AGENDA DATE: May 3, 2000 ACTION: CONSENT AGENDA: ITEM NUMBER: INFORMATION: ACTION: X INFORMATION: ATTACHMENTS: REVIEWED BY: Yes BACKGROUND: Virginia Department of Education The Albemarle County Public Schools received a partial reimbursement in the amount of $5,250.57 from the Virginia Department of Education. This reimbursement is to help cover the cost of Due Process Hearing expenditures incurred by the Albemarle County Special Education Department. Touring Assistance Grant from the Virginia Commission of the Arts Three Albemarle County Public Schools have been awarded Touring Assistance Grants from the Virginia Commission for the Arts in the total of $988.00. Broadus Wood Elementary in the amount of $250.00; Henley Middle in the amount of $150.00; and Jouett Middle in the amount of $588.00. The Touring Assistance Grant Program has been established to help strengthen the quality of education in and through the elementary and secondary schools and to encourage innovative projects which link the arts with non-arts curricula. Donation - Henley Middle School Henley Middle School received donations from Douglas and Sarah Dupont in the amount of $1,000.00 and the Frederick S. Upton Foundation in the amount of $1,000.00. These funds will help provide Henley Middle School's students with an interdisciplinary arts program. This will help to provide three artists in residency: The Storyteller, Dylan Pritchett; Educational Drama Consultant, Dr. Rosalind Flynn; Sculptor, Bob Strini. Individualized Student Alternative Education Program The Albemarle County Public Schools will implement an Individualized Student Alternative Education Program (ISAEP) according to Virginia Department of Education requirements. This program will provide counseling, academic, and occupational services to address a growing population of students at risk of dropping out of school, not meeting attendance requirements, and/or academically not meeting the requirements for a standard high school diploma. This program will supplement existing GED services by developing specialized services to address this target population. The ISAEP will provide GED, career guidance, employability skills, and occupational training and employment necessary for students to become AGENDA TITLE: Appropriation - Education May 3, 2000 Page 2 productive and contributing citizens. The cost of the program is $23,576, and is funded 100% by Virginia ISAEP Grant Funds. The Charlottesville/Albemarle Technical Education Center (CATEC) will administer the ISAEP program. Albemarle County Adult Basic Education Albemarle County Adult Basic Education provides tuition classes tailored to the individualized needs of the clients of private companies, institutions and agencies when needed to supplement our existing classes. Donations totaling $6,206 have been received in the following amounts: $700.00 from Albemarle and Charlottesville Social Services Agencies and $150.00 from Trinity Presbyterian Church for classes to prepare their Virginia Incentive Employment to Work Program clients to pass the Virginia Driver's License Written Examination. We also received revenues in the amount of $2,100.00 from Abdullah M. AI-Enezi and $3,256.00 from Farmington Country Club for intensive Beginning English as a Second Language class. Migrant Education Grant State funding for Migrant Education Grant was increased by $51,958.25 from the original budget amount of $27,000.00. It is requested that these funds be appropriated in the 1999-00 fiscal year to cover expenses. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Board of Supervisors approve the appropriations, totaling $89,978.82, as detailed on Appropriation #99072. 00.075 APPROPRIATION REQUEST FISCAL YEAR: 99/00 TYPE OF APPROPRIATION: ADVERTISEMENT REQUIRED ? FUND: PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: FUNDING FOR PRESS BOX AT WAHS. NUMBER ADDITIONAL X TRANSFER NEW YES NO X SCHOOL C.I.P. EXPENDITURE CODE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT 99073 1 9000 60302 800651 WAHS Baseball Pressbox $44,300.00 TOTAL $44,300.00 REVENUE CODE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT 2 9000 18100 181112WAHSBaseballPressbox $44,300.00 TOTAL $44,300.00 TRANSFERS REQUESTING COST CENTER: EDUCATION APPROVALS: DIRECTOR OF FINANCE BOARD OF SUPERVISOR SIGNATURE DATE APRIL 20, _000 COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AGENDA TITLE: APpropriation - School CIP Fund SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Request approval of Appropriation #99073, in the amount of $44,300, for funding for the press box at Western Albemarle High School STAFF CONTACT(S): Tucker, White, Gulati, Castner, Breeden, Reaser AGENDA DATE: May 3, 2000 ACTION: CONSENT AGENDA: ITEM NUMBER: INFORMATION: ACTION: X INFORMATION: BACKGROUND: ATTACHMENTS: REVIEWED BY: Yes A new baseball field is being constructed for Western Albemarle High School (WAHS) which is located on the north side of the Henley/Brownsville School property. The original project, which was an extensive renovation and enlargement of the existing baseball field, could not be accomplished at the WAHS site because of a new County ordinance to protect streams, which does not allow grading or relocation of streams in the drinking water watershed. A press box, a concession stand and restrooms were not part of either the original project or the revised project. The new outside restroom at Henley was to serve the baseball field. The WAHS Baseball Boosters want to enhance the project by building a press box, a concession stand and restrooms to serve to the new field. Anticipating a total project cost of $75,000.00, the Athletic Department and the Boosters will be soliciting donations of goods, i.e., scoreboard, building supplies, etc., totaling approximately $25,000 as well as cash donations of approximately $50,000. Appropriations totaling $5,700 were previously approved for this project on April 5, 2000 (Appropriation #99066). This request would appropriate the remaining required ($44,300) to receive the cash donations. To date, cash donations totaling $18,200 have been received. The Building Services Department will assist in coordinating the design, the procurement and inspection of the project to insure that established procurement procedures and construction standards/policies are followed. If the collected funds are not sufficient to support the project, the project will be cancelled and the previously collected money will be used for another capital project at WAHS. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Board of Supervisors approve the appropriations, totaling $44,300, as detailed on Appropriation #99073. APPROPRIATION REQUEST FISCAL YEAR: 99/00 NUMBER TYPE OF APPROPRIATION: ADDITIONAL TRANSFER NEW ADVERTISEMENT REQUIRED ? YES NO X FUND: GENERAL PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: FUNDING FOR REPUBLICAN PRIMARY FOR 7TH CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT. 99074 X EXPENDITURE CODE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT 1 1000 13020 120000 OVERTIME WAGES $815.00 1 1000 13020 129100 OT/WAGES-CUSTODIAL 60.00 1 1000 13020 210000 FICA 65.00 1 1000 13020 312510 ELECTION OFFICIALS 6,000.00 1 1000 13020 350000 PRINTING & BINDING 400.00 1 1000 13020 360000 ADVERTISING 325.00 1 1000 13020 390000 OTHER PURCHASED SERVICES 2,500.00 1 1000 13020 520100 POSTAL SERVICES 60.00 1 1000 13020 520300 TELECOMMUNICATIONS 500.00 1 1000 13020 540200 LEASE/RENT-BUILDINGS 50.00 I 1000 13020 550100TRAVEL-MILF__AGE 100.00 1 1000 13020 600100 OFFICE SUPPLIES 50.00 I 1000 13020 601700 COPY SUPPLIES 50.00 TOTAL $10,975.00 REVENUE CODE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT 2 1000 51000 510100 GENERAL FUND BALANCE $10,975.00 TOTAL $10,975.00 TRANSFERS REQUESTING COST CENTER: VOTER REGISTRATION APPROVALS: DIRECTOR OF FINANCE BOARD OF SUPERVISOR SIGNATURE DATE APRIL 20, 2000 COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AGENDA TITLE: Appropriation - General Fund SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Request approval of Appropriation #99074, in the amount of $10,975.00 for the Republican Primary for the 7th Congressional District STAFF CONTACT(S): Tucker, Breeden, White, Gulati, Harris BACKGROUND: AGENDA DATE: May 3, 2000 ACTION: CONSENT AGENDA: ITEM NUMBER: INFORMATION: ACTION: X INFORMATION: ATTACHMENTS: Yes The Republican Party of Virginia has announced its decision to select a candidate for the 7th Congressional District through a primary to be held on Tuesday, June 13, 2000. Ten Albemarle County precincts fall within the boundaries of the 7th Congressional District. It is anticipated that expenses relating to this primary will total $10,975.00. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Board of Supervisors approve the appropriations, totaling $10,975.00, as detailed on Appropriation #99074. 00.082 APPROPRIATION REQUEST FISCAL YEAR: 99/00 NUMBER 99075 TYPE OF APPROPRIATION: ADDITIONAL TRANSFER NEW X ADVERTISEMENT REQUIRED ? YES NO X FUND: EDUCATION PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: -...~ AUTHORIZATION TO EXPENDED DONATED FUNDS AND REIMBURSEMENTS. EXPENDITURE CODE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT 1 3143 61101 540410 Rental-Instruments $8,420.00 1 2215 61101 601300 Ed/RecSupplies 50.00 1 2215 61101 601600 Data Processing Supplies 200.00 1 2215 61411 580000 Misc. Expenses 60.00 1 2214 61101 601300 Ed/Rec Supplies 1,000.00 1 2114 61311 580500 StaffDev. 2,871.64 TOTAL $12,601.64 REVENUE CODE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT 2 3143 18000 181240 Ch'ville/Albemarle Grant $3,500.00 2 3143 18100 181241 Donations-Strings Pgm 4,920.00 2 2000 18100 181109 Donations 1,310.00 2 2000 19000 190227 Tuition-Reimb.-ARC 2,871.64 TOTAL $12,601.64 TRANSFERS REQUESTING COST CENTER: EDUCATION APPROVALS: DIRECTOR OF FINANCE BOARD OF SUPERVISOR SIGNATURE DATE APRIL 26, 2000 COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AGENDA TITLE: Appropriation - Education SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Request approval of Appropriation #99075, in the amount of $12,601.64, to receive and disburse several donations to various schools and tuition reimbursement to the Albemarle County Resource Center. STAFF CONTACT(S): Tucker, White, Gulati, Castner, Breeden AGENDA DATE: May 3, 2000 ACTION: CONSENT AGENDA: ITEM NUMBER: INFORMATION: ACTION: X INFORMATION: ATTACHMENTS: Yes REVIEWED BY: BACKGROUND: Donation - Strings for Students Project The Albemarle County Public Schools received a grant from the Charlottesville-Albemarle Community Education Foundation in the amount of $3,500.00. This grant will be matched by donations from PTO's and local fundraising in the amount of $4,920.00. The funds will be used for the project Strings for Students. Sets of stringed instruments will be available for rent at a reduced/waived rate, so all students can participate in the county's new String Orchestra. Donation - Murray Elementary School Murray Elementary School received anonymous donations in the amount of $310.00. These donations will be used to purchase data processing supplies, instructional materials, and miscellaneous supplies. Donation - Cale Elementary School Cale Elementary School received a donation in the amount of $1,000.00 from the Core Knowledge Foundation. This donation will be used to purchase instructional materials for the school. Tuition Reimbursement - Albemarle County Resource Center The Albemarle County Resource Center received reimbursement in the amount of $2,871.64. Reimbursement was received for training provided by Albemarle that other schools attended in the amount of $1,168.33; City of Charlottesville School Board in the amount of $233.31 for a workshop attended; reimbursement for a graduate course attended at the JMU Content Academy in the amount of $140.00; enrollment fees in the amount of $850.00; and reimbursement in the amount of $480.00 for providing snacks and drinks for the courses. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Board of Supervisors approve the appropriations totaling $12,601.64, as detailed on Appropriation #99075. 00.085 COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AGENDA TITLE: Hydrogeologic Testing Report SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST: AGENDA DATE: May 3, 2000 ACTION: Report on Verifying Adequate Groundwater for Rural Subdivisions & Establishment of a Technical Groundwater Committee STAFF CONTACT(S): Messrs. Tucker, Foley, Mawyer, Hirschman BACKGROUND: CONSENT AGENDA: ITEM NUMBER: INFORMATION: ACTION: X INFORMATION: ATTACHMENTS: Report: Verifying Adequate Groundwater Supplies for Rural Subdivisions; Planning Co~ll~ission Resolution of !ntent REVIEWED BY: ~7 Over the course of several years, the issue of hydrogeologic testing has been a subject of public discourse. Hydrogeologic testing refers to any number of techniques that can be used to study and provide quantitative and qualitative information on a site's potential water supply in cases where groundwater will be used. This is pertinent to Albemarle County's Rural Areas, where all development is groundwater-dependent, either through central well systems or private, individual wells. Hydrogeologic testing can be a tool to help verify that groundwater resources are adequate to serve a proposed level and/or density of development. During review of the Walnut Hills rezoning application in Earlysville, the Planning Commission specifically asked staff to provide information on what other jurisdictions in Virginia have done with regard to a hydrogeologic testing program. The Peacock Hil request for jurisdictional area extension last summer due to difficulties with the central well system highlights the timeliness of this information. The attached report is in response to the Planning Commission's request, but is also meant to initiate an informed discussion on how Albemarle County can proceed to explore this topic. For background purposes, it is important to note that hydrogeologic testing is addressed in the Groundwater Protection Study (1990), The Pilot Groundwater Study for the Hardware Watershed (1994), and the Natural Resources and Cultural Assets Chapter of the Corn prehensive Plan (1999). Specifically, the Corn prhensive Plan contains various groundwater strategies, including the formation of a groundwater committee to guide implementation of the other strategies. Through contact with local and state agency staff, most of the counties in Virginia that have a hydrogeologic testing requirement were identified. In most cases, the requirements reside in these communities' subdivision ordinances. The counties that were interviewed for this report include: Loudoun, Fauquier, Rappahannock, Orange, Chesterfield, and Roanoke. The attached report outlines the elements of each county's program. DISCUSSION: The report was reviewed by the Planning Commission at their March 21, 2000 meeting. The Commission approved a Resolution of Intent to establish a Technical Committee to review the attached report and other pertinent county documents, with the eventual result being an ordinance amendment that would incorporate language for hydrogeologic testing. RECOMMENDATION: Authorize staff to establish the groundwater committee in accordance with the Planning Commission's Resolution. The committee should be facilitated by Department of Engineering & Public Works staff, with representation from the following agencies or groups: · Department of Mines, Minerals & Energy, Division of Mineral Resources · Virginia Department of Health · Consulting Hydrogeologist · Department of Planning & Community Development · County Attorney's Office · Development Community (e.g. Chamber of Commerce, Design Review Committee, etc.) · Environmental (e.g., League of Women Voters, Piedmont Environmental Council, etc.) 00.083 Verifying Adequate Groundwater Supplies For Rural Subdivisions (Hydrogeologic Testing): A Review of County Programs in Virginia Report To The Albemarle County Planning Commission David J. Hirschman, Water Resources Manager Department of Engineering & Public Works March 7, 2000 I INTRODUCTION Over the course of several years, the issue ofhydrogeologic testing has been a subject of public discourse. Hydrogeologic testing refers to any number of techniques that can be used to study and Provide quantitative and qualitative information on a site's potential water supply in cases where groundwater will be Used. This is pertinent to Albemarle County's Rural Areas, where all development is groundwater-dependent, either through central well systems or private, individual wells. Hydrogeologic testing can be a tool to help verify that groundwater resources are adequate to serve a proposed level and/or density of development. ' ' . During review of the Walnut Hills rezoning application in Earlysville, the Planning Commission specifically asked staff to provide information on what other jurisdictions in Virginia have done with regard to a hydrogeologic testing program. The Peacock Hill request for jurisdictional area extension due to difficulties with the central well system highlights the timeliness of this information. This report is in response to the Planning Commission's request, but is also meant to initiate an informed discussion on how Albemarle County can proceed to explore this topic. For background purposes, it is important to note that hydrogeologic :testing is addressed in the Groundwater Protection Study (1990), The Pilot Groundwater Study for the Hardware Watershed (1994), and the Natural Resources and Cultural Assets Chapter of the Comprehensive Plan (1999). Through contact with local and state agency staff, most of the counties in Virginia that have a hydrogeologic testing requirement were identified. In most cases, the requirements reside in these communities' subdivision ordinances. The counties that were interviewed for this report include: Loudoun, Fauquier, Rappahannock, Orange, Chesterfield, and Roanoke. Other counties were contacted, but did not have any sort of relevant program. A summary table is provided at the end of the report that provides highlights for each program that is reviewed. LOUDOUNCOUNTY Background: Loudoun County's hydrogeologic and groundwater programs are the flagship programs in Virginia. They were the first county to adopt such a program, and their regulations have been a model that other counties have followed, with various modifications. Of course, Loudoun's high and sustained rate of growth has prompted these types of resource management programs over the years. Loudoun first adopted thehydrogeologic testing standards as policy in 1986-87. In 1988, the standards were officially adopted into the County's Facilities Standards Manual. Since that time, the standards have been modified several times. Loudoun's Land Use Plan calls for the creation of rural villages or hamlets. Within the rural areas, including the hamlets, the water supply can be either a newly-created central water system or private individual well and septic. The County's Comprehensive Plan states that central water systems should be managed by the Verifying Adequate Groundwater Supplies For Rural Subdivisions (Hydrogeologic Testing) Page 1 Loudoun County Sanitation Authority. However, at present, the Authority does not operate any of these systems. As in Albemarle, these systems are managed primarily by homeowners' associations and small water companies. The Hydrogeologic Test Requirement: The test requirement applies to both the creation of a new central water system and to developments that will rely on individual well and septic. A recent modification to the program involved phasing the requirements for groundwater data as a development plan goes through preliminary and final review. At the preliminary stage, a "Preliminary Hydrogeolgic Report" is required for proposed subdivisions greater than 9 lots. A "Detailed Hydrogeologic Report" is required with the final plat. Previously, the detailed report, including drilling and pumping of test wells, was required prior to submission of a preliminary plat, and the development community suggested the change so that these expensive tests could be delayed until after preliminary plat approval. It should be noted that, in cases where a new central water system is to be created, the Preliminary Report requires on-site geophysical tests to be conducted, although extensive drilling and testing is not required. The requirements of the Detailed Hydrogeologic Report for subdivisions are summarized below: Applies to new subdivisions with any lot less than 10 acres. For subdivisions with 9 or fewer lots, the applicant has the option of either preparing the hydrogeologic report or drilling and testing all of the wells prior to plat approval. Central Water Supply · 48-hour continuous constant rate drawdown test. · Yield must be 1 gallon/minute/connection. · Water quality testing in accordance with Health Department requirements. Private Individual Wells · Test wells located to represent the site's land forms and geologic formations, with a minimum of 3. · East of the Bull Run Fault (where groundwater is more abundant), test wells are required on 10% of the lots if30 or more lots are proposed. · West of the Bull Run Fault (where groundwater is limited), test wells are required on 30% of the lots regardless of the number of lots. · Within a designated Mountainside Development Overlay District, tests wells are required on 30% of the lots if there are fewer than 15 lots. For subdivisions with a greater number of lots, a community (central) water system is required. · 8-hour downhole pump test. · Yields must be at least 1 gallon/minute. · Water quality testing for bacteria in accordance with Health Department regulations in addition to testing for primary (health) and secondary (nuisance) contaminants. Verifying Adequate Groundwater Supplies For Rural Subdivisions (Hydrogeologic Testing) Page 2 The report must contain a summary and analysis of the test data and supporting plans and graphics. The analysis includes a discusSion of recharge during normal and drought conditions, flow direction, aquifer characteristics, anticipated water consumption, water quality results, and safe yield, among other technical items. The report must be prepared by a Virginia certified professional geologist (PG) or a licensed professional engineer (PE). The Facilities Standards Manual also contains hydrogeologic test requirements for solid waste facilities and resource extraction. Family divisions are exempt from the test requirements, but a note is required on the plat stating that the water supply is not approved by the Health Department. Staff Resources: Review of hydrogeologic reports is' conducted primarily by a single staff position that is within the local health district, but is funded by the County. The hydrogeologic program is a fairly minor component of the workload due to the moderate number of studies that are conducted on an annual basis. Program-To-Date: Approximately 50 hydrogeologic reports have been conducted to date. Early on in the program, one subdivision plat was denied, in part, based on the hydrogeologic results. Since then, all subdivision plats have been approved. Program staff indicates that it is difficult politically to deny plats based on hydrogeologic results, even if well yields appear marginal. · Additional Comments: The staffin Loudoun responsible for this program feels that this is a very good program when new community water systems are proposed (an action that Albemarle County discourages). In these cases, the County standards exceed Health Department requirements, and this results in water systems with a better chance of being sustained into the future. For projects with individual well and septic, the staff believes that the hydrogeologic report is useful, but in a less tangible way than for community wells. It is stressed that the report provides no guarantee about future water yields, but it much better than having no information at all. The chief benefit of the program identified by the staff has been improvements in sUbdivision design and layout based on the results (designs have been modified to take best advantage of high yield areas, and avoid paving them over with roads and houses). Contact: Jeff Widmeyer, Loudoun County Health Department, (703)777-0642. Verifying Adequate Groundwater Supplies For Rural Subdivisions (Hydrogeologic Testing) Page 3 FAUQUIER COUNTY Background: The hydrogeologic testing requirement was adopted as Chapter 18 of the subdivision ordinance in 1991. The program was initiated in response to the failure of several public well systems in areas where public water line extensions were infeasible. The County also wanted to bring some level of science to bear on new developments that utilized individual well and septic. The County has designated public service districts similar to Albemarle's jurisdictional areas. These are areas where the Fauquier County Water & Sanitation Authority (WSA) has jurisdiction from the County to operate and manage water and sewer facilities. A key difference from Albemarle is that, outside of the town of Warrenton, all of the supplies managed by the Authority utilize groundwater for their water supply. These are primarily small, decentralized systems. Overall, the service districts comprise approximately 12-14% of the County. The Hydrogeologic Test Requirement: The test requirement applies to both the creation of a new central water supply and to developments that will rely on individual well and septic. Interestingly, the County's zoning ordinance requires that certain size developments utilize central water supplies rather than individual well and septic (in contrast, Albemarle has done all it can to avoid creating new central systems). The test requirement applies as follows: Central Water Supply · All subdivisions with lots less 1 acre. In residential districts and villages, all subdivisions that create 7 or more lots, regardless of lot size. Any commercial/industrial development that will extract more than 10,000 gallons/day. · 2-hour initial ak-lift test followed by 48-hour continuous constant rate drawdown test. · Yield must be 50 gallons/minute for public supply wells within service districts. Outside of service districts, yields must be at least 1 gallon/minute/connection. · Water quality testing for iron, sulfate, manganese, and hardness, as well as all Health Department requirements. Private Individual Well · All subdivisions of 7 or more lots less than 10 acres in size. · Test wells on 30% of lots, with a minimum of 3. · 12-hour continuous constant rate drawdown test. · Yields must be at least 3 gallons/minute. · Water quality tests only in accordance with Health Department regulations. The hydrogeologic test must be conducted as part of the preliminary subdivision application. A testing proposal must be submitted and approved by the County prior to any testing. The test results and detailed report are submitted to the County and the Verifying Adequate Groundwater Supplies For Rural Subdivisions (Hydrogeologic Testing) Page 4 WSA for review and approval. Contents of the report are very similar to those required in Loudoun County, and a PG or PE must prepare the report. StaffResources: This program is administered jointly by the County and the WSA. At the County level, the reviews are handled by a soil scientist on staffwith the Department of Community Development. If need be, the WSA can contract some review with a hydrogeologic consultant, although this does not appear to be common practice. Review ofhydrogeologic studies is a very minor component of both WSA and County staff time. Program-To-Date: Since 1991, only 6-7 tests have been conducted, and only 3 of these were for residential subdivisions. Program staff feels that developers find the requirements enough of a disincentive that most projects come in below the specified thresholds with regard to lot size and number of lots. Those interviewed stated that based on these requirements and zoning, there is very little residential development outside of the service districts. · Additional Comments: The County and the WSA have also undertaken regional hydrogeologic studies, especially within the service districts. The purpose of these studies is for the WSA to have better information to develop new water supplies (groundwater- based) and for the County to get a better sense about the opportunities and limitations groundwater resources pose for development patterns. The studies have been incorporated into the WSA's master plan and the County's Comprehensive Plan. The staffthat administers the hydrogeologic testing program feels that the program is very worthwhile in that some science is brought to bear on how groundwater will affect a proposed development into the future (and vice versa). They see the hydrogeologic reports as mini versions of the County-sponsored studies, and that all the information will fit together to provide a better overall picture of groundwater resources. They also commented that better subdivision design can result from the study process. However, no subdivisions that were required to perform the study were denied based on the results. In the past few years, a relatively large development (75 homes) that was already built-out experienced contamination of their central well system. The development is outside of the WSA service area. The residents first requested the WSA, and subsequently the County, to extend a public water line. Neither the WSA or the County agreed to fund such an extension. The agreed upon solution involved extension of the water line, but the line will be paid 100% by the residents of the subdivision. The resulting line is only about ½ mile in length, and the WSA reports that there isn't an issue with intermediate connections due to the short length of the line. Verifying Adequate Groundwater Supplies For Rural Subdivisions (Hydrogeologic Testing) Page 5 Contacts: Barney Durrette, General Manager, Fauquier County Water & Sanitation Authority, (540)349-2092; Danny Hatch, Soil Scientist, Fauquier County Department of Community Development, (540)347-8660. RAPPAHANNOCK COUNTY Background:-Rappahannock County is a predominantly rm'al community that wants to stay that way. The impetus of their program was witnessing events in neighboring Fauquier County, particularly growth-related groundwater demand issues. Also, there is some evidence that Sperryville's water supply may be limited. The requif'ements were adopted into the County Code in 1996. There are no large-scale public water supplies in Rappahannock with the exception of the town of Washington. Interestingly, the County requires central water and sewer systems for any subdivision of 10 or more lots that are 5 acres or less in size. The County can also require, on a discretionary basis, central systems for projects that have 5 or more 5-acre lots. · The Hydrogeologic Test Requirement: Rappahannock's program is largely modeled after Fauquier's. The highlights are listed below: · The test must be conducted for any subdivision of 5 lots or more, any one of which is less than 5 acres. In residential districts and villages, the test requirement applies to subdivisions of 10 or more lots, regardless of lot size. The requirement also applies to commercial and industrial projects that extract more than 10,000 gallons per day. · Test wells on 30% of lots, with a minimum of 3. · 48-hour continuous constant rate drawdown test. · Yields must be at least 3 gallons/minute. · Water quality tests only in accordance with Health Department regulations. · Report prepared by PG or PE. The hydrogeologic test must be conducted as part of the preliminary subdivision application, as in Fauquier County. Reviews are done in-house by the Zoning Administrator and County Administrator. The County Administrator feels that outside technical review is not needed. Staff Resources: As stated above, the program is administered by the Zoning Administrator and County Administrator, and the program takes a minimum of effort (see below). · Program-To-Date: Only 2 tests have been conducted since the program's inception. Both subdivisions were approved. Verifying Adequate Groundwater Supplies For Rural Subdivisions (Hydrogeologic Testing) Page 6 · Additional Comments: The most interesting comment made by the County Administrator was that he was unsure whether the State Code actually allows for the rejection of a plat based on the test results. If the proper case emerged, Rappahannock County would be willing to put this to the test. Contact: John W. McCarthy, County Administrator, (540)675-3342. ORANGE COUNTY Background: Orange County adopted a hydrogeologic testing requirement into its subdivision ordinance in the mid 1990s in response to well failures in several parts of the County. By-and-large, the County's ordinance language is modeled on the Loudoun/Fauquier model. The Hydrogeologic Test Requirement: One notable difference in the Orange County ordinance language is that the test must verify that "the aquifer" or "the geologic unit" is capable of producing enough water for the proposed subdivision. In the other counties, the test wells themselves must meet a specified yield, and this serves as a measurable proxy for the underlying aquifer. The specifics of the Orange program are listed below: The test must be conducted for any subdivision of 10 or more lots, regardless of lot size (defined in Orange as a "major" subdivision). Test wells on each geologic unit, or each 50 acres, whichever is less. 72-hour continuous constant rate drawdown test. The test must substantiate that the aquifer and/or geologic unit is capable of providing 2 gallons/minute for each dwelling unit. Water quality tests for bacteria (Health Department regulations), primary and secondary contaminants, and radioactivity in selected parts of the County. Report prepared by PG or PE. Staff Resources: The ordinance contains a provision for the collection of a fee so that the County can retain a consultant to review the report and assist the County at the public heating. Program-To-Date: Not a single hydrogeologic test has been conducted in Orange because all development (by design) has been below the threshold of having to conduct the test. Those subdividing property would rather have fewer lots than have to go through the' study process. · .Contact: Debbie Kendall, Orange County Planning Director, (540)672-4347. Verifying Adequate Groundwater Supplies For Rural Subdivisions (Hydrogeologic Testing) Page 7 CHESTERFIELD COUNTY Background: Chesterfield County adopted a private well section of their subdivision ordinance in 1989 that states that, for developments with individual wells, a hydrologic study must be conducted that "provides a scientific determination of the quality and quantity of potable water in the underlying aquifer under both normal and drought conditions..." The County also requires that wells be installed prior to issuance of a building permit. Since the time this ordinance language was adopted, only one subdivision has been required to perform a test. Staff explained that this is because almost all developments in Chesterfield are served by public water and sewer. Most developments in the County are described as "large" projects, and the County has promoted the extension of public utilities to serve these across the County. Public water supplies are all derived from surface water sources. Chesterfield's program is different from those described above in that the ordinance provides for hydrogeologic studies, but there are no formalized criteria for how the study should be conducted. For this detail, the County relies on the local Health Department. Health Department staff are free to use their judgement and knowledge of the County's groundwater resources to device the study requirements on a case-by- case basis. The Hydrogeologic Test Requirement: As stated above, there are no formal criteria for the test. For the one study that was conducted, test wells were drilled in strategic locations throughout the development (approximately one per every five lots). A formal drawdown test was not performed, but a 30 minute airlift test was conducted for each well (which is near the standard practice for well drillers anyway). The Health Department required all wells to be drilled wells (as opposed to bored wells), and the yield standard was 3 gallons/minute or 1 gallon/minute with 24 hours of storage in the well shaft. Health Department staffmade an attempt to be on site for part of the drilling period for each well. Health Department staff suggested that, were another test to come up, different criteria may be applied based on whether the area is know to haveabundant groundwater supplies or not. It appears that very few future tests are anticipated under this ordinance due to the County's emphasis on extending the public system. · Staff Resources: Local Health Department staff administer the program. · Contact: Bob Bowers, District Supervisor, Chesterfield County Health District, (804)748-1698. Verifying Adequate Groundwater Supplies For Rural Subdivisions (Hydrogeologic Testing) Page 8 OTHER COUNTIES Another strategy that some counties use to achieve some type of verification that rural subdivisions will have adequate water is that the local Health Department must review all preliminary plats with an eye towards both wells and septic systems. Roanoke County is an example. In Roanoke, all final plats that will utilize well and septic must have a certification from the Health Department. that all appropriate standards are met. This, of course, does not provide for the same type of rigor in verifying water supply as the other county programs outlined in this report. However, it does put water supply on the radar screen when subdivisions are reviewed and approved. WHAT HAS BEEN DONE IN ALBEMARLE? At present, Albemarle does require Health Department certification for use of septic systems and private wells (Section 14-518). The ordinance contains provisions for the proper siting and installation of septic systems and some oversight over whether septic systems will pose a risk to well water quality. However, at present, the ordinance does not mention verification of an adequate supply of water where individual wells are to be used. The 1989 update of the Comprehensive Plan designated North Garden as a village (the most recent update of the Land Use Plan has removed this designation). The '89 Plan contains the following recommendation with regard to North Garden: Verification of suitable water supply shall be required for development proposals due to the uncertainty of available groundwater and studies indicating difficulty in providing central utilities. Under the auspices of this policy, two groundwater tests were required by the Board of Supervisors in the context of rezoning applications. The tests that were conducted on these two properties, administered by the Department of Engineering & Public Works, were remarkably similar to the test described in this report for Chesterfield County. Two-hour air lift tests were performed when the drillers were on-site, and a report from the applicant had to confirm a combination of adequate yield and storage. County personnel were on-site during the tests. In addition, Chapter 16 of the County Code provides for County review and approval of central water supplies (systems that serve three or more connections). The Department of Engineering & Public Works adopted policies pertinent to this review, including requirements for an extensive pump test, in 1978 and again in 1987. Under this program, a handful of 72-hour pump tests have been conducted on central systems. In cases where the Health Department has also taken jurisdiction (systems with 15 or more connections), the State pump test and reporting requirements have been used in lieu of County standards. The County and State yield requirement for a central system is one-half gallon per minute per equivalent residential unit (an equivalent residential unit corresponds to Verifying Adequate Groundwater Supplies For Rural Subdivisions (Hydrogeologic Testing) Page 9 consumption of 400 gallons per day). Albemarle has enacted policies that emphatically discourage the creation of new central water systems to serve as community water supplies (e.g., 1996 Land Use Plan). COSTS OF HYDROGEOLOGIC TESTING The costs of conducting a hydrogeologic study vary based on the complexity of the requirements and the number, duration, and type of pump tests that must be conducted. For this report, the two consulting firms that have done the majority of tests in Loudoun County were interviewed to obtain an approximation of study costs that developers would bear. These firms are Emery & Garrett Groundwater, Inc. and HSI Geotrans. The Loudoun County program requires a preliminary study with the preliminary plat and a detailed study with the final plat. In Loudoun, the preliminary studies are estimated to cost in the $6,500 to $8,500 range. The detailed study is similar to the requirements in Fauquier, Rappahannock, and Orange counties. These studies, which involve extensive field work and pump testing, are estimated to cost from $1,500 per lot to $3,000 per lot. The cost per lot decreases as the number of lots goes up. The cost is also less when central well systems are involved because, typically, fewer wells have to be tested. It is important to note that the consultants who were interviewed commented that the study requirements could be modified to be more cost-effective while still deriving the necessary information, or even improving the program. Of course, programs that do not require a full pump test are much less expensive to implement. For instance, programs that require that a well be drilled prior to issuance of a building permit are only shifting the timing of well construction in cases where a well must ultimately be drilled anyway. The air lift test, as has been used in Chesterfield and Albemarle, is economical because it can be conducted while the driller is on site and only adds a incidental cost to the well construction process. However, there is a trade-off in the quality of data derived versus a full-blown pump test. · · Contacts: Bob Cohen, HSI Geotrans, (703)444-7000; James Emery, Emery & Garrett Groundwater, Inc., (603)279-4425. CONCLUSIONS & RECOMMENDATIONS Consequences for Development Design: It is clear from experience in other counties that a hydrogeologic testing program will have both direct and indirect consequences. The direct consequence is that the developer and community know much more about the groundwater resource pr/or to development, and is, in this sense, a good measure to try to prevent future problems and/or adjust development design based on test results. Verifying Adequate Groundwater Supplies For Rural Subdivisions (Hydrogeologic Testing) Page 10 The chief indirect consequence is that implementation of the testing requirement seems to promote developments that are designed to avoid having to perform the test. For instance, if the test kicks in at 10 lots, there is an impetus to create 9-lot subdivisions. This is evidenced by the surprisingly low number of tests that have been conducted in the surveyed localities, and several of the staff contacted for this report commented on this phenomenon. It is revealing that, exempting Loudoun County, fewer than ten hydrogeologic studies have been conducted for residential subdivisions in four counties (Fauquier, Rappahannock, Orange, Chesterfield) over the course of the last decade. In Albemarle, it is difficult to predict how strong this effect would be, given our system of development rights. The economics of using development rights would have to be balanced against the cost of performing the hydrogeologic test. This would also have to be considered if the County wants to promote RPD or other cluster-type options. In any case, it will be important for the County to anticipate this type of effect and ensure that a hydrogeologic testing standard will be complementary (and especially not contradictory) to the Land Use Plan and planning objectives for the Rural Areas. Also, a program could be devised whereby the scope and rigor of the test required would depend on the number of lots and their relative sizes. For instance, as the number of lots increased and the size diminished, the test requirements would become more rigorous, and fairly simple tests and/or reports would be required for subdivisions with a small number of relatively large lots. The idea would be to have a gradient of test standards rather than an all-or-nothing threshold. An example of this is Loudoun's requirement that divisions of 9 or fewer lots have the option of drilling and testing each well in lieu of the full hydrogeologic study. Roanoke County's Health Department certification requirement for final plats may be another model. Another important aspect of hydrogeologic testing is that the principal benefit of the programs has been improvements in site design and layout in order to make best use of and provide protection for groundwater resources. The experience in other counties has demonstrated that is it extremely difficult to deny a subdivision proposal based on the test results, the chief reasons being politics and limitations of State Code. The Role of Central Water Systems: Albemarle has made it clear through policy and action that new central water systems are unwelcome, based on the history of failure of these types of systems. Primarily, this seems to be based on a real or perceived sense of the County's liability in cases of failure, and assumes, in some cases falsely, that developments that rely on private, individual wells are superior or more fail-safe. One very interesting result of surveying other counties is that their regulations, in many cases, actually require central systems to be created when lot size or density Verifying Adequate Groundwater Supplies For Rural Subdivisions (Hydrogeologic Testing) Page 11 hits a certain trigger. In mOst cases, county policy also dictates that these systems should be managed by a county water and sewer utility (e.g., Fauquier County Water & Sanitation Authority). However, these policies can be slow to implement, and the counties still have many systems managed and operated by homeowners' associations or private water companies. Roanoke County has gone as far as acquiring old central systems that were failing so that they could be brought up to acceptable standards (the Albemarle County Service Authority has also expressed concern about the standards to which existing central systems were constructed). It seems that, from a policy perspective, these counties have balanced the liability of creating new central systems with the benefits these systems have for: (1) making optimal use of groundwater by locating well fields on parts of the site where yield potential is greatest, and (2) protecting public health due to the water quality testing required of these systems though Health Department standards (private, individual wells have no such testing requirement). The staff interviewed for this report also noted that the benefits of a hydrogeologic testing program accrue more to projects with central systems than those with private, individual wells. On the other hand, these counties have also realized the downside of having these systems managed by homeowners' associations, and have attempted, with varying degrees of success, to bring these systems under the umbrella of a public utility. There are no easy answers to this issue. However, it is likely that Albemarle County will have to reconsider the possible use of central systems, and their management structure, if sustainable use of groundwater is the ultimate objective. Work at the Site and Regional Scales: In the best cases, a hydrogeologic testing requirement for new development is complemented by regional hydrogeologic studies undertaken by the local government. The objective is to understand groundwater, its movement, its availability, and its vulnerability. Relying solely on developers to provide this information is a piecemeal approach. While information is gained for the individual development' site, it is difficult to patch together the site-level tests to gain any broader understanding of regional groundwater resources (especially when there are very few site-level tests performed). Of course, conducting county-sponsored regional studies also takes money. Likewise, regional studies cannot be conducted with the specificity and detail of a site-level hydrogeologic test, especially with regard to a particular development proposal. In this sense, a regional study is not a substitute for a site-level testing requirement, but certainly provides a superior framework for understanding the site- level outcomes. Loudoun and Fauquier counties perhaps best exemplify programs that require site- level hydrogeologic testing, but have also undertaken regional studies to enhance opportunities to utilize and protect groundwater supplies. Verifying Adequate Groundwater Supplies For Rural Subdivisions (Hydrogeologic Testing) Page 12 Hydrogeologic Testing is One Aspect of Good Planning: A hydrogeologic testing program can certainly enhance the County's ability to ensure development that protects public health and safety. However, as noted above, such a program can have an indirect effect on the distribution and density of development in rural areas. As such, a testing program is not a panacea, and is certainly not a substitute for good, comprehensive planning for the Rural Areas to provide a big-picture framework of how and where development should occur. In fact, the two (hydro testing and comprehensive planning) must work in tandem to provide the best overall effect. Strategy for Implementation: Finally, this report provides some necessary background information so that Albemarle County can proceed intelligently with the task of developing hydrogeologic testing standards. Chapter 2 of the Comprehensive' Plan contains many new strategies relevant to groundwater, including the formation of a Groundwater Committee. This committee would be tasked with implementing the strategies identified in the Plan, one of which is as follows: ·..Investigate a requirement for hydrogeologic testing to verify suitable groundwater quantity and quality in the Rural Area and develop a draft hydrogeologic testing policy and ordinance language for consideration by the Board of Supervisors. With this report as background, I recommend that we proceed with formation of the committee and consideration of the Comprehensive Plan strategies, with priority given to the strategy listed above. The committee should be representatives of stakeholders, and should provide technical expertise to advise County staff. ATTACHMENTS The following documents are attached to provide additional background on the hydrogeologic testing issue: · A summary matrix of all of the county programs reviewed in this report. · The text of Fauquier County's hydrogeologic testing requirement, which is fairly representative of the other county programs. · An October 23, 1997 letter from the Office of the Attorney General to the Albemarle County Attorney concerning enabling authority for hydrogeologic testing. · An excerpt from Chapter Two of the Comprehensive Plan (1999) regarding the subject ofhydrogeologic testing. Verifying Adequate Groundwater Supplies For Rural Subdivisions (Hydrogeologic Testing) Page 13 SECTION 18- HYDROGEOLOGIC TESTI1VG A hydmgeologic report is a detailed geotechnical report assessing groundwater. ~ and .aklah~. The hydrogeologic report shall be prepared by a Virginia certified professional geologist or a professional engineer licensed to practice in Virginia who has demonstrated expertise in hydrogeology. 18-1 Central Water Supplies (2~ublic Wells) A) Applicability of Hydrogeologic Testing 1) The hydrogeologic testing requirements and procedure must be conducted on any new residential subdivision consisting of lots _Le4.. s than one (1) acre in size in all zoning districts. In r~idential districts and villages, new residential subdivisions which have seven (7) or more lots, regardless of lot size, will require hydrogeological testing. 2) Any commercial or indus!Mai subdivision.that will e,~tract more than 10,000 gallons/day.(/~t~ -;~,') 4.(/,,. ~/~, ~.) 3) Any proposed development in a service district unless the requirement for hydrogeologic testing is waived by the Planning Commission upon recommendation of the WSA on the basis that testing is unnecessary or would create an undue hardship. Testing Proposal 1) The applicant shall submit a testing proposal to the County. This proposal shall be prepared based on Section 18-1.C, Field Testing. 2) The proposal shall include a map at a scale of not greater than 1:6000 (1'~-500') showing the watershed units which are the subject of the hydrogeologic test and report This ma p shall include planimetric features, topography, geological contracts, and major structural features. The map shall show proposed well sites, subdivision layout and sources of potential contamination within 1000 feet of any proposed production well(s), to include, but not be limited to, existing or abandoned wells, septic drainfields, underground storage tanks, and houses. The map shall also show springs, watershed boundaries, and groundwater flow. All inform~ti~,n i~ t,-, h,, ?thc, red from _existina records and actual field conditions. Information-' conceming existina wells and septic drainfields is availablk from the local Health Department 84 c) 3) The proposal shall include a management plan to control the runoff of pumped water and assurances that all adjacent property owners will be notified of the time and duration of field testing. 4) After submission of a proposal for performing a hydrogeologic test, the applicant shall meet with representatives of the Department of Community Development and the WSA to review the proposal_ The County or WSA may direct changes in the proposed location of test wells, and other changes as appropriate. This review shall take no more than 30 days from the submission date. No work is to be performed until approvals of proposal are granted in writing by both the County and the WSA. Field Testing for Adequacy of Supply. 1) The production well(s): a) All wells shall be placed and drilled in accordance with all state, local, and WSA ordinances. A Vir,ginia ce~ed _professional ~eolozist shall complete drill~r~_~ lo~,s (SWCB Form GW2) for the production well(s). The geologist shall take at least one rock sample from each geologic formation and shall take samples at no less than twenty (20) foot intervals when in the same geologic formation and upon request shall provide these samples to the WSA. A two (2) hour initial air lift test is to be conducted in order to estimate yield. c) A drawdown test shall be performed to provide evidence that such a system is capable of furnishing the needs of the fuii build-out of the proposed development. 1) A standard continuous constant rate draw down test shall be performed on all proposed production wells. If more than one production well is proposed to be in operation at the same. time, simultaneous draw-down tests shall be performed. 2) The duration of the drawdown test shall be not less than forty eight (48) hours with a minimum of twelve (12) hours at steady-state conditions. 2) d) a) Steady-state conditions are defined as a static pumping water level that varies by 0.5% at a pumping rate that varies by 3%. 3) The pumping rate shall be such that the static pumping water level does not come within ten (10) feet of any fracture zone that produces more than or equal to 25% of the well's total capacity. Minimum Well Yields 1) Within any existing service districts, yields must be greater than 50 gallons per minute in order for the well to be accepted as a public water supply well. 2) Outside of any existing service district, yields must be capable of providing not less than one (1) gallon per minute per eack dwelling unit to be connected. The observation wells: a) A minimum of two (2) observation wells will be drilled with each potential production well. The location of these observation wells shall be proposed by the consulting hydrogeologist and reviewed jointly by the Department of Community Development and the WSA. b) Where practicable, existing wells may be used as observation wells. The consulting hydrogeologist shall provide location, well depth, casing size and depth, static water level, and usage information for any existing well which is proposed to be used as an observation well c) Where new observation wells are to be drilled, 2-inch diameter piezometers drilled in hydrogeologically acceptable locations and to appropriate depths may .be use~ d) Water levels accurate to 10tbs of a foot are to be monitored for drawdown effects continually while the drawdown test is performed. 18-2 Recovery of water levels in the pumping wells, and observation wells shall be recorded until at least 90% recovery is reached. Water levels shall be measured with the following schedule: ELAPSED TIME MEAS UR£MENT 1-10 minutes ............................ every minute 10-100 minutes .......................... every 10 minutes 100-1000 minutes* ...................... every 60 minutes (*or as long as needed to reach 90% recovery) F) Laboratory Testing for Water Quality 1) Field testing shall be done at each water bearing zone'for the following parameters: Fe, S04, Mn, and hardness. If any values exceed ex/sting state Waterworks Regulations Standards during drilling, the WSA shall be contacted to discuss possible remediation measures. 2) All water supplies shall conform to minimum standards as expressed by the latest divisions of the Waterworks Regulations of the Virginia Department of Health. Final water quality sampling shall be done at the last four (4) hours of the drawdown test and shall consist of one sample per hour. Private Individual Wells A) Applicability of Hydrogeologic Testing 1) The hydrogeological testing requirements and procedure for individual wells must be conducted on any new subdivision 'consisting of seven (7) or more lots less than ten (10) acres in size where individual wells are permitted. B Testing Proposal 1) The applicant shah submit a testing proposal to the County. This proposal shall be prepared based on Section 18-2.C., Field Testing. 2) The proposal shall include a map at a scale of not greater than 1:6000 (1'~500') showing the subdivision layout and proposed Well sites for each building lot, planimetric features, topography, geological contracts, and major structural features. The map 87 C) 4) shall show sources of potential .contamination within 200 feet of each proposed well site, to include, but not be limited to, existing or abandoned wells, springs, septic drainfields, underground storage tanks, and houses. All information is to be gathered from existing records and actual field conditions. Information concerning existing wells and septic drainfields is available from the local Health Department The proposal shall include a management plan to control the runoff of pumped water and assurances that all adjacent property owners will be notified of the lime and duration of field testing. After submission of a proposal for performing a hydrogeologic test, the applicant shall meet with representatives of the Department of Community Development and the WSA to review the proposal The County and WSA will review each well location in order to insure that each geologic formation and major land form is tested. The County or WSA may direct changes in the proposed location of test wells, and other changes as appropriate. This review shall take no more than 30 days from the submission date. No work is to be performed until approvals of proposal are granted in writing by both the County and the WSA. Field Testing for Adequacy of Supply. 1) The applicant shall drill a minimum of three (3) test wells or 30% of the total number of lots proposed, whichever is greater. Each test well location should be a site approved by the local Health Department 2) A yield test shall be performed on each test well to provide assurance that the proposed wells will be capable of providing sustained long-term use. 3) Each test well shall be pumped at a constant rate for a minimum of twelve (12) continuous hours. 4) The test well shall be pumped at the rate of the estimated yield determined by the drilling contractor. Well yields must be ca pable of providing not less than three (3) gallons/minute. 18-3 5) The two closest test wells shall be used as observation wells during the pumping tes~: Water levels in the observation wells shall be measured throughout the entire pumping test for drawdown effects. 6) Recovery of water levels in the pumping wells and observation wells shall be recorded until at least 90% recovery is reached. Water levels shall be measured in accordance with the following schedule: ELAPSED TIME ME, AS UREMENT. 1-10 minutes ...................... every minute 10400 minutes .................... every 10 minutes 100-1000 minutes* ................. every 60 minutes (*or as long as needed to reach 90% recovery) 7) The applicant shall submit a drilling log (SWCB Form GW2) for each well. D) Laboratory Testing for Water Quality. 1) Sampling shall be done in accordance with the current revision of the State of Virginia Sewage Handling and Disposal Regulations. Submission Requirement Hydrogeologic Report 1) The report shall contain a graphic lithology of each well and a narrative discussing the geologic setting, watershed units, hydrogeologic units, reliefi occurrence and movement of groundwater, and interpretation of water data from surrounding areas, including groundwater quality. 2) The report shall contain a map. or set of maps at a scale of not greater than 1:6000 (1'=500') which shall cover the development proposal. This map shall contain all existing planimetfic features, topography with 5' contour intervals, Virginia planar grid coordinates, all proposed roads, proposed lot lines, proposed house sites and proposed septic drainfields, and surface water features, including springs. Flow net (i.e., 89 3) groundwater contours and direction of groundwater, flow) shall be illustrated. The map shall contain one or more cross-sections, at true horizontal scale and vertical scale (exaggerated as required) 'which depict at least the following information: * drill log data * well site locations * respective elevations of rock and static water surfaces * stabilized pump-down levels of the water surface. The location of each cross-section shall be shown on the plan view map. The report shall develop groundwater mass balance and recharge estimates for the study area. It must include a discussion of the following information, including appropriate supporting calculations and diagrams: a) Identification of the form and source of recharge; b) The calculated effect of all lots (wells) pumping at a normal daily consumption rate on the piezomerric surface (if applicable). c) The average recharge for the subdivision, the recharge in drought years, and the average outflow from the subdivision or geologic unit: . d) The net daily water consumption of the subdivision. e) Proposals addressing what to do with wells of inadequate yield on individual lots (if applicable); f) The transmissivity of the various materials evaluated by aquifer tests interpreted using Professionally-accepted methods; The average storage coefficient of the water-bearing materials; h) The specific capacity of each well; 90 18-4 i) Table showing Virginia planar grid coordinates for each test well (if the well location is more than two (2) kilometers from any geodetic control monument that is accessible to the public, the coordinate valves may be assumed); j) Results of the laboratory testing for water quality. For public wells, a recommended operation plan for the well(s) being utilized, to. include: a recommended 'setting depth' for the installation of final production pumps. the most desirable pumping rate for each well a time management schedule as to how the well should be pumped over an extended period of Review Hydrogeological reports shall be approved jointly by the Department of Community Development (County) and the Water and Sanitation Authority (WSA), except in cases where the WSA will not ultimately operate the proposed water system. In such cases the County shall be the approval authority and the WSA shall make a recommendation on the hydrogeological report to the County. Four (4) copies of the report shall be submitted to the County for distribution. The County shall retain one copy for public view. The County and WSA shall have fifteen (15) days to review the report in order to determine that the submission and content requirements have been met. Once the report is accepted, written notification shall be sent to the applicant and the report shall be considered officially flied. The County and WSA shall have sixty (60) days from the filing date to review the technical contents of the report All written comments from outside parties must be submitted within thirty (30) days of the filing date. 91 Richard Culien COMMONWEALTH o{ VIRCji Of'rice of tM A~tome7 General Richmond 23219 October 23, 1997 Mr. l.arry W. Davis County Altorney for Albemarle County 401 Mci,dire Road Charkmcsville, Virginia 22902-4596 COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE ATTORNEy's My dearMr Davis: Richmond. Vilgln,a 23219 804 - 31l - a946 TOO You ask whether, as a condition of subdivision plat approval, a county may require a subdivider to verify Ihe, existence of an adequate quantity of water for each lot in the subdivision if water to the lots will be provided by individual wells. Virgi,fia's subdivision enabling statutes are set out in Article 7, Chapter 11 of Title 15.1 of the Code of Virginia,' with {} 15.1-466 listing provision's required or pen'nit'ted to be included in a county's subdivis,on ordinance. 'Section 15.1-466(A)(4) provides that a subdivision ordinance is to include reasonable regt,lations "[flor the exte[H lo which and the manner in which ... water and storm and sanitary sewer and other public utilities or other community facilities are to be installed." Section 15.1-299, while not included in the subdivision statutes, also relates to a county's regulation of water, sewer and other facilities in subdivisions. Section 15.1-299 provides: Any county which has adopted regulations under Chapter 11 ... of'Fitle 15.1 of the Code of Virginia governing the use and developmenl of land may also adopt regulations ... fixing requirements as to the extent Io which and It~e manner in which water, sewer and mher utility mains, piping, conduits, connections, pu:nping stalmns aad other facilities in commc~on thcrewid~ shall be installed as a condition precedent [o the approval of an or gmal plat of a subdivision .... Such regulalions may require thc water source Io be an approved source of supply capable of [~rnishing the needs of the eventual inhabitants of such subdivision proposed to be served thereby. Such regulations also may include re- quiremcms as to tim size and tlaltlrc O[ the water and sewer and other ulilhv mains, pipes. con(lu~s, connecttons, pumping stations or oflmr lhcilities installed or to bc installed in I11 commction with the proposed water or sewer sysmms. Sections I 5 1-465 to 15 1-485 *The regulatmns are subj,:ct to Ihe provisions of Chapter 3.1 of 'l'illc 62.1. which contains the State Water Control l.aw. Ms {.;m'y W D;svl.,, Ocmhcr 23. 1997 .Page '2_ In your written opinioa, you conclude thai §§ 15.1-466 and 15 1-299 gram a couaty no authority over thc wamr source m a subdivision served by individual wells and no authority in any instance to rcgulalc Ihe quantity o~watcr to be provided. Rather, thc sectmns aulhorizc ol~ly regulations perlaining to watcr sysmms serving the entire subdivision and only to thc installation of such systems. This view~s supported by the language in ~ I S.I-466(A)(q) regarding "thc extent to which and the rammer in whicll water and storm and sanitary sewer and o~her public ulili~ic.s' or od~er communio, fitcili~ies are to be im'~cdlcff' and in ~ 15.1-299 regarding "thc manner m which wa~cr, sewer and driver u61iO, mc(ins, p~lfing, ctmduits, connectmns, pumpm~ .¥~r~u~n.¥ and mherfacili[ie.~' in commotion therewith shall be inxld]k,d." (l~mphas~s added.) The argument is weakened, however, hx thc additional lat~guage in ~ 15.1-299 pr,~viding :hut the subdivis[m~ I'~tl];t[~l~ ll~a)' require that :l~c "semite o1' supply ~[s] c'ap~,ble o1' fln'msh- m~ ~hc needs of the eventual inhabitants of such subdivisioa" (l:mphasis added.) This Im~guage appears m gram regulatory authority to require assurances lhal the qu;mlity (q' waler wil] be adequate. \k"hcJJler tli.~ relevant Stalulcs authorize a county l¢) require x'cril~icaliotl or the adequacy of waler provided by individt,al wells is Id be demrmined by applicalion of the Dillon Rule of strict construction, under which comities have only those powers expressly grmllcd hy sl;llule or necessarily implied from express powers.' The Supreme (..]~.)urt dj' Virginia and prior opinions of' the Attorney General apply this rule o[' narrow construction to a comlty's power Id regulate lilt subdivision of land, concluding, for example, that a county may not require a subdivide~: to reconstruct portions of public highways,~ or cha,ge a fee for the examination and approval of tin'al subdivision plats,~ or require the dedication of land ['or public use unless the need is generated by the proposed development of the subdivision.~ Although Court decisions and prior opinmns slrictly limit a county's authority to extend its sl;Hulorx power tO regulate new subdivisions, the Dillon Ru[c docs ~lot require that the statutes be interpreted in so narrow a maturer flint the interpretation would dci~at the intent of thc legislature in enacting the statutes.~ The declared legislative intent of Chapter II is to promote the public health, salary and general welfare, to plan flu' [~ture development of communities, and to ensure adequate transpollalioi~ and utility ~An) icqucst by a ¢',]ullly ;lllolllC\ t}l alii 01)1111011 I1'OII1 Ibc Allolllcy (Jcllcrill "shall iI~cl[' l)c I~1 t[ic h)l'lll ol ill1 npitlit~ll embodying a precise glillClllCIll ()~ iii[ [';tCIS [ogCl]lcl' willI ',m:t~ [llllll'lle¥'S legal COIlCltlSlOIIS thc express power..g'ee 1992 Op. Va A~t'v (ich 53, ~.h'cc Ill, Iron v Prince Wilham ('t~ . 220 Va. 435. ~,~0,258 ~.1~ 2d 577, 580 (1979) u.h'ccNat ReallyCorp v. Vitgmhtl~citch. 209 Va. 172, 177, 63 ~.l~.2d 154. 158 (1968) (Sk.c 1984-1985 dp Va. Atl'y ~iCl] 296. 297; see ul.vo 1981-1982 t)p Va. Ali'S' Gel1 106. 108-09 (COtlllly may ti(il ~ t:qtllfC dedication dC cc nlra] Wlllt'l ',) Slclll lO ~.¥cc 198,1-1985 dp Va. Att')' (;ch . ,tl~ttl. ill 296. .Scc ~ 15 1-427: 1987-1988 ()p V:~ An'yGcn. 204.205 October 23. 1997 l'agc 3 It cam'mt be doubted [hat assuring fulm'e residems of new subdivisious an adequate water supply ts mlegral m protecting the public hcahh.;° Thc concJt~siol~ that a county may regulate ll~e mamler in which walcr is supplied but may ~lot assure an adequalc suppl} ,~ 'walcr is not, in lily view, mandaled by applicatton of tl~e Dillon Rule. 11 is my opinion thai. m~dc~ linc hmguage of ~ ]5.1-299 authorizing regulations requiring that a water Sotlrcc be "cai,al, lc of fiu'nishing thc needs of thc eventual inhabitants of la] subdivision" and tl~e declared legislative intent of promoting Iht public health m plans fbr the ['ttture ctcvalopmcnt al' co~l~m~liics, u cotiilly may enact rC~tlJ;JilOIIh rcquu'ing reasoR;lbJc aSgtll'llllCC thai eacl~ individual lot in a aew subdivision will receive an adequate supply ofiwater. it is ['uilhcr my ,.,iow [hat iht l)illu~ Rule docs n,.>! ;n:mdalc :: conch~sior~ that :he ,.:sc of tc:r;liS such as "public utilities," "ulfl~ly nlalns," "co~mecl~ot~s," "pumpkins stations,'" "community I)tcilitics," and "other {hcitities" in ~ 15.1 466(A)(4) aad 15.1-299 conlqncs a county's regulatory authority h) ccnlralized waler syslenls scrvuig Ibc cmire subdivision A~ equally valid conclusion is d~a[ thc lan- ?age in Iht sections is i~llcndcd 1o bc expansive rather Ih;m rcslriclive, granting general regulatory authority over Ih~ metmor is which water will be providcd lilt residents of a new subdivisiou. No hmgua~c in tl~c statutes twolnhtls thc dcvclopnmnl of sul)div~si,mn dun provide water by imlividua[ wells or expressly excludes l~om mguhnmn subdivisions thai will provide wamr in tl~is manucr. For a county to be able to exercise ns authority m protect the public health ~n pla,ming Jar thc dcvclolmmnt of new communities, the power to regulate the water supply ofiall subdivisions must be implied. In my opinioa, §§ 15.t-466 and 1'5.1-299, in addition to the legislative intent expressed in ~ 15.1-,127. arc suf~cicnl m~lh{)rily Ibr Ibc cnaclmcnl of' ~ sul)di~ isi{m regulation rcqoiring assurance of an ad:quate quanlity of water tm' each Iai ill a subdivision ~hcn wmcr is lo be provided by individual wells,n \Vilh kindest regards, Very truly yours. I'~ichard ( 'utk:n Attorm.'x (]c)~c~al t4q:l '°.~'m' I'Mc','.,alc~ ttomcbuildc~s v {'~tyul Va Beach. 241 Va I1,1 ,! .lll(I S.l~.2d 523. 525(1991) 'l'lHs wow ~s consislent w~ll~ several prmr opinions al thc Aih}r~lcx qicnc~al. A 1981 opmmu cm~dudcs diet. allhough a Coullly lacks authoriiy m rc~uJal¢ wells through a permu p~occss. ~ 15.1-466 and 15 1-299 jointly p~ov~dc ;mtlm~y Ibr regulations requu'mg an adequale wmer suppl) system..gee 198t-1982 Op. Va Atl'y Gen., vu/;to, at 109 A 1973 opinim~ concludes Ihal. m subdivisions which cmmol feasibly provide a public w;uer supply, a sul}di~ ~smn m'dmance may rcqu,c a subdivision design i)rov~dmg .m mthv~dual water supply to each loI ,~'ee 1973.1974 ()p Va AIl'y Gcu. 342. 3,1;i ('¢m~part' 1987-1988 ()p Va AWy Gen., ~'u/)rt,. al 207-08 (subdivision mdmm~c¢ may ,mt require pcl'l~)l'lllall('c htmding under ~ 15. I -,166(A)(11 lot ctmslructioI1 [tlld insl;lllaliO~l of I]r]vam Walc~ s} ~lcms IhaI will ~lOl be ded~caled to COtlllty}. I-Iydrogeological and Water Quality Testing Hydrogeoiogical testing may be implemented on two scales for different purposes. On a County-wide or regional scale, studies can be initiated by the County to generate data for planning purposes. On a smaller scale, it would be beneficial to require a property owner to provide site specific hydrogeologic testing to determine the adequacy of groundwater to serve a proposed development. Hydrogeological testing is intended to protect and preserve groundwater quantity and quality through: 1) carefu! subdivision design; 2) better assurance of adequate water supply for future residents; 3) assessment of the effects of anticipated withdrawals on neighbors; and 4) planning generally for the location of development in relation to recharge areas and other factors. County-Wide or Regional scale Studies: The Groundwater Protection Study makes several recommendations pertaining to hydrogeologic studies and mapping projects. While these types of projects are expensive, they can be focused to best meet specific County needs. Planning for growth in areas not accessible by public water and sewer involves attempting to understand hydrogeologic constraints for both water supply and quality. A regional study conducted by the County could include detailed geologic mapping, resident surveys, and pump testing of selected wells. The Division of Mineral Resources is currently updating the geology for specific Albemarle County USGS quadrangle maps. Studies could also include regional recharge/discharge analysis, identification of recharge areas, and re~onal flow paths. A prioritized list of watersheds should be developed based on development potential, hydrogeological setting, and other factors. Studies and mappin, g should be designed in a manner that provides guidance to the County's decision makers about the capabilities and limitations of groundwater resources to support certain types and scale of rural development. Site or Development Scale Testing: Hydrogeolo~c testing can also be applied to specific development proposals. However, the County does not have any policy guidelines detailing what type of information is required, or how it would be used to make decisions about specific development proposals. Also, the County needs to confirm that existing enabling legislation provides authority to require such testing. Consideration should be given to requiring hydrogeological testing prior to subdivision approval in the Rural Area to ensure that the water supply quantity and quality is adequate to serve the eventual inhabitants of the area. Also, consideration should be given to requiring hydrogeological testing for site plans in the Rural Area. Key components 0fthis hydrogeological testing policy should include the following information: I) A clear understanding of when hydrogeological information would be required (e.g., size of development, location factors, etc.) 2) Clarification of how hydrogeological information would be used to make decisions about individual development projects. This is an important factor since County approval could be construed by a potential homeowner as a guarantee that adequate water exists. On the other hand, if hydrogeological information is used to reject a development proposal, the technical and legal basis of this rejection must be defensible and equitable. Clear guidance of what type and detail of information is required; and approved method for collecting the data. Albemarle County has received enabling legislation, along with several other Virginia counties, to require 51 reasonable testing of water quality prior to issuance of a building permit. This allows the assessment of poor water quality before a dwelling is constructed. It is also a method to collect water quality, data. The Health Department does not require water quality testing of private wells, with the exception of bacteriological (coliform) testing. Strategy: Work with the Division of Mineral Resources to conduct additional mapping in Albemarle County on recharge/discharge, lineaments, surftcial and bedrock geology, and regional groundwater flow. Provide local cost-share .funds to perform this mapping. Strategy: Continueto gather information on groundwater by watershed areas using the Pilot Groundwater Study as a prototypa Produce a prioritized list of watersheds using criteria developed by the Groundwater Subcommittee of the Water Resources Committee. Strategy: The Groundwater Subcommittee should investigate a requirement for hydrogeological testing to verify suitable groundwater quantity and quality in the Rural Area. If appropriate, they should develop a draft hydrogeological testing policy and ordinance language for consideration by the Boardof Supervisors. Strategy: The Groundwater Subcommittee should investigate a requirement for a water quality testing requirement for private wells prior to issuance of a building permit. If appropriate, they should develop a draft ordinance language for consideration by the Board of Supervisors. Groundwater Education The Pilot Study and County-wide Well Testing program provided some clarification of the educational messages that are important for County groundwater users. These principles include: periodic water testing, proper septic system maintenance, knowledgeable yard and garden care, best management practices for pasture and other agricultural uses, water conservation, proper household hazardous materials use and disposal (including automotive products), and fuel oil tank monitoring and maintenance. In addition, private, individual system owners and users should strive to become informed about their systems (e.g., age and depth, and proper treatment for specific water quality problems). Forums should be identified, in collaboration with other agencies, for the effective dissemination of educational materials. Strategy: In conjunction with other educational efforts and organizations, the County should disseminate relevant information to groundwater users about stewardship principles, including specific information needs identified by the Pilot Study and Well Testing Program. WELLHEAD PROTECT[ON This section has been adapted from Wellhead Protection. A Handbook for Local Governments in Virginia, and Wellhead Protection: Case Studies of Six Local Governments in Virginia, Virginia Ground Water Steering Committee, Fall, 1993. Wellhead protection is the term applied by EPA and others to describe a process for: (I) Assessing potential threats to groundwater, 52 RESOLUTION WHEREAS, The 1995 Virginia General Assembly enacted the Virginia Juvenile Community Crime Control Act to establish balanced, community-based systems of sanctions, programs and services for juvenile offenders effective January 1, 1996, and WHEREAS, The Department of Juvenile Justice has approved funding for the County of Albemarle through the Virginia Juvenile Community Cdme control Act, and WHEREAS, The County of Albemarle has submitted a plan together with the City of Charlottesville to the Department, designating Charlottesville as the fiscal agent, to use the Virginia Juvenile Community Crime Control funds to provide services to youth who come before the Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT the County of Albemarle will participate in the Virginia Juvenile Community Crime Control Act and accept appropriate funds for the purpose set forth in this Act until written notice to the contrary is provided to the Department of Juvenile Justice, and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT the County Executive is hereby authorized to execute a local plan on behalf of the County of Albemarle. I, Ella W. Carey, do hereby certify that the foregoing writing is a true, correct copy of a resolution adopted by the Board of County Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia at a regular meeting held on May 3, 2000. Cl~rk, Board of County Supe.~vis~rs COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AGENDA TITLE: Resolution: VA Juvenile Community Crime Control Act (VJCCCA) Funds for FY2000-2002 SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Request approval of resolution accepting FY2000-2002 VJCCCA funds. STAFF CONTACT(S): Tucker, White AGENDA DATE: May 3, 2000 ACTION: CONSENT AGENDA: ACTION: X ATTACHMENTS: REVIEWED BY: BACKGROUND: ITEM NUMBER: INFORMATION: INFORMATION: The 1995 Virginia General Assembly enacted the Virginia Juvenile Community Crime Control Act (VJCCCA), effective 1/1/96, replacing the block grant funds. In order to access these funds, Charlottesville and Albemarle have developed a combined plan showing how the VJCCCA funds will be spent to serve this population in FY 2000 - 2002. In the Charlottesville/Albemarle community, these funds have historically gone to the Community Attention programs that include the Community Attention Home, Family Group Homes, Outreach Services and Teens Give. This will continue with additional funding for the following programs: the Juvenile Court Assessment Center that provides assessment and crisis intervention services for delinquent and first time offenders; the Intensive Probation Program which provides intensive supervision for youth on probation; the Electronic Monitoring Program that provides in-home supervision for delinquent youth; the Court Services Fund that provides purchase of services funds for court youth and the Juvenile Justice Coordinator to provide VJCCCA administration and juvenile justice planning. The development of this plan is a collaborative effort between the City of Charlottesville and the County of Albemarle to provide a continuum of services for this population DISCUSSION: The purpose of the plan is to provide a balanced community-based system of sanctions and services for juvenile offenders. The Juvenile Justice Coordinator of the Commission on Children and Families will continue to provide administrative and programmatic oversight for the VJCCCA programs. Albemarle will receive $202,444 annually and Charlottesville will receive $627,760 annually from the Virginia Department of Juvenile Justice. In order to receive these funds, the County must continue to contribute $52,231 annually, which is already funded in the FY01 budget. The City of Charlottesville must continue its annual maintenance of effort in the amount of $108,415. Attached for your information is a list of the programs funded by the VJCCCA funds and a copy of the FY01 and FY02 proposed budgets. The attached resolution affirms the County's intent to participate in the VJCCCA program and authorizes the County Executive to approve a local plan on behalf of Albemarle County. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the attached resolution. THE FY2000 - 2002 CHARLOTTESVILLE/ALBEMARLE VIRGINIA JUVENILE COMMUNITY CRIME CONTROL ACT PLAN The City of Charlottesville and the County of Albemarle will combine Virginia Juvenile Community Crime Control Act funds and local funds to provide a continuum of community-based services for juvenile offenders based on their offenses and treatment needs. The FY2000-2002 Charlottesville/Albemarle VJCCCA Plan provides four programs administered by Community Attention and seven programs administered by the Juvenile Justice Coordinator under the umbrella of the Commission on Children and Families. The continuum of juvenile justice services begins with the Juvenile Court Assessment Center that provides assessment services to juveniles who have been diverted at intake from the 16th District Court Service Unit. The goal of these services is to prevent future delinquent behavior by providing immediate response, early intervention and a coordinated approach of assessment, referral and follow-up services twenty-four hours a day. These programs include: Juvenile Court Assessment Center Daytime Services The Truant Program The Delinquent Program · The Juvenile Court Assessment Center After Hours Services The Curfew Ce nter The Delinquency Intervention Program The intermediate services included on the juvenile justice service continuum are: · The Intensive Probation Program which provides intensive supervision for court service youth on probation. · The Electronic Monitoring Program which uses electronic monitoring and outreach services to provide in home supervision for delinquent youth. · The 16t~ District Court Services Fund provides purchase of service funds for Court service unit clients. Community Attention provides the following residential, outreach and community service programs to complete the local juvenile justice continuum of services funded by the VJCCCA Plan: · The Community Attention Home provides a non-secure, co-ed residential Treatment program. · The Family Group Homes provide family group home residential services. · Outreach Services is an intensive supervision and outreach detention services program. · Teen's Give is a community service program for court youth and their families. The Juvenile Justice Coordinator provides VJCCCA program administration and juvenile justice planning for the Commission on Children and Families. The Juvenile Justice Advisory Committee, under the umbrella of the Commission, has been charged with the development of a comprehensive juvenile justice plan for the two localities. This project has been funded by a grant from the Department of Criminal Justice Services. As part of this planning process, the committee is conducting the following research projects funded by the Juvenile Accountability Incentive Block Grant and the Department of Criminal Justice Services: · Juvenile Court case file research to locally validate the Department of Juvenile Justice's Risk Assessment Tool and assist in.the development of a Tool for use at intake. · An assessment of the barriers to information sharing among agencies serving juvenile offenders. The FY2001 Charlottesville/Albemarle VJCCCA* Plan VJCCCA County DCJS* VJCCCA Programs Juvenile Court Assessment Center- After Hours Progs: Curfew Center Delinquency Intervention Juvenile Court Assessment Center - Daytime Programs First Time Truant Offender Prog. Delinquency Program Intensive Probation Program Electronic Monitoring program CSU* Purchase Of Services Juvenile Justice Coordinator Community Attention Progs. Community Attention Home Family Group Homes Outreach Services Teen's Give Community Attn. Subtotals TOTAL $5,000 $37,000 $5,823 $59,812 $357 26,038 $11,435 34,000 $1,881 $9,250 $1,000 $62,613 $2,458 $33,500 $323,385 $28,364 $73,588 $6,454 $99,259 $8,706 $99,259 $8,707 $595,491 $52,231 $830,204 $74,185 $33,500 City $5,823 $357 $11,435 $1,881 $2,458 $58,876 $13,397 $18,071 $18,071 $108,415 $130,369 $5,000 $48,646 $60,526 $82,408 37,762 $9,250 $1,ooo $67,529 $410,625 $93,439 $126,036 $126,037 $756,137 $1,068,258 * VJCCCA: Virginia Juvenile Community Crime Control Act * DCJS: Department of Criminal Justice Services * CSU: Court Service Unit The FY2002 Charlottesville/Albemarle VJCCCA* Plan VJCCCA Programs Juvenile Court Assessment Center- After Hours Progs: Curfew Center Delinquency Intervention Juvenile Court Assessment Center - Daytime Programs First Time Truant Offender Prog. Delinquency Program Intensive Probation Program Electronic Monitoring program CSU* Purchase Of Services Juvenile Justice Coordinator Community Attention Progs. Community Attention Home Family Group Homes Outreach Services Teen's Give Community Attn. Subtotals TOTAL VJCCCA County DCJS* $5,000 $37,000 $5,823 $59,812 $357 26,038 $11,435 34,000 $1,881 $9,250 $1,000 $62,613 $2,458 $323,385 $28,364 $73,588 $6,454 $99,259 $8,706 $99,259 $8,707 $595,491 $52,231 $830,204 $74,185 $16,750' $16,750 City $5,823 $357 $11,435 $1,881 $2,458 $58,876 '$13,397 $18,071 $18,071 $108,415 $130,369 TOTAL $5,000 $48,646 $60,526 $65,658 37,762 $9,250 $1,000 $67,529 $410,625 $93,439 $126,036 $126,037 $756,137 $1,051,508 * VJCCCA: Virginia Juvenile Community Crime Control Act * DCJS: Department of Criminal Justice Services * CSU: Court Service Unit COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AGENDA TITLE: February 2000 Financial Report SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST: February 2000 Financial Report for the General, School, and Capital Funds STAFF CONTACT(S): Messrs. Tucker, Breeden, Walters; Mss. White, Gulati AGENDA DATE: May 3,2000 ACTION: CONSENT AGENDA: ITEM NUMBER: INFORMATION: ACTION: X INFORMATION: ATTACHMENTS: Yes REVIEWED BY: BACKGROUND: Attached are the February 29, 2000 Monthly Financial Reports for the General, School, and Capital Funds. General Fund revenue projections were revised as part of the 2000/2001 budget process. Car tax revenues from the state are classified as local revenues where budgeted, not state revenues where received, for corn parison purposes. General Fund expenditure projections have not been revised at this time. Education revenue projections have not been revised at this time. Education expenditure projections reflect a 7.5%, $453,125, operating expense holdback, net $35,743 compensation lapse adjustment. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends acceptance of the February 2000 Financial Report. 00.077 m Om ~ · ' -mm: ~Om" ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ =~ =o_~ m z ~ m ~ z m 1'"'4 [~ ~ lC,> lO r,~ II',O ~o ~ I Z ~ Jl~l ............ [ ............ ['..[~,' ] .......... ~llll~ll l~ lll~ l~ I I I ll~ I I I I ~l ~l I Ill I l~ llS~ I , ~, I 5: :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ::~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:[::~:[:~:~ ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ::::':::2 ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ........................... ~':~:::~:~ ::::::::::::::::::::: Z m O ITl © ITl ITl ITl Z ITl 0 ~__.0 g *.-- 0 oo ~ ~ ~ zm°~- ~e ~ m ~ m ~ ~ > Z Z rn 0 0 zo O0 I'll ~8 COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AGENDA TITLE: Scottsville Bright Stars Program SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Request approval to fund a fifth Bright Stars Four-Year Old Program at Scottsville Elementary School. STAFF CONTACT(S): Tucker, White, Ralston, Haines AGENDA DATE: May 3, 2000 ACTION: CONSENT AGENDA: ACTION: X ATTACHMENTS: REVIEWED BY: ITEM NUMBER: INFORMATION: INFORMATION: BACKGROUND: The 1994 Virginia General Assembly committed $10.3 million to help localities serve four-year-old children who were at-risk for school failure and who were not being served by either Head Start or Title I. Program costs were shared by the state and localities based on the Composite Index with state funding contingent on the provision of five components: quality preschool educators, parental involvement, comprehensive child health service, comprehensive social services and transportation. Through this initiative, Albemarle County established the Bdght Stars Program for at-risk four-year-olds. At-risk factors are based on a variety of criteria that include such things as parental illiteracy, poverty, domestic violence, substance abuse, chronic illness, criminal activity, developmental disabilities, and behavior, oral language, social or personal difficulties. This initiative allowed the County to address one of it's major goals as outlined in the County's Human Services Plan, which is to design and develop prevention and early intervention programs that provide long-term solutions to the rising increases in child abuse and neglect cases, foster care and juvenile delinquency cases. The Bright Stars program now operates in four elementary schools, Stone-Robinson, Greer, Agnor-Hurt and Cale and serves 64 children and their families. The 2000 Virginia General Assembly has made additional funds available to Albemarle County to serve a larger number of at-risk children. The state has increased their estimate of the number of unserved children in Albemarle from 59 to 82, which would allow us to access approximately $41,500 in additional state revenues. This presents the County with an exciting opportunity to open a fifth Bright Stars Program in the southern part of the County, a priority area for the school division. DISCUSSION: In discussions with the School Division, the consensus is that the best location for a 5th Bright Stars program is at $cottsville Elementary School with the anticipation that some eligible children may also be pulled from the Red Hill School district. If this occurs, there may be some additional transportation costs, but those potential costs are unknown at this time. Each program by state regulations may not serve more than 16 children at one location, but since the state reimburses per child, the program must serve 16 children in order to receive the full reimbursement of state funds. The cost of a new program to serve 16 additional children is approximately $88,000, $80,000 in personnel costs for a teacher, a teacher aid and a .4FTE family worker (the other .6FTE of the family worker is paid by IV-E federal funds through the Family Support Program) and $8,000 in annual operating costs. Additional start-up costs are estimated to be $3,000 for furniture and equipment and $30,000 for a trailer with no bathroom AGENDA TITLE: Scottsville Bright Stars Program May 3, 2000 Page 2 facilities. The Scottsville principal, Jeanette Orrock, has agreed to house the Bright Stars program within the school, so the newly purChased trailer would be used to house the displaced elementary classroom. State revenues, which are based on our composite index, will provide approximately $41,500 of the operating costs, leaving a local required contribution of $46,500. School Division staff is proposing to fund 50% of the operating costs or approximately $23,250 and $3,000 for the furniture and equipment costs. This request will go to the School Board for consideration at their May 1st budget meeting. Department of Social Services staff is requesting $23,250 or 50% of the operational costs for the new program from the Board of Supervisors fund balance. The one-time revenues of $30,000 for the new trailer will come from carry-over funds from the Bright Stars fund, $10,000 from FY98 and an anticipated $20,000 from FY00 due to salary lapse and a mid-year teacher position change. In summary the budget costs are: Expenditures Operational costs $88,000 Capital Costs Trailer $30,000 Furniture/equipment $ 3,000 Total Costs $121,000 Revenues General Government School Division Bright Stars Carry-Over State Share Total Resources $23,250 $26,250 $3O,000 $41,500 $121,000 RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the request to initiate plans for a 5th Bright Stars program at Scottsville Elementary for the fall of FY01, which would require a funding allocation of approximately $23,250 from the Board of Supervisors as part of the proposed funding package shown above. The School Division contribution is of course conditional upon final approval from the School Board at their May 8th meeting. Should the Board of Supervisors approve this request for a 5th Bright Stars program, staff will proceed to work on the final budget numbers with the School Division and incorporate the additional funding into the annual appropriation ordinance that will come to the Board in June for approval. 00.089 2 TO: FROM: SUBJECT: MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING Tuesday, April 04, 2000 Christopher Long, Mayor, Town of Scottsville, Virginia Edgar S. Robb, Sheriff of Albemarle County, Virginia Scottsville, Virginia Police Department o The Town of Scottsville agrees to establish it's own police department. The Town of Scottsville is now taking steps to establish police procedures and is now advertising for qualified police officers. The amended 1998-1999 tripartite agreement for law enforcement in Scottsville, Va. between Albemarle County, the Town of Scottsville, Va. and the Albemarle Sheriff's Office will remain until the Town of Scottsville hires a Town Sergeant, at which time the agreement will terminate or June 30,2000 which ever is first. Any amendments to this document by any party must be mutually agreed upon and must be in writing and attached to this agreement. Seen and Agreed: To~~ Sheriff of Albemarle County By: X~~yor~4~.~ r<Z> By:~ County// e le C. unty -V CC: Wyatt Shields, Scottsville Town Administrator Scottsville Town Counsil David R Bowerman Rio Lindsay G. Dottier, Jr. Charlotte Y. Humphris Jack Jouett COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Office of Board of Supervisors 401 Mclntire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 (804) 296-5843 FAX (804) 296-5800 Chades S. Martin Pdvanna Walter E Perkins W~te Hall Sally H. Thomas May 11,2000 The Honorable Christopher Long Mayor, Town of Scottsville Municipal Building 401 Valley Street PO Box 398 Scottsville, VA 24590 Dear Mr. Long: At the Board of Supervisors meeting on May 3, 2000, the Board authorized the County Executive to sign the proposed Memorandum of Understanding regarding the Town of $cottsville's establishment of a police department. Attached is a copy of the signed document. Sincerely, Ella W. Carey,'CMC Clerk ~// /EWC Attachment Cc: The Honorable Edgar S. Robb Wyatt Shields Printed on recpcled paper COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AGENDA TITLE: Memorandum of Understanding Regarding the Scottsville Police Department SU BJ ECT/PROPOSAL/REQU EST: Authorize County Executive to sign Memorandum of Understanding STAFF CONTACT(S): Tucker, Foley AGENDA DATE: May 3,2000 ACTION: CONSENT AGENDA: ITEM NUMBER: INFORMATION: ACTION: X INFORMATION: BACKGROUND: ATTACHMENTS: REVIEWED BY: Sheriff Ed Robb has been meeting with officials from the Town of Scottsville over the past several months regarding the provision of police protection. Through these discussions, the Town has determined that it can best meet its goals for police protection through the establishment of its own police department. Because the County currently has an agreement to provide these services to the Town, cancellation of the current agreement is necessary. DISCUSSION: The enclosed agreement, signed by both the Mayor of the Town and the Sheriff, establishes an understanding of the conditions for termination of the current agreement. RECOMMENDATION: Authorize the County Executive to sign the enclosed agreement. 00.093 To: ~rom: Subject= Date: Glenn E. Brooks, Senior Engineer Department of Engineering & Pu~ic~,~rorks Ella Washington Carey, Clerk, C~ Road Resolution ~ May 12, 2000" At its meeting on May 3, 2000, the Board of Supervisors adopted the following resolution: to accept Summer lane in Earlysville Meadows into the State Secondaw System of Highways. Attached is the original of the adopted resolution. ,qEWC Attachments cc: Bill Mawyer The Board of County Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, in regular meeting on the 3rd day of May, 2000, adopted the following resolution: RESOLUTION WHEREAS, the street(s) in Earlysville Meadows Subdivision described on the attached Additions Form SR-5(A) dated April 19, 2000, fully incorporated herein by reference, are shown on plats recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of Albemarle County, Virginia; and WHEREAS, the Resident Engineer for the Virginia Department of Transportation has advised the Board that the street(s) meet the requirements established by the Subdivision Street Requirements of the Virginia Department of Transportation. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Albemarle Board of County Supervisors requests the Virginia Department of Transportation to add the road(s) in Earlysville Meadows, as described on the attached Additions Form SR-5(A) dated April 19, 2000, to the secondary system of state highways, pursuant to-§33.1-229, Code of Virginia, and the Department's Subdivision Street Requirements; and. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Board guarantees a clear and unrestricted right- of-way, as described, and any necessary easements for cuts, fills and drainage as described on 5he recorded plats; and FURTHER RESOLVED 5hat a certified copy of this resolution be forwarded to the Resident Engineer for the Virginia Department of Transportation. Recorded vote: Moved by: Charlotte Humphris. Seconded by: Sally Thomas. Yeas: Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Dorrier, Ms. Humphris and Mr. Martin. Nays: None. A Copy Teste: CMC'Elia W. C i~e~. e~, Board of County S~fpgrvisors -I The roads described on Additions Form SR-5(A) are: 1) S,~er Lane from the intersection of Route 743 (Station 10+0)), to the cul-de-sac (Station 22+55) as shown on plat recorded 4/10/90 in the office the Clerk of Circuit Court of Albemarle County in Deed Book 1095, pages 666-668, and drainage easement plats dated 2/28/00, recorded in Deed Book, 1897, page 71 and 75; and drainage easement plat dated 4/17/00, recorded in Deed Book 1910, page 35; with a 50-foot right-of- way width, for a length of 0.24 mile. Total Mileage - 0.24 mile. MUNICIPAL CLERKS WEEK WH~RF_,A$, the Off~e of the Municipal Clerk, a time honored and vital part of local govem~mt, exists throughout the ~orld; and WHEREAS, the Od~ce of the Municipal Cleric is the oldest among public servants; and WHF, I~ E~, the Office of the Municipal Clerk provides the professional link between the citizens, the local governing bodies and agencies of government at other levels; and Wt-I~,I?EA$, Municipal Clerks have pledged to be ever mindful of their neutrali~ and impartiality, rendering equal service to all; and WHEREAS, the Municipal Clerk serves as the information center on functions of local government and community; WHEREAS, Municipal Clerks continually strive to improve the administration of the affairs of the Offtce of the Municipal Clerk through participation in education programs, seminars, vwrkshops and the annual meetings of their state, province, county and international professional organizations; NOW, THEREFORE, I, Charles S. Martin, Chairman, on behalf of the Albemarle Board of County Supervisors, do hereby recognize the veeek of April 30 through May 6, 2000, as MUNICIPAL CLERKS WEEK and further octend appreciation to our Municipal Clerks for the vital services thqy perform. Dated this 3rd day of May,.2000. CHAIRMAN ALBEMARLE BOARD OF COUNTY SUPER VISORS SMALL BUSINESS WEEK small businesses, defined as companies having fewer than 50 employees, create over 95 percent of our private sector jobs; and small businesses provide a significant portion of the real and personal property tax revenues for our region and a substantial amount of the goods and sereices our local citizens enjoy; and a week in May is traditionally designated as National Small Business Week; NOW, THEREFORE, L Charles S. Martin, Chairman, on behalf of the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors, do hereby recognize the week of May 8 through May 15, 2000, as SMALL BUSINESS WEEK and extend our sincere appreciation for the many exemplary small business employers who strive to buiM a better community and who work to ensure the economic growth and stabilRy of the region. CHAIRMAN ALBEMARLE BOARD OF COUNTY SUPER VISORS Wh~.re. gts, Who'ct~8, No*v, Therefore, EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES WEEK emergency medical services is a vital public service; and the members of emergency medical services teams are ready to provide lifesaving care to those in need twenty-four hours a day, seven days a week; and access to quaIi~y emergency care dramatically improves the survival and recoverer rate of those who experience sudden illness or in}u~y; and emergency medical services providers have traditionally served as the safety net of America's health care system; and emergency medical services teams consist of emergency physicians, emergency nurses, emergency medical technicians, paramedics, firefighters, educators, administrators, and others; and nationally, approximately tWo-thirds of all emergency medical semices providers are volunteer, and in Albemarle our emergency medical services system is totally dependent on volunteers; and the members of emergency medical services teams, ~hether career or volunteer, engage in thousands of hours of specialized training, and continuing education to enhance their lifesaving skills; and Albemarle County residents benefit daily from the knowledge and skills of these highly trained individuals; and it is appropriate to recognize the value and the accomplishments of emergency medical services providers by designating Emergency Medical Services Week; and injury prevention and the appropriate use of the emergency medical services ~ystem ~ill help reduce national health care costs; L Charles S. Martin, Chairman, on behalf of the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors, in recognition of this event, do hereby proclaim the ~eek of May 14 through May 20, 2000 as EMERG~ MEDICa~ SER VICES and encourage the community to observe this ~eek ~ith appropriate programs, ceremonies, and activities. Signed this 3rd day of May, 2000. CHAIRMAN ALBEMARLE BOARD OF COUNTY SUPER VISORS NATIONAl, NURSING ASSISTANT'S WEEK ~Nurse Assistants: Caring-Time To Make It Personal~ YV-HEREAS, the health and happiness of many eitizens residing in nursing homes and other long term care settings depend upon the professional and loving eare given by C~reer Nursing Assistants; and W31EREAS, Career NursingAssistants are instrnmental in promoting and safeguarding the physical, mental emotional, and spiritual health and well being ofthe residents and the residents' family; and WHEREAS, Nursing Assistants may be identified by a variety oftitles including~ but not fimited to, Nurse Assistant, Care Assistant, Home Care Aide, Caregiver, Geriatric Aide/Assistant, Resident Assistant, Restorative Aide; and VVltEREAS, Career Nursing Assistants are trained professionals who collaborate closely with other health care providers to provide quality care and elevate the status of their chosen voeation; and YV-HEREAS, the nursing homes and ageneirs providing long term care in this community are sponsoring activities in recognition of the contribution of aH Career Nursing Assistants and other direct care providers; NOW, THEREFORE, I, Charles S. Martin, Chairman, on behalfofthe Mbemarle Board of County Supervisors, eommend and applaud the dedieated efforts and the important eontributions of Career Nursing Assistants to the eitizens of this eommHnity by proelalming June l, 24)00 as Career NursingAssistants' Day and JUNE 1 THROUGH JUNE S~ 2000 NURSING ASSISTANTS' WEEK ~Caring-Time To Make It Personal~ and encourage aH the citizens of this community to join in recogHiz~ these important health care workers. CHAIRMAN ~kLREMARLE BOARD OF COUNTY SUPERVISORS BUSINESS APPRECIATION WEEK 2000 WHEREAS, the County of Albemarle is pleased to have a thriving base of business and industry to support the local economy; and WHE~S, these businesses provide essential employment opportunities for the citizens of the County of Atbemarle; and WI-IERF~S, these businesses provide local revenues from which the entire local citizenry benefit; and WHEREAS, these businesses make significant contributions in our communities to promote educational opportunities for our children and promote a variety of activities which increase the qualit~ of l~fe of the area; and WI-IEREAS, recognize and appreciate these businesses; NOW, THEREFORE, L Charles S. Martin, Chairman, on bchalfoftheAlbemarle County Board of Supervisors, do hereby recognize our t~cisting businesses, and by virtue of this proclamation give notice to our citizens that we are "Honoring a New Century of Business in Virginia", and further recognize the week of May 14 through May 20, 2000 as Business Appreciation Week in the County of Albemarle and extend our appreciation for the many businesses that strive to help make this a better community. ' ' CHAIRMAN ALBEMARLE BOARD OF COUNTY SUPER VISORS COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AGENDA TITLE: Year 2000 Draft Consolidated Plan for the HOME Consortium SU BJ ECT/PROPOSALIREQU EST: Summary of the draft housing goals for Planning District 10 localities. STAFF CONTACT(S): Tucker, White AGENDA DATE: May 3, 2000 ACTION: CONSENT AGENDA: ACTION: ATTACH M E NTS: REVIEWED BY: iTEM NUMBER: IN FORMATION: INFORMATION: X BACKGROUND: The Year 2000 Consolidated Plan sets the affordable housing and community development goals for the region and specifically guides the use of the Thomas Jefferson HOME Consortium funds managed by the Planning District Commission and the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds in the City of Charlottesville. The Consolidated Plan is a required document submitted to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development and is used to set forth the overall housing policy for the region that assists in the receipt of additional resources. Although a public hearing was not required, at the request of the Housing Committee the Board held a public headng on February 16, 2000 to receive public input on the Consolidated Plan relative to Albemarle's housing goals for the next three years. Public comment was received by AHIP, which has used Albemarle's annual HOME funds to rehabilitate 5 to 7 homes each year. Habitat for Humanity also spoke on the need for an affordable housing requirement within the growth areas. DISCUSSION: As part of the overall Consolidated Plan, the County must develop three-year broad goals and one-year measurable objectives, as well as identify potential funding sources for those goals and objectives. The attached "Summary of Local Goals", was developed by Planning District and County staff, in conjunction with local non-profits, i.e. AHIP and PHA. Albemarle's summary goals and objectives were also reviewed and approved by the Housing Committee at their April 26th meeting. The goals are broken down into six categories: Rehabilitation, Affordable Rental Housing, Land Use and Housing Development, Home Ownership, Community Development and Special Population Housing Needs. Under rehabilitation, approximately $74,000 of the $94,000 annual allocation will be used by AHIP to help leverage other funds to rehabilitate a minimum of 5 homes. Under Rental Housing, 7 rental units will be constructed by AHIP in their Treesdale project, a transitional housing facility that will provide affordable rental units for participants in the County's Family Self-Sufficiency (FSS) program through the Housing Office. HOME funds in the amount of $10,000 will be allocated to the affordable rental goal. Also, within the rental goal is an attempt to seek funding for the preservation of the Mod Rehab program units at Whitewood Village, that expires in 2002. The Land Use and Housing Development goal, which is a new category, addresses the need for affordable housing in the growth areas based on recommendations from the DISC committee. Assistance to First Time Homebuyers addresses the need to provide opportunities for graduates of the County's Homebuyers Clubs and $10,000 in annual HOME funds will be allocated to this priority. AGENDA TITLE: Year 2000 Draft Consolidated Plan for the HOME Consortium May 3, 2000 Page 2 The 5th section, Community Development, has been added this year to ensure that affordable housing preservation and production is a priority for this community and, therefore, will qualify as an eligible project in any future CBDG funding applications. The last category speaks to the housing needs of special populations and includes a one year objective to complete 4 rental units for victims of domestic violence, which is also part of AHIP's Treesdale project. Also included for your information are copies of the summary goals and objectives for the other localities in the Planning District. RECOMMENDATION: This does not require any action by the Board, but is provided for information only. The Planning District Commission will hold a public hearing on the consolidated plan for the region on Thursday, May 4th and subsequent to their approval, will be forwarding the final plan to HUD by May 15th. 00.088 DRAFT CONSOLIDATED PLAN for the THOMAS JEFFERSON HOME CONSORTIUM and the CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Introduction. The Consolidated Plan sets forth an overall plan to support community development needs, including housing needs, in the Thomas Jefferson Planning District and in the City of Charlottesville. The Planning District encompasses the counties of Albemarle} Fluvanna, Greene, Louisa and Nelson, and the City of Charlottesville. The Consolidated Plan is a required document, submitted to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, which specifically addresses the use of federal funds, including HOME Investment Partnership (HOME) funds received annually by the region through a 1993 Cooperation Agreement which was renewed in 1996, and Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds received annually by the City of Charlottesville. The member govermnents of the Thomas Jefferson Planning District, in the 1993 Cooperation Agreement, agreed on an equal share basis of HOME funds available to each participating government. The City of Charlottesville has been designated the lead agency for the HOME Consortium and the Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission the designated Program Manager for the Consortium. The Consolidated Plan is divided into four main sections: Housing and Homeless Needs Assessment; Housing Market Analysis; Strategic Plan; and Action Plan. With this Year 2000 Consolidated Plan, the.specific goals and objectives for the use of HOME funds in the region and CDBG funds in the City of Charlottesville are stated, as are the more general community development needs for each locality. Goals are stated in the Strategic Plan section, objectives are stated in the Action Plan. Following this Executive Summary are tables summarizing local and regional goals and objectives. These are intended to show the key elements of the Plan in a simple format. Housing and Homeless Needs. It is important to recognize that: Many residents pay 30% or more of their income for housing,, especially renters Overcrowding is a step closer to homelessness for many residents, especially rural citizens 2,314 housing units were reported substandard in the 1990 Census. -i- The federal Section 8 Program does assist low income residents in pay~n~th~¢ifferen'¢e~-~ between what they can afford and market rents, but demand for the Secti~h~o/~s~ throughout the Planning District is very high, and is complicated by a dwindling of private landlords willing to participate in the program. Homeownership for first-time homebuyers is an important need throughout the region, with Albemarle County being the least affordable for its residents The City of Charlottesville recognizes the need to increase homeownership as the percentage of rental units increases over those units owned by the occupants. Often the downpayment needed to purchase a home is the major impediment to many families. An additional impediment is credit worthiness - even with assistance,.many families are ineligible for mortgages due to high debt. Counseling such citizens is a significant need. The most crucial needs of the region's homeless population transitional housing for homeless individuals, especially substance abusers and the mentally ill, and emergency shelter for homeless families with children, including victims of domestic violence. Housing and Market Analysis. A general market inventory of housing in the Planning District shows that there is a continual demand for affordable housing. The demand for affordable housing is especially great in Charlottesville and Albemarle. There is a strong demand for rental properties, due, in large measure, to the small number of rental units. Throughout the Planning District 37% of all housing units are renter-occupied (according to the 1990 Census), but only 20% in Fluvanna County, 23% in Greene County, 20% in Louisa County, and 21% in Nelson County. In the City of Charlottesville, 58% of units are renter-occupied, followed by Albemarle County at 36%. Those residents spending more than 30% of their income on housing, either owner-occupied or renter-occupied, shows that 'housing is not affordable to that segment of the population. Greene County led the region with fully 19% of homeowners spending more than 30% of their income on housing; Fluvanna was a close second with 18% of homeowners in that category; Albemarle County was the lowest at 14%. Charlottesville led the region with 48% of their renters paying more than 30% of their income for housing, followed by Albemarle at 33%. 'Nelson County, at 22%, had the fewest renters paying 30% or more of their income on housing. Strategic Plan and Annual Action Plan. The following tables highlight the Strategic Plan goals for each locality and for the region, and the annual objectives from the Action Plan. -ii- JAUNT JAUNT, INC. 104 Keystone Place Charlottesville, VA 22902-6200 Robert W. Tucker, Jr. Albemarle County Executive 401 Mclntire Road charlottesville, VA 22902 Dear Bob, April 14, 2000 We are pleased to submit our Third Quarter Report for JAUNT services for FY00. The following is a summary of statistics for services in Albemarle County: 3r'd Quarter Estimated Actual (Jan-Mar) Trips Trips FY00 FY00 Agency 6,171 4,206 Urban Public 5,325 5,548 Rural Public 6,309 6,378 Night/Wknd 399 332 29 North 750 814 Total 18,954 17,278 Actual Trips ~ Estimated Actual Actual FY99 Hours Hours Hours 3rd Qtr FY00 FY00 FY99 4,493 2,225 1,732 1,846 5,760 2,196 2,247 2,265 5,654 2,947 3,197 2,877 123 248 151 75 756 844 855 843 16,786 8,460 8,182 7,906 Based on current financial and service information, we do not anticipate a budget shortfall at this time. Donna Shaunesey Executive Director CC: Juandiego Wade Clifford Buys Roxanne White Margaret Borwhat Phone: (804) 296-3184, (800) 36JAUNT * Operations (804) 296-6174 (Voice & TDD) * Fax: (804) 296-4269 otun of cott TuiIIe POST OFFICE BOX 398 401 VALLEY STREET SCOTTSVILLE, VIRGINIA 24590 Telephone: (804) 286-9267 Facsimile: (804) 286-6043 scottsville~earthlink.net Mayor CHRISTOPHER J. LONG Town Council JAMES P. HOGAN BARRY L. LONG CLAIRE MELLOW R. STEPHEN PHIPPS HAROLD A. PILLAR CRAIG N. STRATTON April 20, 2000 Ms. Ella Carey Clerk, Board of Supervisors 401 Mclntire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 24590 Dear Ms. Carey: On Monday, April 17, 2000, the Scottsville Town Council adopted the enclosed resolution concerning the placement of a fire station to serve the southern part of the County. If you would please distribute this to the Members of the Board. Thank you for your assistance in this and please call if I can be of assistance to you. Sincerely, Town Administrator BOARD OF SUPERVISORS q(eso£ution Scottsvi££e (Town Counci£ Urging the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors to consider the placement of a proposed new fire station at a location that will serve the widest area and greatest number of citizens of Southern Albemarle County. WHEREAS, the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors is currently considering different options for the placement of a new fire station to provide additional coverage for the southern portion of the County; and WHEREAS, the Scottsville Volunteer Fire Department currently responds to calls over an area in excess of ten miles from its station, and welcomes a new station that will assist them in serving the northern portions of this area; and WHEREAS, two options that have been discussed include land adjacent to Monticello High School and land adjacent to Walton Middle School; and WHEREAS, it is always desirable and a national goal of the Insurance Services Organization to place fire stations within five miles of all homes, wherever practical; and WHEREAS, the placement of a new station in the area near Carter's Bridge would satisfy that public purpose and national goal for fire safety for a wide area of southern Albemarle County, and assist the East Rivanna, North Garden, and Scottsville Fire Departments; and WHEREAS, a new station placed adjacent to Monticello High School is less than optimal, as a large portion of the five-mile response area for this station would overlay a five-mile response area from existing fire stations, while leaving a wide portion of southern Albemarle outside the five mile distance; therefore be it RESOLVED that the Town Council respectfully encourages the Board of Supervisors to weigh the advantages of placing the new fire station in the Carter's Bridge area, as it will provide a benefit to the largest under-served area; and be it RESOLVED FURTHER, that the Clerk of Council prepare a copy of this resolution to be delivered to the Albemarle Board of Supe~~ ~I)erate~ortant issue. Adopted: April 17, 2000 ~.kJ~ \[~l't I~ ~'///~t~/~ (--~ Christopher J: L~,(~-~ -- Dat~/ - / Attest: Wyat{ Shields~, ~lerk oi Council Edward L, Flippen eflippen~mwbb.com ~V[~GuIREWOOD$ BATTLE &BOOTHE LLP One James Center 901 East Cary Street Richmond, Virginia 23219-4030 Telephone/TDD (804) 775-1000 · Fax (804) 775-1061 Direct Dial: Direct Fax: (804) 775-4380 (804) 698-2098 April 24, 2000 Forrest R. Marshall, Jr. Chairman, Board of Supervisors Albemarle County 401 Mclntire Road Charlottesville, VA 22901 Joint Petition of NiSource, Inc., New Ni$ource, Inc. and Columbia Energy Group, State Corporation Commission Case No. PUA000024. Dear Chairman, Board of Supervisors: Pursuant to Paragraph (8) of the Order for Notice and Hearing issued on April 17, 2000, domt Petition of NiSource, Inc., New Ni$ource, Inc. and Columbia Energy Group, State Corporation Commission Case No. PUA000024, you are being provided a copy of that order. Please take note of its contents Very truly yours, Edward L. Flippen ELF/moc EnclOsure ,.,, >..-,, .L.J OF SUPERVISORS www. mwbb.com ' ALMATr · ATLANTA · BALTIMORE · BRIJSSliLS · CHARLOITE · CtIARLOTrF, SVlI~ · CmCAC, O · JAC, KSOIWII~ · MOSCOW · NORFOLK · RICI~MOND · TYSONS C, ORNF, R · WASltlNGION COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA STATE CORPORATION COMMISSION 0 420209 AT RICHMOND, APRIL 17, 2000 JOINT PETI~ION 'DFq :u ,!: ~5' NISOURCE INC., NEW NISOURCE INC. and COLUMBIA ENERGY GROUP For approval of agreement and plan of merger under Chaozer 5 of Title 56 of the Code of Virginia CASE NO. PUA000024 ORDER FOR NOTICE kN~ COMMENT On April 5', 2000, NiSource Inc. ("NiSource"), New NiSource Inc. ("New NiSource"), and Columbia Energy Group ("Columbia Energy") (collectively, the "Petitioners") filed a join5 petition requesting approval, pursuant to § 56-88.1 of the Code of Virginia, of a proposed transaction whereby Columbia Energy would merge into New NiSource. The proposed transaction will result in New NiSource acquiring control of Columbia ~nergy's wholly owned subsidiary, Columbia Gas of Virginia, Inc. ("Columbia Gas"). We are of the opinion that public notice should be given and interested persons should have the opportunity to comment and request a hearing on the joint petition. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT: (1) The Petitioners shall promptly make a copy of their joint petition and supporuing materials available to the public, who may obtain a copy of the joint petition, at no charge, by requesting it in writing from Petitioners' counsel at the address detailed below. (2) Any interested person wishing to comment on the joint petition shall, on or before May 18, 2000, address such written comments to: Joel H. Peck, Clerk, State Corporation Commission, c/o Document Control Center, P.O. Box 2118, Richmond, Virginia 23218. Such comments shall refer to Case No. PUA000024. (3) On or before May 18, 2000, any person desiring a hearing ~n this matter shall file a written request for hearing with Joel H. Peck, Clerk, State Corporation Commission, c/o Document Control center, P.O. Box 2118, Richmond, Virginia 23218, and shall refer in his or her reques~ to Case No. PUA000024. Any request for hearing shall detail reasons that such issues cannot be adequasely addressed in written comments. (4) simultaneously be sent to counsel for the Petitioners as follows: Edward L. Flippen, Esquire, McGuire Woods Battle & Boothe, One James Center, 901 East Cary Street, Richmond, Virginia 23219-4030. (5) The Commission Staff shall review the ]oint petition and shall file, on or before May 22, 2000, a report detailing tb.e results of its investigation. A copy of such comments and requests for hearing shall (6) The Petitioners shall respond to written interrogatories within seven (7) calendar days after receipt of same. Except as modified above, discovery shall be in accordance with Part VI of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, 5 VAC 5-!0-450 to -510. (7) On or before May 4, 2000, the Petitioners shall publish the following notice as display advertising (not classified) once in newspapers of general circulanlon in Columbia Gas' service territory: NOTICE OF JOINT PETITION OF NISOURCE INC., NEW NISOURCE INC., AND COLUMBIA ENERGY GROUP FOR APPROVAL OF AGREEMENT AND PLAN OF MERGER CASE NO. PUA000024 NiSource Inc. ("NiSource"), New NiSource Inc. ("New NiSource"), and Columbia Energy Group ("Columbia Energy") (collectively, the "Petitioners") filed a joint petition requesting approval of a proposed transaction whereby Columbia Energy would merge into New NiSource. The proposed transaction will result in New NiSource acquiring control of Columbia Energy's wholly owned subsidiary, Columbia Gas of Virginia, Inc. A copy of the above-referenced joint petition is available for inspection during regular business hours at the State Corporation Commission, Document Control Center, First Floor, Tyler Building, 1300 East Main Street, Richmond, Virginia. Interested persons may obtain a copy of the joint petition, at no charge, by requesting a copy in writing from Petitioners' counsel at the address set forth below. Comments on the joint petition must be submitted in writing to Joel H. Peck, Clerk, State Corporation Commission, P.O. Box 2118, Richmond, Virginia 23218, on or before May 18, 2000. Requests for hearing must al-so be received by the Clerk on or before May 18, 2000. Requests for hearing shall state why a hearing is necessary and why such issues cannot be adequately addressed in written commen~s. Ail correspondence should refer to Case No PUA000024. A copy of the comments or requests for hearing must also be sent to counsel for the Petitioners as follows: Edward L. Flippen, Esquire, McGuire Woods Battle & Boothe, One James Center, 901 East Cary Street, Richmond, Virginia 23219-4030. if no Sufficient requests for hearing are received, a formal hearing may not be held. NISOURCE INC., NEW NISOURCE INC., AND COLUMBIA ENERGY GROUP (8) The Petitioners shall forthwith serve a copy of this Order on the Chairman of the Board of Supervisors of any county and upon the Mayor or Manager of any county, city, or town, or equivalent officials in counties, towns, and cities having alternate forms of governmenn in the Commonwealth of Virginia. Sea-vice shall be made by first-class mail or personal delivery to the customary place of business or residence of the person served. (9) ~On or before May 26, 2000, the Petitioners and any interested person may file with the Clerk of the Commission any response to the Staff's Report. (I0) On or before May 18, 2000, the Petitioners shall provide the Commission with proof of not~ce required in Ordering Paragraphs (7) and (8). AN ATTESTED COPY HEREOF shall be sene by the Clerk of the Commission to: Edward L. F!ippen, Esquire, James C. Dimitri, Esquire, and Kodwo Ghartey-Tagoe, Esquire, McGuire Woods Battle & Boothe, One James Center, 901 East Cary Street, Richmond, Virginia 23219-4030; Peter V. Fazio, Jr., Esquire, Allan Horwich, Esquire, and Carrie J. Hightman, Esquire, Schiff Hardin & Waite, 6600 Sears Tower Building, Chicago, Illinois 60606; Sharon B. Heaton, Vice President and Depuzy General Counsel, and Benga L. Farina, Assistant 'General Counsel, Columbia Energy Group, 13880 Dulies Corner Lane, Herndon, Virginia 20171-4600; John A. Dudley, Senior Assistan5 Attorney General, Office of the Attorney General, Division of Consumer Counsel, 900 East Main Street, Second Floor, Richmond, Virginia 23219; and the Commission's Divisions of Public Utility Accounting, Energy Regulation, and Economics and Finance. From: Subject: Date: Members, Board of Supervisors Ella Washington Carey, CMC, ~r~ Reading List for May 3, 2000 ~- April 28, 2000 HFHOI AHDUH November 3, 1999 November 18 (A), 1999 January 5, 2000 February 2, 2000 February 9, 2000 February 16, 2000 March I, 2000 March 8, 2000 Mr. Martin Ms. Thomas pages 16 (Item # 14a) - end - Ms. Humphris pages 18 (Item #9) - end - Ms. Thomas Mr. Dorrier Mr. Martin Pages I- 17 (end Item 10) - Mr. Dorrier Pages 17 (Item 10) - end - Ms. Humphris Mr. Perkins March 5, 2000 Mr. Bowerman /~WC David P. Bowerman Rio Lindsay G. Dottier, Jr. Scottsville Charlotte Y. Humphfis &~.k Jouett COUNTY OF AIREMARLE Office of Board of Supervisors 401 Mclntim Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 (804) 296-5843 FAX (804) 296-5800 Charles S. Martin Rivanna Walter E Perkins White I-{ali Sally H. Thomas Samue~ Miller May l2,2000 Ms. Angela G. Tucker Resident Engineer 701 VDOT Way Charlottesville, VA 22911 Dear Ms. Tucker: At its meeting on May 3, 2000, the Board of Supervisors took the following actions and comments regarding transportation matters: · In response to a request from Wilson Cropp to look at different options for maintenance of Route 769, Rocky Hollow Road, you indicated that you would be willing to meet with the property owner, who has not granted the easement, to see if something can be worked out. Mr. Martin stated that he would also be willing to meet with you and the property owner. · Adopted the attached resolution to accept Summer Lane in Earlysville Meadows Subdivision into the State Secondary System of Highways. · Authorized staff to begin the necessary steps to officially request VdoT to restrict through trucks on Route 743 between Route 631 and Route 608. · Adopted the attached resolution regarding the Route 250 West Study. · Mr. Perkins thanked you for reducing the speed limit on Route 810 and for the extensive brush cutting. He asked that VDoT look at cutting some overhanging brush on Route 680. · Mr. Dottier asked VdoT to look at other areas on Route 20 South where the speed limit could be reduced from 55 mph to 45 mph. You responded that the entire corridor is being. reviewed and you will advise the Board after the study has been completed. · Ms. Thomas thanked you for your assistance with Morgantown Road. /EWC cc: Robert W. Tucker, Jr. Tom Foley V. Wayne Cilimberg Printed on recycled paper COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AGENDA TITLE: Truck Restriction on Earlysville Road (Route 743) SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Request to restrict trucks on Earlysville Road (Route 743) STAFF CONTACT(S): Messrs. Tucker, Foley, Cilimberg, Benish, Wade BACKGROUND: AGENDA DATE: May 3,2000 ACTION: ITEM NUMBER: INFORMATION: CONSENT AGENDA: ACTION: X X INFORMATION: ATTACHMENTS: Yes REVIEWED BY: A resident on Earlysville Road has requested VDOT and the County to restrict through trucks for a section of Route 743 between Route 606 and Route 631 (Attachment A). The guidelines for truck restrictions on State maintained roads can be found in Attachment B (in italics). If the Board decides to request this through truck restriction, VDOT will conduct an evaluation of the request based on these criteria. Also included in Attachment B is staff's preliminary assessment of this request to determine if there is a reasonably possibility of qualifying for the restriction. It appears that it could meet a majority of the evaluation criteria. The Board of Supervisors will have to determine if a public hearing should be held for this request. VDOT policy requires the locality to hold a public hearing for any request for through truck restriction. The Commonwealth Transportation Board, however, makes the final determination on all truck restriction requests. It should be noted that, while this a request from one individual, Supervisor Bowerman has indicated that others on the road have expressed their support for formal truck restrictions. DISCUSSION: According to staff review, the through truck restriction on Route 743 could meet four of VDOT's five criteria. Trucks with a destination or origination within the restricted road section are not prohibited from travel along the posted section. Based on staff's review of the through truck restriction criteria, this request appears to be a reasonable and justifiable request for Commonwealth Transportation Board's consideration. The alternative truck route would consist of Routes 606, 649, 29, and 631 and is more suitable than the current route because of the volume of truck traffic. As is noted in the attached information, the volume of truck traffic on the current route exceeds VDoT's guidelines. If authorized by the Board of Supervisors, staff will take the necessary steps to officially request VDOT to restrict through trucks on Route 743 between Route 606 and Route 631. This will include a County public hearing, an evaluation by VDoT and ultimately, approval from the Commonwealth Transportation Board. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Board of Supervisors authorize staff to begin the necessary steps to officially request VDoT to restrict through trucks on Route 743 between Route 631and Route 606. The first step would be for the Board of Supervisors to hold a public hearing. pc: Ms. Angela G. Tucker 00.081 ATTACHMENT B VDOT THROUGH TRUCK RESTRICTION EVALUATION CRITERIA Reasonable alternate routing is provided. To be considered "reasonable", the altemate route(s) must be engineered to a standard sufficient for truck travel. The effect on the alternate routing will be evaluated for traffic and safety related impacts. If an alternate contains a Secondary route that must be upgraded, funds must be provided from the county secondary construction funds. The termini of the proposed restriction must be identical to the alternate routing and effectively equivalent to allow a time and distance comparison to be conducted between the two routings. Also, the altemate routing must not create an undue hardship for trucks in reaching their destination. The request for the through truck restriction came from a resident that lives in the 2800 block of Earlysville Road (Rt. 743). This area is located south of the Airport and north of the reservoir. The requested restriction would cover Earlysville Road (Route 743) between Dickinson Road (Route 606) and Rio Road (Route 631). This proposed restricted area is approximately 4 miles. The closest reasonable alternate route would be Dickinson Road (Route 606), Airport Road (Route 649), Seminole Trail (Route 29) between Airport Road and Rio Road (Route 631), and Rio Road. It is a distance of approximately 6 miles. Staff considers this a reasonable alternate route, which is likely to meet the above criteria. The road requested for restriction is functionally classified as local or collector. Route 743 is classified as a major collector between Route 606 and Route 631, therefore, meets this criterion. The character and/or frequency of the truck traffic on the route proposed for restriction is not compatible with the affected area. According to VDOT's guidelines, a road with total traffic volumes over 4,000, such as Rt. 743, should have a total truck volume of at least 200 trips per day to meet the criteria. VDOT considers this truck volume the "total" truck volume and not the "through' truck volume. The highest daily traffic on the proposed restricted area is 11,000 vehicle trips per day. The highest average daily truck traffic on the proposed through truck restriction area is 330. Staff believes that the truck traffic on the route proposed for restriction is not compatible with the affected area. The engineering of the roadway and/or the accident history of the route proposed for restriction indicates that it is not suitable for truck traffic. The road width along the proposed restricted area is between 22 and 20 feet. It is staff's position that this road may be too narrow for the amount of existing truck traffic. The curvature of the road is also a limiting factor in supporting this volume of truck traffic, particularly given the total traffic volumes and speed of the traffic on this section of road. It is staff's belief that this proposed restriction meets this criterion for through truck restriction. Within 150' of the existing or proposed roadway centerline, there must be at least 12 dwellings per 1000 feet of roadway. This criterion is rarely met outside urban or suburban settings. This restriction request does not meet this criterion. Summary: Failure to satisfy at least three of the five criteria will normally result in the rejection of the requested restriction. According to staff review, the through truck restriction on Route 743 meets four of VDOT's five criteria. Deer Ridge 2855 Earlysville Road Earlysville VA 22936 February I0, 2000 David Bowerman I live at 2855 Earlysville Road, Earlysville, Virginia 22936. My home phone number is 804-973-2811. I'm writing to express my concerns about the increased volume of large trucks using Earlysville Road, Route 743. This increased traffic volume of large trucks causes me to request the local board of supervisors to hold a public hearing. My concerns are: 1. Earlysville Road is a popular bikers' route 2. Earlysville Road is a curvy rural road with numerous school bus stops 3. In many places on this route two large trucks have difficulty staying in their lane while passing 4. Earlysville Road is a residential single family community area 5. Large 18-wheeler trucks are using Earlysville Road to reach Federal Express and the US Postal Service on Airport Road 6. Airport Road (Route 649) is the alternate route these large tracks could use to deliver to the Charlottesville-Albemarle Airport, US Postal Service on Rt. 649 and the Federal Express office on Rt. 606 7. Earlysville Road runs parallel with Rt. 29 North from Charlottesville, Virginia. It seems that many of the large macks enter on Rt. 649 from Rt. 29 and travel south to Charlottesville, using Rt 743 (Earlysville Road) Because of these concerns, I wish to restrict through traffic of Earlysville Road in accordance with Section 46.1-171.2 of the code of Virginia. Please let me knowifyou can assist me and correct this public safety issue. Sincerely, · ./ Route 250 West Corridor Study Resolution WHEREAS, the Virginia Department of Transportation's consultants have completed their study of the Route 250 West corddor and have issued a final report dated January, 2000; and WHEREAS, the report presents an "engineering recommendation" to the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors, which recommends construction of a four-lane highway from the Charlottesville City line west to Mechums River, and maintenance of the present two-lane configuration from Mechums River west to the Yancey Mills intersection with Interstate 64 (the western termination point of the study). The report also recommends a sedes of six short-range improvements; and WHEREAS, VDOT has committed to defer to the Board of Supervisors to make the final decision about the future of the Route 250 West corridor, based on the VDOT study, its engineering recommendations, input from the Citizens Advisory Committee and members of the public, and a balancing of all relevant factors, including traffic flow, impacts on the scenic and histodc values of the corridor, costs, and personal and visual impacts to those living on and using the corridor; and WHEREAS, Route 250 West is a Scenic Virginia Byway with significant historic, natural, and scenic qualities. The proposed widening would destroy the very qualities that make the Route 250 West corddor so special to Albemarle County citizens. As arguments against the widening point out, Interstate 64 parallels Route 250 West and provides an alternate, fast-moving and free-flowing route into the City. As the consultant's traffic projections demonstrate, widening Route 250 West would act as a "traffic magnet," significantly increasing vehicle tdps. There is also concern that widening would foster an increase in commercial and other developments along the corridor; and WHEREAS, public opposition to widening the corddor has been overwhelming. The Citizens Advisory Committee appointed by the Board of Supervisors has voted unanimously to oppose widening of the roadway. At the VDOT public meeting in February, 1999, approximately 90 percent of the attendees opposed proposals to widen the roadway. In addition, public opposition has been expressed by hundreds of Albemarle County citizens who have signed formal petitions or participated individually or through their organizations at the public hearing of the Board of Supervisors on September 15, 1999. In addition, neither the public nor the Citizen Advisory Committee had what the Board of Supervisors' regard as adequate opportunity to review and comment on the consultant's recommended short-range improvements; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that having reviewed the Route 250 West corridor study and having received public input from the Citizens Advisory Committee and other individual citizens of Albemarle County, the Board of Supervisors takes the following action with regard to the Route 250 West corridor: (1) Reject the consultant's engineering recommendation as it relates to widening Route 250 West for that section of the corddor between the Route 29/Route 250 Bypass and Mechums River, and commit the County to preserve the community, scenic, and rural character of the corridor, and, to that end, to maintain the present two-lane configuration of the corridor from the Route 291Route 250 Bypass intersection west to the County line. To ensure implementation of this decision, the Board of Supervisors directs its representatives on the Charlottesville/Albemarle MPO to ensure that future CATS plans and other local transportation plans affecting Albemarle County clearly state the County's commitment to maintain the two-lane configuration of the corddor from the Route 29/Route 250 Bypass west; and -1- (2) Propose that any short term or spot improvements on the Route 250 West corridor be as non-intrusive and as consistent as possible with the special character of this Scenic By-way; and (3) Do not adopt any of the proposed short-range improvements recommended in the Route 250 West corddor study. AND FURTHER RESOVLED, that the Board of Supervisors will: (1) Appoint a citizens committee to review and make recommendations to the Board of Supervisors with regard to all proposals for dealing with spot problems (including additional traffic lights) on the Route 250 West corridor; and (2) Review, with public participation, each proposal pdor to approval or inclusion in any request for funding. Since the County's Six-Year Pdmary Road Improvement Plan has for several years included, under Safety Projects, improvements to Route 250 West along the business corddor in Ivy, the committee's review should start with that area as well as the area of the intersection at Tilman Road. I, Ella W. Carey, do hereby certify that the foregoing writing is a true, correct copy of a resolution adopted by the Board of County Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia at a regular meeting held on May 3, 2000. '"-'CTe~:k,Board of County Supe~s -2- BOARD -TO -BOARD May 3, 2000 -10:30 a.m. A Monthly Communications Report of activities from the Albemarle County School Board to the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors. Recent Highlights: School Board Briefs (Attachments 1 and 2) - April 10, and April 24, 2000 The School Board adopted the 2000-200 ! School Division Calendar. School will begin on August 28 and, depending upon weather, will end on June 8. Ten inclement weather days are included in the calendar. The calendar is available on the k 12.albemarle.org website. The Cale Redistricting Committee has presented its proposal to the Superintendent. The School Board will receive the Superintendent's Spot Redistricting Report on Cale Elementary School at its May 8 meeting and will approve an implementation plan in June for the 2000-2001 School Year. The Board approved a rate increase for High School Summer Program Rates from $175 to $185 for a three-week period and from $350 to $370 for a six-week period. This program is a self-sustaining program and pays for itself. The reason for the increase is due to staff salaries and materials. The Board met with local legislators on April 14 to discuss the outcome of the General Assembly Session on Education-Related Bills. The next meeting is scheduled for May 12 and the agenda will include school safety. The 2000-2001 School Calendar Handbook is being revised. The handbook features student artwork, Division rules and regulations, and important meeting dates. The finalized calendar will be sent to more than 12,000 students and their parents in early August. Corporate sponsorship is needed for the calendar. For additional information, please contact Bobbi Hughes at 296-5888. The May 8, 2000 School Board meeting will begin at 6:00 p.m., instead of 6:30 p.m. in the County Office Building Auditorium due to 137 student recognition awards being presented to students who placed first, second, or third in a regional, state, or national event. The Board is reviewing two Board policies relating to School Admission and School Attendance Areas. Proposed revisions would require parents of students attending school out of the established attendance area to provide transportation to and from school. The Board supported a change to policy that would allow these students to use Division transportation from established stops at an existing bus stop on a space available basis. The Board will take public testimonv and possible action at its May 8 meeting. This past Monday night, the Board finalized its budget for FY 2000- 2001. In the budget, the Board was able to support many critical instructional needs we discussed with you during the budget process, including needs related to literacy, gifted education, and technology. The Board was also able to maintain a competitive compensation structure. The School Board is deeply appreciative of your support of its budget. Future The Board will receive a report on the pilot program for Administrators and Teacher Evaluations in May. These plans will be completing a one-year testing phase. The Board ,will receive a report in May on changing its School Board meeting day from Monday to Thursday in Room 241, effective January 2001. In addition, the Board is also changing the way it receives public testimony at Board meetings, with public input taken on information items rather than action items. The School Board Retreat will be June 19 and will focus on the School Board/Superintendent Evaluation, 1999-2000 Board/Superintendent Priorities Evaluation, and Overview of Planning for the 2000-2001 priorities. A Special Meeting has been scheduled for July 12 to work on the 2000-2001 priorities. The Board will review Policy KG, Community Use of School Facilities over the summer. The policy includes how organizations are classified, which determines the rate that fees are charged for their use of school facilities. Currently, the Division receives $44,000 in income each year from building rental.. 3 ALBEMARLE COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS BOARD BRIEFS ~llso available at http://k12.albemarle.org "WE' EXPECT SUCCESS" SCHOOL BOARD MEETING:. April 10,,2000 SCHOOL DIVISION CALENDAR The Board approved the 2000-2001 School Division Calendar. The calendar features a school opening date of August 28, a Wrater Break from December 22-January 2,-a Spring Break from April 16-20, and up to 10 inclement weather make-up days. Depending upon weather, school could end as early as June 8. The calendar will be sent to principals this week and is enclosed. The calendar is available on the division website. BOARD ACTION AND ACTIVITIES The Board expelled five Sutherland Middle School students for vandalism for the remainder of the school year. The Board chose not to support a Resolution of Recommendation to the Board of Supervisors regarding its current deliberations of the 2000-200I Budget and how funds for schools should be generated. The Board of Supervisors adopted a tax increase and its budget on April 12. The School Board's tentative April 26 Budget Work Session has been rescheduled to Monday, May I at 5:30 p.m., in Room 241 of the County Office Building. The Board may adopt its 2000-2001 Budget at that time. The Board will receive information about the budget at its April 24 Work Session. The School Board Retreat will be held June 19, 2000, 4:00 to 9:00 p.m. Madison Cummings and Diantha McKeel will serve as the Retreat Committee. A special meeting has been scheduled for July 12, 2000 to work on the 2000-2001 Board/Superintendent Priorities. The Board approved the Year-to-Date Financial Report, February29, 2000 as presented. The Board released the remaining 4.5 of the 7.5.percent holdback or $271,875 for schools and departments to use for operational needs. The Redistricting Committee will offer recommendations to the Superintendent at the end of April regarding spot redistricting for Cale Elementary School. The Committee held a public input session on April 12 at 7:00 p.m. at Cale. The Committee will meet again on April 25 at 6:30 p.m. in the County Office Building. The Board will receive the Superintendent's recommendations at its May 8 meeting. A Textbook Selection and Adoption Report for Grades 9-12 Math Textbooks for Geometry was reviewed. Textbooks/materials are available for a 30+-dayreview (April Il-May22) at the Albemarle Resource Center. Public testimony regarding textbook selection will' be heard at the May 22, 2000 Board meeting before the Board takes action. The Board will meet with local legislators on Friday, April 14, 12:00 p.m. in Room 235 to discuss the 2000 General Assembly Session on Education-Related Issues. In addition, the StaMar& ocQua/~y will be discussed. After the meeting, the Board will hold a special meeting to discuss and possibly take action on Policy KG, C0,mam~ Use ocSotod Facilities, The Board adopted a Resolution of Appreciation, honoring Western Albemarle High School Baseball and the field that will be dedicated on April 21, 2000 at 7:00 p.m. The Board noted that the resolution is for today's athletes, the dreams of tomorrow's warriors, and the spirit of the community. The Board accepted with regret the resignation of Mr. Tim Frazier, Principal of Murray Elementary School. Mr. Frazier has accepted a position in Southhampton, New York as a middle school principal, effective July l, 2000. The Board asked that staff provide a final report on the construction costs of Monticello High School, including whether funds were transferred to other school projects. SPECIAL EDUCATION ANNUAL PLAN AND ADVISORY COMMITTEE The Board received the 1999-2000 Special Education Advisory Report recommendations for the education of children with disabilities. The 2000-2001 Special Education Plan, the agreement between the School Board and the state Board of Education for the implementation of federal and state laws governing special education and related services, was approved bythe Board. The Board requested additional information on the incongruent regulations between the state and federal government and what needed to be done to correct this problem. Ccp~ oct/me m are azuilabte for redewin the Clerk's ~ice at 972-4055. 2001 SLIMMER SCHOOL PROGRAM The Board approved increasing fees for the High School Summer Program. As a result of the 5.5% increase, County residents will pay $185.00 for a three-week session (a $10 increase) and $370 for a six-week session (a $20 increase). Non'Countyresidents will pay $210 for a three-week session and $420 for a six-week session. Registration is set for April 24, 2000. Please call the Department of Federal Programs at 296-5812 for further information or risk the Division website. ACADEMIC LEADERSHIP COMPENSATION PROGRAM At its March 13, 2000 meeting, the Board requested additional information about the following-three programpositions: L ..Parent-Teacher Organization (PTO) Liaison 2. Public Relations Coordinator 3. School Climate/Care and Share Coordinator School principals and staff recommend that the positions remain a school option in the program. After lengthyBoard discussion, the - Board chose to leave the three positions as a part of the Academic Leadership Compensation Program and asked that-their comments be shared with the Leadership Team. STANDARDS OF QUALITY The Board received a report on the Virginia Standards of Quality and authorized the Chairman and Superintendent to sign and send the affidavit to the Virginia Department of Education. The seven standards in the report are as follows: Standard 1: Personnel Standard 2: Standard 3: Standard 4: Certificates Standard 5: Standard' 6: Standard 7: Basic Skills, Selected Programs, and Imtmctional Support Services Accredkation, Other Standards, and Evaluation Literacy'Passport Tests, Diplomas, and Training and Professional Development Planning and Public Involvement School Board Policy Manual Please call 972-4055for more ir~orrratior~ COMMENDATIONS 1. Chris Jones, a fifth grade student at Hollymead Elementary School, was selected to present a letter he wrote to the President addressing safe schools. Students were invked to write the President through an article in Sdodas~ Neus last October. Chris' teacher, Mrs. Lyrmette '~rflk, and Chris' parents, Keith and Sheila Jones, accompanied Chris to Washington, D.C, on Saturday, March 6th, where Chris joined Mr. Clinton for his weekly radio address and then met with him in the Oval Office where he presented his 'letter. 2. The Burley Middle ~chool MathCounts Team received the third place trophy at the Skyline Chapter Regional MathCounts Competition held at Blue Ridge Community College on February 19, 2000. Team members were Samantha Fladd, 7th grader, and Don Nomm, Patrick Johnson and Noel Greet, 8th graders. Don Norum also received the first place individual trophy and will represent our region at the State MathCounts Co. repetition in Richmond on March 25dl. The Burley MathCounts team sponsor was Pat Cates, Gifted Resource Teacher. David KLm and Noah Cates, seniors at Western Albemarle High School, coached the team. The Sixth Annual 24 Challenge Was held February 24, 2000 at JackJouett Middle School. This event was co-sponsored by the Jefferson Council of Teachers of Mathematics, the Albemarle County Schools, Charlottesville City Schools, and Teacher's Edition. The object of the 24 Challenge is to obtain the number 24 using addition, subtraction, multiplication or division' using.~dt four 'numbers'on each card/' but using each number only once. Ouistopher Hudspeth, a sixth grade student at BurleyMiddle School, placed second in the competition. The Marketing students recently participated in the District Leadership Conference held in Harrisonburg, Virginia. The following students won ave~rds in their area of Marketing: Tabitha Johnson participated in the area of Retail Merchandising Management Level. She received 1st place exam as well as 3~d place Support Activities. Trent Whiting participated in the area of Food Marketing Management Level. He received 1~t place exam, 2na place Personal Selling, 2na place Economic, and 2~a place Overall. Kermy Roston participated in the area of Quick-Serve Restaurant Management. He' received 3~a place in Basic & Social. Tahirah Ansariparticipated in Full Service Restaurant Management. She received 1*t place Exam, 3d place Management & Supervision, and 3~a place Overall. Patrick Bridges participated in Food Marketing Associate Level. He received 3d place Basic & Social. Ivlike Sadler participated in Vehicles and Petroleum. He received 3d place Basic & Social, 1't place Support Activkies and 3~a place Overall. Monticello High School students Catherine Orr, Dan Kachur, and Nadia Sepsenwol, and Albemarle High School students Brerma Carswell, Karen Philhour, Anna Hall, Deborah Johnson, Yolanda Coles, Jimmy Long, Scott Early, and Ben Evers were selected for All Virginia Chorus during auditions at the District Choir Festival. These students, along with others from across Virginia, will participate in rehearsals and performances in late April in northern Virginia. Each year, Albemarle County participates in the Scripps Howard Spelling Bee sponsored by the Richmond-Times Dispatch. This competition is open to students in grades 1-8 and participation is optional for schools. This year, 13 elementary schools and three middle schools participated in the competitior~ Glassroomspelling bees and school wide spelling bees took place in the schools late January and February. The winner in each of the schools competed in the Albemarle County Spelling Bee on February 23, 2000 at Woodbrook Elementary School. The County Spelling Bee was won by Alexandra Osvath, a fourth grade student at Broadus Wood Elementary School. Alexandra participated in the Virginia State Spelling Bee on Sunday, April 9, 2000, at Mary Munford Elementary School in Richmond. August September October 14-18 21-25 November 3 7 22-24 27 December 22-29 January 1-2 3 15 ALBEMARLE COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS 2000-2001 CALENDAR Mon.-Fri. 3-Day New Teacher Orientation (For Elementary: Mon. (8/14) -Wed. (8/16) For Secondary: Wed. (8/16)- Fri. (8/18)) Mon.-Fri, - - --School Planning Days--.(For Elementary on Tuesday (8/22) and Secondary on Wednesday (8/23) PM is for Lead Teachers and selected others to meet with Coordinators.) 28 Monday Schools Open - First Day for Students 4 Monday Labor Day- Schools Closed 10 Tuesday End of 6 Week Grading Period 18 Wednesday Early Release for Central Staff Development ,(No students in the afternoon.) (Parent conferences will be scheduled by November 10. Conference,schedules for each school will be listed in the Division Calendar/Handbook. Conference schedules will include evening hours. The number of hours scheduled for conferences will be equivalent to a normal contractual day.) Friday End of 9 Week Grading Period Tuesday · Election Day- School Planning Day Wed.-Fri. Thanksgiving Holiday- Schools Closed Monday End of 6 Week Grading Period Fri.-Fri. Winter Break - Schools Closed Mon.-Tues. Winter Break continues - Schools Closed Wednesday Class Resumes Monday · Lee-Jackson-King Day- School Planning Day and Reading Day for Semester Exams (Lead Teachers and selected others to meet w/Coordinators. Elementary - AM, Secondary - PM) 22 Monday · School Planning.Day, End of 6.& 9 Week Grading Period/End of First Semester (Second semester parent conferences will be established by each school based on community preferences and the level and organization of the school.) February 19-20 Mon.-Tues. 21 .Wednesday March 8 Thursday 14 Wednesday 29 Thursday 30 Friday April 16-20 Mon.-Fri. 27 Friday May 28 Monday June 6 Wednesday. 7 Thursday 8 Friday 11 Monday President's Day Holiday- Schools Closed n School Planning Day '~ End of 6 Week Grading Period Early Release for Central Staff Development (No students in the afternoon.) End of 9 Week Grading Period School Planning Day Spring Break - Schools Closed End of 6 Week Grading Period Memorial Day- Schools Closed TBA Graduation TBA Graduation End of Grading Periods o Last Scheduled Day of School, TBA Graduation School Planning Day · = School closed for students, unless it is scheduled and used as a Make-Up Day, (~). = Scheduled Make-Up Day. Make-Up Days will be taken in the following order: February 21, February 20, February 19, March 30, June 11,-June- 12,- May.'28, June t~3, .June 14, June 1~5. I~lote:'-¢'Parnilies and staff should plan accordingly. n = If February 21 is used as a Make-Up Day, then the scheduled School Planning Day will be on February 20. If February 20 is used as a Make-Up Day, then the scheduled School Planning Day will be on February 19. Note: Staff should plan accordingly. Veteran teachers receive 5 days and new teachers receive 2 days for meetings, conferences, and other teacher commitments. School Planning Days: These days are for work in schools. At the principal's discretion, up to 50% of the day can be used for meetings, curriculum mapping, planning, and other activities related to School Improvement Plans. Final 4110100 ALBEMARLE COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS BOARD BRIEFS Also available at http://k12.albemarle, org "WE EXPECT SUCCESS" SCHOOL-BOARD MEETING:. April 24, 2000 BOARD ACTION AND ACTIVITIES The Board expelled two students for the remainder of the school year. A Monticello High School student was expelled.for chronic and willful disobedience, .and an Albemarle High School student was expelled for being in possession of a controlled substance. The Board accepted with regret the resignation of Fulton Marshall, Principal of Greer Elememary School, effective June 30. Mr. Marshall will retire after 35 years of service to Albemarle County Public Schools. After a 30-plus day review at the Albemarle Resource Center, the Board approved the Grades 6-12 textbooks and trade books for Language Arts. The Board offered input on the proposed 2000-2001 School Calendar Handbook, which will feature student artwork, Division rules and regulations, and important meeting dates. The finalized calendar will be sent to more than 12,000 students and their parents in early August, before school begins. Sponsorship is needed for the calendar. If you are interested in contributing, please contact Bobbi Hughes at 296-5888. The May 8, 2000 Board meeting will begin at 6:00 p.m., instead of 6:30 p.m. in the County Office Building Auditorium due to 137 student recognition awards being presented to students who placed first, second, or third in a regional, state, or national event. The Board will receive a report regarding the After School Enrichment Program (Before and After School program) at its Special Meeting on. May 1, 5:30 p.m., in Room 241. The Board mayalso adopt its 2000-2001 Budget at that time. In addition, the Board will decide whether to participate in the Blue Ridge Virtual Governor's School, with seven other school divisions that will serve area high school students. The Boitrd endorsed inviting Mr. Kirk Schrode~, President of the Virginia Department of Education to visk the Division in the near future. The Redistricting Committee will offer ks recommendations to the Superintendent on April 27 regarding spot redistricting for Cale Elementary School. The Committee held a public input session on April 12 at 7:00 p.m. at Cale. The Board will receive the Superintendent's recommendations at its May 8 meeting. The Board reconsidered its April I4 meeting decision and approved the reclassiicafion Status of the YMCA as a Type I Youth Organization as defined in PolicyKG, Ca:rm'ur~ Use of Sdaod Fadlities. The YMCA provides summer program services to county students, using school facilities. The Board will review the policy dining the summer. POLICY JC, SCHOOL ATTENDANCE AREAS AND POLICY JEC, SCHOOL ADMISSION The Board received proposed revisions to these policies that would require parents of students attending school out of the established attendance area to provide transportation to and from school. The Board supported a change to policythat would allow these students to use Division transportation from established stops on an existing bus route on a space available basis. The Board will take public testimony and possible action at its May 8 meeting. BUDGET COMMITTEE PROVIDES REPORT The Board accepted the Report of the Budget Review Committee for information. The Committee is exploring the following: 1. Multiple year budgeting; 2. Revisiting the local revenue allocation agreement between the School Board and Board of Supervisors; 3. Re~iew of the Division's Capital Improvements Program; 4. Development of a detailed school and department level budgeting process; and 5. Identification and establishment of a peer group of similar school divisions for comparative and ongoing budget analysis. AGNOR HURT ELEMENTARY SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM Dr. Diane Behrens, Principal of Agm;r Hurt Elementary School, highlighted the following in the School Improvement P~ogram: 1. Standar& 0fLearrdngreading test scores for Grades 1-5. 2. Earlylntervention Programs that include Bright Stars Program, PALS, and Kindergarten programs.' Character Counts Program that addresses the challenges that youth face today with their character development, emphasizing trustworthiness, respect, responsibility, fairness, caring, and ckizemhip. Agnor-Hurt's schoolimprovement goals include the following: All schools will promote a healthy and inviting school climate in which all students will be prepared to participate in a democratic society as responsible citizens, workers, and family members, demonstrating the adopted values of the Board. After school procedures will be improved to ensure student safety by 1) limiting access to the building; 2) improving communication with parents; and 3) providing training for after-school personnel. 90% of the children in Grades K-5 will meet or exceed the grade-level benchmarks as set by the county and will pass the Language Arts section of the Virginia State Standards qTLeam/ngtest. 4. 80% of the students in Grades 1-5 will be on/above grade level in math by May 2000. 2000-2001 PROPOSED BUDGET On April 13, the School Board scheduled a Special Work Session for Monday, May 1 to address the adoption of an Operating Budget for FY 2000-2001. Based on updated State and Federal revenue projections and the decision bythe Board of Supervisors to increase the real estate tax rate, the following revenue changes have occurred since the Board adopted its Preliminary Funding Request: 1. State revenues have increased by approximately $400,000. Local revenues have increased by approximately $837,000, although the effective increase to the School Division is $774,000 because $63,000 of the $837,000 increase is a transfer from local government for a Strategic Planning Coordinator. (This position will exclusively serve local government and the cost of this position will be fially borne by local government. However, the position will be shown as an expense in the School Division budget.) 3. Federal revenues (for Special Education) have increased by apprbximately $106,000. In addition, some previously anticipated expenditures will be reduced, as follows: 1. Projected expenditures for medical insurance have decreased by approximately $436,000. 2. Projected expenditures for VRS have decreased by approximately $700,000. The net effect of these changes is that a Budget in the range of the Board's Funding Request can be adopted. However, there are some areas for the Board's consideration that have arisen since the adoption of the Board's Funding Request. These areas include: The funding of growth staffing versus staffing targeted specifically to literacy. The Division's Staffing Committee has recommended that additional positions be targeted to literacy. The Staffing Committee's recommendation would require 16.91 additional teaching positions. However, the Board's Funding Request included 12.28 positions for growth and 4.17 positions for K- 1 TA time (which are included in the Committee's recommendations) for a total of 16.45 positiom. Therefore, the Staffing Committee's recommendation would only require an additional .46 position beyond what was included in the Board's Funding Request. Transitional funding for the anticipated implementation of a spot redistricting plan to alleviate crowding at Cale Elementary School. Matching funds for possible grants to provide funding to continue using Sheriff's Deputies in the delivery of the Drag and Alcohol ctmiculum in elementary schools. The Board received the budget report for information and may adopt its 2000~2001 Budget at ks May 1 meeting. !,~ h,I L~ ,1~ Ltl CI~ ~,1 O0 ~1~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ORDINANCE NO. 00-4(1) AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND AND REORDAIN CHAPTER 4, ANIMALS AND FOWL, OF THE CODE OF THE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA. BE IT ORDAINED By the Board of Supervisors of the County of Albemarle, Virginia, that Chapter 4, Animals and Fowl, Article II, Dogs and Other Animals, Division 2, Running At Large, is hereby amended and reordained as follows: By Amending: Section 4-213 In certain areas. CHAPTER 4. ANIMALS AND FOWL ARTICLE II. DOGS AND OTHER ANIMALS DIVISION 2. RUNNING AT LARGE Sec. 4-213 In certain areas. A. It shall be unlawful for the owner of any dog to permit such dog to run at large at any time within the following designated areas of the county: (1) University of Virginia grounds lying within the county. (7-19-73) (2) Orchard Acres Subdivision, Crozet, as platted and put to record in the clerk's office of the county: Section I, Deed Book 322, page 146; section 2, Deed Book 471, page 401. (7-19-73) (3) Woodbrook Subdivision as platted and put to record in the clerk's office of the county: Section I, Deed Book 358, page 297; section 2, vacated, Deed Book 414, page 115; section 3, Deed Book 386, page 39; section 4, Deed Book 397, page 177; section 4A, Deed Book 408, page 215; section 5, Deed Book 402, page 111; section 6, Deed Book 408, page 215; section 7, Deed Book 419, page 359; section 8, Deed Book 459, page 209; section 8A, Deed Book 481, page 231. (8-22-73) (4) Georgetown Green as platted and put to record in the clerk's office of the county in Deed Book 440, page 93. (9-26-73) (5) Crozet areas, beginning at a point, a corner common to parcels 96, 46 and 45B of section 56 of the county tax maps; thence in a westerly direction and 45B of section 56 of the county tax maps; thence, in a westerly direction along the southern boundaries of parcels 45B and 39, section 56 of the county tax maps to the centerline of State Route 240; thence with State Route 240 north to the intersection of the northeastern comer of parcel 11 of section 56 of the county tax map; thence, in a westerly direction with the northern boundary of parcel 11 to a comer with parcel 10D of section 56 of the county tax map; thence, in a southerly and westerly direction with the eastern and southern boundaries of parcels 10D, 10 and 9 of section 56 and parcel 69 of section 55 to a corner with parcels 69 and 71A of section 55; thence, with the boundaries of parcel 71A of section 56 in a southerly, westerly and northerly direction to the comer with parcel 70F of section 55; thence, in a westerly direction with the southern boundaries of parcels 70F, 72 (13), and 72B of section 55 to the southwestern comer of parcel 72B, a corner common with parcels 74 and 75 of section 55; thence, with the eastern boundary of parcel 74 in a northerly direction to the center of State Route 691 and continuing in a northerly direction across State Route 691 and along the eastern boundary of parcel 66 of section 55 to a comer with Orchard Acres, (section 55C); thence, with Orchard Acres in a clockwise direction to its intersection with the Chesapeake and Ohio Railway and continuing across the railway to its northern right-of-way; thence, in an easterly direction along the C & 0 right- of-way to its intersection with the western boundary of parcel 51 of section 55 extended; thence, in a northeasterly direction across State Route 788 to its intersection with the western boundary of parcel 51 of section 55; thence, in a northeasterly direction along the western boundaries of parcels 51, 50, and 49 section 55 and parcel 1 of section 56 to a corner with parcel 48 of section 55; thence, in a northwesterly and northeasterly direction along the southern boundary of parcel 48 of section 55 and the southern and westem boundary of parcel 47 of section 55 continuing in a northeastern direction along the western boundaries of parcels 1, 3 and 5E of section 56 to a corner with parcel 5E of section 55, parcel 17 of section 40 and Sunrise Acres (section 40A); thence, with Sunrise Acres in a clockwise direction to the intersection with the centerline of State Route 810; thence, in a southwesterly and south-easterly direction with State Route 810 to the intersection with the southern boundary of parcel 64 of section 56; thence, in an eastern direction with the southern boundary of its inter-section with parcel 66 of section 56; thence, in a southerly and easterly direction around the western and southern boundaries of parcel 66 of section 56 to its intersection with parcel 65B of section 56; thence, in an eastern direction along the southem boundary of parcel 66B, section 56, to a corner with parcel 58 of section 56A (2); thence, in a southerly and easterly direction along the western boundary of parcel 58 to section 56A (2) to its inter-section with State Route 240 and continuing across State Route 240 and parcel 60 to section 56A (2) and the C & 0 Railway to a corner common to parcels 67 and 68 of section 56A (2) on the southern right-of-way of the C & 0 Railway; thence, with the southern right-of-way of the C & 0 Railway in a westerly direction to its intersection with a corner common to parcel 58 of section 56 and parcel 71B of section 56A (2); thence, in a southerly and easterly direction along the westem and southern boundary of parcel 58 of section 56 to a corner with parcel 57A (1) of section 56; thence, in a southerly and easterly direction along the western and southern boundary of parcel 57A (1) of section 56 and the southern boundary of parcel 57 of section 56 to a corner with parcel 55 of section 56; thence, with parcel 55 of section 56 in a northeasterly direction to a comer with parcel 54 of section 58; thence, in a southeasterly direction with the southern boundary of parcel 54 of section 56 to its intersection with parcel 48 of section 56; thence, in a southeasterly and southern direction along the eastem boundary of parcel 48 of section 56 to its comer with parcel 47 of section 56; thence, in a southerly direction along the eastern boundaries of parcels 47 and 46 of section 56 to the point of beginning. (6) Jefferson Village Subdivision as platted and put to record in the clerk's office of the county in Deep Book 449, page 637 and Deed Book 452, page 87. (12-19-73) (7) Camelot Subdivision as platted and put to record in the clerk's office of the county in Deed Book 450, pages 127 through 129, Deed Book 545, page 68 and Deed Book 653, page 79. (1-23-74; 5-21-86) (8) Sherwood Manor Subdivision as platted and put to record in the clerk's office of the county in Deed Book 504, page 114 and Deed Book 514, page 505. (1- 23-74) (9) Four Seasons as platted and put to record in the clerk's office of the county in Deed Book 467, page 378 and Deed Book 481, page 417. (3-27-74) (10) Earlysville Heights Subdivision as platted and put to record in the clerk's office of the county in Deed Book 452, page 165 and Deed Book 491, page 3. (3- 27-74) (11) Westmoreland Subdivision as platted and put to record in the office of the clerk of the circuit court of the county, as section 1, Deed Book 402, page 91; section 2, Deed Book 414, page 29; section 3, Deed Book 419, page 265, and section 4, Deed Book 423, page 19. (5-22-74) (12) Hessian Hills Subdivision as platted and put to record in the office of the clerk of the circuit court of the county, as section 1, Deed Book 316, page 254; section 2, Deed Book 327, page 327; section 3, Deed Book 370, page 145; Deed Book 379, page 365 and section 4, Deed Book 378, page 107. (10-9-74) (13) Knollwood Subdivision as platted and put to record in the office of the clerk of the circuit court of the county, in Deep Book 272, page 3. (Does not include Old Forge Road or Hessian Hills Apartments.) (10-9-74) (14) Stonehenge Subdivision as platted and put to record in the office of the clerk of the circuit court of the county, in Deed Book 543, page 409; Deed Book 545, page 660; Deed Book 548, pages 326, 345, 346, 347, 348, 522 and Deed Book 550, page 320. (1-22-75) (15) Queen Charlotte Subdivision as platted and recorded in the office of the clerk of the circuit court of the county, in Deed Book 395, page 6. (3-10-76) (16) Country Green Apartments as platted and recorded in the office of the clerk of the circuit court of the county, in Deed Book 453, page 553. (12-7-77) (17) Oak Hill Subdivision as platted and recorded in the office of the clerk of the circuit court of the county, in Deed Book 360, page 105; Deed Book 362, page 22; Deed Book 391, page 483; Deed Book 396, page 291; Deed Book 398, page 317; Deed Book 401, page 228; Deed Book 405, page 433; Deed Book 441, page 299 and Deed Book 468, page 85. (5-22-78) 3 (18) Westgate Apartments (County Tax Map 61, parcels 42, 42C and 42D) as platted and recorded in the office of the clerk of the circuit court of the county, in Deed Book 497, page 636; and Deed Book 529, page 147. (5-22-78) (19) Solomon Court Apartments (County Tax Map 61, parcels 42 and 43D) as platted and recorded in the office of the clerk of the circuit court of the county, in Deed Book 349, page 390; Deed Book 353, page 145 and Deed Book 430, page 181. (5-22-78) (20) Carrsbrook Subdivision as platted and recorded in the office of the clerk of the circuit court of the county, in Deed Book 357, page 55; Deed Book 361, page 127; Deed Book 376, page 224, Deed Book 380, pages 249, 251 and 253; Deed Book 384, page 27 and Deed Book 387, page 469. (6-21-78) (21) Deerwood Subdivision as platted and recorded in the office of the clerk of the circuit court of the county, in Deed Book 426, page 457; and Deed Book 455, page 16. (6-21-78) (22) Greenbrier Heights Subdivision as platted and recorded in the office of the clerk of the circuit court of the county, in Deed Book 550, page 601'. (10-7-81) (23) Huntwood Subdivision as platted and recorded in the office of the clerk of the circuit court in Deed Book 728, page 377; and Deed Book 728, page 378. (5- 13-87) (24) Hollymead as platted and recorded in the office of the clerk of the circuit court for the following areas: Sections 1 and 2 in Deed Book 531, pages 309 through 313; section 3 in Deed Book 714, page 444; Hollymead Square in Deed Book 633, page 330; tax map 46, parcel 28G in Deed Book 418, page 440; tax map 46, parcel 26B2 in Deed Book 741, page 304; and tax map 46B1-01-1 in Deed Book 489, page 381. (9-16- 87) (25) The urban area of the county, the communities of Hollymead and Crozet and the village of Scottsville, all as defined in the Comprehensive Plan for Albemarle County, Virginia, and as shown on a map which is on file in the office of the clerk to the board of supervisors. (11-4-87) (26) Waverly Subdivision as platted and recorded in the office of the clerk of the circuit court of the county, in Deed Book 697, page 382; and Deed Book 781, pages 267 and 270. (12-16-87) (27) Whipporwill Hollow as platted and recorded in the office of the clerk of the circuit court of the county, in Deed Book 643, pages 285 to 292; Deed Book 644, pages 269 and 270; Deed Book 646, pages 220 to 221; Deed Book 657, pages 789 to 790; Deed Book 659, pages 561 to 565; Deed Book 694, pages 544 to 545; and Deed Book 867, page 253. (12-16-87) 4 (28) Key West/Cedar Hills Subdivision as platted and recorded in the office of the clerk of the cimuit court of the county, in Deed Book 353, pages 193 to 197; Deed Book 365, page 202; Deed Book 371, page 474; Deed Book 388, page 514; Deed Book 393, page 417; Deed Book 410, page 577; Deed Book 420, page 259; Deed Book 505, page 607; Deed Book 530, page 351; Deed Book 543, page 114; Deed Book 661, page 44; Deed Book 692, page 453; and Deed Book 809, page 623. (9-7-88) (29) North Pines Subdivision as platted and recorded in the office of the clerk of the circuit court of the county, in Deed Book 703, pages 742, 743 and 744. (1-17- 90) (30) The Meadows in Crozet as platted and recorded in the office of the clerk of the circuit court of the county, in Deed Book 651, page 149. (8-8-90) (31) Milton Heights Subdivision as platted and reCorded in the Office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of the County, in Deed Book 343, page 64. (8-17-94) (32) Shadwell Estates Subdivision as platted and recorded in the Office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of the County, in Deed Book 339, page 458. (8-17-94) (33) Thurston Subdivision as platted and recorded in the Office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of the County, in Deed Book 637, page 456. (12-7-94) (34) Glenmore Planned Residential Development as recorded in the Office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of the County in Deed Book 1074, page 203 and Deed Book 1209, page 257. (1-4-95) (35) Peacock Hill as recorded in the Office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of the County in Deed Book 589, pages 205-212; Deed Book 708, pages 286; Deed Book 777, pages 039; Deed Book 904, pages 182, Deed Book 960, page 174; Deed Book 1025, page 610; Deed Book 1123, pages 071; Deed Book 1189, page 407; Deed Book 1310, page 128. (9-6-95) (36) Lexington Subdivision as platted and recorded in the Office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of the County in Deed Book 564, page 088. (3-12-97) (37) Bedford Hills Subdivision as platted and recorded in the Office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of the County, in Deed Book 365, page 212. (12-2-98) (38) Westmont Subdivision as platted and recorded in the Office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of the County, in Deed Book 1513, page 201, and in Deed Book 1617, page 510. B. For the purposes of this section, a dog shall be deemed to be running at large while roaming, running or self-hunting off the property of its owner or custodian and not under its owner's or custodian's immediate control. Any person who permits his dog to run at large shall be deemed to have violated the provisions of this section, and, upon conviction, shall be fined not less than five dollars ($5.00) nor more than twenty-five dollars ($25.00). It shall be the duty of the animal control officer to enforce the provisions of this section. I, Ella W. Carey, do hereby certify that the foregoing writing is a true, correct copy of an Ordinance duly adopted by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, by a vote of six to zero, as recorded below, at a regular meeting held on May 3, 2000. Mr. Bowerman Mr. Dorrier Y Ms. Humphris Y Mr. Martin Y Mr. Perkins Y Ms. Thomas Y Aye Nay Y From: Subject: Date: Marsha Davis Ell W h a as hag'ton Carey, Clerk, Or,~nance ^dopted by ~oa~d ~i~;~ ~, 2O00 May 12, 2000... The attached ordinance was adopted by the Board of Supervisors on May 3, 2000. The ordinance is forwarded to you for inclusion in your next update of the County Code. to amend and reordain Chapter 4, Animals and Fowl, Article II, Dogs and Other Animals of the Code of Albemarle, in Section 4-213, in certain areas, to add subsection (38) Westmont Subdivision as one of those areas where dogs are prohibited from running at large. /EWC Attachments ( 1 ) COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AGENDA TITLE: Leash Law Request for Westmont Subdivision SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Public hearing for leash law request. STAFF CONTACT{S): Tucker, Foley AGENDADATE: May 3, 2000 ACTION: CONSENTAGEND~ ITEM NUMBER: INFORMATION: ACTION: X INFORMATION: ATTACHMENTS: REVIEWED BY: Yes BACKGROUND: Under section 4-213 of the County Code, homeowners may request the restriction of dogs from running at large in certain areas approved by the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors. DISCUSSION: Of the 3 homeowners located in Westmont Subdivision, 2 have signed a petition supporting the adoption of the leash law request; one homeowner is opposed to this request. On April 5, 2000, the Board set a public hearing on this matter for May 3, 2000. A copy of the petition and formal request are attached for your information and review. RECOMMENDATION: Should the Board view this request favorably after conducting the public hearing, action will be needed to adopt the attached ordinance which will amend the County Code. 00.092 PETITION FOR DOG "LEASH" ORDINANCE we, residents of .J/~_~~"//O_ ~,,/-~. (subdivision or other area), respectfully request that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors include this area under the provisions of County Code Section 4-213(a)which makes it unlawful for any dog to roam, run, or self-hunt off of the property of its owner or custodian and not be under the owner's or custodian's immediate control, the law commonly referred to as the 'Leash" Ordinance. NAME (Please pdnt clearly) 26 27 28 4 29 5 30 6 31 7 32 8 33 9 34 10 35 11 36 12 37 13 38 14 39 15 40 16 41 17 " 42 18 43 i9 44 20 45 21 46 22 47 23 48 24 49 25 50 (Sheet No. of__ Sheets) n ::o · 1- o CouuW of ~lbemsrle OfFice of Board of Supervhors 401 Melntiro Road Charlott~ville, VA. 22902 April 26, 2000 Attention: Laurel A, Bentley, C.M.C, Senior Deputy Clerk Dear Ms. Bentley: After speak]ns with Waiter Perkins, reprdiul a public hearing to be held on .May 3, 2000, at 10:dS a.m., we thought it was a good ides to fax this letter to be circulated among the supervisors before the hearing. We will not be able to attend the hearing and we would like the supervisors to understand our concerto as a landowner. Thank you very much for your time. Sineerely. Penni ~. F. Wright APE--2T--00 06:26 P~ HOHE$ BY ~LUE ii'GE LT~ ~40 ~4~$02~ P.02 Jerry W. Wright and Penni S.F. Wright 8214 Plank Rd. Afton, VA. 22920 April 26, 2000 County Of Albemarle Office of Board of Supervisors 401 Mclntire Rd. ClmrlottesviHe, Va. 22902 Dear Sir or Madam: This bt*er is to provide you with our opinion as a landowner at Westmont Subdivision, on the upcominii meeting reprding"doSs being prohibited from running at large". I am sorry we cannot attend, but hope this will inform you of ou~' insight. First, I must say that I am very much opposed to this idea. One o/the qualifies that make Western Albemarle so attractive to potential homeowners is the freedom that comes with rural riving. (Large acreage building lots.) ] cannot understand a "leash law*' where thereare farms and livestock are welcome- We own 8 ½ acres that we purchased approximately 1 ½ years ago. It is a beautiful area that we very mueb love. We have not yet built our house, but plan to do so in the future. When we go to our land to mow, otc., we sometimes take our golden retriever, lie loves to run and play on the open fields, granted he does stay on our property. I understand and fully agree that all homeowners need to take responsibility for their pets, Not only for the respect of their neighbors, but for the wellbelng of the community as a whole, I understand the problem persists with one homeowner, I feel that there are a number of other hues involved here, The property as a whole needs a great deal o~' cleanup, from Junk vehicles, unshieMed satellite dish, ebiekent, etc., all o/which are prohibited according to our deed. I know that this needs to be dealt with at another time and I understand there are some homeowners already working on thb issue. However, I do not feel that dogs being prohibited to run will solve this proMem as a whole. I think the dogs are only a fraction of the problem. Secondly, I wonder how future potential buyers will feel about purchasing a large parcel of land with more restrictions, Remember this is Rut'el l~iving. We have been a resident of Western Albemarle for the past 17 years. We truly love the area. (}ur property at Westmont is in very close proximity to where we currently resMe, We now have 2 ½ seres aJ~d there has never been a discussion of any t~pe repirding the confinement of doss. I feel that a~ldng for this ordlnanee b somewhat unnecessary. It could have a domino effect that ! do not feel anyone wants. APR--2~--O~ ~6:~ P~ HOHE$ BY ~LUE RIDGE ~T~ ~40 9425029 P.05 If you n~d any additional information, please fe~l fr~ to phone at Thank you very much for your time and attention to this matter. Re~ards, Jerry W. Wright Penni S.F. Wright April 26, 2000 COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Dept. of Planning & Community Development 401 Mclntire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 (804) 296-5823 Heidi Parker, Esq. 105-109 East High Street Charlottesville, VA 22901 RE: SP-00-010 Charlottesville Catholic School - Tax Map 61X, Parcel 4B Dear Ms. Parker: The Albemarle County Planning Commission, at its meeting on April 25, 2000 unanimously recommended approval of the above-noted petition to the Board of Supervisors. Please note that this approval is subject to the following conditions: Maximum enrollment shall be 220 students. Hours of operation shall be 7:30 a.m. to 6 p.m. provided that occasional school-related events may occur after 6:00 p.m.; and, Site shall not be used as school after June 30, 2001. Please be advised that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors will review this petition and receive public comment at the meeting May 3, 2000. 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. If you should have any questions or comments regarding the above noted action, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, David B. Benish Chief of Planning & Community Development DBB/sfm Cc~ Ella Carey Jack Kelsey Bob Ball Amelia McCulley Steve Allhouse COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AGENDA TITLE: SP 2000-010, CHARLOTTESVILLE CATHOLIC SCHOOL SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST: To amend the current special use permit to expand enrollment to not more than 220 students for the 2000-2001 school year, only. The property, described as Tax Map 61X2, Parcel 4B is the location of the Atlantic Coast Athletic Club (ACAC) pool, which is located on Four Seasons Drive in the Rio Magisterial District. STAFF CONTACT(S): David Benish AGENDA DATE~ ITEM NUMBER: Planning Commission: April 25, 2000 Board of Supervisors: May 3, 2000 ACTION.: Yes INFORMATION: CONSENT AGENDA: ACTION: INFORMATION: ATTACHMENTS: Yes REVIEWED BY: BACKGROUND: The Board of Supervisors, on May 1, 1998, approved a special use permit to allow a private school to be located at this site on a temporary basis until the new permanent facility, located on east Rio Road, is completed. The applicant is requesting that the limit on maximum enrollment be increased for the final year of this temporary facility from 180 students to 220 (see applicant's request, Attachment A). The applicant believes that there is capacity within the existing facility to accommodate the additional enrollment and that the increased enrollment limit will allow them to better address requests for enrollment. DISCUSSION: Staff opinion is that there are no significant issues of concern with this proposal, particularly given the temporary nature of the proposal. The special use permit will expire at the end of the next school year (June 30, 2001). It is anticipated that the permanent facility will be ready for the 2001-2002 school year. The applicant is not requesting an extension of the time period for this use. There are no external modifications proposed to the building. The anticipated traffic impact from the additional enrollment will not be significant. Based on their experience at this site, the school administration estimates that an "additional 26 vehicles," which equates to approximately 52 additional vehicle trips in the morning and afternoon. VDOT had no comments on this request. Current available support facilities (parking, recreational area, etc.) appear adequate to accommodate the additional enrollment. The Zoning Department has indicated that no complaints have been received regarding the school since it has been in operation. Attachment B and C is the Board's action and prior staff report for the previous special use. Attachment D is the Planning Commission minutes. In summary, given the limited increase and time period for the additional enrollment, staff opinion is that this request is consistent with the Comprehensive and the intent of the prior approval. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval with the following conditions: 1. Maximum enrollment 220 students; 2. Hours of operation shall be 7:30 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. provided that occasional school-related events may occur after 6:00 p.m.; and, 3. Site shall not be used as school after June 30, 2001. ATTACHMENT A SPECIAL USE PERMIT AMENDMENT CHARLOTTESVILLE CATHOLIC SCHOOL What is the comprehensive plan designation for this property? Neighborhood service (corresponds to existing C-1 zoning). How will the proposed special use affect adjacent property? Increasing the student body limit from 180 to' 220 will not affect adjacent properties because the change will be so minimal it will not be noticeable from adjacent properties. Indeed, no changes will be made to the building, exterior, underlying parcel, or use; rather, only the size of the student body will change. 1 80 students have enrolled for the fall of 2000, and applicant has the space and resources to matriculate 40 additional students. Six students are already on the wait list hoping for this SUP Amendment to be approved, and on February 23, 2000, open enrollment for non-Catholic students will begin. Therefore, applicant is optimistic that the 'open enrollment Will result in at least 34 additional students being placed on the wait list. The Board of Supervisors will likely be most interested in how this request might affect traffic and noise generated by the school. According to the current student/car ratio, applicant expects180 students to require 121 vehicles, and 220 students to require 147 vehicles, a difference of only 26 vehicles. Also, according to the current student/dismissal time ratio, it will take approximately 20 minutes to dismiss 180 students, and 25 minutes to dismiss 220 students, a difference of only 5 minutes. With respect to possible increased noise, if this request is granted applicant will change from a double-shift lunch/recess to a triple-shift lunch/recess, so although the recess time will increase, the number of children playing during each recess period will not increase significantly, so there will not be a noticeable increase in noise generated by the school. How will the proposed special use affect the character of the district surrounding the property? Because neither the building exterior, the underlying parcel, nor the current use will change, the requested amendment will not affect the character of the district surrounding the property. How is the use in harmony with the purpose and intent of the Zoning Ordinance? According to Section 1.4 of the Zoning Ordinance, the intent of the Ordinance is to "improve public health, safety, convenience and welfare of citizens of Albemarle County, Virginia, and to plan for the future development of communities to the end ... that new community centers be developed with adequate ... educational facilities .... "With respect to this application, the Ordinance requires the Board of Supervisors to both provide educational resources to the community, as well as protect the interests of citizens who own property near the school. As with the original SUP application, this proposed amendment permits the Board of Supervisors to accomplish both tasks.' By increasing the student body limit from 180 to 220, the Board of Supervisors will provide a vital educational resource to children in the community. Applicant is excited by the fact that there are already 6 children on the wait list and open enrollment to non- Catholic students hasn't even begun. By granting this SUP Amendment the Board of Supervisors will permit the applicant to fully utilize its resources to matriculate as many as 40 additional students. Because the increase from 180 to 220 is minimal, and because the traffic and noise generated by the additional students will likewise be minimal, this application will not only provide educational opportunities to interested students, it will also respect the rights of citizens who live near the school. Note that because applicant's SUP will expire in June of 2001, this increased student body will use the current facility for only one year. How is the use in harmony with the uses permitted by right in the district? The surrounding area is zoned PUD, and Pursuant to Section 20.3.1.7 of the Ordinance public schools are permitted by right in PUD's. The proposed increase in student body size will not only be temporary, it will still be much smaller than a public school student body, and will generate less traffic and activity than a public 'school would. Therefore, the proposed use is in harmony with uses permitted by right in the district. What additional regulations provided in Section 5.0 of the Zoning Ordinance apply to this use? None. How will this use promote the public health, safety, and general welfare of the community? The proposed amendment will allow applicant to utilize all of its available resources to educate at least 40 additional students. Because matriculating these additional students will not significantly increase the traffic or noise generated by the school, nearby landowners will not be affected by this Amendment. z ~ ATTACHMENT B May 1, 1998 COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Dep£. of Planning & Community Development 401 Mclntire Road Char}ottesvflle, Virginia 22902-4596 (804) 296.5823 M. E. Gibson, Jr., Esq P O Box 1585 Charlottesville, VA 22902 SP-98-01Temporary Charlottesville Catholic School Tax Map 61X2, Parcel 4B Dear Mr. Gibson: The Albemarle County Board of Supervisors, at its meeting on April I 5, 1998, approved the above-noted request to allow the existing Atlantic Coast Athletic Club facility to be used as a private school. Please note that this approval is subject to the following conditions: 1. Maximum enrollment will be 180 students; Hours of operation shall be 7:30 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. provided that occasional school-related events may occur after 6:00 p.m.; and 3. Site shall not be used as a school after June 30, 2001. In the event that the use, structure or activity for which this special use permit is issued shall not be commenced within eighteen (18) months after the issuance of such permit, the same shall be deemed abandoned and the authority granted thereunder shall [hereupon terminate. For purposes &this section, the term "commenced" shall be construed to include the commencement of construction of any structure necessary to the use of such permit within two (2) years' from the date &the issuance thereof which is thereafter completed within one (1) year. Before beginning this use, you must obtain a zoning clearance from the Zoning Department. Before the Zoning Department will issue a clearance, you must comply with the conditions in this letter. For further information, please call Jan Sprinkle at 296-5875. ATTACHMENT C STAFF PERSON: PLANNING COMMISSION: BOARD OF-SUPERVISORS: WILLIAM D. FRITZ MARCH 17, 1998 MAY 13, 1998 CHARLOTTESVILLE CATHOLIC SCHOOL Applicant's Proposal: The applicant is proposing to amend the existing zoning of the Atlantic Coast Athletic Club facility in Four Seasons to allow daycare by-right, and to allow a private school by special use permit. The applicant has provided a description and justification for this use. [Attachment C] Petitions: ZMA 98-04 Temporary_ Charlottesville Catholic School - Proposal to rezone approximately 2.3 acres to amend the PUD, Planned Unit Development zoning to permit additional uses. Property, described as Tax Map 61X2, Parcel 4B is the location of the Atlantic Coast Athletic Club which is located on Four Seasons Drive in the Rio Magisterial District. This area is recommended for Urban Density Residential (6 to 34 dwelling units per acre) in Neighborhood 1. [SP 98-01 is being reviewed concurrently.] SP 98-01 Temporary_ Charlottesville Catholic School - Proposal to allow the existing Atlantic Coast Athletic Club facility to be used as a private school. Property, described as Tax Map 61X2, Parcel 4B is the location of the Atlantic Coast. Athletic Club which is located on Four Seasons Drive in the Rio Magisterial District. The site consists of approximately 2.3 acres which is currently zoned PUD, Planned Unit Development but is proposed to be rezoned with ZMA 98- 04. This area is recommended for Urban Density Residential (6 to 34 dwelling units per acre) in Neighborhood 1. Character of the Area; Th/s site is the current location of the Atlantic Coast Athletic Club. The-site includes a building, parking and outdoor recreation (tennis courts, basketball courts and swimming pool). A stormwater management pond is located adjacent to the site. The site is located centrally within the Four Seasons development which includes patio homes, townhomes ar/d aparunents. RECOMMENDATION: Staff has reviewed the rezoning request and is able to support the request to amend the designation of this area to include additional uses with the acceptance of the applicant's proffers. Staff has reviewed the special use permit request and is able to recommend approval. on this site to the same level as has been previously approved for this property. The current use of the site as a Health Club is more intensive than any of the proposed uses of the site. Therefore this request will not result in change in the residential character of the area. b. Relation to major roads, utilities, public facilities and services; This proposal will have no greater impact than previously approved for the site. Therefore, this request is consistent with this provision of the ordinance. Ce Adequacy of evidence on unified control and suitability of any proposed agreements, contracts, deed restrictions, sureties, dedications, contributions, guarantees, or other instruments, or the need for such instruments or for amendments in those proposed; and The applicant has demonstrated unified control of the property. Therefore, this request is consistent with this provision of the ordinance. Specific modifications in PD or general regulations as applied to the particular case, based on determination that such modifications are necessary or justified by demonstration that the public purposes of PD or general regulations as applied would be satisfied to at least an equivalent degree by such modifications. No modification of ordinance provisions has been requested by the applicant. SUMMARY OF ZMA 98-04: The proposed zoning amendment largely clarifies the permitted uses of the property while adding some uses. The proposed day care use was previously approved on this site and staff can identify no change since those approvals which would indicate that day care on this site would not again be appropriate. [Other uses proposed are public type uses.] Staff is not able to identify any negative factors Review of SP 98-0! Staff will address each provision of Section 31.2.4.1 of the Zoning Ordinance. The Board of Supervisors hereby reserves unto itself the right to i~sue all special use permits permitted hereunder. Special use permits for uses as provided in this. ordinance may be i~sued upon a finding by the Board of Supervisors that ~uch use will not be Of substantial detriment to acljacent property_, The proposed school wilt be at this site for only three years and will make use of the existing facilities. The applicant will stop use of the school no later than June 30, 2001. lit is anticipated that the school will be at this site no longer than two years. However, the applicant has requested 1.4.4 To facilitate the provision of adequate police and fire protection, disaster evacuation, civil defense, transportation, water, sewerage, flood protection, schools, parks, forests, playgrounds, recreational facilities, airports and other public requirements; 1.5 RELATION TO ENVIRONMENT This ordinance is designed to treat lands which are similarly situated and environmentally similar in like manner with reasonable consideration for the existing use and character of properties, the Comprehensive Plan, the suitability of property for various uses, the trends of growth or change, the current and future land and water requirements of the community. for various purposes as determined by population and economic studies and other studies, the transportation requirements of the community, and the requirements for airports, housing, schools, parks, playgrounds, recreation areas and other public services; for the conservation of natural resources; and preservation of flood plains, the preservation of agricultural and forestal land, the conservation of properties and their values and the encouragement of the most appropriate use of land throughout the county. Private schools, like churches, are considered to be uses which support the moral fiber of a community. They are permitted in residential zoning districts after review of the relationship of the proposed use to the residential area and surrounding uses. Staff opinion is that this request is consistent with the purpose and intent of the ordinance as it provides for additional educational opportunities. with the uses permitted by right in the district, The adjacent development includes single family attached dwellings, multi-family dwellings; Private schools, at appropriate locations, are considered generally to be in harmony with the uses permitted in multifamily residential areas. with additional regulations provided in Section 5.0 of this ordinance, Section' 5.0 contains no additional regulations. and with the public health, safety_ and general welfare Traffic generated by a school will peak in the morning and afternoons with limited traffic during the day and little if any evening traffic. The current use has a peak in the morning and afternoon but also has substantial traffic volumes during the day and in the evening. The school traffic is not anticipated to be any more intense than the traffic to the health club during the summer months when the outdoor recreational uses are in use. Staff is unable to identify any conflict with the public health, safety or general welfare which will be caused by this use. 5 '1 0 ,? '~'~ % Hall ZMA 98-04 Charlottesville Catholic School J ATTACHMENT AI Slimr ,% ",\ \ \ ALBEMARLE CCUNTY FOUR SEASONS I~age SECTION 61XI · WESTI~RK PLAZA CONOO$° $1XI'Z8 I'!~' O. 8. 9Z5 I~.$17 ZMA 98-04 Charlottesville Catholic School . SECTION 61X2 CHARLO I'TESVILLE DISTRICT 600 Ir~ SECTION 61Xl 8~ 61X2 How is the use in harmony with the uses permitted by right in the district. The only use presently permitted at this site is a commercial recreational facility. The proposed use is in harmony with the present use, because the proposed use of a temporary Catholic School will not require any exterior construction or modification to the property (other than signage), and will, in fact, decrease traffic and activity at this site. With respect to the surrounding PUD district, pursuant to § 20.3.1.7 of the Ordinance public schools are permitted by right in PUD's. The proposed private school will only be temporary, and will be much smaller in scope than a public school thereby generating significantly less traffic and activity than a pubhc school. Therefore, the proposed use is in,harmony with uses permitted by right in the district. What additional regulations provided in Section 5.0 of the Zoning Ordinance apply to this use? None. How will this use promote the public health, safety, and general welfare of the community? The proposed special use will provide a temporary location for a 'private Catholic school (kindergarten tbxough 6th grade) which meets the educational and extra-curricular needs of many residents of Albemarle County and surrounding communities, who wish to have their children receive both a secular and religious education. SPECIAL USE APPLICATION FILED BY THE CHARLO'ITESVILLE CATHOLIC SCHOOL [Page 41 Description of Request: The Charlottesville Catholic School requests a Special Use Permit to operate a temporary private school (kindergarten through 6th grade) from fall 1998 through spring 2000. The school would lease approximately 7,000 square feet in the existing Atlantic Coast Athletic Club (ACAC) building (which is approximately 20,000 square feet). It is anticipated this temporary private school will matriculate 120 students in its first year and 180 in its second. There will not be any classes held during the summer. The normal hours of operation will be from 8:30 am to 2:30 pm; however, the school will provide a before school program that begins at 7:30 am and after school program which ends at 6:00 pm. Applicant wishes to make certain, however, that the presently permitted use of this property for a recreational facility/health club will not be jeopardized by this application. Although the property owner, ACAC, will vacate most of the existing building, it will continue to offer some fitness training and operate the outdoor pool and tennis courts. Note, however, that the fitness training will be extremely limited, the pool will only be open during the summer when the school is closed, and the tennis courts, which will only be available when the weather permits, will generate very little traffic. When the school's lease expires, ACAC may reoccupy the entire facility and resume its use of the facility for a health club. JuStification for request: The only use presently permitted at this site is a recreational facility. While the Charlottesville Catholic School pursues a permanent location, it needs a temporary location, and this site is ideal because it is located near many of the students, and the proposed lease area will meet the school's growing needs. Sixty-seven students are presently enrolled in the Charlottesville Catholic School, and because of the significant Catholic population in Albemarle County and surrounding areas, the school expects its student body to grow. The 1998 and 1999 student body projections indicate the school will soon exceed the capacity of its present location at 301-B East Jefferson Street. JATTACHPIENT [Page 6 end, the applicartt requests a rezoning to PUD with commercial office designation. All permitted commercial office uses, except for a private school, and administrative, business and professional offices, are being proferred. Tha applicant wishes to make certain, however, that the presently permitted use of this property for a recreational facility/health club will not be jeopardized by this application. When the school's lease expires, ACAC plans to either reoccupy the entire building and resume its use of the facility for a health club, or make the property available for certain commercial office uses. AMENDED PROFFERS FOR ZMA-98-04 I Page 21 The commercial (C-l) and commercial office (CO) by-right uses permitted on this parcel shall be limited to the following: Commercial {}22.2.1 .b.8 §22.2.1.b. 12 §22.2.1.b.13 §22.2.1 .b. 17 §22.2.1 .b. 18 §22.2.1.b.19 §22.2.1.b.24 Health Spas. Libraries, Museums. Nurseries, Day Care Centers; provided that no more than 175 children shall be enrolled in the nursery or day care center. Electric, Gas, Oil and Communication Facilities excluding Tower Structures and including Poles, Lines, Transformers, Pipes, Meters and Related Facilities for Distribution of Local Service and Owned and Operated by a Public Utility. Water Distribution and Sewage Collection Lines, Pumping Stations and Appurtenances Owned and Operated by the Albemarle County Service Authority, Public Uses and Buildings including Temporary or Mobile Facilities such as Schools, Offices, Parks, Playgrounds and Roads Funded, Owned or Operated by Local, State or Federal Agencies; Public Water and Sewer Transmission, Main or Trunk Lines, Treatment Facilities, Pumping Stations, and the Like, Owned ancL/or Operated by the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority. Temporary Construction Uses. Indoor Athletic Facilities. Commercial Office §23.2.1.5 §23.2.1.7 Libraries, Museums. Electric, Gas, Oil and Communication Facilities excluding Tower Structures and including Poles, Lines, Transformers, Pipes, Meters and Related Facilities for Distribution of Local Service and Owned and Operated by a Public Utility. P. O. Box 6389 Charlottesville VA 22906 March 17, 1998 William D. Fritz, AICP AIL,.emarle County Planning Commission 401 Mci nti re Cl',arlot. esville YA 22'701 -4596 E:,ear Mr. Fritz: RI:: SMA 98-04 ::~P 98-01 T ,h.i n k y,:, ~,' fo r :~d j :~,::e n t p r ope r t y r~,:,~.I fi,:::~ ti o n ,'.:o nce r nl n,.l ; :~;igfi .... ~z.~... ~ ._~g'~., a nd ;~ proposed r-ezord n,~. on property ovned :.,~.~red (.or~,..err~.=., ,:E, oui fiJture u.~,¢..=. .,'.o be silo, wed ,~ft,~.r ~he C.~holic 3¢r~ooI ,.,'6,J..~te.~.. ,::,:,c,'~mun;c:~u.,:,ns ',..:.~n you... Met,]~ ParKer of Tremi',l&y & Stair. n. Ed P..'ossmoore · ' ' ' .......... ~' of ~ .,Pi-t ~"":' Parker .... ;"It'. xo:.:.:~.rr~,:;,:,~'~ i'~;~',.,~e ,~lu~j~,~ our ,',.-.~ :,. pel'::;or,.;4 i'fieeili',~] .,,,,.:lfn :_-,iJ:.:,,:~F~. I I,:lt'L-c.~l :c , ........ ..~ ~-.,. ,'i,l,i . . ' ..... Uou i.'.nox,..'. ;~tlo'::..'i r~g a ,:;~u cure facilibj for 175 children, ;:..'a:~; c'.ritio~l, it. i:~, .~:een :'amended to k~ep d:sL-I (:;are level ;is i:.=:: io accomodate [.,:~t ron~, '~/ho u:.-':e the A.C.A.C. facilitie:~;. ['-'I~'~ y I ~-dd..that in my opl r~ion., tiie L.~tur Jutt~.:::.'lJl~ ,_.~thul i,.: ::';choo1 '.~,,'ill be a ,,,,&.,.,r~ udul ii ',n t:', ti'ds ne{gr:borhood. P.~,il ',,,Vendel has long be~n a good n~igi-,bor ar, d has shown he has the inter~st of the ,:.on'~n-~dntty .~t he.4rt.. We ,~f'e confident when flJture decisions re,jar,:fin,..~ this property mb.:.t ,_'.~ fii,~,.i~.. again be ,]epended ,:,r, to ",'lo ~ne right th~r,g." our concern::, have been ,qdre:.~:::,ed ;~nd app:~rentl y .:,ati~,f,~ctoril y cord uded it i:; my feeling my ,;,t'e:ser~,.':~. ~:.:: n,:,t r~e,::e:s:sary a~ ~nI:s March I 7, 199~; meeting. Thank you for your per:~:,:,n,~l a~tent;,:,r,. It Four Seasons Patio Home Association P.O. Box 6569, Charlottesville, VA 22906 To: Albemarle County Planning Commission From: Board of Directors, Four Seasons Patio Home Association Last week Mr. Rossmoore and Ms. Parker met with Ms. Williams and Ms. Marcell, presidents of the Four Seasons Townhouse Association and Four Seasons Patio Home AssociarJon, respectively. They had a productive meeting, at which Mr. Rossmoore and Ms. Parker agreed to alter the request you are considering tonight in such a way as to ease concerns over the use of the ACAC property after the school lease is over. in considering the impact of the Catholic School at the ACAC site, we reviewed a number of pending projects that are affecting our neighborhood in general. These projects are the responsibiiKy of as many different governmental agencies, and yet are inevitably dependent upon each other. We are concemed that the responsible agencies do not seem to be working together and aware of the impact each project has on the others, lc is our hope that the Planning Commission can play a coordinating role in informing the agencies of our concerns. First of all, VDOT's Rio Road widening project will ~ready influence the traffic patterns next year while the construction is going on. The tJ'affic along the south end of Four Seasons Drive (past the driveway of the AC_AC property) will ~ready increase as the neighborhood avoids Rio Road congestion by using the Commonwealth'Avenue access route. However, once the constJ'ucdon is over and Rio Road access is available, we are concerned that Four Seasons Drive officially have cwo exit lanes at the north end. This apparently is under the province of the County, and is not part of the Rio Road project. Four Seasons Drive now has an informal cwo-lane exit, but the su'eet is not wide enough for these cwo lanes to be painted. We have urged the County to widen the exit of Four Seasons Drive at the time of the Rio Road project, but have not been successful in our efforts.- We appreciate Hr. Fritz' recent contact with the County Transportation Planner, who is now looking into this matter. We are also concerned about the ponds which adjoin the ACAC property as well as our own. These ponds will be taking all the gutter mn-off from Rio Road, which will greatly increase the amount of water entering the ponds. The ponds are currendy so badly silted and algae-filled that last summer the small pond at least was largely stagnant and unsightly, lc simply did not function as it is supposed to. The Rivanna Water Authority has been planning co dredge the ponds for some dine, and supposedly is going to be dredging this spring. We would like some assurance that chis project is on schedule so that the ponds will be ready to absorb r. he extra water from the Rio Road widening, and return to their healthy, functioning, and attractive state. BOYLE, BAIN & DOWNER Attorneys at Law 420 Park Street Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 (804) 977-6155 (804) 977-3298 Facsimile EDWARD H. BAIN, JR. ROBERT H. DOWNER, JR. PETER L. McCLOUD April 11, 2000 ROBERT P. BOYLE 1930-199:l Ms. Ella Carey Clerk, Board of Supervisors Albemarle County 410 Mclntire Road Charlottesville, VA 22902 BY HAND DELIVERY RE: Price Chevrolet Co. Sign- ARB-F(Sign)-2000-1 O-TM 45, PARCEL 68 Dear Sir or Madame: I represent Price Chevrolet Co. in the above captioned matter. Pursuant to Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance Section 30.6.8 this is to make demand for a review of the above-styled application by the Board of Supervisors from the decision of the Architectural Review Board on April 3, 2000. Please place this matter on the Board's agenda as soon as possible and let me know of the date selected. EHBjr/lrk Edward Co. Henry James Price, Price Chevrolet Co. Randy Smith, Hi ghTech Signs ~rney for Price Chevrolet David R Bowerman ~o L.indsay G. Dorrier, Jr. Charlotte Y. Humphris Jack doue~t COUNTY OF ALB~ Office of Board of Supervisors 401 Mclntke Road Charlottesville, Vircjinia 22902-4596 (804) 296-5843 FAX (804) 296-5800 Charles S. Mart~n ~vanna Walter E Perkins White Hall Sally H. Thomas 5amuet Miller April 17, 2000 Mr. Edward H. Bain, Jr., Boyle, Bain & Downer 420 Park Street Charlottesville, VA 22902 Re: ARB-F (Sign)-2000-10 Price Chevolet Co Dear Mr. Bain: This is to acknowledge receipt of your letter dated April 1 I, 2000, appealing the derision of the Architectural Review Board made on April 3, 2000. This appeal has been scheduled to be heard by the Board of Supervisors on May 3,200, at I I:10 a.m. The Board meets in Meeting Room #24 I, on the Second Floor of the County Office Building. The applicant or his representative must be present at this meeting. Any additional materials you wish mailed to the Board on this request should be in the hands of the Clerk by 4:00 p.m., April 28, 2000. If you have any question, please do not hesitate to contact me. /ewc cc: ~imberg Margaret Pickart, w/attachment RECEIVED Printed on recycled paper APR 1 8 2000 PLANNING ANC COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AGENDA TITLE: Jim Price Chevrolet Sign SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Appeal of ARB decision STAFF CONTACT(S): Tucker, Foley, Cilimberg, Benish, Pickart AGENDA DATE: May 3, 2000 ACTION: X ITEM NUMBER: INFORMATION: CONSENTAGENDA: ACTION: INFORMATION: ATTACHMENTS: Yes REVIEWED BY: BACKGROUND: On April 3, 2000 the Architectural Review Board reviewed an application to replace the faces of an existing nomconforming sign with new faces at the Jim Price Chevrolet auto dealership. The proposed faces were to have white backgrounds with red and blue letters. The backgrounds of the sign would not be opaque. The ARB has consistently required that the backgrounds of internally illuminated cabinet signs be opaque, so that only the message portion of the cabinet sign would be illuminated and visible at night. In keeping with this practice, the ARB voted 4 to 1 to deny the application as presented. RECOMMENDATION: The ARB recommends that the application, as presented, be denied. The application could be approved if the backgrounds of the sign were made opaque. Attachments: A - Staff report for ARB review B - Action letter from ARB meeting C - Minutes from ARB meeting D - Proposed Sign Design E - Photo of Existing Sign, from west side of Pt. 29N, facing north F - Photo of Existing Sign, from east side of Pt. 29N, facing southwest 00.084 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD STAFF REPORT APPLICATION NAME: JIM PRICE CHEVROLET SIGN APPLICATION TYPE: CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS - SIGN Project # ARB-F(SIGN)-2000-10 Location West side of Route 29North, just south of the Wal-Mart store Parcel Identification Tax Map 45, Parcel 68 Zoned Highway Commercial (HC) and Entrance Corridor (EC) Magisterial District Rio Proposal Review for a Certificate of Appropriateness for new faces on an existing internally illuminated pylon sign situated at the south end of the site ARB Meeting Date April 3, 2000 Date of Staff Review March 27, 2000 Staff Contact Margaret Pickart PROJECT DETAILS Existing Sign type: Non-conforming freestanding pylon sign Panel Size: 8'-8¼" square Graphics: None Illumination: Internal. Existing and proposed faces have illuminated backgrounds. Colors: Existing: White background with blue letters and graphic Proposed: White background with blue and red letters Text: CHEVROLET Oldsmobile ANALYSIS: The ARB has consistently required that internally illuminated signs have opaque backgrounds. With an opaque background, the proposed sign faces would be appropriate for the EC. RECOMMENDATIONS: Staffrecommends approval with the condition that the backgrounds of the sign be opaque. ARB 4/3/2000 Jim Price Chevrolet Sign - Page 1 ATTACHMENT B COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Planning & Community Development 401 M¢Intire Road, Room 218 Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 (804) 296 - 5823 Fax (804) 972 - 4012 April 6, 2000 Randy Smith 2165 Seminole Trail Charlottesville, VA 22901 ARBoF(SIGN)2000-10 Jim Price Chevrolet Sign Tax Map 45, Parcel 68 Dear Mr. Smith: The Albemarle County Architectural Review Board, at its meeting on Monday, April 3, 2000, reviewed the above noted request for aCertificate of Appropriateness for new faces on an existing internally illuminated pylon sign situated at the south end of the site. The proposed faces did not have opaque backgrounds. The Board, bv a vote of 4-1, denied the request. if you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me Sincerely, Margaret Pickart Desig-n Planner MP/jcf Cc: File ATTACHMENT C PAGE 1 ARB-F(SIGN)-2000-10 Jim Price Chevrolet Sign - Review for a Certificate of Appropriateness for new faces on an existing internally illuminated pylon sign situated at the south end of the site. Ms. Pickart presented the staff report, noting the following: This proposal is to replace the faces of an existing non-conforming pylon sign. · The existing faces have illuminated white backgrounds. · The new faces are proposed with illuminated white backgrounds. · The sign would have red and blue letters. The ARB has consistently required that internally illuminated signs have opaque backgrounds. With an opaque background, the proposed sign faces would be appropriate for the EC. · Staff recommends approval with the condition that the backgrounds of the sign be opaque. Randy Smith of High Tech Signs and Attorney Ed Bain were present to speak for the project. Mr. Bain stated that the sign background is considered part of a trademark and under case law cannot be altered. He pointed out that the white background is part of a registered trademark, and as part of the trademark, it cannot be changed. Again, he pointed out that they prefer the white background instead of the opaque background recommended by staff. Mr. Michel stated that the sign will appear white during the day whether it is internally illuminated or not. He indicated that the ARB has addressed the opaque background issue many times. Mr. Bain pointed out that in terms of the trademark this application could be denied, but under case law the trademark could not be altered. He noted that they consider this an alteration because the white background would be changed to opaque. The sign background is part of the trademark. Ms. Joseph ascertained that the application is for an internally illuminated white background. She moved for denial of ARB-F(SIGN)-2000-10. Mr. Beverly seconded the motion. DISCUSSION: Mr. Kessler stated that he had to ask staff if the existing sign was opaque or not. He stated that the 'sign is not opaque and, in his opinion, is non-glaring. The sign is white during the ARB Minutes - April 3, 2000, Page 1 ATTACHMENT C PAGE 2 day, at night it is lit and non-glaring. He questioned the disadvantage in this. He asked staff to clarify the difference between a white background and an opaque background. Ms. Pickart stated that if a sign has an opaque, background, the color of the background would not be visible when the sign is illuminated at night ~ only the message portion of the sign would be visible. She noted that internal illumination is appropriate if only the message portion of the sign is lit at night. Mr. Kessler summarized that an opaque background would not be visible at night. Ms. Pickart stated that white backgrounds have been approved with external illumination. Mr. Beverly stated that other applicants for signs have wanted illuminated white backgrounds and they have not been approved. He stated that illuminating only the message portion at night is working well in the community. He pointed out that he is opposed to setting a precedent by approving this application. The aforementioned motion for denial carried by a vote of 4-1 with Mr. Kessler voting against the motion. ARB Minutes - April 3, 2000, Page 2 ATTACHMENT D 8'-8 1/4" EVRDLE~ 8'-8 1/4" 28'-0" OAH EXH 'BiTS RESENTED TO File Name: GM P92 CHEV/OLDS 28' 0AH Scale: 1:48 Approved By: ATTACHMENT E ATTACHMENT F ~F COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE MEMORANDUM TO: Albemarle County Architectural Review Board Wayne Cilimberg, Director of Planning and Community Development Amelia McCulley, Zoning Administrator Margaret Pickart, Design Planner FROM: Greg Kamptner, Assistant County Attorney DATE: October 1999 Signs and structures; whether trademark laws restrict application of Entrance Corridor Overlay District regulations and guidelines This memorandum addresses several questions raised by the Architectural Review Board as to whether the trademark laws restrict the application of the Entrance Corridor Overlay District regulations and design guidelines to signs and other structures that propose to incorporate registered marks or trade dress. For the reasons set forth below, it is our opinion that the trademark laws do not restrict the application of those regulations and guidelines. 1. Introduction: Trademarks, service marks and trade dress Trademarks and service marks are two types of registered "marks" that may obtain protection under federal trademark laws. A "trademark" includes any word, name, symbol, or device, or any combination thereof used, or intended to be used, to identify and distinguish goods, including a unique product, from those manufactured or sold by others. 15 U.S.C. § 1127. A "service mark" is similarly defined, except that service marks identify and distinguish services, rather than goods. Trade dress is the total image of the business and may include features such as size, shape, color or color combinations, texture, graphics or even particular sales techniques: Two Pesos Inc. v. Taco Cabana Inc., 505 U.S. 763 (1992). For example, a restaurant's trade dress can include the shape and general appearance of the exterior of the restaurant. This memorandum uses "Queen's Gasoline Company" in its hypothetical examples. Trademarks December 3, 1999 Page 2 Queen's has registered its yellow "waving queen" logo and purple and pink color scheme. In addition, Queen's Gas' stations are always distinctive, crown-shaped, buildings. e The Architectural Review Board may require that a registered logo or symbol displayed on a sign or structure be altered as a condition of granting a certificate of appropriateness. 15 U.S.C. § 1121 (b) prohibits a locality from requiring the alteration of a registered mark. However, this prohibition applies only to regulations that require alteration of the registered mark itself, not the use of the mark in exterior features. Lisa's Party City Inc. v. Town of Henrietta, 185 F.3d 12 (2a Cir. 1999); see also Gold Coast Publications Inc. v. City of Coral Cables, 42 F.3d 1336 (11th Cir. 1994) (ordinance regulating placement and color of newsracks did not violate 15 U.S.C. § 1121(b)); Payless Shoesource Inc. v. Town of Penfield, 934 F.Supp. 540 (W.D.N.Y. 1996) (sign ordinance requiring exterior sign to be a uniform color did not violate 15 U.S.C. § 1121(b)). One federal appeals court has ruled to the contrary, holding that requiring a sign displaying a trademarked logo to comply with the approved color scheme in a shopping center violates 15 U.S.C. § 1121(b). Blockbuster Videos Inc. v. City of Tempe, 141 F.3d 1295 (9th Cir. 1998). The Blockbuster court also held, however, that the city could prohibit the trademarked sign altogether. Thus, 15 U.S.C. § 1121(b) only prohibits the County from requiring that a business alter its registered mark in every display of that mark within the County, such as on letterhead, leaflets, magazines, newspapers, television and Internet advertising, and point-of-sale displays inside the business. Lisa's Party City, supra. For example, 15 U.S.C. § 1121(b) does not prohibit the Architectural Review Board from requiring Queen's Gas to modify the waving queen logo on a gas canopy by changing its size, color, "waving" feature, letter styles, graphics or color combinations in order to issue a certificate of compliance. The Entrance Corridor Overlay District regulations and guidelines merely control certain design elements to assure that a sign or structure is appropriate for the overlay district. "These regulations have no effect on the businesses' trademark. They limit only the choice of exterior [features] at a particular location. As such, though entirely disallowing the use of a registered trademark in carefully delimited instances, these regulations do not require 'alteration' [of the trademarked logo or symbol] at all." Lisa's Party City, supra. The Architectural Review Board may require that a business' trade dress be altered as a condition of granting a certificate of appropriateness. A building's shape or features may be part of a trade dress. Trade dress can be protected against infringement by other businesses under the trade dress provisions of 15 U.S.C. § 1125. Unless a trade dress is also a registered mark, it does not appear that a trade dress is entitled to the protections of 15 U.S.C. § 1121(b). Trademarks December 3, 1999 Page 3 For the reasons stated in the section above, even if a trade dress is a registered mark, it is our opinion that 15 U.S.C. § 1121 (b) only prohibits a locality from requiring the alteration of the registered mark itself, and not a building's shape or features. Thus, the Architectural Review Board may require that a business' trade dress be changed as a condition of granting a certificate of appropriateness. Thus, the Board may require that Queen's Gas modify, or even abandon, its crown-shaped building design or color scheme in order to issue a certificate of appropriateness. Colors may be registered marks or trade dress, and they may be subiect to regulation. If a color meets the ordinary trademark requirements, there is no special rule preventing it from serving as a trademark. Qualitex Company v. dacobson Products Company Inc., 514 U.S. 159, 165 (1995). Therefore, if a color, or combination of colors, used in a particular manner is non-functional, inherently distinctive, and the imitation of that color or combination of colors would cause confusion as to the source of the goods, it may qualify as a trademark or trade dress. Two Pesos, supra. Nevertheless, the Architectural Review Board may require that proposed colors or color combinations be changed if necessary to issue a certificate of appropriateness. For example, the Board may require that Queen's Gas' registered pink and purple color scheme used for its station canopies be changed to colors determined by the Board to be more appropriate within the Entrance Corridor Overlay District. 5. Conclusion. The trademark laws do not affect the Architectural Review Board's consideration of matters coming before it. As with any decision, the Board's decision is guided by the purposes of the Entrance Corridor Overlay District, the applicable design guidelines, and its charge, when considering requests for certificates of appropriateness, to specify architectural features that will enable it to make a finding of consistency with the design guidelines. I hope that this memorandum adequately addresses your questions. J. Walter Levering Chairman, VPTC David G. Kalergis CEO, VPTC David WJner Secretory Diane Wilson Membership Chair Chris Holden Development Chair W. Mcllwaine Thompson, Jr. Legal Counsel Gail Klein Bentley Michael Berrang Robert S. Capon Joshua A. Chernila Glenda Dorchak Sandy Reisky de Dubnic Dennis Fowler, M.D., Ph.D. Mark Giles Robert Kahn Blair Kelly Thomas McCrystal lan Ratcliffe Brian Wheeler Terry Woodworth vptc VIRGINIA PIEDMONT TECHNOLOGY COUNCIL May 1, 2000 To the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors: Thank you for considering the Virginia Piedmont Technology Council's Connected Community project, Attached for your review is the project proposal as well as copies of the slides supporting the related presentation. Also included is a copy of VPTC's recent Annual Report and a list of our membership. The Connected Community proposal is a broad-based technology education and implementation program intended to harness the Internet for the benefit of our region. These benefits include support of the Sustainability Goals and the Eastern District Planning Initiative, a possible Internet alternative to traditional transportation "solutions" through telecommuting options, and support for regional economic prosperity without promoting sprawl. At this time, VPTC is inviting the City of Charlottesville, the County of Albemarle, and the University of Virginia to join us in a unique public/private partnership to help achieve these goals. We are asking each of these entities to join us as founding partners by 1) endorsing the concept of the Connected Community proposal; 2) pledging a contribution of $150,000 each, spread over five years with allocation and spending subject to a more detailed budget, and 3) some level of cooperation/participation of your staff as the program moves forward. Again, VPTC is grateful for the oppommity to present this proposal, and we hope to begin a strong relationship with Albemarle County as we work together towards the goals of the Connected Community. Very truly yours, David G. Kalergis, MBA/JD CEO and Chair-elect, Virginia Piedmont Technology Council 401 East Market Street Suite 105 Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 T 804 924 6116 F 804 924 421t E info~vptc.org W www. vptc.org cc: Robert Tucker vp_c VIRGINIA PIEDMONT TECHNOLOGY COUNCIL (draft of 4/13/2000 - dgk) Building the VPTC Connected Community "Harnessing the Power of the Internet to Serve the People of the Central Virginia Piedmont" A proposal for a new public/private partnership to establish the Central Virginia Piedmont as a World Class Connected Community Presented by David G. Kalergis, MBA/JD CEO and Chair-elect, Virginia Piedmont Technology Cotmcil. Co-Chair, The Eastern District Planning Initiative of the Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission. Director, University of Virginia Gateway, a public outreach program of the Office of the Vice President for Research and Public Service. With grateful acknowledgement of the intellectual debt owed to Dan Malone, Robert Reynolds, M.D., Gene Block, Ph.D., Andrew Cohill, Ph.D., Mark Giles, and others. VPTC's Connected Community Proposal VPTC's Connected Community Summary VPTC's Connected Community is a new regional partnership working to build world class Internet connectivity and helping to teach the people of Central Virginia how' to use and benefit from it. The Connected Community project, which is sponsored by the Virginia Piedmont Technology Council (VPTC), unites the growing regional technology business community with the public sector in a comprehensive strategy to harness the power of Interact connectivity in service to all the citizens of our region. The strategy will encompass a blend of technical infrastructure, educational, and work force development goals to enhance the lives of our diverse population, including our elderly, our children, students and teachers, minority communities, businesses, and those isolated by physical incapacitation, geographic distance, or poverty. These goals will recognize that the Internet revolution is as much social and educational as it is technological, and that the so-called "digital divide" is as much about access to knowledge as access to computers. An emerging body of global experience and resources already exist. The challenge is to engage our greater community in a cooperative effort to assemble and use these resources across traditional geo-political boundaries for the public good. By building on the lessons learned through Virginia Tech's highly acclaimed Blacksburg Electronic Village, the Central Virginia Piedmont has the opportunity to set a new national standard for bringing the benefits of greater connectivity to its citizens. Envisioning and Goals The motto of the Connected Community is "Harnessing the Power of the Internet to Serve the People of the Central [~irginia Piedmont." The ideals embodied in this motto akeady enjoy a ground-swell of community support, but what does it really mean to be "connected"? What are the elements of"world class"? What tangible results should be sought in pursuing these goals, and how do we measure whether or not we are achieving them? As working definitions to guide the Connected Community initiative, I would like to propose the following: "Connectivity" (or our "connectedness") is the sum of our region's ability to harness the power of the Internet to achieve agreed-upon and measurable goals. The diverse elements which combine to make up this connectivity take into account the region's technical infrastructure, education, culture, and commerce. Examples of technical infi'astructure include the number and availability of draft of 4/13/2000 VPTC's Connected Community Proposal computers capable of logging on to the Intemet and access to sufficient bandwidth to use its ever expanding potential. The other elements of the connectivity equation (which for our purposes may be the more important) target education and empowerment of an ever- growing number of individuals, organizations, and businesses bom all segments of our society to enable use these new tools and skills to benefit themselves and their community. "World class" connectivity is the attainment of global leadership positions across an agreed-upon spectrum of our defined connectivity goals. Examples of such goals include numbers of households with internet access accounts, penetration of connectivity among specific populations such as the elderly or the disadvantaged, the creation of related educational opportunities and training programs, measured work-force development in targeted populations such as city neighborhoods, enhanced opportunities to learn about and participate in the workings of government, and ease of access to this knowledge. While the inter-relations among these elements are many and complex, methodologies already exist to quantify, measure, and evaluate them. Periodic assessments, or "report cards," on the Connected Community's progress will be an integral part of the strategy. Why Central Virginia? On his recent visits to Charlottesville and the University of Virginia, Internet futurist Dan Malone noted that Central Virginia is uniquely situated to take a leading position in building Internet connectivity for the benefit of its citizens. Our region possesses an enviable catalog of resources: the presence of a leading research university which is committed to spinning offtechnological innovation and knowledge at an accelerating rate, a revitalizing central city with forward-thinking leaders, an innovative community college, a growing world class high technology business sector, a citizenry with a historical reputation for national leadership, and legislators committed to education, technology, and preservation of our quality of life. With all these advantages, the Central Virginia Piedmont still retains a scale and "localness" of government and community which allows for possibilities of cooperation that would be impossible in the larger, more developed technology areas such as Silicon Valley or Boston. Why Now? The timing for this new partnership is also favorable. The Commonwealth of Virginia has set national leadership in Internet connectivity as a major priority, and resources are being devoted through the Office of the Secretary of Technology, Virginia's Center for Innovative Technology, and other agencies to refine and achieve that goal. The newly implemented Workforce Investment Act also brings with it the prospect of enhanced resources for technical training and education for our workforce. In addition, the Federal Government is now actively seeking to provide significant funding to those selected regions willing and able to take the lead in distributing the benefits oflnternet technology draf~ of 4/13/2000 ~,. VPTC's Connected Community Proposal 4 throughout the ranks of their citizens. Broad-based public/private partnerships such as the Connected Community are regarded especially favorably in the allocation of these monies. Why VPTC? The Connected Community initiative is directly responsive to VPTC's core mission of helping establish our region as a leader in global technology development and implementation. VPTC combines broad-based community support with both the technical knowledge and the ability and mandate to move quickly in pursuit of this goal. VPTC is a two year old membership-based 501(c)(6) not-for profit corporation organized under the laws of the Commonwealth of Virginia. One of nine regional technology councils recognized by the state-wide Virginia Technology Alliance (VTA), VPTC currently has two representatives (including one officer) on the 18 member VTA Board of Directors. VPTC itself is governed by a 19 member board including leaders from all segments of the Virginia Piedmont technology commtmity. Its rapidly growing membership already includes most of the technology companies in the region, as well as support from the University of Virginia, the City of Charlottesville, Piedmont Virginia Community College, Orange County, the hospitals, the library system, the school systems, our local and statewide political leadership, and Virginia's Center for Innovative Technology. A copy of VPTC's most recent membership list and annual report are available by e- mailing info~,vptc.org. VPTC is proud to be of service to its community by leading this project, and openly solicits continuing comment and support. An Overview of the Plan A project of this scope requires careful planning. On one hand, speed of execution is essential to keep the initiative from being "just a lot of talk." On the other hand, haste could lead to missteps or costly errors. Figure 1 shows the framework for a strategy which will advance the project rapidly yet with attention to all necessary details. Rather than the traditional linear progression of steps, this strategy bon'ows from the science of systems analysis by using a "moving circle of activity" model which allows parts of the program to be implemented while others are still in the planning phase. For example, there is no reason why several of the existing and planned community computer learning laboratories could not immediately be consolidated and improved through cost-saving synergies, even while a planned study of possible scenarios for increased bandwidth or early adoption of wireless by the community are still in their initial planning stages. The overall strategy revolves (literally) around a continuing cycle of envisioning and goal-setting, organization and planning, community education and consensus building, an on-going inventory of connectivity resources, the identification of existing technology/educational gaps and opportunities, implementation of targeted programs, and an evaluation of the overall effectiveness of those programs in enhancing regional draR of 4/13/2000 VPTC's Connected Community Proposal 5 connectivity. The balance of this proposal will expand upon the execution of this strategy. Organization and Planning Organization and planning involves the forging of regional, state-wide, national, and international partnerships and alliances in pursuit of the common goal. Early planning participants akeady include a broad spectrum of the technology community as represented by VPTC, the City of Charlottesville, the University of Virginia, Piedmont Virginia Community College, The Entrepreneurial Village, Virginia's Center for Innovative Technology, and Virginia Tech's Blacksburg Electronic Village. These partnerships and alliances are currently being structured within a framework established by VPTC's Connected Community, in consultation with the entities invited to participate. An important early step in the life the project is an aggregation of the resources necessary both to demonstrate wide-spread community commitment and to move the project forward quickly. The VPTC Board of Directors will seek to raise money from multiple public and private sources and then manage and administer those funds to support the mission and goals of this document. Fortunately, we live in a community of unbounded generosity of spirit. Significant offers of time, money, equipment, and technical know- how have already been received or are pending an early decision. Exhibit 1, attached, contains a listing of progress to date on this critical step. This aggregation will proceed rapidly, centered upon the twin objectives of 1) immediate progress on tangible goals, and 2) financial self-sufficiency within three to five years. Community Education and Consensus Building The community education and consensus building element of the strategic plan involves a repeated, simple, and clear articulation of the project's potential benefits to every available audience. Examples of such benefits include better communication and services for populations such as our elderly, enhanced work skill training for our students and businesses, and access to a larger world for those who might otherwise remain isolated by incapacitation, physical distance, neighborhood barriers, and cultural or financial poverty. By focusing on our goal of "Harnessing the Power of the Internet to Serve the People of the Central Virginia Piedmont" maximum community participation, inclusiveness, and buy-in can be attained. An On-going Inventory of Connectivity Resources The community outreach envisioned in the previous step sets the stage for an on-going inventory of community connectivity resources. The goal is not just to talk, but to listen, and in doing so to uncover and catalogue the array of connectivity resources - technological, institutional, and human - which already exist in our region. Examples include the Computers4Kids program, the Monticello Avenue Community Website, PVCC's Computer Learning Laboratory, the PVCC/VPTC Professional Design Certificate Program, the Virtual Information Academy, the University of Virginia School draft of 4/13/2000 VPTC's Connected Community Proposal of Continuing Education's Certification programs, the Orange County School System's Hornet Technology Program, and a host of others. This inventory of connectivity will also include a detailed mapping of related physical resources, including fiber pathways, switching stations, antenna towers, etc. Identification/Implementation of Technology Gaps and Opportunities The next step is to creatively scan this newly illuminated landscape to locate the connectivity gaps and opportunities. Examples might include combining several of the disconnected community computer learning laboratories into a single strategic location in the emerging West Main Street Technology Corridor, methods of capitalizing on our region's growing ability to access high bandwidth, and a comprehensive strategy for early education and adoption of the best wireless technologies as soon as they become available. These steps will require new and shif[ing combinations of technical expertise, action plans, and the community will to implement them. Enhanced Regional Connectivity Our purpose is to enhance connectivity in service to the people of the Virginia Piedmont. How will we know if we are moving towards this goal? And how do our goals remain clear and alive in the rapidly evolving Internet landscape? An integral part o£the process must be planned measurement and evaluation of an array of selected elements, coupled with a healthy re-examination of the goals themselves. The "moving circle of activity" model must be continuously referred to and implemented for our region to achieve world class connectivity in service to its citizens. draR of 4/13/2000 ptc ""' VIRGINIA PIEDMONT TECHNOLOGY COUNCIL Exhibit 1: Connected Community Commitments to Date VPTC's Connected Community initiative will be coordinated by a special project group of the VPTC. Initial funding/planning partners which will be offered representation in this group include: The Virginia Piedmont Technology Council, representing the regional technology sector. A seed grant of $25,000/year for two years has been committed from private sources, with the prospect of more to follow. The City of Charlottesville. A request for a grant of up to $150,000 over five years has been approved, subject to a University of Virginia match. The University of Virginia. A request for a grant to match the City's is currently under consideration and an early decision is pending. Piedmont Virginia Community College. A commitment of $10,000/year for two years has been offered pending joint University and City participation. The County of Albemarle. DisCussions are beginning, based on a comparison of Sustainability Council goals with the goals of the Connected Community. Virginia's Center for Innovative Technology. A $50,000 seed grant has been preliminarily approved. The County of Orange School System. A $5,000 seed grant has been committed. The Blacksburg Electronic Village of Virginia Tech. An offer of planning, technological assistance, and possible broadband access linkages and partnerships has been received. Note: Additional money, in-kind, and equipment grants are expected from the private sector. Student internships and mentor programs are also contemplated. Once established, the Connected Community will be eligible for federal grant monies. In addition, although the Connected Community is a not-for-profit activity, fees for selected services will provide supporting revenues. VPTC's Connected Community Proposal Figure 1 VPTC'S CONNECTED COMMUNITY ("C2") C(.mununity VPTC: Driven ] IBa~ed on Definitions and Goals [ PartnerShips and Alliaac~ Resource Aggregation Toohnica! ActiOn Plans Community Implementation 3/31/2000 IT~imoiogical~ 1 draft of 4/13/2000 ~ 0 Imm o & o mgm mm 0 ~ 0 ell "-'~ imm 0 0 c~ 0 0 · · · · · · 0 ~ ,,mN I /~/ ell 0 ~ o~ 0 © o 0 0 0 %° 0 0 0 MAY 3, 2000 CLOSED SESSION MOTION I move that the board go into closed session pursuant to. section 2.1-344(a) of the Code of Virginia · Under subsection (1) to consider appointments to boards and commissions; · Under subsection (3) to consider the acquisition of property for school sites and other public uses; and · Under subsection (7) to consult with legal counsel and staff regarding specific legal matters relating to an interjurisdictional agreement and regarding pending litigation relating to the Ivy Landfill. David R Bowerman P~o L~ndSa~ G. Dorder, ~r. Charlotte Y. Humphris J~:k Jouett COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Office of Board of Supervisors 401 Mclntire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 (804) 296-5848 FAX (804) 296-5800 Chades S. Martin Walter E Perkins Sally H. Thomas Samue~ l~fille~ May 4, 2000 Ms. Ruth L. Stone 718 Lexington Ave. Charlottesville, VA 22902 Dear Ms. Stone: At the Board of Supervisors meeting held on May 3, 2000, the Board appointed you to the Commission on Children and Families, with said term effective May 3, 2000 through May 2, 2003. I have enclosed an updated roster for your convenience. 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, Charles S. Martin Chairman CSM/lab Enclosure CC; James Camblos Larry Davis Saphira Baker Roxanne White Printed on recycled paper COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: RE: Members of the Board of Supervisors Laurie Bentley, C.M.C., Senior Deputy Cler~ ~ ~r)t April 26, 2000 Vacancies on Boards and Commissions I have updated the list of vacancies on boards and commissions through July 31, 2000. In addition, I believe you intended to appoint Ms. Ruth Stone to the Commission on Children and Families (CCF) at the April 5, 2000 day meeting. That still needs to be done. cc: Bob Tucker Larry Davis Ch'ville Regional Chamber of Commerce COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AGENDA TITLE: Presentation Financial Advisors SU BJ ECT/PROPOSAL/REQU EST: Presentation by Davenport & Company LLC on Albemarle County's financial condition STAFF CONTACT(S): Tucker, White, Foley, Breeden BACKGROUND: AGENDA DATE: ITEM NUMBER: May 3, 2000 ACTION: CONSENT AGENDA: ACTION: INFORMATION: ATTACHMENTS: REWEWED BY: INFORMATION: X The firm of Davenport & Company LLC was hired in March as the County's financial advisor to analyze and assess the County's financial condition, help develop a capital financing plan and assist the County in preparing for a possible bond referendum and bond sale. Staff met twice with them and provided material related to our financial audits and capital and operating budgets. DISCUSSION: The presentation on Wednesday will focus on the first phase of their work, which is to provide an overview of Albemarle County's financial position relative to other Triple A or Double A localities throughout Virginia. The purpose of this discussion is to give the Board a clearer picture of where we are now, so the Board can determine some future financial policy parameters relative to a strong bond rating. This discussion of where we want to be will help the financial advisors with the next phase of their analysis, which is to develop a capital financing plan for capital projects within the agreed upon financial parameters. This next phase, which begins to pin down what capital projects we may be able to fund within our revenue and debt capacities, will be the focus of their work over the next several months. RECOMMENDATION: No action is required by the Board. Mr. James Traudt of Davenport & Company will be presenting. 00.094 TO: FROM: SUBJECT: DATE: COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Planning & Community Development 401 Mclntire Road, Room 218 Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 (804) 296 - 5823 Fax (804) 972 - 4035 MEMORANDUM Board of Supervisors Wayne Cilimberg and Elaine Echols Suggested Strategy May 1, 2000 The DISC Implementation Committee met on Monday, May 1, 2000 and has provided the following recommended steps towards implementation of the Neighborhood Model (changes from original April 21, 2000 recommendations to the committee are shown in bold italics): o "Accept" the work of the DISC Committee and acknowledge that it is under review. It is recommended that the Board direct the staff to begin providing assessments of relevant re- zoning and special use permit proposals in relation to the Neighborhood Model as an informational item in staff reports. This would be provided in much the same way fiscal impact analysis is currently, qualified as for information only and would not be considered a basis for decision as it would not yet have standing as a part of the Comprehensive Plan. The intent is to immediately begin providing the Planning Commission (PC) and Board of Supervisors (BOS) some picture of how development proposals are meeting Neighborhood Model recommendations before the DISC recommendations are adopted into the Comprehensive Plan. Adopt the Neighborhood Model (Volume 1) as part of the Comprehensive Plan. This is necessary to begin basing relevant re-zoning and special use permit decisions on the Model and before undertaking regulatory changes and the Neighborhood Master Plans. Conduct a work session andpublic hearing of the PC and the BOS in June, 2000 at which the staff would provide the Commission and Board an overview of the Neighborhood Model and its component parts and answer questions. Staff from departments whose work/projects will be impacted by the Neighborhood Model's adoption would also be asked to attend this work session. The BOS should then send the Neighborhood Model to the PC with a request that it conduct its review, public hearing and provide recommendations for the BOS by the September, 2000 day meeting of the BOS. The Board is asked to review the Neighborhood Model in September and hold its public hearing and adopt the Model in October, 2000. £n proceeding with this schedule, decision needs to be made by the Board as to the type of staff involvement in the Commission and Board review that is desired. There is prior staff comment on the Neighborhood Model that was provided to DISC Some recommendations were incorporated by DISC and some were not. These can be provided for the PC and BOS information. 3. Appoint the DISC II Oversight Committee to monitor Neighborhood Model review, regulatory changes and neighborhood master planning. The Board should appoint this committee by July, 2000 to monitor this work. Recommendation as to membership in this committee will begin with DISC appointment of an advisory committee in May, 2000. 4. Adopt the regulatory changes (Volume 2, Part 1, Section 2) dealing with the form of development: subdivision and zoning ordinance recommendations, including steep slopes provisions, and modification of the water quality ordinance. Following adoption of the Neighborhood Model, conduct a work session of the PC and BOS in November, 2000 to review the regulatory change proposals. Staff from departments whose work/projects will be impacted by the regulatory changes would also be asked to attend this work session. In consideration of these regulatory changes, it should be understood that if the County is going to require certain project amenities from developers, such as accessible and usable parks and open space, there is an expectation of County funding for maintenance. With an understanding of the impact of these changes, the Board should pass a resolution of intent to amend the relevant ordinances and forward this to the PC with a request that it conduct its review, public hearing and provide recommendations to the BOS by the March, 2001 day meeting of the BOS. The Board is asked to review the regulatory changes in March and April, 2001 and hold its public hearing and adopt the regulatory changes in May, 2001. Again, in proceeding with this schedule, decision needs to be made by the Board as to the type of staff involvement in the Commission and Board review that is desired. 5. Undertake the first Neighborhood Master Plan. Following adoption of the Neighborhood Model, direct staff to proceed with the first Neighborhood Master Plan as a "pilot". This will require issuance of an RFP for consultant assistance and appointment of a Master Plan committee for the neighborhood in November, 2000. It is likely that the consultant will not be selected, a contract negotiated and a notice to proceed issued before February, 2001. As part of the contract a timeline will be developed for completion of the Master Plan. Decision will need to be made as to which neighborhood will be the subject of the first plan. Previously, staff has identified Hollymead and Crozet as the two most likely candidates. 6. Adopt the policy changes (Volume 2, Part 1, Section 1, and Part 2), with special attention to the items below, as part of the Comprehensive Plan. Following adoption of the Neighborhood Model, conduct a work session of the PC and BOS in November, 2000 to review the proposed changes. Staff from departments whose work/proj ects will be impacted by these policy changes would also be asked to attend this work session. Major policy changes that must be considered involve: a. Schools and parks b. VDOT road regulations c. Affordable housing d. Fire trucks and fire safety With an understanding of the impact of these changes, the Board should pass a resolution of intent to amend the relevant sections of the Comprehensive Plan and forward this to the PC with a request that it conduct its review, public hearing and provide recommendations to the BOS by the April, 2001 day meeting of the BOS. The Board is asked to review the policy changes in April and May, 2001 and hold its public hearing and adopt the policy changes in June, 2001. Again, in proceeding with this schedule, decision needs to be made by the Board as to the type of staff involvement in the Commission and Board review that is desired Z I.tl 0 0 COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AGENDA TITLE: DISC Implementation SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Process for Implementation of Neighborhood Model and Other Committee Recommendations AGENDA DATE: May 3, 2000 ITEM NUMBER: ACTION: X INFORMATION: CONSENT AGENDA: ACTION: INFORMATION: ATTACHMENTS: Yes Messrs. Tucker, Foley, Cilimberg . REVIEWED BY: z/~I BACKGROUND: At its April 5, 2000 meeting, the Board of Supervisors established a committee of staff and DISC representatives to develop a plan of action for implementing the recommendations of DISC. DISCUSSION: Attached is a memo proposing the recommended steps towards implementation of the Neighborhood Model. The above-mentioned committee will be reviewing this memo on Monday, May 1. Any changes to this proposal that might arise from that meeting will be provided for the Board at its May 3 meeting. RECOMMENDATION: Approve the final recommended steps towards implementation of the Neighborhood Model as will be provided at the Board's May 3 meeting. 00.091 TO: FROM: SUBJECT: DATE: COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Planning & Community Development 401 McIntirc Road, Room 218 Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 (804) 296 - 5823 Fax (804) 972 - 4035 MEMORANDUM DISC Implementation Committee Wayne Cilimberg and Elaine Echols Suggested Strategy April 21, 2000 Recommended steps towards implementation of the Neighborhood Model are: 1. "Accept" the work of the DISC Committee and acknowledge that it is under review. It is recommended that the Board direct the staffto begin providing assessments of relevant re- zoning and special use permit proposals in relation to the Neighborhood Model as an informational item in staff reports. This would be provided in much the same way fiscal impact analysis is currently, qualified as for information only and would not be considered a basis for decision as it would not yet have standing as a part of the Comprehensive Plan. The intent is to immediately begin providing the Planning Commission (PC) and Board of Supervisors (BOS) some picture of how development proposals are meeting Neighborhood Model recommendations before the DISC recommendations are adopted into the Comprehensive Plan. 2. Adopt the Neighborhood Model (Volume 1) as part of the Comprehensive Plan. This is necessary to begin basing relevant re-zoning and special use permit decisions on the Model and before undertaking regulatory changes and the Neighborhood Master Plans. Conduct a work session of the PC and the BOS in June, 2000 at which the staff would provide the Commission and Board an overview of the Neighborhood Model and its component parts and answer questions. Staff from departments whose work/projects will be impacted by the Neighborhood Model's adoption would also be asked to attend this work session. The BOS should then send the Neighborhood Model to the PC with a request that it conduct its review, public hearing and provide recommendations to the BOS by the September, 2000 day meeting of the BOS. The Board is asked to review the Neighborhood Model in September and hold its public hearing and adopt the Model in October, 2000. In proceeding with this schedule, decision needs to be made by the Board as to the type of staff involvement in the Commission and Board review that is desired. There is prior staff comment on the Neighborhood Model that was provided to DISC. Some recommendations were incorporated by DISC and some were not. These can be provided for the PC and BOS information. 3. Appoint the DISC H Oversight Committee to monitor regulatory changes and neighborhood master planning. Following adoption of the Neighborhood Model, the Board should appoint this committee by the end of calendar year 2000 to monitor this work. 4. Adopt the regulatory changes (Volume 2, Part 1, Section 2) dealing with the form of development: subdivision and zoning ordinance recommendations, including steep slopes provisions, and modification of the water quality ordinance. Following adoption of the Neighborhood Model, conduct a work session of the PC and BOS in November, 2000 to review the regulatory change proposals. Staff from departments whose work/projects will be ~mpacted by the regulatory changes would also be asked to attend this work session. In consideration of these regulatory changes, it should be understood that if the County is going to require certain project amenities from developers, such as accessible and usable parks and open space, there is an expectation of County funding for maintenance. With an understanding of the impact of these changes, the Board should pass a resolution of intent to amend the relevant ordinances and forward this to the PC with a request that it conduct its review, public hearing and provide recommendations to the BOS by the March, 2001 day meeting of the BOS. The Board is asked to review the regulatory changes in March and April, 2001 and hold its public hearing and adopt the regulatory changes in May, 2001. Again, in proceeding with this schedule, decision needs to be made by the Board as to the type of staff involvement in the Commission and Board review that is desired. 5. Undertake the first Neighborhood Master Plan. Following adoption of the Neighborhood Model, direct staff to proceed with the first Neighborhood Master Plan as a "pilot". This will require issuance of an RFP for consultant assistance and appointment of a Master Plan committee for the neighborhood in November, 2000. It is likely that the consultant will not be selected, a contract negotiated and a notice to proceed issued before February, 2001. As part of the contract a timeline will be developed for completion of the Master Plan. Decision will need to be made as to which neighborhood will be the subject of the first plan. Previously, staff has identified Hollymead and Crozet as the two most likely candidates. 6. Adopt the policy changes (Volume 2, Part 1, Section 1, and Part 2), with special attention to the items below, as part of the Comprehensive Plan. Following adoption of the Neighborhood Model, conduct a work session of the PC and BOS in January, 2001 to review the proposed changes. Staff from departments whose work/projects will be impacted by these policy changes would also be asked to attend this work session. Major policy changes that must be considered involve: a. Schools and parks b. VDOT road regulations c. Affordable housing d. Fire trucks and fire safety With an understanding of the impact of these changes, the Board should pass a resolution of intent to amend the relevant sections of the Comprehensive Plan and forward this to the PC with a request that it conduct its review, public hearing and provide recommendations to the BOS by the April, 2001 day meeting of the BOS. The Board is asked to review the policy changes in April and May, 2001 and hold its public hearing and adopt the policy changes in June, 2001. Again, in proceeding with this schedule, decision needs to be made by the Board as to the type of staff involvement in the Commission and Board review that is desired. 0 0 COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ~.2 C V D AGENDA TITLE: Worksession on Proposed Ordinance for the Acquisition of Conservation Easements ("ACE") Program SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Worksession on proposed ordinance to implement the ACE program STAFF CONTACT(S): Tucker, Foley, Davis, Cilimberg AGENDA DATE: May 3, 2000 ACTION: CONSENT AGENDA: ACTION: ATTACHMENTS: Yes ITEM NUMBER: REVIEWED BY: INFORMATION: INFORMATION: BACKGROUND: At its February 2, 2000 meeting, the Board directed staff to draft an ordinance implementing the ACE program, based on the ACE Committee's final report dated November 3, 1999, as supplemented by subsequent worksessions and the January 12, 2000 public hearing. The form of the proposed ordinance is generally modeled after the Virginia Beach Agricultural Reserve Program. DISCUSSION: Administration of program: The ACE program is proposed to be administered by the director of planning and community development, who is designated as the program administrator. (Section 5.1-t04) The key functions of the program administrator will be to promote the program and other land protection programs, develop procedures for implementing and administering the program, evaluate applications for conservation easements and provide staff support to the program's committees and the Board. The ACE committee will be a 10-member committee appointed by the Board. Its primary purposes will be to evaluate and rank applications and make recommendations to the Board, and to annually review the program's eligibility and ranking criteria and recommend changes to the Board. (Section 5.1-105) The appraisal review committee will be a 5-member committee appointed by the Board whose purpose will be to review appraisals and make recommendations on those appraisals to the Board. (Section 5.1-106) The Board will decide which conservation easements will be purchased. (Sections 5.1-107 and 5.1-108) Eli.qibility of parcels: The ACE program is proposed to be available for all privately owned and controlled lands in the County. (Section 5.1-102) In order for a parcel to be eligible: (1) the use of the parcel subject to a conservation easement must be consistent with the comprehensive plan; (2) the proposed terms of the conservation easement must satisfy the minimum easement terms and conditions set forth in the ordinance; and (3) the parcel must obtain at least 15 points under the ranking criteria. (Section 5.1-107) The ranking criteria assign various points based on the parcel's open space resources, threat of conversion to developed use, natural and cultural resources, and the availability of other public or private funding to be applied to purchase the conservation easement. (Section 5.1-108) Procedure to establish conservation easements: The procedure to establish a conservation easement under the ACE program is proposed to be an annual process. Applications will be submitted to the program administrator by July 1 of each year, who will evaluate each application and submit a list of ranked parcels to the ACE committee by August 1. By September 1, the ACE committee will evaluate and rank the applications in the order of priority which it recommends the easements shall be purchased, and forward its recommendation to the Board. The Board will then review the ACE committee's recommendation, and determine which parcels it desires conservation easements. The Board will then rank those parcels on which it will seek to purchase conservation easements that year. Each parcel identified by the Board will then be appraised by either the County assessor or an independent qualified appraiser, which must be completed by October 1. The appraisal review committee will review each appraisal and submit its recommendation to the Board by November 1. (Section 5.1-110) From the list of parcels, the Board will then identify the initial pool of eligible parcels for conservation easements to be purchased. The size of the pool will be based on the funds available to purchase easements in the current fiscal year. The purchase price will be determined by multiplying the appraised value by a factor based on the average annual adjusted gross income of the owner. This factor will decrease as the income of the owner increases (e__q.., if the income of the owner AGEN DA TITLE: Worksession on Proposed Ordinance for the Acquisition of Conservation Easements ("ACE") Program May 3, 2000 Page 2 is $50,000 or less, the purchase pdce will be 100% of the appraised value; if the income of the owner is between $100,001 and $110,000, the purchase price will be 64% of the appraised value; if the income of the owner is $200,001 or more, the purchase price will be 4% of the appraised value). The Board will then invite the owners of the parcels in the pool to submit offers, and if an offer is made and accepted, a conservation easement will be established. If an offer is not submitted or the Board elects not to acquire an easement, an invitation will be sent to the next remaining parcel on the list of eligible parcels not included in the initial pool. The purchase price and the terms and conditions of the conservation easement will not be subject to negotiation. (Section 5.1-111) The proposed process requires all applications to be ranked and that the purchases occur at the same time each year. However, the ordinance allows the Board to waive any re<: uirement or deadline if it is shown that exigent circumstances exist or that the requirements of the ordinance unreasonably restrict the purchase of an easement. (Section 5.1-110) This could allow the Board to set alternative dates for a calendar year 2000 purchase of easements, if the Board desires to do SO. Terms and conditions of conservation easement: The minimum terms and conditions of the conservation easement will: (1) prohibit the subdivision of parcels less than 100 acres, and allow parcels larger than 100 acres to be subdivided into not more than as many 100-acre (or more) parcels as may be created, plus 1 (e.g., an 850 acre parcel could be subdivided into 9 parcels, 8 of which are at least 100 acres); (2) require the owner to use and maintain a mountain resource in a manner consistent with the comprehensive plan, if the parcel was awarded points during the evaluation process for that criterion; please note that, other than the mountain resource, the proposed easement will not require that owners preserve or maintain the qualities of the parcel that made it eligible for a conservation easement, except to the extent those qualities are preserved or maintained by density reduction; (3) prohibit the owner from reacquiring the conservation easement; and (4) impose other standard conservation easement restrictions regarding uses and activities allowed on the parcel, improvements that can be made, management of forest resources, and the right of the easement holder to enter and inspect the parcel to determine compliance with the terms and conditions of the easement. (Section 5.1-109) Because County funds wil be used to purchase most easements, the County and another qualified entity, such as the Virginia Outdoors Foundation or the Albemarle County Public Recreational Facilities Authority, will be the holders of each easement. (Section 5.1-109) RECOMMENDATION: Consider setting a public hearing on the proposed ordinance for the Board's June 14, 2000 meeting. This will allow the Planning Commission to hold a work session on the ordinance before the public hearing. 00.090 Draft: 04/27/00 ORDINANCE NO. 5.1-00(1) AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE CODE OF THE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA BY ADDING CHAPTER 5.1, CONSERVATION EASEMENT PROGRAM BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of the County of Albemarle, Virginia, that Chapter 5.1, Conservation Easement Program, is hereby added to the Code of the County of Albemarle, Virginia as follows: By adding: Sec. 5.1-100. Sec. 5.1-101. Sec. 5.1-102. Sec. 5.1-103. Sec. 5.1-104. Sec. 5.1-105. Sec. 5.1-106. Sec. 5.1-107. Sec. 5.1-108. Sec. 5.1-109. Sec. 5.1-110. Sec. 5.1-111. Sec. 5.1-112. Sec. 5.1-113. Short title. Purpose. Applicability. Definitions. Designation of program administrator; powers and duties. ACE committee established; powers and duties. Appraisal review committee established; powers and duties. Eligibility criteria. Ranking criteria. Easement terms and conditions. Application and evaluation procedure. Purchase of conservation easement. Program funding. Program non-exclusivity. Chapter 5.1. Conservation Easement Program Sec. 5.1-100. Short title. This chapter shall be known and may be cited as the "acquisition of conservation easements ("ACE") program." ( Ord. 5.1-00(1 )) Sec. 5.1-101. Purpose. The board of supervisors finds that between 1974 and 1992, twenty-five thousand (25,000) acres of farmland in the county were lost to development; that at present, almost one- third of the acres of forest land in the county is considered by the Virginia department of forestry to be too densely populated for timber production; that regulatory land-use planning tools acceptable to the county's citizens and elected officials have not been able to stem the conversion of farm and forest land to other uses; and that farm and forest land, clean water and airsheds, biological diversity, scenic vistas and rural character have a public value as well as a private value. Therefore, the specific purposes of this chapter include, but are not limited to: 1. Establishing a program by which the county can acquire conservation easements Draft: 04/27/00 to serve as one means of assuring that the county's resources are protected and efficiently used; 2. Establishing and preserving open space and preserving the rural character of Albemarle County; 3. Preserving farm and forest lands; 4. Conserving and protecting water resources and environmentally sensitive lands, waters and other natural resources; Conserving and protecting biodiversity and wildlife and aquatic habitat; Assisting in shaping the character and direction of the development of the o 6. community; 7. Attaining a balance between landowners' fights and responsibilities, and between the private and public values of rural land; 8. Improving the quality of life for the inhabitants of the county; and 9. Promoting tourism through the preservation of scenic resources. (Ord. 5.1-00(1)) State law reference - Va. Code § 10.1-1700 et seq. See. 5.1-102. Applicability. The ACE program shall be available for all lands in the county, except those lands under the ownership or control of the United States of America, the Commonwealth of Virginia, or an agency or instrumentality thereof. (Ord. S.l-00(1)) Sec. 5.1-103. Definitions. The following definitions shall apply in the interpretation and implementation of this chapter: (1) Conservation easement. The term "conservation easement" means a nonpossessory interest in a parcel of one or more qualified easement holders under section 5.1- 109(E), whether the easement is appurtenant or in gross, acquired by purchase pursuant to the ACE program, imposing limitations or affirmative obligations for the purpose of retaining or protecting natural or open-space values of a parcel, assuring its availability for agricultural, forestal, recreational or open-space use, protecting natural resources, maintaining or enhancing air or water quality, or preserving the historical, architectural or archaeological aspects of the parcel. 2 Draft: 04/27/00 (2) Development right. The term "development right" means a right to divide a parcel within the rural areas zoning district conferred on the parcel by Chapter 18 of the Albemarle County Code (Zoning), including the right to create a parcel twenty-one (21) acres or greater. (3) the parcel. Owner. The term "owner" means the owner or owners of the freehold interest of (4) Program administrator. The term "program administrator" means the director of the department of planning and community development. (5) Parcel. The term "parcel" means a lot or tract of land, lawfully recorded in the clerk's office of the circuit court of the County of Albemarle. (Ord. 5.1-00(1)) Sec. 5.1-104. Designation of program administrator; powers and duties. A. Designation. The director of the department of planning and community development is hereby designated as the program administrator. B. Powers and duties. The program administrator, or his designee, shall administer the conservation easement program and shall have the powers and duties to: 1. Establish reasonable and standard procedures and forms consistent with this chapter for the administration and implementation of the program. 2. Promote the program, in cooperation with the ACE committee, by providing educational materials to the public and conducting informational meetings. 3. Investigate and pursue, in conjunction with the county executive, state, federal and other programs available to provide additional public and private resources to fund the program and to maximize private participation. 4. Evaluate all applications to determine their eligibility and their ranking score, rank applications based on their ranking score, and make recommendations thereon to the ACE committee. 5. Determine the number of usable development rights existing on each parcel subject to an application, after obtaining the number of theoretical development rights from the zoning administrator. 6. Coordinate the preparation of appraisals. 7. Provide staff support to the appraisal review committee, the ACE committee and the board of supervisors. Draft: 04/27/00 the public. Provide educational materials regarding other land protection programs to (Ord. 5.1-00(1)) Sec. 5.1-105. ACE committee established; powers and duties. A. Establishment. The ACE committee is hereby established, as provided herein: 1. The committee shall consist often (10) members appointed by the board of supervisors. Each member shall be a resident of Albemarle County. The committee should, but is not required to, be comprised of members who are knowledgeable in the fields of conservation biology, real estate and/or rural land appraisal, farming and forestry and may also include members of conservation easement holding agencies and conservation organizations. 2. The members of the committee shall serve at the pleasure of the board of supervisors. The initial term of three (3) members shall be for one (1) year. The initial term of three (3) members shall be for two (2) years. The initial term for four (4) members shall be for three (3) years. Each term after the initial term shall be for (3) years. 3. The members of the committee shall serve without pay, but the board of supervisors may, in its discretion, reimburse each member for actual and necessary expenses incurred in the performance of his duties. 4. The committee shall elect a chairman, vice-chairman and secretary at its first meeting each calendar year. The secretary need not be a member of the committee. B. Powers and duties. The ACE committee shall have the powers and duties to: 1. Promote the program, in cooperation with the program administrator, by providing educational materials to the public and conducting informational meetings. 2. Review the ranking of applications recommended by the program administrator, and make its recommendation to the board of supervisors as to which parcels conservation easements should be purchased.. 3. Annually review the program's eligibility and ranking criteria and recommend to the board of supervisors any changes needed to maintain the program's consistency with the comprehensive plan, or to improve the administration and implementation of the program. (Ord, 5.1-00(1)) Sec. 5.1-106. Appraisal review committee established; powers and duties. A. Establishment. The appraisal review committee is hereby established, as provided 4 Draft: 04/27/00 herein: 1. The committee shall consist of five (5) members appointed by the board of supervisors. Each member shall be a resident of Albemarle County. The committee shall be comprised of three (3) real estate professionals, the county assessor, and a member of the conservation easement committee. 2. The members of the committee shall serve at the pleasure of the board of supervisors. Each member, other than the county assessor, shall serve a one (1) year term. The county assessor shall be a permanent member of the committee. 3. The members of the committee shall serve without pay, but the board of supervisors may, in its discretion, reimburse each member other than the county assessor for actual and necessary expenses incurred in the performance of his duties. 4. The county assessor shall be the chairman of the committee. B. Power and duty. The appraisal review committee shall have the power and duty to review appraisals to assure they are consistent with appropriate appraisal guidelines and practices, and to make recommendations thereon to the board of supervisors. (Ord. 5.1-00(1)) Sec. 5.1-107. Eligibility criteria. In order for a parcel to be eligible for a conservation easement, it must meet the following criteria: (i) the use of the parcel subject to the conservation easement must be consistent with the comprehensive plan; (ii) the proposed terms of the conservation easement must be consistent with the minimum conservation easement terms and conditions set forth in section 5.1-109; (iii) the parcel shall obtain at least fifteen (15) points under the ranking criteria set forth in section 5.1-108. (Ord. 5.1-00(1)) Sec. 5.1-108. Ranking criteria. In order to effectuate the purposes of this chapter, parcels for which conservation easement applications have been received shall be ranked according to the criteria and the point values assigned thereto as set forth herein. Points shall be rounded to the first decimal. A. Open space resources. 1. The parcel adjoins an existing permanent conservation easement, a national, state or local park, or other protected open space: one (1) point for every five hundred (500) feet of shared boundary. Draft: 04/27/00 2. Size of the parcel: one (1) point for each fifty (50) acres. B. Threat of conversion to developed use. 1. The parcel is threatened with forced sale: five (5) points. 2. The parcel is threatened with other hardship: three (3) points. 3. The number of usable development fights on the parcel: one-half (1/2) point for each usable development fight to be surrendered, which shall be determined by subtracting the number of usable development rights to be retained from the total number of usable development fights. C. Natural and cultural resources. 1. Mountain protection: one (1) point for each one thousand (1000) feet of mountain ridge, as shown on county mountain overlay maps. 2. Working family farm, including forestry: five (5) points if at least one family member's principal occupation and income (more than half) is farming or foresting the parcel; three (3) points if at least one family member produces farm products derived from the family farm. 3. The parcel adjoins a road designated either as a Virginia scenic highway or byway, or as an entrance corridor under section 30.6.2 of Chapter 18 oft he Albemarle County Code: one (1) point for each six hundred (600) feet of road frontage. 4. The parcel adjoins a public road: one (1) point for each one thousand (1000) feet of road frontage. 5. The parcel contains historic resources: three (3) points if it is within a national or state rural historic district; two (2) points if the parcel is within the Monticello viewshed. 6. The parcel contains an occurrence of a plant or animal species hsted on the state natural heritage inventory: five (5) points. 7. The parcel contains class I, II or III soils, based on federal natural resources conservation service classifications: five (5) points for each fifty (50) acres containing such soils. 8. The parcel is within the South Rivarma Reservoir Watershed, or adjoins Ivy Creek, the Mechum River, Moormans River, Doyle Creek, Buck Mountain Creek, the Rivanna River or Jacob's Run: one-half (1/2) point for each one thousand (1000) feet of frontage. 6 Draft: 04/27/00 9. The parcel adjoins a waterway designated as a state scenic river: one-half (1/2) point for each one thousand (1000) feet of frontage. 10. The parcel is or will be subject to a permanent easement whose primary purpose is to establish or maintain vegetative buffers adjoining perennial or intermittent streams, as those terms are defined in Chapter 17 of the Albemarle County Code: one (1) point for each one thousand (1000) feet of buffer that is between thirty-five (35) and one hundred (100) feet wide; two (2) points for each one thousand (1000) feet of buffer that is greater than one hundred (100) feet wide. 11. The parcel is within a sensitive groundwater recharging area identified in a county-sponsored groundwater study: one (1) point. D. County fund leveraging. If the owner identifies state, federal or private funding that can be applied to the purchase of the conservation easement: one (1) point for each ten (10) percent of the purchase price for which those funds can be applied. (Ord. 5.1-00(1)) Sec. 5.1-109. Easement terms and conditions. Each conservation easement shall conform with the requirements of the Open Space Land Act of 1966 (Virginia Code § 10.1-1700 et seq.) and of this chapter. The deed of easement shall be in a form approved by the county attorney, and shall contain, at a minimum, the following provisions: A. Restriction on development rights. The parcel shall be restricted from subdivision as follows: (i) if the parcel is less than one hundred (100) acres, it shall not be subdivided; (ii) if the parcel is between one hundred (100) and one hundred ninety-nine acres (199), it may be subdivided into two (2) parcels, one of which shall be at least one hundred (100) acres; (iii) if the parcel is between two hundred (200) and two hundred ninety-nine (299) acres, it may be subdivided into three (3) parcels, two of which shall be at least one hundred acres; and (iv) if the parcel is three hundred (300) acres or larger, it may be subdivided into as many parcels of at least one hundred (100) acres as may be created, plus one (e.g., an eight hundred fifty (850) acre parcel may be subdivided into as many as nine (9) parcels, eight (8) of which are at least one hundred (100) acres, and the ninth of which consists of any remaining acres). B. Protection of certain identified qualities. If the parcel was awarded points during the evaluation process pursuant to section 5.1-108(C)(1) for mountain protection, the deed of easement shall assure that the parcel is used and maintained in a manner consistent with the comprehensive plan. C. No buy-back option. The owner shall not have the option to reacquire the conservation easement. D. Other restrictions. The parcel shall be subject to restrictions pertaining to uses Draft: 04/27/00 and activities allowed on the parcel, improvements, management of forest resources, and the right of the easement holder to enter the parcel to conduct inspections to determine compliance with the terms and conditions of the easement. E. Designation of easement holders. The county and one or more other qualified entities designated by the board of supervisors shall be the easement holders of each easement. The qualified entities shall include, but not be limited to, the Albemarle County Public Recreational Facilities Authority and the Virginia Outdoors Foundation. (Ord. 5.1-00(1)) Sec. 5.1-110. Application and evaluation procedure. Each application for a conservation easement shall be processed as follows: A. Form of application. Each application shall be submitted on a standard form prepared by the program administrator. The application shall require, at a minimum, the owner to provide the name of all owners of the parcel, the address of each owner, the acreage of the parcel, the Albemarle County tax map and parcel number, the zoning designation of the parcel, and permission for the program administrator to enter the property to evaluate the parcel and for the county assessor or an independent appraiser to appraise the property. The application shall also require the owner to state his adjusted gross income for the three (3) prior tax years. The program administrator may require an owner to provide any other information deemed necessary in order to determine whether the parcel is eligible for a conservation easement and to apply the ranking criteria. B. Submittal of application. Applications shall be submitted to the office of the program administrator. An application may be submitted at any time. However, applications received after July 1 shall be evaluated in the following year. C. Evaluation byprogram administrator. The program administrator shall evaluate each application received and determine within fifteen (15) days whether the application is complete. If the application is incomplete, the program administrator shall inform the owner in writing of the information that must be submitted in order for the application to be deemed complete. When an application is deemed complete, the program administrator shall determine whether the parcel satisfies the eligibility criteria set forth in section 5.1-107 and, if it does, shall determine the number of points to be attributed to the parcel by applying the criteria set forth in section 5.1-108. The program administrator shall then rank each parcel scoring at least fifteen (15) points under the criteria set forth in section 5.1-108, with the parcel scoring the most points being the highest ranked and descending therefi:om. By not later than August 1, the program administrator shall submit the list of ranked parcels to the ACE committee. D. Evaluation and ranking by ACE committee. The ACE committee shall review the list of ranked parcels submitted by the program administrator. The committee shall rank the parcels in the order of priority it recommends the easements shall be purchased. By not later Draft: 04/27/00 than September 1, the committee shall forward to the board of supervisors its recommendation of the parcels on which conservation easements should be purchased. E. Evaluation and ranking by board of supervisors. The board of supervisors shall review the list of ranked parcels submitted by the ACE committee and determine which parcels it desires conservation easements. The board shall then rank those parcels on which it will seek to purchase conservation easements that year. Nothing in this chapter shall obligate the board to purchase a conservation easement on any property that meets the minimum number of qualifying points. F. Appraisal of conservation easement value. Each conservation easement determined by the board of supervisors to be purchased shall be appraised either by the county assessor or an independent qualified appraiser. Each appraisal shall be completed by October 1 and shall be submitted to the program administrator and the owner. The program administrator shall forward each appraisal to the appraisal review committee, which shall review each appraisal and make recommendations thereon to the board of supervisors by November 1. G. Requirements and deadlines may be waived. Any requirement or deadline set forth in this chapter may be waived by the board of supervisors if, for good cause, it is shown that exigent circumstances exist that warrant consideration of an otherwise untimely application, or it is shown that such requirements um'easonably restrict the purchase of such easement. Under such circumstances, the board may purchase a conservation easement at any time it deems necessary and subject to only such requirements it deems appropriate. H. Reapplication. An owner of a parcel not selected by the board of supervisors for purchase of a conservation easement may reapply in, any future year. (Ord. 5.1-00(1)) Sec. 5.1-111. Purchase of conservation easement. Each conservation easement shall be purchased as follows: A. Identification of initial pool. From the list of parcels identified under section 5.1- 110(B), the board,of supervisors shall identify the initial pool of parcels eligible for conservation easements to be purchased. The size of the pool shall be based upon the funds available for easement purchases in the current fiscal year and the purchase price of each conservation easement in the pool established under section 5.1-11103). B. Determining purchase price. The purchase price of any conservation easement shall be calculated by multiplying the appraised value by the applicable percentage of appraised value set forth in the table below: Average Annual Adjusted Gross Income (Three Most Recent Tax Years) $ 0 - $50,000 Percentage of Appraised Value 100% 9 Draft: 04/27/00 $50,001- $60,000 94% $60,001- $70,000 88% $70,001 - $80,000 82% $80,001- $90,000 76% $90,001- $100,000 70% $100,001 - $110,000 64% $110,001 - $120,000 58% $120,001 - $130,000 52% $130,001 - $140,000 46% $140,001 - $150,000 40% $150,001 - $160,000 34% $160,001- $170,000 28% $170,001 - $180,000 22% $180,001- $190,000 16% $190,001-$200,000 10% $200,001 or more 4% C. Initial invitation to offer. The board shall invite the owner of each parcel included in the initial pool of conservation easements to be purchased to submit an offer to the board to purchase a conservation easement on that parcel for the purchase price, which price shall not be subject to negotiation, subject to the terms and conditions of a proposed deed of easement, which also shall not be subject to negotiation. The invitation shall be in writing and shall include the purchase price, the proposed deed of easement, and the date by which a written offer must be received by the program administrator in order to be considered. The invitation may contain a form offer to be returned by the owner if the owner desires to offer to sell a conservation easement. D. Offer. Each owner who desires to sell a conservation easement shall submit a written offer that must be received by the program administrator by the date contained in the invitation to offer. The offer should include a statement that substantially states the following: "(The owner) offers to sell a conservation easement to the County of Albemarle, Virginia for the sum of (purchase price), subject to the terms and conditions set forth in the proposed deed of easement enclosed with the invitation to offer." Nothing in this chapter shall compel an owner to submit an offer to purchase. E. Acceptance. An offer to sell a conservation easement shall be accepted by the board of supervisors only in writing, and only following an action by the board authorizing acceptance. An offer shall not be accepted by the board if a conservation easement on the subject parcel is inconsistent with the policies and goals of the comprehensive plan at the time the offer is received. Nothing in this chapter requires the board to accept an offer to sell a conservation easement. F. Easement established. A conservation easement shall be established when the owner and an authorized representative of the holder of the easement have each signed the deed of easement and it is recorded in the office of the clerk of the circuit court of the County of 10 Draft: 04/27/00 Albemarle. A single conservation easement may be established for more than one parcel under the same ownership. G. Offers not made; offers not accepted; invitation to other owners. If an owner invited to submit an offer elects not to do so, or if his offer is not accepted by the board of supervisors, then the board shall send an invitation to offer to the owner of the next highest ranked parcel remaining on the list of parcels identified in section 5.1-110(E). H. Costs. If the board of supervisors accepts an offer to sell a conservation easement, the county shall pay all costs, including environmental site assessments, surveys, recording costs, grantor's tax, if any, and other charges associated with closing. Provided, however, that the county shall not pay fees incurred for independent appraisals or legal, financial, or other advice or fees in connection with the release and subordination of liens to the easement purchased by the county. I. Reapplication. An owner for whose parcel a conservation easement is not purchased may reapply in any future year. (Ord. 5.1-00(1)) Sec. 5.1-112. Program funding. The conservation easement program may be funded annually bY the board of supervisors in the county budget or by special appropriation. The county shall endeavor to seek funds from federal, state and private sources to effectuate the purposes of this chapter. ( Ord. 5.1-00(1 )) Sec. 5.1-113. Program non-exclusivity. The conservation easement program is a non-exclusive means by which the county may purchase conservation easements or control land use and development, or by which landowners may establish conservation easements and other self-imposed limitations on land use or development. This chapter shall not be construed in any way as a limitation upon the county's authority to acquire land for public purposes. (Ord. 5.1-00(1)) 11 COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AGENDA TITLE: Patricia Flowers--Request to amend the Albemarle County Service Authority (ACSA) Jurisdictional Area for water service only. SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST: To consider holding a public hearing to amend the ACSA Jurisdictional Area to provide water service only to Tax 60A, Section 9, Parcel 20. STAFF CONTACT(S): Messrs. Tucker, Cilimberg, Benish AGENDA DATE: May 3, 2000 ACTION: × CONSENT AGENDA: ACTION: ATTACH M ENTS: REVIEWED BY: BACKGROUND: ITEM NUMBER: INFORMATION: INFORMATION: The applicant, Patricia Flowers, is requesting water service to a two (2) acre parcel zoned PA, Rural Areas and located in an area designated as Rural Area in the County Land Use Plan (Location Map, Attachment A). This property is currently in the ACSA Jurisdictional Area, with a designation of "water only to existing structures." There was an existing home on the property that was uninhabited in the early to mid 1980's. The property owner was experiencing problems with trespassing and vandalism to the home and, as a result, removed the home from the property (Applicant's Request, Attachment B). At the time, the applicant was unaware of the Jurisdictional Area designation limiting service to that existing structure. Service was never provided to the odginal structure. The applicant now wishes to locate a new home on the property, but cannot receive water service based upon the current Jurisdictional Area designation (Jurisdictional Area Map and ACSA Letter, Attachments C & D). Both County and Service Authority Staff are unaware of this type of situation having occurred in the past, so there is no history of prior Board action on this type of request. DISCUSSION: The subject property is located in the designated Rural Area, and not within a Development Area. The Land Use Plan provides the following concerning water service to the Rural Area: General Principle: Utilization of central water and/or sewer systems or extension of the public water or sewer into the Rural Area is strongly discouraged except in cases where public health or safety is endangered. Recommendation: Only allow changes to the Jurisdictional Areas outside of the designated Development Area boundaries in cases where property is: (1) adjacent to existing lines; and, (2) public health of safety is endangered. In this particular situation the property is already in the Jurisdictional Area, but with a designation of "service only to existing structures." That structure no longer exists so this Jurisdictional Area designation no longer permits service to the property. It appears that this designation was placed on this property when the Board established the Jurisdictional Area process in the early 1980's. It is Staff's understanding that the "service only to existing structures" designation was intended to recognize certain properties that were located outside the Development Area boundaries, but located adjacent to existing service lines and that were already developed in a more urban manner. The designation permitted AGENDA TITLE: Patricia Flowers--Request to amend the Albemarle County Service Authority (ACSA) Jurisdictional Area for water service only. May 3, 2000 Page 2 the existing level of development to have service, but would preclude any additional, or more intensive, development of that property from receiving public service. However, there is no documentation on file specifically noting the reason why this property has this designation. Huntwood Townhomes are located on the west side of this property and are served by public water and sewer. There is no documentation of a health or safety problem with the on-site water source. The applicant has indicated that the taste of the water was always of poor quality. RECOMMENDATION: The property is zoned PA, Rural Areas and is two acres in size and, therefore, cannot be further subdivided. It is not located in a designated Development Area, so a future rezoning to a more intensive density is unlikely. Staff opinion is that in this particular case, approval of a Jurisdictional Area designation for "water service to one structure only" would be consistent with the oriqinal Jurisdictional Area designation (providing water service to one residential unit on-site). It would not encourage more intensive development of this property or serve a use which is now inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan policies for the Rural Areas. Staff would recommend that the Board proceed to public hearing to consider providing water service to one structure on Tax Map 60A, Section, Parcel 20. 00.086 ALBEMARLE COUNTY ATTACHMENT A 26 Q ACREAGES J& QHESSIAN HILLS SECTION ,5 D.B. 4OOI~.2T? · *' O:~ 40S Pg. Q HESSIAN HILLS SECTION 6 D~. 417, P~ 15.9 GHESSIAN HILLS SECTION 7 D.B. 6ZZ, P~565-568 GUNIVERSITY COMMONS D.B. 770;Pgo338-$47 QKNOLLWOODX (MEADOW CREEK) D.B, 272, Pg. 8 QKNOLLWOOD ADDITION JACK JOUETT RIO HESSIAN HILLS -SEC. I D. 8. 316, Pg.254 HESSIAN HILLS - SEC. ~. D.B.327, I~. 317 ~ HESSIAN HILLS -- SEC. 3 s~£R(ws~o .L~T ~D.B S70, P~.145-- D.B. 379 Pg. 365 (~ 'HESSIAN HILLS -- SEC. 4 D.B.378, P~IO ? ANO DISTRICT SECTION 60-A· ATTACHMENT B JUSTIFICATION FOR REQUEST My parcel is located between the Huntwood subdivision and the University Common apartments. Putting a well on this property is environmentally unsafe, it will only be a matter of time before my well is contaminated. When I had the fire department demolish the house years ago; I was unaware of the parcel carrying a designation "water only to existing structure" status. I do not understand why apartment complexes and subdivisions all around me have water and sewer rights and I am restricted. ~- ~ r-,v,~R LE COUNTY ATTACHMENT C RECEIVEI HAR 2 0 PLANNING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMEI~ ~9 / ~8 / Q ACREAGES ~ 0R~[~[ GHESSIAN HILLS SECTION 5 D.B. 4OOP~.277 ~'6'~.'; HESSIAN HILLS SECTION 6 D.B. 417, P~ t59 :*~'0~ HESSIAN HILLS SECTION 7 D.B. 622. F~.565-568 QKNOLLWOO0 (ME ~,0OW CREEK) 0.8; 272, Pg.8 QKNOLL'HOOD ADDITION J~,CK JOUETT '~ ' ii CH'"RLOTT[ SVILL~' 0ISTRICT HESSIAN HILLS -SEC. I 0.8.316, Pq. 254 ~HESSIAN MILLS- SEC. 3 -.. HESSIAN HILLS--SEC. 4 D.B.378, ~107 SECTION ATTACHMENT C Albemarle County Service Authority Jurisdictional Areas Map LEGEND WATER ONLY WATER AND SEWER WATER ONLY TO EXISTING STRUCTURES [Please see "List of Existing Structures OR Development Rights" for specific structures and dates.] LIMITED SERVICE [PLEASE SEE "List of Existing Structures OR DeveloDment Rights" for specific limitations.] LBEMABLE OUNTY ,._%EF&/IOE ALITHQ ITY P.O. BOX ]C~o9 1,58 SPOI'NAP F~D. CHAIgLOTTESVlL.,_E, VA 22902 · (80,4) 9.77-,4511 FAX (80,4) 9?9-0698 March 8, 2000 ATTACHMENT D Ms. Pat Flowers P.' O. Box 5852 Charlottesville, Virginia 22905 Re: TM 60A-9-20 Dear Ms. Flowers: This letter serves to confirm our telephone conversa- tion concerning your parcel referenced above. The parcel currently carries a designation of "water only to existing structures" in our jurisdictional area. This means that any new buildings constructed on this parcel cannot be served by public water or sewer. We have enclosed a photocopy of our jurisdictional area map covering this area. Let us know if you need additional information. PCG:dmg Senior Civil Engineer RECEIVED liAR 2 0 ?nnn PLANNING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT LARRY W. DAVIS COUNTY ATTORNEY PHONE (804) 972-4067 FAX (804} 972-4068 COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Office of County Attorney 401 Mctntire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 MARK A. TRANK DEPUTY COUNTY ATTORNEY GREG KAMPTNER KIMBERLY E. WOLOD ASSISTANT COUNTY ATrORNEYS May 8, 2000 Stephen N. Runkle Forest Lakes Associates P.O. Box 5207 Charlottesville, Virginia 22905 Re: ZMA-91-04 Forest Lakes Associates Dear Steve: On May 3, 2000, the Board of Supervisors directed that the County request Forest Lakes Associates to execute proffer #2 made in the above referenced rezoning application. That proffer provided that: Upon the request of Albemarle County, Virginia, to donate by gift to Albemarle County or its designee, subject to items of record affecting title, for such public use facilities as the County may select, a parcel of approximately five (5) acres as shown on the Application Plan for Forest Lakes South made by Clower Associates, Inc., provided the owner may require reasonable visual screening/buffering of the five (5) acres. The property should be deeded to the "County of Albemarle'' in a deed approved by me and then accepted by the County Executive on behalf of the County. Please give me a call if you have any questions or wish to discuss this matter. Thank you for your assistance. Sincerely, cc: Board of Supervisors Robert W. Tucker, Jr. COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Planning & Community Development 401 Mclntire Road, Room 218 Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 (804) 296 - 5823 Fax (804) 972 - 4035 MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: SUBJECT: DATE: Ella Carey Elaine Echols ff~C~ ZMA 99-18 - Charlottesville First Assembly of God May 3, 2000 Attached please find a copy of the signed original proffers for this ZMA. They have been approved by both Greg and Larry. Please attach them to the staff report that you have already. Thanks. Pla, OFFER FORM Original I~rol'l~r X Amended I'rofl~cr (Amcmhncn( # Dale: 3129100 ZMA # 99-15 Tax Map and Parcel Number(s) 61-153A0 1.496 Acres to be rczoncd from CO lo R-,I Pursuant to Section 33.3 of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinm~cc, the owner, or ils duly aofl~orizcd agent, hereby volubly proffers d~e con,lions listed below which shall ~ applied to fl~c properly, if rezone& ~csc conditions proffer~ as a pa~ office rcqucstcd rczoning m~d it is agreed Ihat: ( i ) fl~c rczonmg ilscif gives nsc Io l]lc nccd lin' I.hc c~fions; m~d (2) sud~ con,lions have a reasonable relation to fl~c rczoning request. (1) The use of the property shall be limited to a church use and uses that are accessory to a church use. Nothing in this proffer obviates the need for the owner to obtain a special use permit for a church use in the R-4 zoning district. (2) The owner shah grant temporary construction easements in relation to the Rio Road widening project that is part of the Meadowcreck Parkway road construction project as shown on the attached drawing dated ////7//,PO. / Date Signature of Attorney-hr-Fact (Attach Proper Puwcr of Attorney) OR Printed Nmnc of Attomey-in-Facl I'i{OFFEI{ FgI{M {.tliginnl I'rol'lizr X A,ucndcd I'l'dli:r (Alliclmdlllt211! tt Date: ZMA # 99-18 Tax Map and Parcel Numbc~ts) 61-15JA0 1.496 Acres 1o tx: rczoncd from CO Io R-,I Pursuant to Scctitnt 33.3 of thc Albemarle County Zoning Ot'tli;~,'u;cc, fire owner, or ils duly nuth.~izcd ;;gcltl, hereby vohm~ly pruffcrs Otc condilions iislcd I~low which shall ~ applied to Ibc ptopc~ly, il' Icztmctl. 'i]~cs¢ cxmtliti~ms a~c proffcrcM as a pa~t ul'flte lCtlUcslud ~cz~ming ;IJRI it is agreed Ihat: ( I ) d~c ~cztming ilscll' ~ivcs ~isc h~ Ibc ncctl I~i Iht (1) The use of the property shall be iimiled to a church use and uses that are accessory to a church use. Nothing in this proffer obviates the ueed for the owner 1o obi:fin a special use permit for a church use in Iht I{-4 zoning district. (2) The owner shall grant temporary consln~ction easemeuls in relation to Ihe Rio I{oml widening project that is parl of the ~leadowcreek i'arkway road construdion proicc! as ,.o..,,, ,,,, ,,r,,,.'i.g d.',.,,, ' ./ $ignaltae of Attorney-hr-Fact {Allach ?roper Power t~f AIRnncy) OR Name d' Aitt)mey-in-Fac~ I'ROFIq~I~ FORM (, }riginal I'r<dR:r Amended I'mll/cr (Anlcmlmcnl # Dale: 3129100 ZMA # 9~-18 Tax Map and Parcel Number 6 i ~ 153 A~! 1.496 Acres Io 10c rczoncd £rom CO Pursuant to $¢ctitm 33.3 o£1hc Albemarle County Zoning Ordinm~cc. tim o~mr. m' ils duly authmizcd agcnl, hc~cby volubly proffers tim CUlldili~ls listed l~low which shall I~ applied to proffer~ as a pair of dm ~CtlUCSled ~cztmlng alld II is ;Igl'ccd lhal: ( I ) die Iczuning ilsclf gives c~di~ls; mid (2) such ctmditiuns have a ~casm~abic rclalim~ Io 0~c mztmmg (1) The use of the property slnall be limited to a church use and uses that are accessory to a church use. Nothing in this proffer obviates the need for tine owner to ol}tainn a special usc permit for a church use inn the R-4 zoning district. (2) The owner shaH grant temporary constructiou eascmcuts inn relation to tine Rio ltoad widening project Ihat is part of Ihe Mea~tosycr~ek i'arkway road construclion projccl as sho.n on (he a~mched drawing dn~ed Signature of Attmncy-hM~act ( Atlach Proper Puwcr of Altumcy) OR l'tinlcd Name ol' Altomcy-in-Facl COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of' Planning & Community Development 401 M¢Intir¢ Road, Room 218 Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 (804) 296 - 5823 Fax (804) 972 - 4012 April 11, 2000 Pastor Pete Hartwig Charlottesville First Assembly of God 1010 East Rio Road Charlottesville, VA 22901 RE: ZMA-99-'I 8 Charlottesville First Assembly of God SP-.99-75 Charlottesville First Assembly of God Tax Map 61, Parcels '153A and 153A1 Dear Pastor Hartwig: The Albemarle County Planning Commission, at its meeting on April 4, 2000 unanimously recommended approval of the above-noted petitions to the Board of Supervisors. Please note that this approval is subject to the following conditions: ZMA-99-18 Charlottesville First Assembly of God - Approved subject to proffers dated 3/29/00 (copy attached). SP-99-75 Charlottesville First Assembly of God - Approved subject to the following conditions: Church development shall be limited to the building addition and overflow parking areas, as generally shown on the minor site plan amendment dated 3-14-2000 and incidental improvements such as storage sheds, picnic tables, children's play equipment, and walkways The minor site plan amendment shall be modified to conform with all zoning and engineering requirements. If shared parking is to be continued, the applicant shall provide for a walkway between CATEC and the church and shall provide an updated letter granting permission to the church for use of the CATEC lot. The applicant shall complete the improvements and repairs recommended by Mark Graham in his letter dated 13 January 2000 for the stormwater basin and dam, prior to approval of a building permit for the modular classroom by a date determined by the Program Authority. With these improvements and repairs, the stormwater basin and dam shall be improved to conform to it's original use. This will require the use of compacted earth for the dam repairs. Day care use shall be prohibited unless approved through a special use permit amendment. Parcels 61-153A0 and 61-153A1 shall be combined prior to approval of a building permit. Page 2 April 11, 2000 Please be advised that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors will review this petition and receive public comment at their meeting on April 19, 2000. 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. If you should have any questions or comments regarding the above noted action please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, Elaine K. Echols, AICP Senior Planner EKE/jcf Attachment Cc: Ella Carey Jack Kelsey Bob Ball Amelia McCulley Steve AIIshouse 2 STAFF PERSON: PLANNING COMMISSION: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS: ELAINE K. ECHOLS, AICP APRIL 4, 2000 APRIL 19, 2000 ZMA 99-18 Charlottesville First Assembly of God and SP 99-75 Charlottesville First Assembly of God Applicant's Proposal: Charlottesville First Assembly of God has requested a rezoning of a 1.496-acre parcel adjacent to the church at 1010 E. Rio Road. The church is requesting a change in zoning on this parcel from CO to R-4 in order to make the zoning R-4 on both properties. Proffers to limit the use for a church use are made with this rezoning request. (See Attachment A.) The applicant is also requesting a special use permit application for the church and a modular Sunday School building on both the existing church parcel and the 1.496 acre parcel proposed for rezoning. The church is currently nonconforming in that it has no special use permit. The additional modular building of approximately 1600 square feet is shown on the accompanying plan. Also requested is a parking lot addition for overflow parking and a recreation area. (See Attachment B.) The concept plan shows the modifications proposed by VDOT with the Rio Road widening project in relation to the Meadowcreek Parkway. The applicant is not proposing to make these changes; rather the church is showing how the driveway changes can be accommodated on the site. Petition for Rezoning and Special Use Permit: The applicant requests rezoning for Tax Map 61 Parcel 153A0, from CO. to R-4. The applicant also requests a special use permit for Tax Map 61 Parcels 153A0 and 153A1 to allow a church use and an additional church building on the properties. The parcels are located in the Rivanna Magisterial District at 1010 E. Rio Road. The Comprehensive Plan designates this property as Institutional in Urban Neighborhood 2. (See Attachments C & D.) Character of the Area: The area surrounding the property is characterized by school and church uses, railroad uses, and residential uses. Planning and Zoning History - TMP 61-153A1, on which the church was constructed, was rezoned from residential to commercial in 1976, then rezoned back to residential, most likely in 1980 with the overall zoning map amendment. A variance to the side yard setback was granted in 1977, as was permission for shared parking at CATEC. There is no zoning history on TMP 61- 153A0. By-right Use of the Proper ,ty: With a zoning classification of CO, the property could be developed into commercial offices, church uses, and limited retail uses. Special uses in CO include hospitals, funeral homes, commercial uses, hotels and motels, and housing. Specifics on the Proposal: The rezoning proposal is to combine an acre and a half of land adjacent to the church with the-church property of 3.0 acres. The church already owns both properties. The church needs the zoning robe consistent on both parcels in order to place the proposed building to the rear of the existing parking lot. Otherwise, a buffer on this property prevents the placement of the building. The special use permit request is for approval of the existing church use and its expansion. As shown on the minor amendment of the existing site plan, there is sufficient room for the expansion. RECOMMENDATION: Staff has reviewed the rezoning proposal for conformity with the Comprehensive Plan and the Zoning Ordinance and the proffers and recommends approval. Staff also recommends approval of the special use permit with conditions. ZMA 99-18 - Rezoning from CO Commercial Office to R-4 Residential Comprehensive Plan: The Comprehensive Plan shows this area to be Institutional. This rezoning, with proffers, is in keeping with the recommended land use category in the Comprehensive Plan. Land Use Standards for Designated Development Areas (General Land Use Standards pp. 20 - 22) Concentrate and cluster to protect environmental features. The site is a gently rolling parcel with trees. Trees were recently cut on this property closest to Rio Road for a play area for the children in the church. The Zoning Department cited the church with a violation for tree cutting in the Development Areas. The Engineering Department also cited the church With a notice to correct violations related to removal of tree cover. The Applicant stopped activities immediately and met with these departments to try and rectify the situation. The applicant, however, has not completed corrections for erosion and sediment control. Maintain existing forested areas acting as buffers between subdivisions. The existing forested area acts as a buffer between the church and the railroad track. It is not proposed to be removed further. Minimize the impact of development on major roads by limiting access points. Two driveways provide access fr6m Rio Road. The accompanying concept plan shows how the VDOT road- widening project for Rio Road affects the parking lot. A temporary construction easement for the widening is desired by VDOT which the applicant has proffered. Maximize a sense of community by. providing connections between developments; such connections may provide for additional recreational facilities, increased open space area, bicycle/pedestrian links, improved public transit, emergency access, and access to schools, parks, and other public facilities. No sidewalk exists on Rio Road at this time connecting this development to the property next door; however, .the Rio Road improvements will include a sidewalk. Provide utilities underground in new developments. The subdivision ordinance requires that underground utilities be provided, Provide features to prevent impact from impervious surfaces on water. A stormwater managementJbmp area for the church site was damaged with recent tree cutting efforts. The applicant is required by the Engineering Department to correct this situation. Additional stormwater requirements will be applied to the minor site plan amendment. Encourage building orientation to public streets; parking areas do not need to be located exclusively in front of buildings. The building proposed with the special use permit will be located behind an existing parking area. Other than placing it in the front of the parcel proposed for rezoning, which would require grading work, the applicant proposes to put it close to the parking area. Where site illumination is proposed, use down-directed and shielded lights. This proposal does not propose any new lighting; however, any lighting provided in the future will need to meet the County's new lighting ordinance requirements. Adaptively reuse historic buildings. There are no historic buildings on the site. Match service and infrastructure availability and capacity with phasing of development. Public water and sewer serve this site and Rio Road can support any additional traffic resulting from this rezoning. Although the property is zoned CO, the Land Use Plan shows this property as Institutional because it is located near a large County institutional use (CATEC) and adjacent to the existing chumh property. The Institutional land use designation gives no specific recommendations other than a description of uses that qualify as Institutional uses. Churches are not included in the list of public and private schools, universities, recreational facilities, public facilities such as schools, libraries, and the like. Churches are similar to these kinds of uses but are also expected in residential areas. STAFF COMMENT Relationship between the application and the purpose and intent of the requested zoning district The purpose and intent of the R-4 Zoning District is to provide for compact, medium-density single family developments, a variety of housing types, and provision of amenities to serve residents. Churches are allowed by special use permit in all residential zoning districts and a concurrent request for a church use is under review with this application. Public need and |ustification for the change The public need and justification for this change is the need to have the same zoning on the parcels devoted to the church use. Anticipated impact on public facilities and services Transportation - Principal access will continue to be from the existing entrances onto Rio Road. The applicant has shown how the VDOT road widening project and entrance realignment will affect the church's parking lot. There are no problems anticipated at the entrances or on the property with the road widening. Schools - With the rezoning and proffer, no additional students would be added to the. schools. Water and Sewer: Public water and sewer exist at the property. No location or capacity issues are known at this time. No known fire flow problems exist. Stormwater Management: Corrections to stormwater facilities are proposed as conditions of the special use permit. Additional stormwater facilities will be required with the overflow parking lot. Fiscal impact to public facilities_- No fiscal impact analysis was performed for this project. Since the Comprehensive Plan shows the land to be institutional and institutional uses do not pay taxes in the County, any fiscal impact was viewed to be a mute point in the development of a recommendation for the rezoning. Anticipated impact on natural, cultural, and historic resources - No impact is anticipated on natural, cultural, or historical resources of the County. SUMMARY Staffhas identified the following factors, which are favorable to the rezoning request: The rezoning would allow for the zoning to be consistent with two propertiesowned by the same owner, intended for .the same use. The rezoning would allow for the removal of a buffer requirement between properties where the use and the owner are the same. The rezoning is in keeping with the Comprehensive Plan. Churches are viewed as contributing to the moral fiber of the community. Staff has identified no factors which are unfavorable to this request. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Staff recommends approval of the rezoning with proffers. The applicant has said that the proffers will be signed by the Church trustee after being approved by the County Attorney's office as to form. Because the rezoning and special use permit are linked by the proffer of a church use only, staff would recommend that ZMA 99-12 not be approved unless SP 99-75 is also to be approved. 4 SP 99-75 - Special Use Permit for Existing Church Use and Expansion onto Adjoining Parcel Engineering Comments: On January 13, the Engineering Department met with the applicant to discuss repairs to the stormwater basin and the attached letter was sent to the applicant. The Engineering Department requires that improvements and repairs for the stormwater basin be completed (see attachment E). These improvements constitute a temporary fix for.code violations. For approval of the Special Permit, the Engineering Department recommends that the stormwater.basin and dam be improved to conform to its original use. This will require the use of compacted earth for the dam repairs. Zonine Comments: A zoning violation occurred with the cutting trees in violation of:Section 4.3 of the Zoning Ordinance. The remedies for this violation were to cease and desist and to request approval of a minor amendment to the previously approved plan for the site. With the current requests for rezoning, special use permit approval, and a minor amendment, the zoning violation is being remedied. A minor site plan amendment was submitted with the rezoning and special use permit application will need to be modified to meet all zoning and subdivision requirements. It shows the location of the proposed modular building, overflow parking and recreational areas. The parking arrangement will need to be modified and additional information provided for stormwater management and surface treatment. Zoning and Engineering items can be accommodated easily on the site and shown on a modified minor site plan amendment. STAFF COMMENT Staff will address each provision of Section 31.2.4.1 of the Zoning Ordinance below: The Board of Supervisors hereby reserves unto itself the right to issue all special use permits permitted heretmder. Special use permits for uses as provided in this ordinance may be issued upon a finding by the Board of Superyisors that such use will not be of substantial detriment to ad_iacent property, The church use at this location began in 1978. At that time, a special use permit was not required for the use. The use has not been detrimental to the adjacent properties; rather parking is shared between this use and CATEC. The applicant is proposing overflow parking to deal with additional parking needs of the congregation. A condition of previous approval was a walkway between the CATEC lot and the church. Such a walkway has never been constructed. The applicant can remedy this situation by either providing for all required parking on the church property or by providing the walkway. Parking provision will be accommodated on the minor site plan amendment. that the character of the district will not be changed thereby, The church addition is not expected to change the R-4 zoning district or the character of the area. and that such use will be in harmony with the purpose and intent of this ordinance, The R-4 zoning district allows for churches by special use permit if sited appropriately. The church is viewed as a use supportive to Albemarle County residents in all residential zones. with the uses permitted by right in the district, By-right uses in the R-4 district are single family and duplex housing, townhouses, attached houses, and quadruplexes and public recreational uses. When sited appropriately, churches are viewed as "in harmony" with the perrfiitted uses of this district.' Staffbelieves the church use is sited appropriately. with additional regulations provided in Section 5.0 of this ordinance, There are no additional regulations relating to churches. and with the public health, safety and general welfare. With the corrections to the stormwater facilities, staff believes that the public health, safety, and general welfare of the community will be preserved. SUMMARY Staff has identified the following factors, which are favorable to this request: 1. The special use permit allows the use to be in keeping with the Comprehensive Plan for institutional uses. 2. Churches promote the moral fiber of the.community. 3. Little change is proposed to the site at present; the parking lot expansion can be accommodated with little disruption to the site. Staff has identified no factors, which are unfavorable to this request: RECOMMENDED ACTION The staff recommends approval of this special use permit with the following conditions: 1. Church development shall be limited to the building addition and overflow parking areas, as generally shown on the minor site plan amendment dated 3-14-2000 and incidental improvements such as storage sheds, picnic tables, children's play equipment, and walkways. 2. The minor site plan amendment shall be modified to conform with all zoning and engineering requirements. If shared parking is to be continued, the applicant shall provide for a walkway between CATEC and the church and shall provide an updated letter granting permission to the church for use of the CATEC lot. 3. The applicant shall complete the improvements and repairs recommended by Mark Graham on 13 January 2000 for the stormwater basin and dam, prior to approval ora building permit for the modular classroom. With these improvements and repairs, the stormwater basin and dam shall be improved to conform to its original use. This will require the use of compacted earth for the dam repairs. 6 Day care use shall be prohibited unless approved through a special use permit amendment. Parcels 61-153A0 and 61-153A1 shall be combined prior to approval of a building permit. ATTACHMENTS: A - Proffers B -- Minor Amendment dated 3/14/00 C -- Location Map D -Tax Parcel Map E - Letter from Mark Graham to Applicant dated 1/13/00 7 PROFFER FORM Original Proffer X Amended Proffer (3anendment # __ Date: 3/29/00 ZMA # 99-18 Tax Map and Pamel Number(s) 61-153A0 1.496 Acres to be rezoned from CO to R-4 Pursuant to Section 33.3 of the Albemarle County Zoxfing Ordinance, the owner, or its duly authorized agent, hereby voluntarily proffers the conditions listed below which shall be applied to the property, ff rezoned. Tliese conditions are proffered as a part of the requested rezomg and it is agreed that: (1) the rezonmg itself gives rise to the need tbr the conditions; and (2) such conditions have a reasonable relation to the rezoning request. (1) The use of the property shah be limited to a chUrch use and uses that are accessory to a church use. Nothing in this proffer obviates the need for the owner to obtain a special use permit for a church use in the R-4 zoning district, (2) The owner shah grant temporary construction easements in relation to the Rio Road widening project that is part of the Meadowcreek Parkway road construction project as shown on the attached drawing dated t-"/-oo. Signatures of All Owners / ' ' Printed Names of All Ovmers Date Signatt~e of Attorney-in-Fact (Attach Proper Power of Attorney) OR Printed Name of Attorney-m-Fact I I I I I t ! I I I I I / ~rote In ' O.~Om ' li. E31 m H~' woods ~ ~ /-i - ooo L 'Z5.463 'ISm '/0'/9J51 "I0q4~14 .prop. Temp. Consfr. Easerr~flf VB 11 '0 r I 5 ATTACHMENT C TO RUCKERSVIIJ. E ,-...,,.,,,,~o, ~ ,x,' ~oflet I I. ZMA-99/18 Charlottesville First Assembly of God SP-99- of God ALBEMARLE 45 COUNTY ATTACHMENT.D SP-99-75 Charlottesville First Assembly ZMA-99-18 Charlottesville First Assembly of God 77 ,JACK JOUETT, RIVANNA AND SECTION ATTACHMENT E COUNTY OF .~! REMARLE Department of Engineering & Public Works 401 Mclntire Road, Room 211 Chadottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 (804} 296-5861 January 13, 2000 Reverend Pete Hartwig, Senior Pastor Charlottesville First Assembly Church 1010 East Rio Road P.O. Box 8001 Charlottesville, Va. 22906 Charlottesville First Assembly Church Unpermitted land disturbance Dear Rev. Hartwig: Thank you for meeting Mark Chambers and me on Tuesday, January 11, 2000 at your church to discuss the unpermitted land disturbance on the church property. This letter serves as confirmation that we agreed that the church wilt remove the debris piles fi.om the property, followed by seeding and mulching of the disturbed areas. As discussed, we anticipate this work to be completed by the end of January. Please note this agreement does not include any additional clearing or grubbing of the land. If additional land is cleared or grubbed without prior perrmssion by the County, we will be tbrced to consider this a deliberate violation of the County ordinances. Additionally, we encourage you to perform some mamtenance of your existing stormwater management basin. The ex/sting culvert blockage and dam erosion is threatening the stability of the facility. If the problem ts not corrected soon, I fear the Church ts incurring a substantial risk that the repair of the facility will require a much more expensive repair tn the near future. We encourage you to use the backhoe, which you will have on the property for the removal of the debris pile, to remove the accumulated sediment fi.om the bottom of the basin where it is blocking the outlet pipe. We also encouraged you to place several cubic yards of stone riprap (I would anticipate 4-5 cubic yards of "Class I nprap" would suffice) over the part of the dam currently being breached and in the downstream ghannel immediately below the outlet pipe from this facility. I believe these repairs would suffice until some future expansion plan for the church would necessitate alteration of this facility. If you have any questions or concerns with this response, please call me at 296-5861. Once again, thank you for your prompt attention to this problem. Sincerely, Mark B. Graham, P.E. Senior Engineer and Erosion Control Administrator Cc: Jan Sprinkle, Zoning Code Administrator Kenny Thacker, Erosion Control Officer Mark Chambers. Erosion Control Inspector FAX 1804~ 972-4035 FIRE SERVICES AGREEMENT ANNOUNCED For Immediate Release - May 3, 2000 Contacts: Lee Catlin, Albemarle County, 296-5841 Maurice Jones, City of Charlottesville, 970-3116 The City of Charlottesville and Albemarle County have reached agreement on a joint Fire Services contract. The agreement will be signed at a joint City Council/Board of Supervisors meeting to be held Wednesday, May 3, at 4:00 pm in Room 235 of the County Office Building. Highlights of the agreement include: The contract provides for a coordinated fire services agreement that encourages cooperative efforts in areas including training, education, standard operating procedures (SOPs), etc. · The contract establishes a protocol for city firefighters to respond into Albemarle County. · The contract creates a ten-year agreement between the two jurisdictions which will go into effect July 1, 2000. The base cost of the first year of the contract is $644,427 with the provision for additional charges or credits depending on the number of calls for service provided by city firefighters. The agreement stipulates that up to two city engine companies with a three firefighter crew will be available for calls into the county, and that the city fire engine company closest to a particular incident in the county will respond to that call. During the first three years the contract provides that the city will continue to respond to calls throughout the county as deemed necessary as is the current system. After the first three years, an automatic response district will be formed in the urban area of Albemarle County where the city will provide full services. Outside of that district, the city will provide first response service only to structure fires. MORE... Page 2 - Fire Services Agreement This final agreemem was reached following the city and county's review of a prel/minary agreemem created by a joint negotiating team consisting of firefighters from Charlottesville and Albemarle County. "On behalf of the City Council, I would like to thank Judge Swett and the negotiating team for all their hard work and dedication," says Mayor Virginia Daugherty. "This agreement is just the first, in what will be many, accomplishmems in this new era of cooperation between the City and the County." "We are pleased to have reached a positive and mutually beneficial agreement that will provide for a continued outstanding level of service provision for our greater community," said Board of Supervisors Chairman Charles Martin in announcing the agreement. "The county recognizes that the change in service provision in the th/rd year of the contract will require us to invest in our own infrastructure and manpower resources to permit a flail countywide response that will continue the existing high level of service. Steps being taken in that direction include the planned construction of a southern and a northern fire station in the county in the next five years, with additional resources being evaluated to allow for a smooth transition of coverage responsibilities." Agenda Item No. 23. Closed Session with Charlottesville City Council. This entire Fire Services Agreement between the City of Charlottesville and Albemarle County has been indexed as a separate document under "Contracts/Agreements". MAY 3, 200O CLOSED SESSION MOTION I move that the board go into closed session pursuant to section 2.1-344(a) of the Code of Virginia · Under subsection (7) to consult with legal counsel and staff regarding pending litigation relating to the Ivy Landfill.