Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1998-04-01 FINAL 9:00 A.M. APPdL I, 1998 ROOM 241, COUNTY OFFIC. E IIUILI)ING 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. Call to Order. Pledge of Allegiance. Moment of Silence. Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda from the PUBLIC. Consent Agenda (on next sheet). Approval of Minutes: February 21, April 17 and May 8, 1996. Transportation Matters. 9:30 a.m. - PUBLIC HEARING on a request from Hurt Investment Company to amend the service area boundaries of the Albemarle County Service Authority for water and sewer service to 119 acs (part of proposed Fontana Subdivision) on TM78,P57 (portion) located on E side of Rt 20 N, N of Phase III of Wilton Farms Apartments Sc Garnett Treatment Center: Request from Ellis A. Sprouse to set a public hearing to amend the service area boundaries of the Albemarle County Service Authority for sewer service to Beaver Hi]Il Mobile Home Park, TM57,PS, located on the north side of Route 240 in Crozet. Request to set a public hearing to amend the service area boundaries of the Albemarle County Service Authority for sewer service to the proposed Indoor Tennis Facility at Farmington Country Club, located on TM60E2,P1. Neighborhood Team and Neighborhood Connections Update. Discussion: Proposed Dance Hal/Ordinance. Other Matters not Listed on the Agenda from the BOARD. Executive Session: Personnel and Legal Matters: Certify Executive Session. Appointments. Adjourn. CONSENT AGENDA FOR APPROVAL: 5.1 Proclamation: Fair Housing Month and Dedication of same to Howard Allen. 5.2 SP-97-65. Greenwood Farm Bridge (Sign #27) - (conditions of approval) (deferred from March 18, 1998). 5.3 An Ordinance to amend Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance Supplementary Regulations Sections 5.1.25 (Farm Winery) for ZTA-97-01 - Jamie Lewis (deferred from March 18, 1998) 5.4 Resolution to take Meadowview Lane in Advanced Mills Estates (SUB-89-011) into the State Secondary System of Highways. 5.5 Resolution for VDOT to install "Child At Play" sign on West Drive (Route 772) in Glenaire Subdivision. 5.6 Road Name Change Request - change the name of a portion of Berwick Road to Boars Head Pointe. 5.7 FY 1999 Virginia Juvenile Commtmity Crime Control Act (VJCCCA) Plan and adoption of Resolution for Albemarle/Charlottesville juvenile services. 5.8 Authorize County Executive to execute deed for Foxcroft Subdivision critical slope easement. FOR INFORMATION: 5.9 Letter dated March 24, 1998, from Angela G. Tucker, Resident Highway Engineer:, to Ella W. Carey, Clerk, re: comments regarding transportation matters discussed at the February 4 and March 4, 1998 Board meetings. 5.10 January 1998 Financial Management Report for the General, School and Capital Funds. 5.11 February 1998 Financial Management Report for the General, School and Capital Ftmds. 5.12 Monthly update on the FY 1997/98 Project Schedule for the Department of Engineering & Public Worlcs as of March 20, 1998. 5.13 Copy of letter dated March 11, 1998, from Janice D~ Sprinlde, Deputy Zoning Administrator, to Roger L. Gibson, re: Tax Map 58A2, Parcel 2 I, T/A Ivy Exxon - Determination of Official Zoning to be C1, Commercial. 5.14 Arbor Crest Apartments Monthly Bond and Program Report for the month of March, 1998. 5.15 Copy of Planning Commission minutes for March 10, 1998. 5.16 Copy of minutes of the Board of Directors of the Albemarle County Service Authority for January 15 and February 19, 1998. 5.17 Letter dated March 24, 1998, from Gerald G. Utz, Contract Administrator, Department of Transportation, providing notice that VDOT will hold a location and design public hearing on proposed improvements to Route 631 (Rio Road), from Broolc~vay Drive, to Stonehenge Road, Albemarle County, (Project #0631-002-S66,C501 ). Agenda Item No. 1. Call to Order. The meeting was called to order at 9:00 a.m.. by the Chairman. Mr. Marshall. Agenda Item No. 2. Pledge of Allegiance. Agenda Item No. 3. Moment of Silence. Agenda Item No. 4, Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda from the PUBLIC. Mr. Wilson Cropp spoke concermng the maintenance of Route 769. Rocky Hollow Road. He spoke about the safety and environment of the road, and asked that it be surface treated. Agenda Item No. 5. Consent Agenda. Motion was offered by Mrs. Thomas, seconded by Mrs. Humphris. to approve Items 5.1 through 5.8 and to accept the remaining items as information. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Martin, Mr. Perldns. Mrs. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman. Mrs. Humphris and Mr. Marshall. NAYS: None. Item No. 5.1. Prodmnation: Fair Housing Month and Dedication of same to Howard Mr. Bowerman read and presented to Howard AUen. Item No. 5.2. SP-97-65. Greenwood Farm Bridge (Sign &27) - (conditions of approval) {deferred from March 18. 1998). By the above shown vote. the Board approved SP-97-65 subject to the following: In addition to agricultural, forestal, and recreational activities (which activities include but are not limited to construction and use of structures related thereto), the bridge shall serve no more than two building sites for dwellings (or three building sites for dwellings if one or more of those sites is created as part of a family division) on the south side of Yellow Mountain Creek. The bridge shall also serve accessory structures for the dwellings; The building sites shall be located below the elevation of 900 feet as identified on the County's Open Space Plan; 3. Engineering Department approval of an erosion control plan: Engineering Department receipt of proof of compliance with Federal and State agencies regulating activities affecting wetlands and watercourses; Engineering Department apprt;val of a mitigation plan outlining mitigation measures for encroachments into the stream buffer; Engineering Department approval of hydrologic and hydraulic computations for the crossing. These computations must demonstrate compliance with Sections 30.3.2.2 and 30.3.3 of the Zoning Ordinance. Plans must show the existing m~d proposed floodplain boundaries and elevations: 7. Engineering Department approval of structural plans, details, and computations: Engineering Department approval of grading plans to evaluate cut and fill in the flood plain: The 14 foot wide bridge and floodplain crossing shall be in substantial accord with the plan submitted by the applicant with the special use permit, subject to such modifications as are approved by the Engineering Department; 10. The land owner shall have the right to maintain, repair and replace the bridge and floodplain crossing, provided that the replacement, if any, shall be in substantial accord with the design of the original bridge and floodplain crossing unless modifications thereto are approved by the Engineering Department; and 11. A biological survey or such other investigation as may be deemed appropriate by the Water Resources Manager to determine the presence of the James Spinymussel in the areas in Yellow Mountain Creek immediately affected by the proposed bridge be conducted prior to development of the water quality mitigation plan required in Condition 5. The results of the survey or investigation will be reported to the Water Resources Manager for development of design changes and/or mitigation measures to minimize impact on the species, if found. Mrs, Thomas asked when we can expect to get some further examination by our staff of how we are going ro address this ldnd of issue on a more regular basis. Mr. Tucker said staff will start moving in that direction with similar applications in the future. Item No. 5.3. An Ordinance to amend Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance Supplementary Regulations Sections 5.1.25 (Farm Winery) for ZTA-97-01 - Jamie Lewis (deferred from March 18, 1998). By the above shown vote, the Board adopted the following Ordinance. Zoning Ordinance sheets to follow trader separate cover. Item No. 5.4. Resolution to take Meadowview Lane in Advanced Mills Estates (SUB- 89-011) into the State Secondary System of Highways. By the above shown vote, the Board adopted the following Resolution. Item No. 5.5. Resolution for VDOT to install "Child At Play" sign on West Drive (Route 772) in Glenalre Subdivision. By the above shown vote. the Board adopted the following Resolution. Item No. 5.6. Road Name Change Request - change the name of a portion of Berwid~ Road to Boars Head Pointe. By the above shown vote, the Board approved a request to change the name of a portion of Benvick Road to Boars Head Pointe. and granted staff the authority to coordinate/implement the change. Item No. 5.7. FY 1999 Virginia Juvenile Community Crime Control Act (VJCCCA) Plan and adoption of Resolution for Albemarle/Charlottesville juvenile services. By the above shown vote. the Board adopted the following Resolution. Item No. 5.8. Authorize County Executive to execute deed for Foxcroft Subdivision critical slope easement. By the above shown vote, the Board authorized the County Executive to execute the deed and thereby accept the deed of easement and release part of the existing easement on behalf of the Board of Supervisors. Item No. 5.9. Letter dated March 24, 1998, from MS; Angela G. Tucker, Resident Highway Engineer, to Ms. Ella W. Carey, Clerk, re: comments regarding transportation matters discussed at the February 4 and March 4, 1998 Board meetings, was received as information. Item No. 5.10. January 1998 Financial Management Report for the General~ School and Capital Funds, was received as information. Item No. 5.11. February 1998 Financial Management Report for the General, School and Capital Funds, was received as information. Item No. 5.12. Monthly update on the FY 1997/98 Project Schedule for the Department of Engineering & Public Worlcs as of March 20, 1998, was received as information. Item No. 5.13. Copy of letter dated March 1 I, 1998, from Ms. Janice D. Sprinkle, Deputy Zoning Administrator, to Mr. Roger L. Gibson, re: Tax Map 58A2, Parcel 21, T/A Ivy Exxon - Determination of Official Zoning to be C1, Commercial, was received as information. Item No. 5.14. Arbor Crest Apartments Monthly Bond and Program Report for the month of March, 1998, was received as information. Item No. 5.15. Copy of Planning Commission minutes for March 10, 1998, was received as information. Item No. 5.16. Copy of minutes of the Board of Directors of the Albemarle County Service Authority for January 15 and February 19, 1998, were received for information, Item No. 5.17. Letter dated March 24, 1998, from Mr. Gerald G. Utz, Contract Administrator. Department of Transportation, providing notice that VDOT will hold a location and design public hearing on proposed improvements to Route 631 (Rio Road), from Brookway Drive. to Stonehenge Road, Albemarle County, (Project #0631-002-S66.C501 ), was received for information. Agenda Item No. 6. Approval of Minutes: February 21, April 17 and May 8. 1996. Mrs. Thomas had read February 21, 1996, pages 1-12, and found them to be in order with the exception of some inconsequential typos. Mr. Marshall had read May 8, 1996, mrd found them to be in order. Motion was offered by Mr. Martin, seconded by Mrs. Thomas. to approve the minutes as read. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Martin. Mr. Perldns, Mrs. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphtis and Mr. Marshall. NAYS: None. Agenda Item No. 7. Transportation Matters. Mr. Perkins asked for an update on the Sugar Hollow bridges. Mrs. Tucker said VDoT have awarded a contract for that work and it should be starting this spring. They have not yet set a preconstruction construction conference. She will copy the Board on the preconstruction meeting notice. Mr. Martin asked that she speak to Rocky Hollow Road. Mrs. Tudcer said Mr. Cropp's concerns are valid as most people who live on gravel roads. Everyone is familiar with the process for allocating the limited ftmds that include securing the donated right-of-way or easements for improving gravd roads. Usually we look have that donation occur prior to adding the road to the priority list or Six Year Plan. VDoT is interested in working with interested citizens if they want to pursue that fight-of-way or easements necessary for improvements. She does not believe this road lends itself to pave-in-place, but they will look at minindzing easements and right-of-way. Mr. Perkins asked if the road could be black topped where there is frequent flooding. Mrs. Tucker said they can look at approaches to pipe crossing or bridge structures to minimize that washing into the streams. They usually do not do anything more than a couple of hundred feet of approach work. They can look to stabilize spot locations. Mr. Marshall asked if it would not be cheaper ro put some hard rock something similar to primary grade. Mrs. Tucker said it is cheaper, but the process involves improving roads first before that actual stabilization is made. They have to get a minimum 18 foot width before they can actually surface treat a road. Even when they maice exceptions and do these spot improvements, they look ro get that minimum road width iust to allow the passage of two lanes of traffic. It is not a matter o f being allowed to pave-in-place. There needs to be improvement where they put a minimum shoulder and ditch along side an 18 foot wide roadway back into right-of-way or easements. That usually means some grading and preliminary work. They will work with Mr. Cropp. Mr. Martin thanked Mrs. Tucker for Route 615. Mr. h~-u~ he is concerned about the new bridge on Route 20. known as Carter's bridge is going to be replaced. When this bridge is replaced, they would like to be able to drive across the bridge and see the river. He asked that VDoT not install a concrete wall. He thinks they can install guardrails and still have a nice wooden fence so that someone can look down at the river. Mrs. Tucker said that is the current intent. Mr. Marshall said he received a call from Mr. Irvin Jones, principal at Monticello High School, who expressed concern about exiting the new road onto Route 20. He asked if a stop light could be installed. He asked that Mrs. Tucker call Mr. Jones and tell him how this is proceeding, with slowing the traffic down and making it more safe. Mrs. Tucker said Mr. Jones has contacted her. Mr, Mawyer said the Engineering Department has been working with VDoT staff to reevaluate that whole intersection, the geometics, the safety issues, what could be done with flashing lights, stop lights and what is appropriate to recommend. They plan to issue a report within the week addressing all of these items and some recommendations. This Board can have some input at that time. He believes there general recommendation is that the intersection does not warrant a stop light so he thinlcs they will recommend some other things to improve it. They plan to meet with Dr. Hurt to see if he will allow them to do some dearing on his property to improve the sight distance, particularly to the north, and possibly putting some flashing lights on Route 20 at both ends of the intersection. Mr. Marshall said they need to do something now to slow that traffic down now so that people will start getting use to ir before the school is opened. Mr. Marshall reitereated that it is a dangerous situation. He appreciates everything that is being done. He asked that Mr. Jones be contacted and given the status. Mr. Bowerman asked the status of the through truck prohibition on Rio Road. Mrs. Tucker said it is in the state traffic engineer's office for CTB approval. Mr. Bowerman asked that the Board be made aware next month of the status including when it will be heard by the CTB. Mrs. Thomas said the Ivy Store has burned and will need to be rebuilt. They will also have to take up the gasoline tartks and replaced. She thinks this may give an opportunity, she would like for there to be some discussion with the property owner and storekeepers at this point because ther is going to be some major work there and we are all aware of what a dangerous parking lot it is where people just sort of merge on and off of the highway. She thinks this is a practical opportunity. If there is any chance of helping make that a safer parking lot with more definite entrance and exits this might be the opportunity. Mrs. Tucker said VDoT supports that request. Mrs. Tucker said public notice have been made about the upcoming guardrail project on Rio Road. They are proposing that the road be dosed. They are looking to minimize that time. It is a potential 60 to 75 day road closing. She has meet with the County and City Engineering staffs. County Police Department and Fire and Rescue, and all are unanimously in support of closing that road. Fire and Rescue feel they will better be able to deal with their operations knowing for certain that is not an option. The public hearing will be held on April 21, at CHS. Consensus of Board that a resolution be drafted for next week's agenda. Motion was offered by Mr. Martin, seconded by Mrs. Humphris, that staff draft a resolution in support of dosing Rio Road during this time and to be put on next week's consent agenda. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Mrs. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris and Mr. Marshall. NAYS: None. Mr. Mawyer reported that they have completed design documents for the stop light at Mill Creek. Agenda Item No. 8. 9:30 a.m. - PUBLIC HEARING on a request from Hurt Investment Company to amend the service area boundaries of the Albemarle County Service Authority for water and sewer service to 119 acs (part of proposed Fontana Subdivision) on TM78.P57 (portion) located on E side of Rt 20 N, N of Phase III of Wilton Farms Apartments Sc Garnett Treatment Center. Mr. Benish summarized the request. Motion was offered by Mrs. Humphrls, seconded by Mr. Bowerman, to appove amendment of the service area boundaries of the Albemarle County Service Authority for waer and sewer service to the proposed Fontana Subdivision, as recommended by staff, and that appropriate notes be induded on the plats in large bold print that no public water will be provided on those lots above the 600 foot elevation. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins. Mrs. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman. Mrs. Humphris and Mr. Marshall. NAYS: None. Agenda Item No. 9. Request from Ellis A. Sprouse to set a public hearing to amend the service area boundaries of the Albemarle County Service Authority for sewer service to Beaver Hill Mobile Home Park, TM57,PS, located on the north side of Route 240 in Crozet. Mr. Benish summarized the request. Motion was offered by Mr. Perkins. seconded by Mrs. Humphris, to set this item for public hearing on Ma.v 6. 1998. Roi/was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins Mrs. Thomas. Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris and Mr. Marshall. NAYS: None. Agenda Item No. 10. Request to set a public hearing to amend the service area boundaries of the Albemarle County Service Authority for sewer serwce to rite proposed Indoor Tennis Facility at Farmington Cotmtry Club, located on TM60E2.P1. Mr. Benish summarized the request. Motion was offered by Mrs. Thomas, seconded by Mrs. Humphris. to set this item for public hearing for May 13. 1998. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins. Mrs. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris and Mr. Marshall. NAYS: None. Agenda Item No. 11. Neighborhood Teton and Neighborhood Connections Update, Mrs. Caitlin made presentation. She announced the rededication of the W D Ward Center in Esmont for April 18, 1998. Agenda Item No. 12. Discussion: Proposed Dance Hall Ordinance. Consensus of Board that Larry redraft the proposed ordinance. Agenda Item No. 13. Other Matters not Listed on the Agenda from the BOARD. Mrs. Thomas announced that NACO National Comtty Government Week is in the middle of April. She asked if we are doing anything. Theme is creating sustainability communities. She suggested there be a tie in with the sustainability council if we want to pick up on the national theme. Bob said he would ask Lee to contact her if she has some ideas about what to do. Mrs. Thomas asked about the advertisements in the Observer. She asked that staff provide information on the costs involved and also look at what publications the ads are being published. Staff to provide report on the issue of hunting and what additional enforcement will COSt. 1Vh-. Bowerman mentioned an incident where development activity took place before there was an approved plan. In this particular incident there has been about a 100 foot wide, two mile cut of timber in a location where there is no approved plan for a road plan. Mr. Ci/imberg mentioned that staff has nothing being processed. Mr. Bowerman said the intent of the ordinance is to prevent destruction of property v~ithout controls, grading or soil erosion and all those measures. When there is a situation where the intent is clearly one thing, but has been represented as something entirely different. It is dear to him there was an activity on the property. It is not a parcel of land that has been forested. His point is that if we cannot do anything about it, let's get rid of the ordinance. Mr. Bowerman said if the incident is prosecutable then we need to do it. Mr. Marshall announced that the sign up time for the public hearing on the budget is ~ '6:00 p.m. Agenda Item No. 14, Executive Session: Personnel and Legal Matters. At 11:46 a.m., motion was made by Mr. Bowerman, seconded by Mrs. Humphds, to go into Executive Session pursuant to Section 2.1-344.A of the Code of Virginia. trader subsection (1) to discuss [~ersonnel matters regarding the status and assignment of a specific employee and legal representation issues; (2) under subsection (7) to consnlt with legal counsel and staff regarding a service agreement; (3) under subsection (7) to consult with legal counsel and staff regarding pending litigation concerning the transition of Charlottesville to town status. Roll was called and the motion carded by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Martin. Mr. Perkins, Mrs. Thomas. Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphds and Mr. Marshall. NAYS: None. Agenda Item No. 15. Certify Executive Session. At 1:20 p.m., the Board reconvened into open session. Motion was offered by Mr. Bowerman. seconded by Mrs. Humphds, that the Board certify by a recorded vote that to the best of each Board member's knowledge only public business matters lawfully exempted from the open meeting requirements of the Virginia Freedom of Information Act and identified in the motion authorizing the executive session were heard, discussed or considered in the executive session. Roll was called and the motion carded by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Martin. Mr. Perkins, Mrs. Thomas_ Mr. Bowerman. Mrs. Humphds and Mr. Marshall Ng-Y$: None. Agenda Item No. 16. Appointments. None were made. Agenda Item No. 17. Adjourn. The meeting was immediately adjourned. ACTIONS Board of Supervisors Meeting of April 1, 1998 April 6, 1998 AGENDAITEM 1. Call to Order. Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda ~om the PUBLIC. 5.1 5.2 Proclamation: Fair Housing Month. SP-97-65. Greenwood Farm Bridge (Sign #27). 5.3 ZTA-97-01 - Jamie Lewis. 5.4 Resolution: Meadowview Lane. 5.5 Resolution: "Child At Play" sign on West Drive (Route 772). 5.6 Road Name Change Request for portion of Berwick Road to Boars Head Pointe. 5.7 FY 1999 Virginia Juvenile Commtmity Crime Control Act (VJCCCA) Plan and adoption of Resolution for Albemarle/ Charlottesville juvenile services. 5.8 Authorize County Executive to execute deed for Foxcroft Subdivision critical slope easement. 7. Transportation Matters. Amend ACSA service area boundaries for proposed Fontana Subdivision). Set public hearing to amend ACSA service area boundaries for Beaver Hill Mobile Home Park. 10. Set public hearing to amend ACSA service area boundaries for Farmington Country Club. 1I. Neighborhood Team and Neighborhood Connections Update. ACTION 9:00 a.m., by Chairman. Wilson Cropp spoke concerning maintenance of Rt 769, Rocky Hollow Road. Adopted Approved. Adopted ordinance. Adopted resolution. Adopted resolution. Approved. Adopted resolution. Approved. Comments forwarded to Angela Tucker. Approved. Public hearing set for May 6~ 1998, 10:00 a.m. Public hearing set for May 13, 1998, 7:00 p.m, Received. 12~ 13. Proposed Dance Hall Ordinance. Other Matters not Listed on the Agenda from the BOARD. 17. Adjourn. /gwc Distribution list: Robert W. Tucker; Jr: Richard E. Huff, II Roxanne White Kevin Castner Wayne Cilimberg Larry Davis Bill Mawyer Amelia McCulley Bmce Woodzell County Attorney to rewrite. Mrs. Thomas mentioned NACo National County Government Week. Mrs. Thomas asked staff to provide cost information on publishing advertisements in the newspapers. Staff to provide report on hunting issue. Mr. Bowerman mentioned incident where development activity took place before them was an approved plan. If incident prosecutable, then the County needs to proceed in that manner. Adjourned at 1:20 p.m. COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: RE: V. Wayne Cilimberg, Director of Planning and Community Development Ella W. Carey, CMC. Clerk ~ ~ April 6, 1998 Board Actions of April 1, 1998 Atits meeting on April I, 1998, the Board of Supervisors took the following actions: Item No. 5.2. SP-97-65. Greenwood Farm Bridge (Sign #27) - (conditions of approval) (defexred from March 18. 1998). APPROVED SP-97-65 subject to the following: In addition to agricultural, forestal, and recreational activities (which activities include but are not limited to construction and use of structures related thereto), the bridge shall serve no more than two (2) building sites for dwellings (or three [3] building sites for dwellings if one (I) or more of those sites is created as part of a family division) on the south side of Yellow Mountain Creek. The bridge shall also serve accessory structures for the dwellings; The building sites shall be located below the elevation of 900 feet. as identified on the County's Open Space Plan: 3. Engineering Department approval of an erosion control plan; Engineering Department receipt of proof of compliance with Federal and State agencies regulating activities affecting wetlands and watercourses; Engineering Department approval of a mitigation plan outlining mitigation measures for encroachments into the stream buffer: Engineering Department approval of hydrologic and hydraulic computations for the crossing. These computations must demonstrate compliance with Sections 30.3.2.2 and 30.3,3 of the Zoning Ordinance. Plans must show the existing and proposed flood plain boundaries and elevations; 7. Engineering Department approval of structural plans, details, and computations; o Engineering Department approval of grading plans to evaluate cut and fill in the flood plain; The 14-foot-wide bridge and floodplain crossing shall be in substantial accord with the plan submitted by the applicant with the special use permit, subject to such modifications as are approved by tlae Engineering Department: 10. The land owner shall have the right to maintain, repair and replace the bridge and flood plain crossing, provided that the replacement, if any, shall be in substantial accord with Memo To: V. Wayne Citimberg Date: April 6. 1998 Page 2 with the design of the original bridge and flood plain crossing unless modifications thereto are approved by the Engineering Department; and 11. A biological survey or such other investigation as may be deemed appropriate by the Water Resources Manager to determine the presence of the lames Spinymussel in the areas in Yellow Mountain Creek immediately affected by the proposed bridge be conducted prior to development of the water quality mitigation plan required in Condition 5. The results of the survey or investigation will be reported to the Water Resources Manager for development of design changes and/or mitigation measures to minimize impact on the species, if found. Item No. 5.3. An Ordinance to amend Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance Supplementary Regulations Sections 5.1.25 (Farm Winery) for ZTA-97-01 - Jamie Lewis (deferred from March 18. 1998). ADOPTED the attached Ordinance. Zoning Ordinance sheets to follow under separate Item No. 5.4. Resolution to take Meadowview Lane in Advanced Mills Estates (SUB- 89-011 ) into the State Secondary System of Highways. ADOPTED the attached Resolution. Item No. 5.5. Resolution for VDOT to install "Child At Play" sign on West Drive (Route 772) in Glenaire Subdivision. By the above shown vote, the Board adopted the following Resolution. Item No. 5.6. Road Name Change Request - change the name of a portion of Betwick Road to Boars Head Pointe. APPROVED the request to change the name of a portion of Berwick Road to Boars Head Pointe. and granted staff the authority to coord~nateJimplement the change. Item No. 5.8. Authorize County Executive to execute deed for Foxcroft Subdivision critical slope easement. Authorized the County Executive to execute the deed and thereby accept the deed of easement and release part of the existing easement on behalf of the Board of Supervisors. Agenda Item No. 8. 9:30 a.m. - PUBLIC HEARING on a request from Hurt Investment Company to amend the service area boundaries of the Albemarle County Service Authority for water and sewer service to 119 acs (part of proposed Fontana Subdivision) on TM78,P57 (portion) located on E side of Rt 20 N, N of Phase III of Wilton Farms Apartments Sc Garnett Treatment Center. APPROVED an amendment of the service area boundaries of the Albemarle County Service Authority for water and sewer service to the proposed Fontana Subdivision, as recommended by staff, and requested that appropriate notes be included on the plats in large bold print that no public water will be provided on those lots above the 600 foot elevation. Memo To: V. Wayne Cilimberg Date: April 6, 1998 Page 3 Agenda Item No. 9. Request from Ellis A. Sprouse to set a public hearing to amend the service area boundaries of the Albemarle County Service Authority for sewer service ro Beaver Hill Mobile Home Park, TM57,PS, located on the north side of Route 240 in Crozet. Set this item for public hearing on May 6, 1998. at I0:00 a.m. Agenda Item No. 10. Request to set a public hearing to amend the service area boundaries of the Albemarle County Service Authority for sewer service to the proposed Indoor Tennis Facility at Farmington Country Club, located on TM60E2.P1. Set this item for public hearing for May 13, 1998. (Note: This will be heard at the same time as SP-98-05.) Agenda Item No. 13. Other Matters not Listed on the Agenda from the BOARD. Mr. Bowerman mentioned an incident where developme~t activity took place before there was an approved plan. In this particular incident there has been about a 100-foot wide. two mile cut, of timber in a location where there is no approved road plan. Mr. Bowerman said. if this incident is prosecutable, then the County needs to proceed in that manner. t/ewc Attachments cc: Larry Davis Amelia McCulley Bill Mawyer Bruce Woodzell File Char]olte Y. Humphfis Fon'v~ R. Mal~han, Jr. COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Office of Board of Supervisors 401 Mdntire Road Charlottesville, V'~jinia 22902-4,596 (804) 296-5843 FAX (804) 296-5800 April 6, 1998 Charles S. Martin Walter E P~rkins Sally H. Thomas Mrs. Angela G. Tucker Resident Engineer 701 VDOT Way Charlottesville. VA 22911 Dear Mrs. Tucker: At its meeting on Aptil 1. 1998, the Board of Supervisors made the following comments regarding transportation matters: Item No. 5.4. Resolution to take Meadowview Lane in Advanced Mills Estates ' SUB-89-011 into ~he State Secondary System of Highways. ADOPTED the Resolution. Item No. 5.5. Resolution for VDOT to install "Child At Play" sign on West Drive (Route 772~ in Glenaire Subdivision. ADOPTED the Resolution, Item No. 5.6. Road Name Change Request - change the name of a portion of Berwick Road to Boars Head Pointe. APPROVED the request to change the name of a portion of Ber~vick Road to Boars Head Pointe, and granted staff the authority to coordinate/implement the change. Agenda Item No. 7. Transportation Matters. Mr. Perkins asked for an update on the Sugar Hollo~v bridges. You said VDoT has awarded a contract for the work which should begin in the spring. VDoT has not set a date for the preconstruc- tion conference. You will provide the Board with a copy of the notice. With regard to Rocky Hollow Road, you said VDoT is willing to work with citizens if they want to pursue right-of-way or easements necessary for gravel road improvements. You did not believe Route 769 lends itself to pave-in-place, but VDoT will look at minimizing easements and right-of-way. Mr. Perkit~s asked if the road could be black topped where there is frequent flooding. You said VDoT can look at approaches to pipe crossing or bridge structures ro mininuze the washing into the streams. VDoT usually does nothing more than a couple of hundred feet of approach work, VDoT can aisc look to stabilize spot locations, Printed on recycled paper Mrs. Angela G. Tucker April 6. 1998 Page 2 Mr. Marshall asked if it would not be cheaper to put down some hard rock, similar to ptimaw grade. You said that is cheaper, but tire process involves improving roads first before that actual stabilization is made. VDoT must get a minimum 18-foot width before they can actually surface treat a road. Even when exceptions are made to do these spot improvements. VDoT attempts to get the minimum road width to allow the passage of two lanes of traffic. It is not a matter o f being allowed to pave-in-place. VDoT will continue to work with Mr. Cropp. Mr. Martin thanked you for Route 615. Mr. Marshall asked that VDoT not install a concrete wall when Carter's Bridge. located on Route 20, is replaced. People would like to be able to drive across the bridge and see the fiver, He suggested installing guardrail with a nice wooden fence. You said that was VDoT's intent. Mr. Marshall said he received a call from Mr. Irvin Jones, principal at Monticdlo High School, who expressed concern about exiting the new road onto Route 20. He asked if a stop light could be installed on Route 20 to slow down traffic and help make it safer. Mr. Mawyer said the Engineering Department has been working with VDoT staff to reevaluate that whole intersection, the geometics, safety issues, what could be done with flashing lights, stop lights and what is appropriate to recommend. The Department plans to issue a report within the week addressing all of these items and some recommendations. This Board can have some input at that time. He does not believe the intersection warrants a stop light, therefore he thinks there will be other recommendations for improvements. Mr. Marshall said something needs to be done now to slow down that traffic so that people ~vill start getting use to the slower speed before the school is ~pened. Mr. Marshall said does appreciate everything that is being done. He asked that Mr. Jones be contacted and given a status report. Mr. Bowerman asked for a status report of the through truck prohibition on Rio Road. including when the CTB will hear the request, at the May 6th Board meeting. Mrs. Thomas mentioned the Ivy Store that recently burned. She suggested that when the store is rebuilt there be some discussions with the property owners about maMng the parMng lot safer with more definite entrances and exits. You mentioned the upcoming guardrail project on Rio Road and proposed that the road be dosed to traffic during the construction. The Board directed the County Executive to draft a resolution, for indusion on the April 8th consent agenda, in support of dosing Rio Road during the construction period. Mrs. Angela G. Tucker April 6 1998 Page 2 Mr. Mawyer reported that the design documents for the stop light at Mil1 Creek have been completed. q~WC CC: Robert I47. Tucker. Jr. Bill Mawyer V. Wayne Cilimberg Sincerely, /-'~ , / COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AGENDA TITLE: Fair Housing Month Proclamation SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Acknowledge and celebrate April as Fair Housing Month by adopting the Fair Housing Month Proclamation STAFF CONTACT(Si: Mr. Tucker, Ms. McDonald, Ms. White AGENDA DATE: April 1, 1998 ACTION: ITEM NUMBER: INFORMATION: CONSENT AGENDA: ACTION: INFORMATION: ATFACHMENTS: Yes ~, / BACKGROUND: Ap[il is Fair Housing Month and Albemarle County's Office of Housing has planned a celebration for Wednesday, April 1, to recognize the progress towards equal opportunity housing that has been made possible by the Fair Housing laws. Albemarle County will celebrate its commitment to fair housing with festivities to be held in the lobby of the County Office Building from 9:00 am until noon with refreshments and educational materials for distribution. The day's events will include a proclamation to be adopted by the Board of Supervisors. This year's formal program on Fair Housing will be held in the afternoon of April 1 and is focused on educating the County's mobile ~3ark owners onFair Housing Laws, Zoning & Inspection Regulations, and Landlord/Tenant Laws. DISCUSSION: The County seeks to acknowledge Mr. Howard W. Allen, for his advocacy on behalf of affordable housing efforts and to dedicatethisthird Fair Housing Month Proclamation to him. For example, as an original member of the County's Housing Committee, Mr Alien's dedication to the issue of housing education resulted directly in the creation of the County's Comprehensive Housing Counseling program and the HOMEBUYERS Clubs. Attached is the proclamation and Fair Housing Accessibility Conference information. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the Fair Housing Month Proclamation. Attachments BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 98.045 PROCLAMATION April, 1998. marks the thirtieth anniversary of the passage of the Fair Housing Act of 1968. which sought to eliminate discrimination in housing opportunities and to affirmatively further housing choices for ali Americans: and WHEREAS, the ongoing struggle for dignity and housing opportunityfor all is not the exdusive provin~ of the Federal government: and WHEREAS, vig~r~us l~cal eff~rts t~ c~mbat discriminatiou can be as effective~ if n~t m~re s~~ than federd efforts~ and WHEREAS, illegal barriers to equal opportunity in housing, no matter how subtle, that diminish the rights of some citizens diminish the rights of all; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that in the pursuit of the shared goal and responsibility of providing equal housing opportunities for all men and women, the Board of County Superwsors of Albemarle County, Virginia, does hereby join in the national celebration by proclaiming APRIL, 1998 as FAIR HOUSING MONTH and encourage all agenczes, institutions and individuals, public and private, in Albemarle County to abide by the letter and the spirit of the Fair Housing law: and RESOLVED, that Mr. Howard W. Allen has been an advocate for the housing needs of lower-income residents, has served the maximum terms allowable on the Albemarle Housing Improvement Program Board of Directors, was an original member of the Albemarle Housing Committee and, as an on-going member of that committee, continues to advocate for housing education for all dtizens and life-skills programs for ail County students. AND FURTHER RESOLVED, this third annual proclamationis dedicated to Mr. Howard "Hank"Allen in recognition of his contributions to the County's affordable housing efforts and his longstanding record of comprehensiveservice to his community, especially for the benefit of our minority citizens. Signed and Sealed this 1st day of April, 1998 Forrest R. Mashall, lt., Chairman Albemarle Board of County Supervisors 'I'R,,'\II,I:~R PARK (.)\VNt-~R EDUCATIONAl. \\"ORKSI-IOI~ Albemarle County Office Building - Room #235 Time: 1:00 to 4:00 pm Date: Wednesday- April 1, 1998 AGENDA 1:00 - 1:30 LUNCH 1:30 - 2:00 2:00 - 2:30 2:30 - 2:45 2:45 - 4:00 LUNCHEON SPEAKER Ron Dunlap, Executive Director Virginia Manufactured Housing Association ZON~ING & INSPECTION REGULATIONS Jay Schlothauer, Building Official Amelia McCulley, Zoning Administrator Albemarle County Building Code & Zoning Services ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATIONS Dwayne Roadcap, Environmental Health Consuitant Thomas Jefferson Health District FAIR HOUSING & LANDLORD / TENANT LAW Susan Scovill, Atto.m..ey, Director of Investigations Housing Opportunities Made Equal, Inc. C~.O.M.E.) 4:00 ADJOURN Sponsore~ l,y: Albemarle Office of Housing, Albemarle Housing Improvement Program (AHIP), TJ Health District, Albemarle Building Code & Zoning Services PROCLAMATION WHEREAS, April, 1998 marks the thirtieth anniversary of the passage of the Fair Housing Act of 1968, which sought to eliminate discrimination in housing opportunities and to affirmatively further housing choices for all Americans; and WHEREAS, the ongoing struggle for dignity ane housing opportunity for all is not the exclusive province of the Federal government; and WHEREAS, vigorous local efforts to combat discrimination can be as effective, if not more so, than federal efforts; and WHEREAS, illegal barriers to equal opportunity in housing, no matter how subtle, that diminish the rights of some citizens diminish the rights of all; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that in the pursuit of the shared goal and responsibility of providing equal housing opportunities for all men and women, the Board of County Supervisors does hereby join in the national celebration by proclaiming April, 1998 as Fair Housing Month and encouraging all agencies, institutions and individuals, public and private, in Albemarle County to abide by the letter and the spirit of the Fair Housing law, AND, FURTHER, WHEREAS, Mr. Howard W. Allen has been an advocate for the housing needs of lower-income residents, has served the maximum terms allowable on the Albemarle Housing Improvement Program Board of Directors, was an original member of the Albemarle Housing Committee and, as an on-going member of that committee, continues to advocate for housing education for all citizens and life- skills programs for all County students. NOW, THEREFORE, this third annual proclamation is dedicated to Mr. Howard "Hank" Allen in recognition of his contributions to the County's affordable housing efforts and his longstanding record of comprehensive service to his community, especially for the benefit of our minority citizens. Signed: Forrest R. Marshall, Jr., Chairman Albemarle County Board of Supervisors COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AGENDA TITLE: SP 97-65 Greenwood Farm Bridge SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Request for a permission to cross Yellow Mountain Creek with a span bridge and for the ability to perform fill activities in the floodplain STAFF CONTACT(S): Mr. Tucker/Mr. Davis/Mr. Cilimberg/Mrs. Echols ~GENDA DATE: Apdl 1, 1998 ~ACTION: CONSENT AGENDA: ACTION: X ATTACHMENTS: ~REVlEWED BY: ITEM NUMBER: INFORMATIO~ INFORMATION: No BACKGROUND:. At the Board meeting held on Mamh 18= the Board considered approval of this item. The applicant suggested at the meeting changes to conditions #1 and #9 and proposed condition #10 for clarification purposes. The Board asked for a condition requiring investigation of the possible presence of the James Spiny mussel or other endangered species in Yellow Mountain Creek. In consultation with the Water Resources Manager, the applicant has suggested the following condition relating to the investigation for the James Spiny mussel: A biological survey or such other investigation as may be deemed appropriate by the Water Resources Manager to determine the presence of the James Spiny mussel in the areas in Yellow Mountain Creek immediately affected by the proposed bddge be conducted prior to development of the water quality mitigation plan required in Condition 5. The results of the survey or investigation will be reported to the Water Resources Manager for development of design changes and/or mitigation measures to minimize impact on the species, if found. The Water Resources Manager supports this condition. It should be noted that this condition only covers the Spiny mussel and not all endangered species; however, the Spiny mussel is the only known aquatic endangered species in Albemarle County. The condition also requires that the mitigation measures or design changes only minimize the impact on the species, not abate the impact, if the spinymussel is indeed found in the Creek. If any spiny mussels are found, though, the State and Federal agencies responsible for endangered species could mandate abatement measures. in the past year, the issue of impacts of proposed construction activities on endangered species has become more and more prevalent. At present the County has no regulations which routinely require screening for endangered species or natural heritage resources which might be affected by construction projects. State and federally funded projects require such screening and, through the special use permit process, such screening also can be required. The staff recommends further examination of criteda relating to preservation of natural heritage resources and endangered species to address this issue appropriately in future applications. Staff recommends approval of the special use permit with the AGENDA TITLE: SP 97-65 Greenwood Farm BHdge Apd11,1998 Page 2 3. 4. 5. 6. 10. 11. In addition to agricultural, forestal, and recreational activities (which activities include but are not limited to construction and use of structures related thereto), the bridge shall serve no more than two building sites for dwellings (or three building sites for dwellings if one or more of those sites is created as part ora familydivision) on the south side of Yellow Mountain Creek. The bridge shall also serve accessory structures for the dwellings. The building sites shall be located below the elevation of 900 feet as identified on the County's Open Space Plan. Engineering Depadment approval of an erosion control plan. Engineering Department receipt of proof of compliance with Federal and State agencies regulating activities affecting wetlands and watercourses. Engineering Department approval of a mitigation plan outlining mitigation measures for encroachments into the stream buffer. Engineering Department approval of hydrologic and hydraulic computations for the crossing. These computations must demonstrate compliance with sections 30.3.2.2 and 30.3.3 of the Zoning Ordinance. Plans must show the existing and proposed floodplain boundaries and elevations. Engineering Department approval of structural plans, details, and computations. Engineering Department approval of grading plans to evaluate cut and fill in the floodplain. The 14 foot wide bddge and floodplain crossing shall be in substantial accord with the plan submitted by the applicant with the special use permit, subject to such modifications as are approved by the Engineering Department. The land owner shall have the dght to maintain, repair an'd replace the bridge and floodplain crossing, provided that the replacement, if any, shall be in substantial accord with the design of the odginal bridge and floodplain crossing unless modifications thereto are approved by the Engineering Department. A biological survey or such other investigation as may be deemed appropriate by the Water Resources Manager to determine the presence of the James Spinymussel in the areas in Yellow Mountain Creek immediately affected by the proposed bddge be conducted prior to development of the water quality mitigation plan required Jn Condition 5. The results of the survey or investigation will be reported to the Water Resources Manager for development of design changes and/or mitigation measures to minimize impact on the species, if found. 98.054 COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: RE: Members of the Board of Supervisors Ella W. Carey, CMC, Clerk ~ April 9, 1998 Supplement No. 86 to the Zoning Ordinance Attached are new sheets to be inserted in your copy of the Zoning Ordinance. This supplement was occasioned by amendments made on April I. 1998. ~ewc Attachments Robert W. Tucker. Jr. Richard E. Huff. II Lmy Davis Water Resources Manager V. Wayne Cilimberg Amelia McCulley Clerk 5.1.25 Retail sales area exceeding fifteen (15) percent of the floor area of the main use pursuann co section 27.2.2.13 is intended to allow for uses which by their na5ure are bulky and recp/ire nonintensive use of the land. The board and/or the commission in approval of such increased sales area shall be mindful of the intent of this section 5o provide for only subordinate retail sales and avoid incompatible land uses. (Added 2-20-91) FAP~4 WINERY (Added 12-16-81; Amended 01-01-84; Amended 04-01-98) Each farm wlnery shall be subject to the following: The owner shall obtain a farm winery license from the State Alcoholic Beverage Control Board. At least fifty-one (51) percenE of the fresh fruits or agricultural products used by' the owner to manufacture the wine shall be grown or produced on the farm, unless the State Alcoholic Beverage Control Board waives such requirement; Facilities for fermenting and/or bottling wmne shall no5 be established until the vzneyard, orchard or other growing area has been established and ts in production; The following uses and activities are permitted au a farm winery with the prior approval of a site plan as provided in subsection (d) . Special events and festivals are also subject ~o the addi- tional requirements se5 forth in subsection (e): On-premise sale of wine and wine consumption. One location may be established on each farm for the on-premise sale of wine and wine consumption. The aggregate total floor area for such sales and consumption shall not exceed fifteen hundred (1500) square feet. A special use permit issued pursuant to section 31.2.4 of this chapter may authorize the aggregate floor area to exceed fifteen hundred (1500) square feet; 2. Daily gouts. Daily tours of a farm winery shall be permitted; Special events, Special events shall be permitted up to twelve (12) times per year. For purposes of this section, a special event is an event conducted au a farm winery on a single day for which attendance is allowed only by invitation or reservation and whose participants do not exceed one hundred fifty (150) persons; special events include, but are not limited Eo, meetings, conferences, banquets, dinners, wedding receptions, private parties and other events conducted for the purpose of marketing wine. A special use permit issued pursuant to section 31.2.4 of this chapter may autho- rize the number of special events per year to exceed twelve (12), or the number of allowed participants at any event to exceed one hundred fifty (150), or both; -69.1- (Supp. #86, 04-01-98) Festivals. Festivals shall be permitted up [o four (4) ulmes per year. For purposes of this section, a festival is an evenu conducted a5 a farm winery for up uo three (3) consecu- tive days which is open to the general public and conducted for the purpose of marketing wine. A use or activity identified in subsection (c) is authorized only with the prior approval of a site plan. Prior to approval of the site plan, the owner shall obtain from the Virginia Department of Transportation approval of a commercial enurance uo the farm winery, and any required approval from the local office of the Virginia Department of Health. If a site plan waiver is requested, particu- lar consideration shall be given to provisions for safe and convenient access, parking, outdoor lighting, signs and potential adverse ir~pacts to adjoining property, and reasonable standards and conditions may be imposed as conditions of such waiver; Special events and festivals shall be also subjec~ uo the following: The owner shall obua~n a zoning clearance prior to conducting a festival au which more than one hundred fifty (150) persons will be allowed to attend. A single zoning clearance may be obtained for one (1) or more such festivals as provided herein: The owner shall apply for a zoning clearance au least thirty (30) days prior to the date of the first festival to be authorized by the zoning clearance. The applica- tion shall be submitted to the zoning administrator, who shall forward copies of the application ~o the county police department, the county fire and rescue division. and the local office of the Virginia Department of Health; The application shall describe the nauure of each festival uo be authorized by the zoning clearance, the date or dates and hours of operation of each such festival, the facilities, buildings and structures co be used, and the number of participants all6wed to attend each festival; Upon a determination that all requirements of the zoning ordinance are satisfied and upon receiving approval, and ~ny conditions of such approval, from the other counuy offices receiving copies of the application~ the zoning administrator shall issue a zoning clearance for one or more festivals. The zoning clearance shall be condi- tional upon the owner's compliance with all requiremenr~ of the zoning ordinance and all conditions imposed by the zoning clearance; -69.1.1- (Supp. #86, 04-01-98) The zoning adminis~ramor may issue a single zoning clearance for two (2) or more festivals if: (i) the application submitted by the owner includes the required information for each festival ~o be covered by the zoning clearance: (ii) the zoning administrator deter- mines that each such festival is substantially similar in namure and s~ze~ and (iii) the zoning administrator determines that ~ single sem of conditions that would apply no each such festival may h~ imposed with the zoning clearance. No kitchen facility permitted by the Health Department as a commercial kitchen shall be allowed on the farm. A kitchen may be used by licensed camerers for the handling, warming and distribution of food, but not for cooking food, to be served am such special event or festival; An outdoor amplified sound sysmem shall be prohibited; The hours of operation shall be no earlier than 9:00 a.m. and no later than 10:00 p.m. -69.1.2- (Supp. #86, 04-01-98) ORDINANCE NO. 98-20(1) AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND CHAPTER 20, ZONING, ARTICLE II, BASIC REGULATIONS, 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 20. Zoning, Article II, Basic Regulations, is hereby amended and reordained by amending section 5.1.25 as follows: Chapter 20. Zoning Article II. Basic Regulations Sec. 5.1.25. Farm Winery. Each farm winery shall be subject to the following: The owner shall obtain a farm winery license from the State Alcoholic Beverage Control Board At least fifty-one (51) percent of the fresh fruits or agricultural products used by the owner to manufacture the wine shall be grown or produced on the farm, unless the State Alcoholic Beverage Control Board waives such requirement. Facilities for fermenting and/or bottling wine shall not be established until the vineyard, orchard or other growing area has been established and is in production. The following uses and activities are permitted at a farm winery with the prior approval of a site plan as provided in subsection (d). Special events and festivals are also subject to the additional requirements set forth in subsection (e). On-premise sale of w/ne and wine consumption. One location may be established on each farm for the on-premise sale of wine and wine consumption. The aggregatetotal floor area for such sales and consumption shall not exceed fifteen hundred (1500) square feet. A special use permit issued pursuant to section 31.2.4 of this chapter may authorize the aggregate floor area to exceed fifteen hundred (1500) square feet. 2. Daily tours. Daily tours of a farm winery shall be permitted. Specialevents. Special events shall be permitted up to twelve (12) times per year. For purposes of this section, a specialevent is an event conducted at a farm winery on a single day for which attendance is allowed only by invitation or reservation and whose participants do not exceed one hundred fifty (150) persons; special events include, but are not limited to, meetings, conferences, banquets, dinners, wedding receptions, private parties and other events conducted for the purpose of marketing wine. A special use permit issued pursuant to section 31.2.4 of this chapter may authorize the number of special events per year to exceed twelve (12), or the number of allowed participants at any event to exceed one hundred fifty (150), or both. Festivals. Festivals shall be permitted up to four (4) times per year. For purposes of this section, a festivalis an event conducted at a farm winery for up to three (3) consecutive days which is open to the general public and conducted for the purpose of marketing wine. A use or activity identified in subsection (c)is authorized only with the prior approval of a site plan. Prior to approval of the site plan; the owner shall obtain from the Virginia Department of Transportation approval of a commercial entrance to the farm winery, and any required approval from the local office of the Virginia Department of Health. If a site plan waiver is requested, particular consideration shall be given to provisions for safe and convenient access, parking, outdoor lighting, signs and potential adverse impacts to adjoining property, and reasonable standards and conditions may be imposed as conditions of such waiver. Special events and festivals shall be also subject to the following: The owner shall obtain a zoning clearance prior to conducting a festival at which more than one hundred fifty (150) persons will be allowed to attend. A single zoning clearance may be obtained for one or more such festivals as provided herein. (a) The owner shall apply for a zoning clearance at least thirty (30) days prior to the date of the first festival to be authorized by the zoning clearance. The application shall be submitted to the zoning administrator, who shall forward copies of the application to the county police department, the county fire and rescue division, and the local office of the Virginia Department of Health. (b) The application shall describe the nature of each festival to be authorized by the zoning clearance, the date or dates and hours of operation of each such festival, the facilities, buildings and structures to be used, and the number of participants allowed to attend each festival. (c) Upon a determination that all requirements of the zoning ordinance are satisfied and upon receiving approval, and any conditions of such 2 approval, from the other county offices receiving copies of the application, the zoning administrator shall issue a zoning clearance for one or more festivals. The zoning clearance shall be conditional upon the owner's compliance with all requirements of the zoning ordinance and all conditions imposed by the zoning clearance. (d) The zoning administrator may issue a single zoning clearance for two or more festivals if: (I) the application submitted by the owner includes the required information for each festival to be covered by the zoning clearance: (ii) the zoning administrator determines that each such festival is substantially similar in nature and size; and (iii) the zoning administrator determines that a single set of conditions that would apply to each such festival may be imposed with the zoning clearance. No kitchen facility permitted by the Health Department as a commercial kitchen shall be allowed on the farm. A kitchen may be used by licensed caterers for the handling, warming and distribution of food. but not for cooking food, to be served at such special event or festival. An outdoor amplified sound system shall be prohibited. The hours of operation shall be no earlier than 9:00 a.m. and no later than 10:00 p.m. (Added 12-16-81; amended 1-1-84): I, Ella W. Carey, do hereby certify that the foregoing writing s 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, at a regular meeting held on April 1. 1998. Clerk, Board of C~un~y S~rvisors 3 COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AGENDA TITLE: ZTA 97-02 Jamie Lewis SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Request to amend Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance Supplementary Regulations sections 5.1.25 (Farm Winery) STAFF CONTACT{S): AGENDA DATE: April 1,1998 ACTION: ITEM NUMBER: INFORMATION: CONSENTAGENDA: ACTION: X iNFORMATION: ATTACHMENTS: Ord~<~MErch 25, 1998 Messrs. Tucker, Davis, Cilimberg REVIEWED BY: / BACKGROUND: OnMarchl8,1998, theBoardheldapubl~headngonZTA9%02which,E~proved, wouldame~ se~onS.1.25(farm wine~ oftheZon~gO~nance. TheBoardr~uestedthatseveralchangesbema~ ~ ~on5.1.25be~rsa~ on theamendme~. DISCUSSION: Section 5.1.25, as presented to the Board on Mamh 18th, has been revised to incorporate the following requested changes: (1) Section 5.1.25(c)(4) has been revised to authorize a single festival to last for up to three consecutive days. Section 5.1.25(e)(1) has been revised: (al so that a zoning clearance is required only for festivals at which more than one hundred fifty people will be allowed to attend (rather than for all special events and festivals); (b) to require that an application for a zoning clearance be subm~ed to the zoning administrator at least thirty days prior to the first festival authorized by the zoning clearance (rather than fourteen days prior); and (c) to require the zoning administrator provide copies of the application to other county offices for their review (rather than require the farm winery to submit applications to each county office). Section 5.1.25(e)(1) has been reorganized to more clearly state that a single zoning clearance may be obtained for multiple festivals that are similar in nature. (4) Section 5.1.25(e)(2) has been revised to allow caterers to use kitchens for, among other things, "warming" food (rather than "preparing" food), and to expressly prohibit using the kitchen to cook food. RECOMMENDATION: The attached ordinance is appropriate for adoption to effect the March 18th consensus of the Board. 98.051 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Draft: March 25, 1998 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND CHAPTER 20, ZONING, ARTICLE II, BASIC REGULATIONS, 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 20, Zoning, Article II, Basic Regulations, is hereby amended and reordained by amending section 5.1.25 as follows: By Amending: Sec. 5.1.25. Farm Winery. Chapter 20. Zoning Article II. Basic Regulations Chapter 20. Zoning Article II. Basic Regulations Sec. 5.1.25. Farm Winery. Each farm winery shall be subject to the followinq: The owner shall obtain a farm winery license from the State Alcoholic Beveraqe Control Board. At least fifty-one (51) percent of the fresh fruits or agricultural products used bv the owner to manufacture the wine shall be grown or produced on the farm, unless the State Alcoholic Beverage Control Board waives such requirement. Facilities for fermenting and/or bottling of wine shall not be established until the wneyard, orchard or other grew~ng area has been established and is in production. The following uses and activities are permitted at a farm winery with the prior approval of a site plan as provided in subsection (d). Special events and festivals are also subject to the additional requirements set forth in subsection (e). 1. On-~remise sale of wine and wine consumption. One location may be I:\DEPT~ATTORNEY~GK\ORDINANC~.ONING~FARMWIN4.ORD I Draft: March 25, 1998 established on each farm for the on-premise sale of wine and wine consumption may ~.A _~.,=~.~.~ = ...... .~ ....... :.,. ~__.=~- = ~ ~,~ ,,~,,, ,,~, ..~..,, ,,.,,,, .,,,~,y, e a reqate total oor area r such sales and consumption shall not exceed fifteen hundred (1500~ seuare feet. A special use permit issued pursuant to section 31.2.4 of this chapter may authorize the aqqreclate floor area to exceed fifteen hundred (1500) s_~o uare feet. DaiN tours. Daily :F=tours of a farm winery shall be permitted. S~ecial events. Special events shall be permitted up to twelve (12/times per year. For purposes of this section, a special event is an event conducted at a farm winery on a single day for which attendance is allowed only by invitation or reservation and whose participants do not exceed one hundred fifty ('150~ persons; special events include, but are not limited to. meetinas, conferences, banquets, dinners, weddinq receptions, private parties and other events conducted for the purpose of marketin~ wine. A special use permit issued pursuant to section 31.2.4 of this chapter may authorize the number of special events per year to exceed twelve (12). or the number of allowed participants at any event to exceed one hundred fifty ('150), or both. I:\DEPT~ATTORNEY\GK\ORDINANC~ZONING~FARMWIN4.ORD 2 Draft: March 25, 1998 Festivals. Festivals shall be permitted up to four ¢4) times per year. For purposes of this section, a festival is an event conducted at a farm winery for up to three (~3) consecutive days which is open to the qeneral public and conducted for the purpose of marketinq wine. A use or activity identified in subsection (c) is authorized only with the prior approval of a site Dian. Prior to approval of the site plan, the owner shall obtain from the Virginia Department of Transportation approval of a commercial entrance to the farm winery., and any required approval from the local office of the Virqinia Department of Health. If a site plan waiver is requested, particular consideration shall be qiven to provisions for safe and convenient access, parkinq, outdoor lightinq, siqns and potential adverse impacts to adjoininq property, and reasonable standards and conditions may be imposed as conditions of such waiver~ Special events and festivals shall be also subiect to the followinq: The owner shall obtain a zoninq clearance prior to conductinq a festival at which more than one hundred fifty (150) persons will be allowed to attend. A sinqle zoning clearance may be obtained for one or more such festivals as provided herein, The owner shall apply for a zoninq clearance at least thirty (30} days prior to the date of the first festival to be authorized by the zoninq clearance. The application shall be submitted to the zoninq administrator, who shall forward copies of the application to the county police department, the county fire and rescue division, and the local office of the Virqinia Department of Health. The application shall describe the nature of each festival to be authorized by the zoninq clearance, the date or dates and hours of operation of each such festival, the facilities, buildinqs and structures to be used, and the number of participants allowed to attend each festival. Upon a determination that all requirements of the zoninq ordinance are satisfied and upon receiving approval, and any conditions of such approval, from the other county offices receiving copies of the application, the zonino administrator shall issue a zoning clearance for one or more festivals. The zoning clearance shall be conditional upon the owner's compliance with all requirements of :\D E PT~A~q'OR N EY'tG K\O R DINAN C~O N] N G\FA RIVAtvlN4. O RD 3 Draft: March 25, 1998 the zoninD ordinance and all conditions imposed by the zoninq clearance. The zonina administrator may issue a sinctle zoninq clearance for two or more festivals if: (ii the application submitted by the owner includes the reauired information for each festival to be covered by the zonina clearance: (ii/the zonina administrator determines that each such festival is substantially similar in nature and size; and (iii) the zonina administrator determines that a sinqle set of conditions that would aDDIv to each such festival may be imposed with the zoninq clearance. No kitchen facility permitted bv the Health Department as a commercial kitchen shall be allowed on the farm. A kitchen mav be used by licensed caterers for the handlina, warmina and distribution of food, but not for cookina food. to be served at such special event or festival. An outdoor amolified sound system shall be prohibited. The hours of ooeration shal De no earlier than 9:00 a.m. and no later than 10:00 p.m. (Added 12-16-81: amended 1-1-84) :\D EP'I ~A3q'ORN EY\G K\OR DINAN C~.O N ING~FARMWI N 4,O R D 4 From: Subject: Date: Mark B. Henry, Senior Engineer Department of Engineering & Public Works Ella Washington Carey. Clerk. CMC Road Resolution April6,1998 At its meeting on April 1. [998. the Board of Supervisors adopted the following resolution: [1 ro accept Meadowview Lane in Advanced Mills Estates SUB-89-011 into the State Secondary System of Highways. Attached is the original and four copies of the adopted resolutions I~WC Attachments (5 The Board of County Supervzsors of Albemarle County, Virglnza, zn regular meeting on the lST ~ay of April, 1998, adopted the following resolution: RESOLUTION WHEREAS, the snreets in Advanced Mills Estates Subdivision, 'SUB-89-011 described on the attached Additions Form SR-5[A) dated April 1, 1998, fully incorporated herein by reference, are shown on plats recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of Albemarle County, Virglnma; and WHEREAS. the Resident Engineer for the Virgznia Department of Transporta- tion has advised the Board that the streets meen the requirements established by the Subdivision Street Reculrements of the Virginia Deparnmenn of Transpor5anion. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Albemarle Board of County Supervisors requesEs the Virginia Department of Transportation to add the roads in Southern Hills Subdivision as described on the ~ttached Additions Form SR-5[A) dated April 1, 1998, to the secondary system of snare highways, pursuant to §33.1-229, Code of Virginia, and the Department's Subdivision Streem Reculre- men~s; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Board guaransees a clear and unrestricted right-of-way, as described, and any necessary easemenms for cuts, fills and drainage as described on the recorded plats; and FURTHER RESOLVED that a certified copy of this resolution be forwarded to ~he Resident Engineer for the Virglnza Department of Transportation. Recorded vote: Moved by: Mrs. Thomas. Seconded by: Mrs. Humphris. Yeas: Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Marshall, and Mrs. Thomas. Nays: None. Hr. Martin, Mr. Perkins A Copy Teste: Ella W. Carey, Clerk,/ CMC Board of Coun~visors o The road described on Additions Form SR-5(A) is: Meadowview Lane from Station 10+08, right edge of pavement of State Route 743 to Station 15+80, rear of cul-de-sac, 572 lineal feet as shown on plat recorded 4/13/90 in the Office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Albemarle County, Virginia, in Deed Book 1095, pa~es 201-203, with a right-of-way width of 50 feet, with additional plats recorded 3/3/98 in Deed Book 1680, page 258, for a tength of 0.11 mile. Total length - 0.11 mile. . ~ OF SUPERVB©Rg COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE DEPARTMENT OF ENGINEERING & PUBLIC WORKS TO: FROM: VIA: DATE: RE: MEMORANDUM Ella Carey, Clerk, Board of Supervisors ti Mark B. Henry, P.E., Senior Eng/neer~ Bill Mawyer, Director ~:~q March 16, 1998 Advanced Mills Estates ($UB-89-011) The road serving the referenced subdivision is substantially complete and ready for VDOT acceptance. At the next opportunity, I request the Board of Supervisors to adopt a resolution for the road specified in the attached VDOT $R-5(A) form. After the adoption of the resolution, p/ease provide me with the original and four copies of the signed and dated resolution and SR-5A. Thanks for your assistance. P/ease contact me if you have any questions. MBH/mbh Attachment The Board of County Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, in regular meeting on the 1ST day of April, 1995, adopted the following resolution: RESOLUTION W~REAS, the streets in Advanced Mills Estates Subdivision, (SUB-89-011) described on the attached Additions Form SR-5(A) dated April 1, 1998, 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 Transporta- tion has advised the Board that the streets meet the requirements established by the Subdivision Street Reauirements of the Virginia Department of Transportation. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Albemarle Board of County Supervisors requesss the Virginia Department of Transportation to add the roads in Southern Kills Subdivision as described on the attached Additions Form SR-5(A) dated April 1, 1998, co the secondary system of state highways, pursuant to §33.1-229, Code of Virginia, and the Department's Subdivision Street Recn/ire- men~s; 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 the recorded plats; and FURTHER RESOLVED that a certified copy of this resolution be forwarded to the Resident Engineer for the Virginia Department of Transportation. Moved by: Seconded by: Nays: A Copy Tests: Ella W. Carey, Clerk, CMC Board of County Supervisors COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: RE: Juandiego Wade, Senior Transportation Planner Ella W. Carey, Clerk, CMC~L~(~/ April 7, 1998 "Child At Play" Resolution At its meeting on April 1, 1998 the Board of Supervisors adopted the attached resolution endorsing VDoT to install a "Child At Play" sign on West Drive In Glenaire Subdivision. / ewe Attachment cc: David Benish RESOLUTION WHEREAS- the Glenaire Neighborhood Assodadon is concerned about traffic in their neighborhood and the potential hazard it creates for the numerous children at play in the subdivision; and WHEREAS: the Association believes that "Child At Play" sign 5vould help to alleviate some of the concerns; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors hereby supports the community's request for VDOT to install the necessary "Child At Play" sign on West Drive (Route 772) on the existing speed limit sign. I, Ella W. Carey, do hereby certify that the foregoing 5vriting is a tree. correct copy of a Resolution duly adopted by the Board of County Supervisors of Albemarle County by a vote of six to zero on April 1. 1998. C~erlq Board of County Supe2~/sors COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AGENDA TITLE: Glenaire "Child At Play" sign SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Resolution supporting Glenaire "Child At Play" sign STAFF CONTACT(S~: Messrs. Tucker, Cilimber~l, Benish,Wade AGENDA DATE: Apdl 1, 1998 ACTION: CONSENT AGENDA: A. CTION: . X ATTACHMENTS: REVIEWED BY: ITEM NUMBER: INFORMATION: INFORMATION: BACKGROUND: The Glenaire Neighborhood Association has requested that VDOT install a "Child At Play" sign on West Drive (Route 772). DISCUSSION: The Glenaire Neighborhood Association requested the sign be located on West Drive on the existing speed limited sign. Although the speed limit is 25 mph, the area has a lot of children. The Board of Supervisors must endorse a resolution supporting the installation of a "Child At Play" sign for VDOT to consider the public request. Staff will work with VDOT on the installation of the sign, as necessaPj. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Board of Supervisors endorse a resolution for VDOT to install a "Child At Play" sign on West Drive. 98.049 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS RESOLUTION WHEREAS, the Glenaire Neighborhood Association is concerned about traffic in their neighborhood and the potential hazard it creates for the numerous children at play in the subdivision; and WHEREAS, The association believes that a Child At Play sign would help to alleviate some of the concerns; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors hereby supports the community's requests for VDOT to install the necessary "Child At Play" sign on West Drive (Route 7721 on the existing speed limit sign. I. Ella W. Carey, do hereby certify that the foregoing writing is a true, correct copy of the a Resolution duly adopted by the Board of County Supervisors of Albemarle County by a vote of on April 1, 1998. Clerk, Board of Supervisor COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AGENDA TITLE: Road Name Changes SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Road Name Change Requests STAFF CONTACT{$): Messrs. Tucker, Huff, Cilimberg, Weaver AGENDA DATE: April 1, 1998 ACTION: CONSENT AGENDA: ACTION: X ATTACHMENTS: REVIEWED BY: ITEM NUMBER: INFORMATION: INFORMATION: Yes// / BACKGROUND: Staff has completed the mad name change phase of the Enhanced 911 implementation project in accordance with the Board's mad name change policy. The Board's policy states that after this phase of the project has been completed, no further changes to road names would be permitted without Board approval. The following road name change requests were referred to the Department of Planning and Community Development by the County Executive's Office for review and were subsequently discussed at the Board's meeting on February 4, 1998. DISCUSSION: During the February 4, 1998 Board meeting, the Board decided to take no action on a request to change the road name ora porlJon of Mill Creek Drive to Independence Boulevard and a request to change the name of a portion of BenNick Road to Boars Head Pointe until a petition was submitted representing signatures of a majority of the landowners adjacent to the roads in question in favor of changing the road name. The petition to change the name of Mill Creek Drive from its intersection with Avon Street Extended (StHwy 742) to its intersection with Scottsville Road (StHwy 20) to Independence Boulevard has been withdrawn. The pe~on to change the name of Berwick Road from its intersection of Ednam Drive to its terminus at the Amvest Building to Boars Head Pointe is attached. Staff has verified that ail landowners adjacent to the road in question have signed the petition in favor of changing the road name to Boars Head Pointe. A map represen~ng the location of this road is also attached. The property owner will be responsible for costs associated with new signage. RECOMMENDATION: Should the Board approve the new road name as requested, grant staff the authority to coordinate/implement the above referenced change. 98.046 BOARD OF 2T ERVISORS Leigh B. Middleditch. Jr. E-Maih Ibmiddte~mwbb.com McGu qREWooDs BATTLE &BOOrHE Court Square Building Post Office Box 1288 Charlottesville. Virginia 22902-1288 Telephone/TDD(804)977-2500 · FAN(804)980-2222 Direct Dial: {804} 977-2543 Direct Fax: (804] 980-2267 February 23, 1998 Mr. Tex Weaver. Manager Information Resources Department of Planning and Community Development. County of Albemarle 401 Mclntyre Road Charlottesville, VA 22902-4596 AMVEST Corporation Dear Mr. Weaver: Amvcst C~n is again applying to request a change of its street designation from Berwick Road to, oar's H~d Pointe: In accordance with the Board of Supervisors' discussion at their February 4, l~ting, I attach the concurrence of the University of Virginia Host Properties, Inc. which, to my knowledge, is the only other affected landowner. Please let me know when the Board of Supervisors will again consider this request. Thank you for your assistance. Sincerely, cc: Ms. Alice W. Handy Mr. Smart Smith Leigh B. Middleditch, Jr. ALEXANDRIA - BALTIMORE ' BRUSSELS · CHARLOTTESVILLE JACKSONVILLE · NORFOLK · RICHMOND · TYSON$ CORHER · I~ASHINGTO~. DC - Z~RIEH 02 23 98 MON 10:44 F~% 804 924 4092 UYA TREASURER'S OFFICE C mrlot~csville. V^ 22906 OFFICE ()1: TItE 'fRFASI'RE['; · ' U N [ V E R S I T 5' [:--' VIRGIN A · 804 924--i245 · FAX 80q 924,4092 or February 20, 1998 FEB 2 5 i99; Mr. Leigh B. Middleditch, Jr. MeG-uim Woods Battle & Boothe Court Square Building Post Office Box 1288 Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-1288 RE: Amvest Corporation Dear Leigh: On behalf of the University of Virginia Host Properties, Inc., I support the name change to Boar's Head Pointe for the portion of Berwick Road that leads to Amvest Cbrporation from Ednam Drive. cc: Mr. Smart Smith Sincerely, Alice W. Handy Treasurer AMVEST BLDG ~ -\ David P. Bowerman Rio Charlol~ Y. Humphfis COUNTY OF ALBEMAR~ .~ Office of Board of Supervmors 401 Mclntire Road Chaflotl~-ville, Vir§inia 22902-4~96 {804) 296-5843 FAX (804) 296~800 April 6, 1998 Charles S. Mar//n Walter E P~rkins Sally H. Thomas Mr. Rory Carpenter Commission on Children and Families City Hall Annex PO Box 911 Charlottesville VA 22902 Dear Mr. Carpenter: At its meeting on April 1. 1998. the Board of Supervisors adopted the attached resolu- tion that will be submitted to the Department of Juven 'le Justice along with the FY 1999 Virginia Juvenile Community Crime Control Act Plan for Albemarle/Charlottesville juvenile services. Sincerely, "--EII~WL Carey, Clerk. CMCJ / /ewo cc: Roxanne White PHnted on recycled paper RESOLUTION WItEREAS, 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 WltEREAS, the Department of Juvenile Justice has approved funding for the County of Albemarle through the Virginia Juvenile Community Crime Control Act for FY 1999 in the amount of $179,956; and WIIEREAS, the County of Albemarle has submitted a plan together with the City of Charlottesville to the Deparmaem, designating Charlottesville as the fiscal agent, to use these Virginia Community Crime Control Act funds to provide services to youth who come before the Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court in FY 1999; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT the Board of County Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, certifies that ir: Will not contribute less 'funding for the implementation of this local plan than was expended for block grant funded programs for services either operated or utilized in FY 1995 in compliance with § 16.1-309.6 of the Code of Virginia; Will not utilize funds provided by this Act to supplant funds established as the state pool of funds under §2.1-757 in compliance with §16.1-309.3 of the Code of Virginia: Co Will comply with all provisions of § 16.1-309.9 of the Code of Virginia which gives the Board of Juvenile Justice the authority to establish and enfome standards and to review the expenditures and services established by the local plan; Consulted with the Judge(s) of the Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court and the Director of the Cottrt Services of the participating jurisdictions: and Will submit routine reports and an other information to the Director of the Deparu~ent of Juvenile Justice for each program of service funded by the Act in compliance with §§16.1-309.3 E and 16.1-309.10 of the Code of Virginia and all applicable departmental procedures. t, Ella W. Carey, do hereby certify that the foregoing writing is a aue, correct copy of a resolution adopted by the Board of County Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia at a regular meeting held on April 1, 1998. ~l~oard of-Co"-unty Sup~isors / / COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AGENDA TITLE: FY99 Virginia Juvenile Community Crime Control Act (VJCCCA) Plan and Resolution for Albemarle/Charlottesville juvenile services. SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Approval of Resolution for the FY99 VJCCCA Plan for Albemarle/Charlottesville juvenile services. STAFF CONTACT(S): Mr. Tucker, Ms. White AGENDA DATE: ITEM NUMBER: April 1, 1998 ACTION: INFORMATION: CONSENT AGENDA: ACTION: X INFORMATION: ATTACHMENTS: Yes / BACKGROUND: The Department of Juvenile Justice has allocated $179,956 in FY99 Virginia Juvenile Community Crime Control Act (VJCCCA} to Albemarle County. To access these funds, each locality, or combination of localities, must develop an annual plan to show how these funds will be spent to serve the juvenile population. This annual plan must be submitted to DJJ along with a resolution from the Board of Supervisore. DISCUSSION: The FY99 plan being submitted to the Department of Juvenile justice allocates the County's $179,956 in VJCCCA funds and local maintenance of effort (MOL~ dollars in the amount of $52,231 to eight different programs. The local dollars, considered as MOE by the State, reflect County funds historically appropriated to Community Attention and do not require any additional funding from the County. The FY99 VJCCCA allocation in this plan is less than the County's FY98 allocation of $202,444 by $22,488, although the final budget approved by the Legislature approved a hold harmless clause that restores our funding to the current level. However, DJJ is requidng that this plan be submitted with the initial funding allocation of $179,956, which was in the Governor's budget. It is anticipated that we will need to revise the plan with the additional $22,488 after the budget is signed bythe Governor. The eight programs, which are described in more detail on the attached sheet are: Community Attention Programs (Community Attention Home. Family Group Homes, Outreach Services, Teens Give); Juvenile Court Assessment Center; First Time Truant O~ffender Project; Intensive Probation Program; Delinquency Prevention Program; Curfew Center; 16TM District Court Services Fund; and Electronic Monitoring. The second attachment shows the costs of each program for both the County and the City. When the anticipated additional funds are received they will be directed to th · the Electronic Monitoring Program and the 16 D~strict Court Service Fund. The development of this plan has been a collaborative effort among representatives from the Court Service Unit, the CPMT, the Commission on Children and Families staff', and the City Manager's and County Executive's Office. The purpose of this ~31an is to establish a balanced community l~ased system of sanctions, programs (both prevention and intervention) and services for juvenile offenders. The VJCCCA funds prov|de Charlottesville/Albemarle with the opportunity to continue this community-based system with more emphasis on prevention and intervention m conjunction with the established programs. A proposed Juvenile Justice Committee of the newly formed Commission on Children and Families will oversee the VJCCCA programs in conjunction with the Court Services Unit. All VJCCCA funded employees will be on the City's personnel system. The Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court and the Court Services Unit support this plan for the use of VJCCCA funds. The proposed plan and resolution are then submitted to the State DJJ Board for approval. DJJ requires a resolution from the Board of Supervisors certifying that Albemarle County will not: contribute less funding to juvenile AGENDA TITLE: FY9g Virginia Juvenile Community Crime Control Act (VJCCCA) Plan and Resolution for Albernarle/Charlottesville juvenile services. April 1, 1998 Page 2 services than was utilized in FY95; not use these funds to supplant any other local funds for juveniles: will comply with provisions established under the Virginia Code by the Department of Juvenile Justice; has consulted with the Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court; and will submit routine reports to the Department of Juvenile Justice. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the attached resolution, which will be submitted to the Department of Juvenile Justice along with the FY99 plan for Albemarle/Charlottesville juvenile services. 98.052 THE 1998/99 CHARLOTTESVILLE/ALBEMARLE VIRGINIA JUVENILE COMMUNITY CRIME CONTROL ACT PLAN The City of Charlottesville and the County of Albemarle have collaborated on this plan to spend VJCCCA and toeal funds to deter juvenile crime through the provision ora continuum of community-based services for juvenile offenders based on their offenses and treatment needs. This cominmtm of services includes four programs administered by Community Attention that combine both VJCCCA and local dollars and seven programs fimded by VJCCCA dollars that will be administered by the Juvenile Justice Coordinator under the direction of the Commission on Children and Famities. The following community-based programs are included in the 1998/99 Charlottesville/Albemarle VTCCCA plan: Community Attention Programs- · CommuniO~ Attention Home - A non-secure, co-ed residential treatment program. · Family Group Homes - A family group home residential program. · Outreach Services - An intensive supervision and outreach detention services program. · Teens Give - A community service program for youth and their families. Other VJCCCA Programs- · Juvenile Court Assessment Center- Case management and assessment services for first time juvenile offenders and less serious delinquent offenders. · First Time Tntant Offender Project- Diverting truant youth at intake through the development of effective service plans. · Intensive Probation Program ~ An intensive supervision program for youth on probation. · Delinquency Intervention Program - Provides evening intake services in delinquency situations with the provision of services at the point of contact with the police. · The Curfew Center Program - Provides Curfew Center supervision and after-hours intake services~ · 16th District Court Services Fund - Provides purchase of service funds for juvenile court youth. · Electric Monitoring Program - The use of electric monitoring to supervise delinquem youth and maintain public safety. VIRGINIA JUVENILE COMMUNITY CRIME CONTROL ACT 1998-99 Albemarle County Charlottesville Revenue VJCCCA Revenue (1998/99) $179,956 Local Appropriation (Portion of MOE) 52,231 Available 98/99 Revenue $232,187 $614,460 108,415 $722,875 Expenses Juvenile Court Assessment Center $ 31,306 First Time Truant Offender Prog. $ 29,906 Intensive Probation Program $ 17,000 Delinquency Intervention Program $ 21,000 Curfew Center Program $ 0 16th District Court Service Fund $ 125 Electrie Monitoring Program $ 125 Community Attention: $132,725 Drawdown funds for - Comr~ Attention Home - Family Group Homes - Outreach Services - Teens Give $ 31,307 $ 29,906 $ 17,000 $ 16,000 $ 5,000 $ 125 $ 125 $623,412 Supervision CSU C.A. CSU CSU CSU CSU CSU C.A. $232,187 $722,875 RESOLUTION WIIEREAS, The 1995 Virg'mia General Assembly enacted the Virginia Juvenile Community Crime Control Act to establish balanced, community-based systems of sanctions, programs, and services for juvem~[e offenders effective January t~ 1996, and WHEREAS. The Department of Juvenite Justice has approved funding for the County of Albemarle through the Virginia Juvenile Community Crime Control Act for FY 1999 in the amount of $t79,956, and WHEREAS, The County of Albemarle has submitted a plan together with the City of Charlottesville to the Deparm~ent, designating Charlottesville as the fiscal agent, to use these Vkginia Community Crime Control Act funds to provide se~ices to youth who come before the Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court in FY 1999; NOW, TIt~REFORE, BE IT RESOLVED TItAT the Board of County Supervisors of AlbemarIe County, ~ginia, c~ntifies that it: Wilt not contn~bute less funding for the implementation of this local plan than was expended for block grant funded programs for m either operatedor utilized in FY 1995 in compliance with t 6.1-309.6 of the Code of Vh,ginia; B. W'ff[ not utilize funds provided by this Act to supplant funds established as the stare pool of funds under 2.1-757 in compliance with 16.1-309.3 of the Code of V'~ W'fi[comply with all provisions of 16.1-309.9 of theCode of 5qrginia which gives the Board of Juvenile Justice the authority to establish and enforce standards and to review the expenditures and services established bythe local plan; D. Consulted with the Judge(s) of the Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court and the Director of the Court Services of the participating jarisdictions; W~ submit routine reports and an other information to the Director of the Depm-m~nt of Juvenile Justice for each program of service funded by the Act in compliance 16. I-309.3 E and 16A-309.10 of the Code of Virginia and alt applieabIe Departmental procedures. I, Ella W. Carey, do hereby certify that the foregoing-writing is a true, correct copy ora resolution adopted by the Board of County Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia at a regular meeting held on April 1, I998. Clerk, Board of County Supervisors COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AGENDA TITLE: Foxcmff Subdivision Critical Slope Easement SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Authorize County Executive to execute deed, and thereby accept deed of easement and release part of existing easement on behalf of Board of Supervisors AGENDA DATE: April 1, 1998 ITEM NUMBER: ACTION: INFORMATION: CONSENT AGENDA: ACTION: INFORMATION: ATTACHMENTS: Single document entitled "Reservation and deed of easement and deed of release of easement," and plat showing revised location of ea_~.~ement STAFF CONTACT(Si: ~ ~ Messrs. Tucker, Davis /z~/.,,~.~ ~ / · REVIEWED BY: /~'"~ v'-' ~ / BACKGROUND: As a condition of approval of the Foxcroff subdivision plat in 1995, the County required that it be granted an easement on those portions of the subdivision lots that were critical slope areas. The purpose of the easement was to prohibit the disturbance of the natural grade of the critical slopes. Critical slope areas identified on the final plat were based on information taken from a copy of an erosion control plan. However,. as the lots were actually developed, it became apparent that the critical slope areas identified on the plat varied from the critical slope areas in the field. County staff and Hunter Craig Co. decided that a new easement based on a new survey of the critical slope areas should be created on those lots still under Hunter Craig Co.'s ownership. DISCUSSION: The attached "Reservation and deed of easement and deed of release of easement" (the "deed") would establish a new easement over those portions of subdivision lots in critical slope areas that are under Hunter Craig Co.'s ownership, and would release the existing easement on those same lots. The proposed easement imposes duties on Hunter Craig Cc~ and its successors to not disturb the natural grade of the critical slope areas and to inspect, repair, replace, restore and maintain the natural grade. The proposed easement also grants to the County the right of ingress and egress to inspect the easement area. Lots that have already been sold would continue to be subject to the existing easement. RECOMMENDATION: The County Attorney's Office has approved the deed as to form= uno staff recommends that the Board authorize the CounbJ Executive to execute the deedand thereby accept the deed of easement and release part of the existing easement on behalf of the Board of Supervisors. BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 98.057 RESERVATION AND DEED OF EASEMENT AND DEED OF RELEASE OF EASEMENT THIS RESERVATION AND DEED OF EASEMENT andDEED OF RELEASE OF EASEMENT is made this 2nd day of April, 199,8, by and between CRAIG ENTERPRISES, INC., a Virginia corporation, t/a HUNTER E. CRAIG CO., hereinafter "Craig," Grantor and Grantee, and the COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA, a political subdivision of the Commonwealth of Virginia. hereinafter the "County," Grantor and Grantee. WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, Craig is the owner of Lots 6, 7, 28 through 31 and 34 through 37 of Phase 1 of the Foxcroff Subdivision (hereinafter"Lots 6. 7, 28 through 31 and 34 through 37" or "such Lots" or, individually, "such Lot"), the subdivision plat for which was made by Roger W. Ray & Assoc., Inc., dated October 5, 1995, last revised November 15, 1995, captioned "Subdivision Plat Lots 1 thru 63 Phase One Foxcroff" (hereinafter the "Subdivision"), and which is recorded in the Office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of the County of Albemarle in Deed Book 1504, Pages 5-13 ('hereinafter the "Subdivision Plat"); and WHEREAS, as a condition for the approval of the Subdivision Plat, the County required that it be granted an easement on those portions of those Lots within the Subdivision that include "critical slopes," defined as those slopes having a twenty-five percent (25%) or greater slope, which are associated with the Biscuit Run stream This document prepared by Larry W. Davis, Albemarle County Attorney valley; and WHEREAS, by a declaration of slope easement dated November t4. 1995 and recorded in the Office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of the County of Albemarle in Deed Book 1503, Page 511 (hereinafter the "declaration of slope easement"), Craig reserved an easement unto itself and its successors and assigns, and conveyed an easement to the County for the purposes of prohibiting the disturbance of the natural grade of critical slopes on those portions of Lots 5 through 10, 14 through 17 and 27 through 37 of the Subdivision; and WHEREAS, the parties desire to release, surrender and quitclaim, as the case may be, the declaration of slope easement to the extent such declaration affects those portions of Lots 6, 7, 28 through 31 and 34 through 37 of the Subdivision that include critical slopes, and to have the easement reserved and granted hereby apply to such Lots, as shown on the plat attached hereto and recorded herewith which plat was prepared by Roger W. Ray & Associates., Inc., dated September 26, 1997. revised November 19, 1997. captioned "Plat Showing Revised Location of Easement to Albemarle County on Lots 6 7.28.29.30.31.34.35 36 & 37. Phase One. Foxcroft.- (hereinafter the "attached plat"). NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises and one dollar ($1.00) cash in hand, the receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, Craig does hereby reserve unto itself, its successors and assigns, and grants unto the County, an easement upon the critical slopes located on Lots 6, 7, 28 through 31 and 34 through 37 (the "easement"); and Craig and the County release, surrender and quitclaim as the case This document prepared by Larry Wo Davis. Albemarle County Attorney 2 may be. all rights and obligations reserved or granted by the declaration of slope easement, as follows: 1. Location of easement: The easement reserved and granted hereby shall be only on those cross-hatched portions of Lots 6, 7, 28 through 31 and 34 through 37 as shown on the attached plat which are cdtical Slopes, as defined above, which are associated with the Biscuit Run stream valley. These cross-hatched areas shal be referred to herein as the critical slope areas. 2. Purpose of easement: The natural grade of the critical slope areas on Lots 6, 7, 28 through 31 and 34 through 37 Shall not be disturbed, and such critical slope areas shall be inspected, maintained repaired, replaced and restored as provided herein. 3. Rights and duties of Craiq: Craig and/or its successors and assigns shall have the following rights and duties with respect to the easement reserved hereby: a. Duty to not disturb: Craig and/or its successors and assigns shall not disturb the natural grade of the critical slope areas on Lots 6, 7. 28 through 31 and 34 through 37. b. Duty to inspect, repair, replace, restore and maintain: Craig and/or its successors and assigns as the owner of Lots 6, 7, 28 through 31 and 34 through 37 shall regularly inspect and maintain the natural grade of the cdtical slope areas on such Lots. If the natural grade in the critical slope areas has been disturbed. Craig and/or its successors and assigns shall promptly take all necessary action to repair, replace and restore the natural grade. c. Right of ingress and egress: For the purpose of performing the duties This document prepared by Larry W. Davis_ Albemarle County Attorney 3 identified in sections 3(a) and 3(b), Craig reserves for itself and/or its successors and assigns a nonexclusive right of ingress and egress over the easement, and over those portions of Lots 6, 7.28 through 31 and 34 through 37 identified as the 7.5 foot utility and drainage easement reserved along all lot lines, as provided in Note 6 on page 1 of the Subdivision Plat. to provide access to the easement on each such Lot (the "access easement"); provided that if the access easement is obstructed, then access to the easement shall be over the remaining portions of such Lot on which buildings or structures are not located, to the extent necessary to provide reasonable access thereto. d. Assiqnment and successors: The rights and duties of Craig may be assigned to the Foxcroff Owners Association, Inc., and/or to the individual purchasers of Lots 6, 7, 28 through 31 and 34 through 37 as the successors in interest to Craig. Whenever Craig assigns such rights and duties, it shall promptly notify the County's Department of Engineering and Public Works of the assignment. 4. Rights of the County: The County shall have the following rights with respect to the easement it has been granted hereby: a Right to inspect: The County shall have the right to inspect the natural grade of the critical slope areas on Lots 6, 7, 28 through 31 and 34 through 37. and if the natural grade in the critical slope areas has been disturbed, may notify Craig and/or its successors and assigns to promptly take all necessary action to repair, replace and restore the natural grade. b. Riqht of ingress and eqress: For the purpose of exercising the right granted This document prepared by Larry W. Davis, Albemarle County Attorney 4 in section 4(a), the County ~s granted a nonexclusive dght of ingress and egress over the easement, and over the access easement: provided that if the access easement is obstructed, then access to the easement shall be over'the remaining portions of such Lot on which buildings or structures are not located, to the extent necessary to provide reasonable access thereto. c. No duty to repair, replace, restore and maintain: If the natural grade of a cr'rtical slope area on Lots 6, 7, 28 through 31 or 34 through 37 has been disturbed, the County shall have no duty to repair, replace and restore the natural grade. Such duty is exclusively that of Craig and/or its successors and assigns. 5. Easement shall run with the land: The reservation and deed of easement established hereby shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of Craig and the County and their successors and assigns. 6. Surrender and release of declaration of slope easement: To the extent the declaration of slope easement affects those portions of Lots 6, 7, 28 through 31 and 34 through 37 of the Subdivision that include cdtical slopes, Craig hereby surrenders and releases its reservation of an easement, and all rights and obligations pertaining thereto, and the County hereby surrenders, releases and quitclaims unto Craig and/or its successors and assigns the easement granted to it. and all rights and obligations pertaining thereto, set forth in the declaration of slope easement dated November 14, 1995 and recorded in the Office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of the County of Albemarle in Deed Book 1503, Page 511. This release affects only Lots 6, 7, 28 through 31 and 34 through 37 and not any other lots in the Subdivision which were This document prepared by Larry W. Davis_ Albemarle County Attorney 5 originally subject to the declaration of slope easement. This document prepared by Larry W. Davis. Alberrmrle County Attorney 6 WITNESS the following signatures and seals: CRAIG ENTERPRISES, INC., a Virginia Corporation t/a HUNTER E. CRAIG CO. By: ~ Hunter E. Craig, Vice Pre~dent and Division President of Hunter E. Craig Oo. STATE OF VIRGINIA -61T'(/COUNTY OF COUN~C~OF ALBEmARLe, VlRGIN~ , to wit: The foregoing Reservation and Deed of Easement and Deed of Release of Easement was acknowledged before me this 2~* day of ,~,~,,e¢/,/ 1998 by Hunter E. Craig, as Vice President of Craig Enterprises. Inc., a Virginia corporation and as Division President of Hunter E. Craig Co. My commission expires: %,¢~ ~, /¢¢~,¢ Notary Public STATE OF VIRGINIA CITY/COUNTY OF AZbem&rZe , to wit: The foregoing Reservation and Deed of Easement and Deed of Release of Easement was acknowledged before me this 2nd day of Apr±l 1998 by Robert W. Tucker, Jr., County Executive. My commission expires: March 31, Approved as to form: 2001 ot~P~-b o"- ' "-" N Ii ./ This document prepared by Larry W. Davis, Albemarle County Attorney ..2 WW Z {,OW ~ oc0' m ~ 0 z mo ~ ~N~w NHOH XOH .b :~Ntq__.~ / . LO m NP, clo 0 150.00' ~0 OPEN SPACE 29.55' 4~ / F'-~ FOX HORN LANE f60'} ' -r FqCT ('3 Zm ::o ::o ::o I-- I-'~__ m mm<: ~ Of~ z 0 ITl rtl II ~0 > --m):> I~ .030 ~"q ~> ~ ~ ~r" Xo, I rtl oo >m.. ?..m. --I c~--~ -~_ :~ 0---I ~ -4U) Z--( q. 0 ~ ZI~ZZII m ~ ~ ~ o~mmm o < m~ m m z o ~ o ~ Oom-~m. ~ °zm~ m 0 0 m'~o~ m~m ~z ~z~m ~ ~>~o~ II \ \ \ % \ r-~ 003 ,oo'o~i % 0 m z / / om -13 0 X I u) N44°O6'I?"W 150.00' S47°07'29"W I ..~ ,.-,J 37.99' 0O3 N44"O6'I'7"W 150.00' F'"q S58o38'53"W 16.25' N, 44°O6'I7"W 163.82' 102.24' ~, S28°35'4; ~,OX T.M. LOT 36 " ~64'05'15"W '~ 0 z DAVID R. GEHR C©MMISS[ONER COMMONWEALTH o[ VIRQINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 701 VDOT WAY CHARLOT{'ESVILLE. 22911 March 24, 1998 BOARD A.G. TUCKER RESIDENT ENGINEER Board of Supervisors Meetings February 4 and March 4, 1998 Ms. Ella Carey, Clerk Board of Supervisors 401 McIntire Road CharioEtesville, VA 22902 Dear MS. Carey: We offer the following commenns regarding nranspornation ma5uers that were discussed an the February 4 and March 4, 1998 Board meetings. o have responded to Ms. Mallek regarding the private ennrance on Roune 743. Please see a copy of the letter which is antached for your information. o The Deparnmenn cannon prohibit the use of air brakes along the Route 29 Corridor, nor do we recommend that a restrictiDn be pursued due no safety and liabiliny issues. We are continuing no znvesnigane ponential remedies to this concern. o The right of way on Route 667 ~Catterton Road west Df Rou~e 776 has been dedicated, however, several significant nemporary Construction easemen5s are necessary in order no build the road and Ele in slopes.~ Many of these easements have not been dedicated and several properny owners have refused to ~llow use of these easements across their properties. We will continue nc work with interest.ed proper5y owners to obtain the required easements on the future occasion that road improvemenns can be funded [see attachment] o The Deparnmenn will consider approprlane means of notifying the public about ~.o~t- 29 ......~o~r_~v~ ~.~1 ~ the Board apprised of these o Route 615 Lindsay Road) has been machined and gravel has been added as requested for routine maintenance. Please share this informanion with the Board members. If there are any questions, I will be prepared no discuss them aE the April 1 Board meeEzng. Sincerely, AGT, smk attachmenns TRANSPORTATION FOR THE 21ST CENTURY ~ Ill March 23, 1998 Route 743, Albemarle County Ms. Ann H. Mallek, President Earlysville Area Residents' League P. O. Box 684 Earlysvitle, 'gA 22936 Dear Ms. Mallek: I have been asked £o respond Eo your letter addressed to the Chairman of the County Board of Supervmsors, Mr. Forrest Marshall, regarding a prlvaEe enErance on Route 743. The DeparmmenE cannoE prohibit access Eo ~rivate properEy but muse ensure chat the location of an enErance maximizes available sight distance. This entrance location provides 255' of sight distance Eo the south and 365' of smght distance mo the north. The recommended minimum sight distance for a prmvate entrance ms 250'. A properEy owner can mmprove the sight distance aE a private enErance by grading or trmmming private properEy or by working under permit to the DeparEmen5 within the rmght Df way. Unfortunately, many prmvate entrances throughout the counEy have minimal sight distance availsble along the public roadways. Both property owners and the traveling public muse drive defensively with respecE Eo these and other conflicEs along the highways. We will work with the properny owners co discuss options for this enErance if they wish to pursue any lmprovemen£s. Thank you for your attention no highway safety. Sincerely, AGT/smk cc: H. Gentry w/attachment F. Marshall E. Carey A. G. Tucker N~,,£E,£OoO£S "~ 0 bJ / / COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AGENDA TITLE: January 1998 Financial Report SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST: January 1998 Financial Report for the General, School, and Capital Funds STAFF CONTACT(S): Ms. White, Messrs. Tucker, Breeden, Walters AGENDA DATE: April 1, 1998 ACTION: CONSENT AGENDA: ACTION: X ATTACHMENTS: RE~EWEDBY: ITEM NUMBER: INFORMATION: INFORMATION: Yes BACKGROUND: Attached are the January 31, 1998 Monthly Financial Reports for the General, School, and Capital Funds. General Fund revenue projections were revised as of December 31, 1997. Preliminary estimates indicate that General Property Tax collections will be approximately $1.7 million less than budgeted. Permit fees and the GE loan repayment will help offset the estimated reduction in property tax collections resulting in a net estimated revenue reduction of $1.4 million. General Fund expenditure projections have been revised to reflect a 2% holdbaCk for opera§ng expenses. The expenditure reductions have not been adjusted to reflect the additional tax revenues of $1!30,282 from the January updated revenue projection. This will be done in the March report. Education revenue projections have been revised to reflect a $1.1 million General Fund holdback. This projection also does not reflect the additional $195,422 in tax revenues from the Janua~' revised revenue projections that the Schools will receive to address the School's $1.1 million in the current year. Education expenditure projections reflect a 7.5% operating expense holdback, net compensation adjustment. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends acceptance of the January 1998 Financial Report. 98.047 o..cqcgo.. ~ ,-.~. m ~.. ,,i OI-- I.U,~ O~u 0~ ~z ~<~ z~ ~~ <oo~ >'0 CIz -~0 0~. O~ 0000 ~ o z~ ~ ~ Z -- ~z~ o z Z LU [:L X L,I.I 0 ::3 Z 0 ~J Z / Oz ~ ~ LLI o~ ~W o~ ~o~ ~zo O ~z~o~ (w~w~ COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AGENDA TITLE: February 1998 Financial Report SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Februar~ 1998 Financial Report for the General, School, and Capital Funds STAFF CONTACT(S): Ms. White, Messrs. Tucker, Breeden, Walters AGENDA DATE: April 1, 1998 ACTION: ITEM NUMBER: INFORMATION: CONSENT AGENDA: ACTION: X INFORMATION: ATTACHMENTS: Ye~/~ BACKGROUND: Attached are the February 28, 1998 Monthly Financial Reports for the General, School, and Capital Funds. General Fund revenue projections were revised as of December 31, 1997. Preliminary estimates indicate that General Property Tax collections will be approximately $1.7 million less than budgeted. Additional permit fee collections and the GE loan repayment will hetp offset the estimated reduction in property tax collections resulting in a net estimated revenue reduction of $1.4 million. General Fund expenditure projections have been revised to reflect a 2% holdback for operating expenses. The expenditure reductions have not been adjusted to reflect the additional tax revenues of $130,282 from the January updated revenue projection. This will be done in the Mamh report. Education revenue projections have been revised to reflect a $1.1 million General Fund hoidback. This projection also does not reflect the additional $195,422 in tax revenues from the January revised revenue projections that the Schools will receive to address the School's $1.1 million in the current year. Education expenditure projections reflect a 7.5% operating expense holdback, net compensation adjustment. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends acceptance of the February 1998 Financial Report. 98.044 BOhRB OF SUPERx/ISORs 0~ 0~ ~Z ~Z ~0 Z~ >'0 ~0 O~ LU ~Z ~ ~ ~S< ~zO zo~ ~o~ SCHOOLS Brownsville Addition Woodbraok Addition Stony Point Addition WAHS Tennis Couds Cmzet School Level Spreader Monticello High School Stony Point /dtchen/Cafeteria High School Technology Ed. Labs Murray High School Renovations WAHS/C.~TEC Roofs Stony Point Parking and Playfleld WAHS Site ImDrovamonts VMF Facility Chiller Repl. AHS/Hol~ymead Greer HVAC Renovations Henley Middle School Addition Stone Robinson Addition PREP Facility AHS Phase III Renovations ADMINISTRATION & COURTS Subtotal COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE DEPARTMENT OF ENGINEERING & PUBLIC WORKS FY 97/98 PROJECT REPORT Scheduled Budqet Completion % Complete 1.773.470 01/15/98 2.245.550 01/15t98 1,204,667 01/30/98 90.000 02221/98 10,000 06/30/98 29,743,000 07/01/98 85.000 08/01/98 230,000 09/01/98 920,000 09/15/98 1,022.800 09/18/98 193.000 10/30/98 270,000 11/30/98 437,000 11/30/98 668,000 05/31/99 306,000 05/31/99 2.385.500 06/15/99 2,664,000 06/15/99 2,900,000 07/01/99 650,000 08/01/99 $47.797,687 Cour[s Space Needs Study 50,000 06/30/98 Keene Landfill Remediation 170.600 06/30/98 County Facilities 5-Year Maintenance Study 20,000 06/30/98 Roof Study, Count~ Facilities 5.000 06/30/98 Old Croaet School Roof & Windows 300.000 09/04/98 COB Maintenance Program: Replace Roof, COB 100,000 12/30/97 Misc. Building Renovations 81,000 01/30/98 Seal Parking Lot, COB 30,000 04/30/98 HVAC Control Sys[em 30.000 06/30/98 UST Replacement @ COB 120,000 10/30/98 COB Additional Parking 100,000 10/30/98 Subtata. $1.006,600 HIGI-RNAYS & TRANSPORTATION Notes Updated 03/20/98 Airport Access Funds Agreemen[ 900,000 12/30/97 Hydraulic Rd Sidewalk 65.000 06 01/98 Adams Court 3,800 05/01/98 Trees for 29 180.000 0530/98 Trees for 250 10,000 05/30/98 West Leigh Ddva Rural Addition 300.000 06/30/98 GE Fanuc Ind. Access Project 267.000 06/30/98 Barracks Road Sidewalk 61,000 06/30/98 Rt 20 Connector Road 2,528.300 07/D1/98 Wilton Farm/20 Sidewalk, Lights, Landscape 140,000 10/30/98 Street Lighting: Airport Acres 1,500 06/30/98 Rio/Old Brook Road 0 06/30/98 Commonwealth Ddve t 6,000 06/30/98 ~ydraulic Road (Inglewood to Georgetown) 16,000 06/30198 Hydraulic Road (Georgetown to AHB) 10,000 06/30/98 Hydraulic Road (AHS to Whitewood) 12,000 06/30/98 Whitewood Road Area 40,000 06/30/98 Marshall Manor 1.000 06/30/98 Subtotal $4,551,600 99% C 99% C Final Change Order Getting Signed 98% C 98% C Paperwork 95% D Hold for Spdng Construction 75% C Time Extension Negotiations 90% D 70% D 20% D F~escheduled to 2001 25% B 90% D Sita Plan Review 80% D School Determines Scone 90% D Site Plan Review 90% D 10% D Delayed by School DMsion 75% D 90% D 35% D 05% P 100% P Fee Negotiation Stage 50% P 70% P 05% m 100% P 99% C Lawn Restoration in Spnng 99% C 05% C 98% C 6O% P 05% ~ 95% D 85% D 90% D 75% C 75% D 95% D '0%D 05% P 90% C 05% P Agreement Being Signed Easements Pending Final Installation in Spdng '98 Aonlicant Obtaining Plat Signatures Final Paving Delayed by Weather 100% B Confirming Cost w/Va. Power 100% B Confirming Costw/Va. Power 90% B Confirming Cost W/Va. Power 90% B Confirming Cost w/Va. Power 90% B Confirming Cost w/Va. Power 90% B Confirming Cost W/Va. Power 100% B Under design by Va. Power 90% B Under design by Va. Power LEGEND: P -- Programming D = Design B = Bid C = Construction STORMWATERCONTROLPROJECTS Branchlands Wetland [3edicstJon Moores & Meadow Creek Studies [3eeign Standards Manual - Needs Assmt. Design Standards Manual - Final Design Rio Hills Basin Dedication WJndham/Jarmee GaD Channel Peyton Basin :{icky Road Lynchburg Road Storm Sewer Master Drainage Study :our Seasons Channel Four Seasons Basins Birnam Basin Weedbreek Channel Phase I[ SW/Erosion Correction Projects: Patdck Drainage Impmvemeets Westmoreland Ct. Drainage Improvements Minor Ridge Drainage Improvements Subtotal PUBUC SAFETY UST Removal @ Regional Jail Regional Jail Addition Juvanile Detention Facility Police Academy Training Facility PARKS & RECREATION Subtotal 21,000 184.600 11,980 38,000 4.700 82,000 156.500 39,900 17,500 205.400 23,100 96.100 98,485 28,035 2,500 30.000 30.000 $1,069,800 50,000 16,250,000 7,200,000 6,250,000 $29,750.000 02/28/98 02/28/98 02/28/98 06/30/98 06/30/98 06/30/98 06/30/98 06/30/98 06/30/98 06/30/98 09/30/98 09/30/99 09/30/98 09/30/98 06/30/98 06/30/98 09/30/98 03/30/98 'i 0/01/99 04/01/00 05/f 5/00 Crozet Field Restoration 50,000 03/16198 Dorrier Park Shelter/Reetroom 56.000 04/01/98 Chris Greene Fountain 10,000 04/30/98 Chds Greene Lake Pier 80,000 t 0/30/98 New Southern Park (TBD) 06/01 Crozet Park Fields 640,000 06/30/02 Subtots $836.000 TOTAL $85,011,687 95% D 95% D 75% P 0% P 95% D 05% D 05% C 05% D 05,% D 00% P 10% D 10% [3 t0% D 50% D 25% D 10% D 05% P Finalizing Executive Summary Finalizing Recommendation Finalizing Executive Summary Reevaluating Need Quotes due 3/23/98 Reevaluating Need Develop Strategy for Next Watershed Finalizing A/E Contract Base Maps Completed RHH Final Site Plan Approved 100% D Completion changed due to Design Delay 05% C Alternates Approved 70% P 70% = Consultant Selected 98% C 90% C 50% C 90% D 05% P Feasibility Study 25% D Master Plan Only, Delayed by Parks Deut. LEGEND: P = Programming D = Design B = Bid C = Construction Buildin§ Code Information (804] 296-5832 COUN'I~OFALBEMARI.E ~_, , 6_c, 8~' '58 Department of Building Code and Zoning S~ic-e~ ' 401 Mclntire Road, Room 223 Charlottesville, Virginia 22902--4596 FAX/804) 9724126 TTD (804) 972-4012 B~,ARD OF SUPERVISORS R C V ?~ Zoning Information (804) 296-5875 March 11, i998 Mr. Roger L. Gibson P.O. Box 305 Ivy, Virginia 22945 RE: Tax Map 58A2 parcel 21, T/A Ivy Exxon Determination of Official Zoning ro be C1, Commercial Dear Mr. Gibson: This letter is a response to your request to add a canopy to your existing gas stauon on the above referenced parcel. This letter serves to take a position and offer a written determination on the zoning of your parcel, which currently appears on the tax map sections m this department to be zoned VR, Village Residential. In researching this determination, I have reviewed the following: · information in this department's files; · information in the files of Planning and Community Development, including pertinent minutes of the Planning Commission; · the minutes of the meetings of the Board of Supervisors on August 1, 1979, as well as from September through December 1980; · the Comprehensive Plan recommendations at the time; and, · the official zoning map adopted by the Board of Supervisors on December 10, 1980 (and retained in the clerk's office) which shows C-1 zoning on the whole parcel. It is my opinion that the official zoning on the above referenced parcel is currently C1, Commercial.' There was a clerical error in transferring the zoning from the proposed zoning map, which was adopted, (that showed commercial zoning from the railroad overpass eastward to Ivy Creek) to the 600-foot and 200-foot scale tax map sections. Prior to the adoption of our current zoning ordinance, the zoning maps (still retained in both the Department of Planning and Community Development and the Department of Building Code and Zoning Services) show that the property was split-zoned with BI, Business, to a Determination of Zoning TMP58A2-21 Page 2 March 11, 1998 depth of 200 feet along the entire frontage of Rt. 250, and, A-i, Agricultural, on the remainder of the parcel. The official zoning map, adopted by the Board of Supervisors on December 10, 1980, that has been retained-- unchanged-- in the clerk's office shows commercial zoning on the whole parcel. It was the 600-foot and 200-foot scale tax map sections, which were derived from the officially adopted map, which incorrectly showed the parcel as VR, Village Residential. This determination revises those maps to reflect what was shown on the adopted map and what the following minutes from August 1, 1979 state as the desire of the Board in proposing the new zoning for the Village of Ivy: "The commercial area on Route 250 east of the railroad including the gas station, general merchandise store, and post office should remain inasmuch as it provides some community focus, k would be desirable for this area to be upgraded in terms of the provision of convenience goods and in terms of visual improvements." If you are aggrieved by this determination, you have the right to appeal it within thirty (30) days of the date notice of this determination is given, in accordance with Section 15.2-2311 of the Code of Virginia. If you do not file a timely appeal, this determination shall be final and unappealable. An appeal shall be taken only by filing with the Zoning Administrator and the Board of Zoning Appeals a notice of appeal which specifies the grounds for the appeal. In order for an appeal to be considered complete, it shall include a completed application and $95 fee. The date notice of this determination was given is the same as the date of this letter. If this determination is uncontested, the County will correct the 600-foot and 200-foot scale zoning map sections and will keep this written determination in our zoning files. If you have any questions or comments, or need additional information, please call me. Sincerely, Janice D. Sprinkle Depmy Zoning Administrator CC: Stephenson L. Gibson Reading File, TMP58A2-21 ~E~la Carey, Clerk to the Board of Supervisors Tex Weaver, Senior Planner Robert W. Tucker, Jr., County Executive ABG · FINANCIAL SERVICES. INC, March 19, 1998 EO. Box8 CHURCHViLLE, MARYLAND 21028 410-879-9918 FAX 410-838-5360 Ms. Arlene Hernandez Assistant Treasurer The Bank of New York 101 Barclay Street, 21W New York, New York 10286 Re: Arbor Crest Apartments (Hydraulic Road Apts.) Dear Ms. Hernandez: Enclosed please find a copy of the Bond Program Report for the above referenced project for the month of March 1998. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call me Sincerely, Sheila H. Moynihan Project Monitor shin enclosure cc: Ms. EllaW. Carey, Clerk, CMC Albemarle County Board of Supervisors 401 Mclntire Road Charlottesville, VA 22902-4596 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Effective February 28, 1998 MONTHLY REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 7(a) OF THE DEED RESTRICTIONS ABG Associates, Inc. 300 E. ~d street Baltimore, Maryland 21202 RE: Hydraulic Road Apartments - Arbor Crest Apa~u,~_nts Charlottesville, Virginia Pursuant to Section 7(a) of the Deed Restrictions (the 'Deed Restrictions"), as defined in an Indenture of Trust dated as of April 1, 1983, between the Industrial Development Authority of Albemarle County, Virginia (the 'Authority"), and your banK, as trustee, the undersigned authorized representative of Richmond-Albemarle Limited Partnership, a Virginia Limited Partnership (the "Purchaser"), hereby certifies with respect to the operation and management of Hydraulic Road Apartments, Charlottesville, Virginia (the "Project"), that as of the date shown below: 1) The number of units in the Project occupied by lower income tenants is 15 2) The number of units in the Project unoccupied and held available for Lower Income Tenants is -0- 3) The number of units held available for (1) and (2) is 51 rented and the number of units rental other than as described in 4) The percenuage that the number of units described ~n (1) and (2) hereof constitute of the total number of units in the Project is 23% 5) The information contained in this report is true, accurate and co=feet as of the date hereof. As of the dat~ hereof, the Purchaser is not in default under any covenant or agreement contained in the Deed Restrictions or in an Agreement of Sale dated as of April 1, 1983, between the Authority and the Purchaser. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has signed this Report as of March 6, 1998 RICHMOND-ALBEMARLE LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, a Virginia limited partnership Authorized Rep~esentative Loretta Wyatt I,~0.11~ February yu(t998 Arbor Crest Apartments (Hydraulic Road Apts.)P~o~tl: 051-35371 Numb~¢ O! Units . . 66 March 6, 1998 Total Occupied 66 Bond Occupied 15 Effective 2/28/98 % 4 Arbor Crest Dr... 21.Beverly T. Lane 41 , 65. 2 6 Arbor Crest Dr 2~ Wilma M. Atkin~on_ 42 62. 7 Arbor Crest Dr . 23 Ruth Jones 3 9 ~rbor Crest Dr.. 24 Virginia Burton 44 ~. , 4. 5 1~ Arbor Crest Dr 25 Betty L. Reed 45 65, . ~ 18 Arbor Crest Dr ~6 Ann S. Kemp 7 30 Arbor Crest Dr ~? Mary Cox Allen ,. 47 67 5 ~4 Arbor Crest Dr 28 Sam Atherton , 48_ 68 ~ 56 Ar~or Crest Dr 29 Helyn E. 0'Boyle' 4~ $~.. 1~ ~70 Arbor Crest Dr 30 Ernest M. Nease 50 1~ .76 Arbor Crest Dr 3~ Ann G. Saylor .,. ~1 71. ~2. 84 Arbor Crest Dr 3~ Juanita Boliek ~3 88 Arbor Crest Dr 33 Nancy G. Foley 53 ?~. ~4 90 Arbor Cre~t Dr 34 Betty B. Elliott ~4 74. ~5 94 Arbor Crest Dr 35 M. ~ileen Knick 55 75. ~6 _. ~6 5~ 75. ~ 37 57 , · 77 ~8 38 ,. ~ 7~.,, 20 ,,. 40 ~0 &O ..... 2 t2 2 3 13 3 4 = 14 4. 5 ... 15 16 ..... 6 %7 7 s 18 e -~ 10 20 10. Arbor Crest Dr 11. Helyn E. O'Boyle 12 13. 14, 15 t?. 18. _ 19. 20. DAVID R. GEHR COMMISSIONER COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 701 VDOT WAY CHARLO~-ESVILLE. 22911 March 24, 1998 .... RS BOARD OF SUPER¥ t~u ' A. G. TUCKER RESIDENT ENGINEER Ms. Ella W. Carey, Clerk Board of Supervisors 401 Mclntire Road Charlottesville. VA 22902 Route 63 l=Rio Road Fr: Brookway Dr. To: Stonehenge Rd. Dear Ms. Carey: Please distribute a copy of the enclosed letter to each Board Member prior the scheduled April 21, 1998 public hearing. Your assistance will be appreciated. Yours Truly, Contract Administrator /ggu Enclosure BOA¢--B ©F gU?~R¥ISORS TRANSPORTATION FOR THE 21ST CENTURY DAVID R. GEHR COMM[E,SIONER COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 701 VDOT WAY CHARLOTI"ESVILLE. 22911 March 24, 1998 A. G. TUCKER RESIDENT ENGINEER Route 631 Proj. 0631-002-S66,C501 From: Brookway Drive To: Stonehenge Road Albemarle County This is to advise you that the Virginia Department of Transportation will hold a location and design public hearing on proposed improvements t9 Route 631 (Rio Road) as described above. The hearing will be held at the Charlottesville High School Cafeteria, located at 1400 Melbourne Road, on April 21, 1998 between the hours of 5:00 p.m. and 7:00 p.m. The purpose of this proposed prqiect is to install guardrail on the southeast side of Rio Road between Brookway Drive and Stonehenge Road. In order to install the guardrail, five feet of additional roadway will be needed. We propose to widen the cut area on the northwest side of Rio Road to accommodate the installation of the guardrail at the top of the existing fill area. Rio Road will be closed to through traffic during the construction under the proposed plan. Access will be provided to all properties during this construction. VDOT will have engineers 'available at the hearing to answer questions you may have concerning this proposed project. Copies of the plans can be seen at the Charlottesville Residency Office located at 701, VDOT Way (Route 250 East) or at the Culpeper District Office at 1601 Orange Road, Culpeper, Virginia. cc: Mr. D. R. Askew Mr. R. H. Connock, Jr. Yours Truly, Gerald G. Utz ContTact Administrator TRANSPORTATION :OR THE 21ST CENTURY To; Members, Board of Supervisors From: Ella Washington Carey, CMC, Clerk $,,bject:I~eading ListforApdl I, 1998 Date: March 2_7, t 998 February 2 I, 1996 April 17, 1996 May 8, 1996 /ewc Pages I - 12 - Mrs. Thomas Pages 13 - end - Mr. Perkins Mr. Martin Mr. Marshall COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AGENDA TITLE: Albemarle County Jurisdictional Area request for water and sewer service- Hurt Investment Co. (Fontana Subdivision) SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Public hearing to amend the ACSA Jurisdictional Area to provide water and sewer service to the proposed Fontana Subdivision, Tax Map 78, Parcel 57 (portion of) STAFF CONTACTISk Messrs. Tucker, Cilimberg, Benish AGENDA DATE: April 1, 1998 ACTION: X CONSENT AGENDA: ACTION: ATTACHMENTS: REVIEWED BY: ITEM NUMBER: INFORMATION: INFORMATION: BACKGROUND: The Applicant, Hurt Investment Company, requests Jurisdictional Area designalJon for water and sewer service to 119 acres located on Tax Map 78 Parcel 57 (portion). This 119 acres is part of the proposed Fontana development which received preliminary subdivision plat approval for 167 lots on December 19, 1997. A Special Use Permit was also recently approved for the Frost Montessori School on the property near Route 20. The property was part of the larger "Luxor proper[y," and is located on the east side of Route 20 Norl~, north of Phase III of the VVilton Farms Apartments and the Garnett Treatment Center, lying within a designated Development Area (Neighborhood 3). The southern portion of parcel 57 is already in the Jurisdictional Area for both water and sewer (Attachment A). DISCUSSION: The subject property is within Urban Area Neighborhood 3. The Land Use Plan provides the following concerning water and sewer service to a Development Area: Facitilies Planning: "Strongly support and effectively implement the County's growth management priorities in the planning and prevision of transportation, public facilities and public utilities (p. 5)." Land Use Plan General Principle: "Urban Areas, Communities and Villages are to be served by public water and sewer (p. ~ 7)." There are two proposed lots which straddle the Development Area boundary, which is the 600 foot contour along the eastern edge of this property. These lots have both R-4 and RA zoning (Attachments B & C ). Based on the approved preliminary plat, there are building sites within the R-4 portions of both lots. In order to be consistent the County's policy for establishing Jurisdictional Area boundaries, service should only be provided to the portions of these two lots within the Development Ares. ~t should be noted that the Ashcroff development is east of this property and outside the Development Area; however, it is within the Jurisdictional Area for water service only. Water service is available on-site and sewer se~ce is approximately 800 feet from the property. RECOMMENDATION: As a general policy, staff has advised that public ~lity capacities should be reserved to support development of designated Development Areas. This request is consistent with the public utility policy of the Land Use Plan provided that se~ce is limited to lots within the designated Development Area. Staff does recommend that this area be included in the Jurisidic§onal Area for water and sewer service. However, in order to insure that service is provided only within the designated Development Area, staff would recommend that the Board withhold approval of an amendment to the Jurisdictional Area boundary unffi approval of a final subdivision plat. This would allow staff to insure that the appropriate notes are included on the plat(or lots in question limiting service to building sites within the designated Development Area ( R-4 zoned portion of the lots). BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 98.056 ALBEMARLE COUNTY Monticello boundary lines reDresen~ perimeter road or tree lines (as s~n on Air Photographics Dec. 1980 Aerial Photo of TM 78) to include all existlng buildings. ,c,L, ,.,~? SOOTTSVILLE AND ';'" '"°- ~"'----'~' ...... "-'-~"~"° P~v~..,~ nmTm¢.-,'.~ SECTION IATTACHMENT BI ,,/,- J MAP C URBAN NE ] GBORHOOD FEE1 ]. / / / / ,, ! ! t. Form. 3 7/.25/86 COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AGENDA TITLE: Albemarle County Jurisdictional Area request for water and sewer service-- Ellis A. Spmuse (Beaver Mobile Home Park) SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:. Consider holding a public hearing to amend the ACSA Jurisdictional Area to Provide sewer service to the Beaver Hill Mobile Home Park in Crozet (Tax Map 57, Pamel 8). STAFF CONTACT(S): Messm. Tucker, Cilimberg, Benish AGENDA DATE: April 1, 1997 ACTION: X CONSENT AGENDA: ACTION: ATTACHMENTS: REVIEWED BY: ITEM NUMBER: INFORMATION: INFORMATION: Yes BACKGROUND: The applicant, Ellis A. Sprouse, requests Jurisdictional Ama designation for sewer service to the Beaver Hill Mobile Home Park. The 47.5 acm parcel is located on the north side of Route 240, across the road from the Highlands at Mechums River development (Attachment A). The properbj is designated as Rural Ama in the Land Use Plan, and is located within both the Beaver Creek water supply and South Fork Rivanna River water supply watemheds. This property is currently in the Jurisdictional Area for limited water service to a "house, storage building, equipment shed, shop, and 43 mobile home spaces.' The Jurisdictional Area boundary was amended in August, 1983 to provide limited water service. DISCUSSION: The subject property is not within a Development Area (Route 240 formsthe northern boundary for the Community of Crozet). The Land Use Plan provides the following concerning sewer service to the Rural Area: GeneraI P#nciple: USlizaSon of central water and/or sewer systems or extension of ~he public water or sewer into the Rural Area is strongly discouraged except in cases where public health or safety are at issue. RecommendaUons: Only allow changes to the Judsdictlonal Areas outside of the designated Development Area boundaries in cases where the property is: (f) adjacent to existing lines; and, (2) public health or safeb/ is endangered. The applicant is requesting sewer se~ce for this site due the existence of at least one failing septic system which serves multiple mobile homes. The Health Department has evaluated the site and determined that there is a system failure, and that there are very limited reasonable alternative locations for replacement fields on the property (Attachment B). During a field review of the site, Health Department Officials also identified to staff two other septic fields which appear to be in the early stages of failure. Sewer sen/ice is available atthe Highlands at Mechums River subdivision acmes Route 240 from this property. Connection to this line will require pumping from the mobile home park. There are no other sewer lines near this propeffy where "gravity service" could be provided. Given the information provided by the Health Department regarding: 1) the current system failure and recent history of failures within the park; 2) the age of the remaining systems; and, 3) limited on-site options for replacement facilities, staff is of the opinion that them is reasonable need to consider providing sewer service to this property for existing structures and mobile home sites. RECOMMENDATION: Based on information provided bythe Health Department, the request is consistent with the strategies of the Land Use Plan for the provision of service outside the designated Development Area. Staff recommends proceeding to public headng to consider providing sewer service to existing structures and mobile home sites. BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 98.055 ALBEMARLE COUNTY 69/ 77 30A 58 SAMUEL MILLER AND SECTION 57 WHITE HALL DISTRIGTS in Coopemeon with the State Department of Health Office of Environmental Health Phone (804) 972~259 FAX (804) 972-4310 ,'rT^c..E.T.j COMMONWEALTH of VIR( INIA Thomas Jefferson ltealth District 1138 Hose Hill Drive R O. Box 75415 Charlottesville, ¥ircjmm 22908 February 4, 1998 Fl8 0 6 199tt Debt ALBEMARLE -- CHARLOTTESVILLE FLUVANNA COUNTY IPALMYRA} GREENE COUNTY fSTANABDSVILLE) LOUISA COUNTY ILOUtSAI NELSON COUNTY {LOVINGSTON) Mr. David Benish Albemarle County Planning Department 401 Mclntire Road Charlottesville, VA 22902-4596 RE: Failing Septic System, Beaver Hill Mobile Park Dear Mr. Benish: On December 15, 1997, a complaint was received by tbe Thmnas Jefferson l lealtb District Environmental Health Office. The complainant stated that there was a failing septic system at the Beaver Hill Mobile Park, there was sewage oil the ground ia the dminfield area and wastewater had mn downsiope around some of the trailers. On December 17, 1997, I visited the site and investigated the complaint. At that time I did not note any evidence to substantiate the complaint and documented this information. On Jannary 5. 1998, I received another call from the complainant, who stated that there was sewage on the ground from a recent snow melt, nod sewage had again been transported into tile yards of some of the trailers. I made a second visit to the site that afternoon and did note what appeared to be grayish-black wastewater with a sewage odor on the ground, (indicative ora failing drainfietd, behind trailer # 17 and upslope from trailers #26 and 27). Although a faint septic odor was noted, them was no evidence of sewage on the ground around trailers #26 and 27 As a result of tills investigation, I determined that there was sufficient evidence that a violation of tile Commonwealth Of Virginia Sewage Handling and Disposal Regulations had occurred. I sent Mr. Sprouse a certified letter dated January 7, 1998 (received January 8, 1998) outlining.the circumstances of the complaint, the findings of my investigation, and recommendations to prevent the problem from being compounded until a repair solution was roached Along with the letter, 1 enclosed a repair application, whicb I instructed him to complete and return to tile Environmental Health office by Jannary 20, 1998. The Environmental Health office received his completed repair application by January 20, 1998 and I met with Mr. Sprouse and his contractor, Mr. Buddy Snead, at the site on January 27, 1998. As per a telephone conversation I had with Mr. Sprouse in tile interim between sending him the letter and this site visit, he was having the septic tank serving the failing drainfield pumped out on a regular basis to prevent any effluent from reaching the failing drainfield. According to Mr. Spmuse and Mr. Snead, this septic tank and the failing drainfield currently service three tmilerg at tile site. We looked over the extent of the failure and discussed possibilities for repairing it. Based upon several factors and couversalions wilh experienced environmental health persmmel familiar with Beaver Hill Mobile Park, such as William Craun and Dwayne Roadcap, we have concluded 2 that the only viable option to correct lite failing drainfield (and future drainfield failures) is to connect to the public sewer main, which apparently runs ac~iacent to the site along Ronte 240. Tbe most obvious factor is a lack of usable area in the vicinity of the trailers themselves Presently, the existing drainfields for the trailers in the park have exhausted the usable area in tbeir immediate vicinity. As a result the only area available for repairs is in excess of several hundred yards froln the current failure and the general area of the trailers themselves. Utilizing this area would be logistically prohibitive, and would pose Mr. Sprouse with a significant financial expense. Also, this would only be a temporary solution because tbe area eventually would become exhausted as the existing drainfields progressively failed The original drainfields at tile site are itl excess of 30 years old. On the average, a properly installed dminfield handling the daily sewage flow for which it was designed, can be expected to last approxbnately 20 to 25 years. The drainfields at Ibc site have already lasted beyond that wbicb can reasonably be expected. As a result, because the drainfields at the site are of similar age and desigu, placed in similar soils, and handling similar sewage flows, it can be safely assumed that there will be more similar failures iu tile near future. According Io William Cmnn, this is the third drainfield failnre attbe site in tile last five years. There is not enough available/usable area at the site to replace all of the drainfields as they lhil. Connection to public sewer will not only facilitate a rapid and sound solution to repairing eveutual drainfield failures at the site. but at the same tbne wilt iucrease public bealth protection. This will impact not only the people living at the site, but may also decrease the possibility of contamination of the Beaver Creek Reservoir, as the Beaver Hill Mobile Park is located in this Water Resources Management Area. The current drainfield fidlare has already msnlted in Ihe discharge of sewage mtto the groaud_ The regular pumping out of the septic tank and the application of lime on the affected area are only temporary solutions. This problem is only going to get worse with time, especially with the wet winter seasou we haYe had and tim additional rain we can expect itl tim spring. A sound aod timely solution are critical to thc protection of publi*bealth not,only in this instance, but in the similar situations we can expect in the future. It is for these reasons that we are requesting that this site be considered for connection to public sewer. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Should you have any additional questions or comments, please do not hesitate to call. Sincerely, · o lack D. McClelland Environmental tlealth Specialist Senior Pc: Mr. E.A. Sprouse Dwayne Roadcap, Senior Technical Consultant AC, I~DA ITHVl 1ND. A~ ITHVi ~ ~N) I_NI'IL Form. 3 7 25/86 COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AGENDA TITLE: Request to Amend the Albemarle County Service Authority (ACSA) Jurisdictional Area SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:. Consider holding a public headng to amend the ACSA Jurisdictional Area to provide sewer service designation For the proposed Indoor Tennis Facility at Farmingten Country Club [Tax Map 60E2 -Parcel 1) STAFF CONTACTiS}: Ms. Scala Messrs. Tucker, Cilimberg and Benish AGENDA DATE: April 1,1998 ACTION: Yes CONSENT AGENDA: ACTION: ATTACHMENTS: REVIEWED BY: ITEM NUMBER: INFORMATION: INFORMATION: BACKGROUND: The Board of Supervisors will consider SP 98-05 Farmingten Country Club on May 13, 1998, a request to locate an indoor tennis facility adjacent existing maintenance storage buildings on Old Mill Road approximately 1200 feet east of the existing clubhouse on the Farmington Country Club property. Farmington Country Club is also requesting amendment of the Albemarle County Service Authorlt'y's jurisdictional area to provide for sewer service to the proposed indoor tennis facility with bathroom facilities. DISCUSSION: The property is designated Rural Area in the Comprehensive Plan, and is zoned Rural Area. Farmington lies within the South Fork Rivanna River reservoir watershed. The Comprehensive Plan is intentionally specific regarding where and under what circumstances of public utilities should be made available. The Plan states: Follow the boundaries ef the designated Development Areas in delineating jurisdictional areas. Only allow changes in jurisdictional areas outside of designated Development Areas in cases where the property is: (1) adjacent to existing lines; and (2) public health and/or safety is in danger. Prohibit access to the Crozet Interceptor between the boundary of the Crczet community and the Urban Area. The Farmingten residential area is designated for water service only. The Farmington clubhouse complex was designated for both water and sewer service in the late 1970's when Morey Creek Interceptor was constructedL That designation was made prior to establishment of the current policy regarding extension of public utilities to the Rural Area. The Farmington clubhouse is currently served by privately maintained sewer lines and a pump station. An existing sewer line traverses the proposed indoor tennis facility property and connects to the Morey Creek interceptor located on Route 601 (Old Garth Road) near the railroad underpass atthe Rt. 250 Bypass ramp. The Service Authority has stated that the private lines and the Morey Creek Interceptor have adequate capacity to accept the additional load. The rate of flow is controlled by the existing pump station on the Farmington property. Staff is not aware of any public health or safety issues. The Health Department has not yet made comment on the potential for a septic system. RECOMMENDATION: This request is not consistent with the Comprehensive Plan recommendations regarding provision of public water and sewer se~ce areas. The proposed use is located outside a designated Development Area, within a reservoir watershed, and is sub~iect tea special use permit. No verification of endangerment to public health and safety has been provided. In its favor, the Planning Commission has recommended approval of the special use permit= and the proposed use is located adjacent to an existing sewer line. An extenuating circumstance is the fact that the existing club is currently within the jurisdictional area for sewer service. Based on this information, the Board may want to consider holding a public hearing to receive comment. BOARD OF SUPERVI_SOR$ 98.048 COUNTY 8/18/87,4/20/88 ATTACHMENT A1 SERVICE AUTHORITY /""'",.__.-JURISDICTIONAL AREAS MAP KEY WATER ONLY WATER AND SEWER WATER ONLY TO EXISTING STRUCTURES These are existing structures as of the adopted date, either t0-1-82 or 8-10-83 Please see 'List ct Existing Structures OR Developmel~t Rights' for soeclflc structures and,dates. LIMITED SERVICE Please see 'List of Exlstin~ Straclures OR Development Rights" for speclllc Ilmilallons, I~ARMINGToN COUNTRY CLUB REQUEST TO AMEND ACSA JURISDICTIONAL AREA lrOR SEWER SERviCE TO INDOOR TENNis FACILITY SAMUEL ~'~JAcK JOUETT DISTRICT SECTION 59 =o.-..,' ........ ?' CHARLOTTESVILLE DISTRicTS SHEERAN ARCHITECTS IATTACHMENT BI ~nuaw 26.1998 Mr. Forest Marshall, Chairman Albemarle County Board of Supervisors County of Albemarle 401 Mclntire Road Charlottesville. Virginia 22901-4596 Re: Farmingzon Indoor Tennis Building Board of Supervisors - Petition Dear Mr. Marshall. Farmington Country Club is ProPosing to build an indoor Tennis Building and is submitting a Preliminary Site Plan to the County for Planning Commission rewew on February 24. 1998 and a Special Use Permit Application for the April 15. 1998 Board of Supervisors meeting. As part of the approval process, the applicant is required to petition the Board of Supervisors to extend the Albemarle County Service Authority jurisdictional area to include this facility. Farmington Country Club has ACSA supplied water and sewer to the clubs' buildings. The Farming~on sewer line is owned by the dub ano it drains to a club owned pump station (near the old treatment plant on Rte 601 ), which through a force main. is pumped to the Morey Creek InterceDtor/Crozet sewer line. We have been informed Dy the ACSA that the force ma~n and associated sewer line capacities are more than aoeouate to accept the sewage from this building. Background Information A Preliminary Site Plan and Special Use Permit were aoDroved for a similar Droject in March of 1992. The project did not proceed at that time. A new project of reduced scope is now being Drooosed for the same site. The prc ec~ will have bathroom facilities which will connect to Farmington's private sewer tine. The ACSA designates jurisdictional areas througnout Albemarle County for services of water and sewen The County lurisdictional map indicates an area encompassing the club's various building facilities for connection to the sewer line ncluding two small buildings in a Dortion of the proposed Indoor Tennis Building site: all other residenzla~ areas ~n the Farmington subdivision are excluded from the right to connect to the sewer line ano have Drivate septic drain field systems. Durin~ a meeting in the spnng of 199 with Paul ShooD (ACSA engineer), we were advised that he did not see any problems with the proposeo building location, since the main sewer line from the club is adjacent to the proposed site. When questioned that the building would be o0tside of the "judsdictionar' area encompassing the club. he re~lied that he did not believe There would be a problem. since this building would be considered an extension of the club's facil ties. connecting to a sewer line owned by the club. I asked him to check into this further to confirm h s oplmon. Paul called me on May 23rd. 1991 to state that he was not sure of his opinion and that because the jurisdictional mad did not technically include the proposed site. that it might be necessary to Detition the Albemarle County Board TEL: 804 * 979 * I 830 226 EAST HIGH ~rI1EET * CHARLOTFF~VILLE ~ VA 22902 FAX: 804 * 979 * 5681 Mr. Forest Marshall, Chairman Albemarle County Board of Supervisors page 2 of Supervisors for an extension of~he jurisdictional area. He then stated that if this were required, that the Board would in all likelihood, ask the County Attorney for an op~n~on. I then called George St. John. the County Attorney to further discuss the matter. After our conversation. Mr. St John said that. in his opinion, this facility would be an extension of the club's private facilities for the club's members, and that ne would recommend approval of such a reG Jest, which he subsec~uently did at the Planning Commission meeting. He also said in the course of applying for the S~ecial Use Permit. that the approval should be secured from the ACSA which would obviate the necessr~y of applying for further approval during the Site Plan Rewew process, I would agree with Mn St John ano submit that Farmington has a vested dghz To access to the club owned sewer line In connection w~th the extension of its private facilities. Thank you in advance for your assistance in bringing this matter to the Boards' attention, I will be happy to meet with you to discuss this matter az your convenience. Sincerel' cc: '~-~ngton Country Club Mn William D, Fri~. County of Albemarle Co-AP'PLiCA-Itt Name (or agent, if.any): Signature'. Address: Phon~'. i . " JUP,.ISDICTIONAL AREA DESIGNATION REQLrESTED: ~[~ Water and Sewer . Water . Only' ' "[] Water: OhiO, to Existing Structure(s) [] Limited Ser~i~e (Describe'in Justifi~ati0n ' PROPERTY LOCATION (Address) :: 'Tax Map(s)/Pareel Number(s): below) · ' ' ~l t'¥~-.~tv~ (~ co~. ~-~-o,~,.-¥ ~d~...........:... ~o ~- ~. '>. ~,;~a~C-'L.~ 1 ......... :..: '..: .. . · : .. . 'i: ~',. '"'"i;' · .c, URRENT SERVICE AREA DESIGNATION (If any): ' , ,' ." .:'.:, ..: , .... /~ t;tOn|~ ." ' '. [~] ater and Sewer . ' ' ' : ~' i' w wa ., ""~" ' "' '" ..:: ' Water Only to Existing Structures ~ Limlted Sec'ice J N ff :¢ ( :." .... ' USTIFICATIO FOR REQUEST: ' ,, ~.. : ~. ~o :~,:)~, .. .... ,"... , '.i. .., ,...: ...... '.,',, ,,~, .,~,';,',~::, : '; ': "" .,,",'.. '' i;. ................. ~,. .. ................. :,..: £,, Neighborhood Connections '98: Evaluation Summary Total number of evaluations completed: 28 The following are responses to the question: How would you rate the effectiveness of the following sessions of the conference (with a score of 1 being the lowest and 5 the highest rating). 1. Opening Session- Selena Cuffee-Glcn 2. Effective Leadership - Cai Morris 3. Neighborhood Safety and Security - Eric Sutphia 4. The Basics of Building Community - Selens Cnffee-Glen 5. The Nuts and Bolts of County Government - Roxanne White 6. Organizing Your Neighborhood Project - Joe Szakos 7. Planning Successful Meetings - Lee Catlin $. Overall, do you feel that Neighbothood Connections met your expectations? 9, Would you like to see a workshop or conference such as Neighborhood Connections '98 held again in the future? 1 2 2 3 I 4 7 5 16 1 2 3 I 4 2 5 6 1 2 1 3 2 4 4 5 8 1 2 1 3__ 4 4 5 8 1 2 1 3 4 6 5 12 I 2 3 1 4 2 5 4 l 1 2 3 1 4 2 5 12 l 1 2 3 3 2 4 9 5_ 13 Yes 27 No 1 Opening Session - Selena Cuffee-Glen · Great presentation and speaker. Extremely encouraging. · Very professional, very informational to cover all areas of concentration of this workshop. · Not long enougtt · I 1/kc her influence on people and her personal convictions/values. · Great overall talk on what is happening, · I was delighted to hear her ideas 6n the Neighborhood Teera Process. We need to look at th~s concept for Albemarle County. Let's get going! · She was a really good speaker, very informative. · Good speaker. She brings good basis to conference and experience, but from the opposite end (Govemmen0 from which most attendees are wanting input for (citizens). · Good pep talk to get the group focused. · Very appropriate for this event. - · Excellent speaker and some good thoughts. Enjoyed her real-life stories about what they've done. Would have loved more specific, less general. · Having a dynamic speaker from outside was a great idex · Too general-not enough time for discussio~ · Good tips. · WhyaRictanondofiemedspeaker? TheyarenotaverygoodmodelofwbereAlbemarleshouldgo!!! · Lots of information, but wish it was longer. Effective Leadership - Cai Morris · Very good information, very effective ideas. · Not long enough, · Good overview. · Shorter video (which was excellent) and more time for questions. · Not enough time for Q & A- film was good, hut took up all of the time. · The video made some good points, but was business group oriented. More Cai and less video would be much more effective. · Lively speaker-workshop not long enough to cover topm. Neighborhood Safety and Security - Officer Eric Sutphin · Super overview. I learned a lot · Wasted too much time on organizational structure of deparunen[ Not enough allowance for participant feedback/questions or things relating to neighborhoods specifically. Speaker was nice and organized, but too bmadbased and unrelated. · Excellent overview of organization. Could have spent more time on Neighborhood Watch - would have been appropriate for the group. · Too much time spent on Police Department organization. Not enough time spent on methods for security within nc.~ghhorhoods. Very little time spent on Neighborhood Watch. · Learned a lot about the stmctore of the Police Deparunent. Wish it could have been longer with more info on how communities have increased this level of safety, etc. · Officer Sutphin does a great job. More time to address spec'fflc issues and concerns would be very helpful. · Basically went over the organizational chart - not necessary. Talked to long- not enough time for questions. · Thorough covering of police department but would have been more interested in Neighborhood Watch. · Good overview of police depamnent- needed more Neighborhood Watch oriented information. The Basics of Building Community - Selena Cuffee-Glen · Good presentation. Great handouts to get stauted. Good resource information. · Very good. · Good approach, ideas on how to change things to get community support. · We need a similar process in Albemarle County. We should establish a database of community organizations. Need to find a way to facilitate problems of community through government process. · Her model of Neighborhood Teams used in the City of Richmond was very intriguing- neighborhood associations in Albemarle County are very isolated and put in the position of being "watchdogs" for thc.rr communities rather than pafficipants in the planning process. It would be great to have a systera like Richmond's using the Planning Deparanent's designation of "neighborhoods" as an infrastmctore. · Not long enough- lots of questions wanting answers. · Idon'tthinkshegottomostofhertaik. Peoplehadmomquestiousandcoucemsthunfimeallowed. Isuggest a roandtable discussion (longer) with County Government to address many of these issues next time. · Very informative. Sounds like Richmond is wilYmg to t~ anything to become people-friendly. · County should listen to Selena too! The Nuts and Bolts of County Government - Roxanne White · Very good presentation. · Amelia McCulley did a great job of presenting. · Helpful. Learned about various depamnents and functions. · Explain what is there but not how it will happen. · Not enough time for discussion. · This is a real resource opportunity. Give it more time for citizen input, perhaps at another workshop. · Pretty informative. Would hay6 liked more question and answer time. · Not enough time allowed for discussion on how various departments can help neighborhoods. Itighlyinformafive. Good information. Very helpful. I am always impressed by the quality and com'tcsy of our county government - both elected officials and staff. · Where was School Division? How about Human Services? · Please continue in efforts to encourage/require developers to be involved with community in process of development. · All representatives presented themselves well, important resource information was available. · Good information with the zoning and planning with people and meetings to connect with. Organizing Your Neighborhood Project - Joe Szakos · Very helpful. R was nice to have a smaller group se that interchanges between participants could occur. Planning Successful Meetings - Lee Caflin · Excellent - wish it was longer. · Excellent, · Community meetings are not 8 - 10 people group meetings. · Lots of great information and well organized. Foand ent all the things we've been doing wrong in our Neighborhood Watch meetings. The handouts were great · Lots of good ideas and tips. · Similar to leadership presentation by Cai Morris. Excellent presentation and handout for resource information. · Full of information. Helpful in the organizing and directing the focus of a regular meeting. Comments on Neighborhood Connections '98 in general. · Great, informative gathering. The to-the-point presentations were extremely good commtmieafions. · Great presentation. Information well put together. Covered areas in which the community needs to know. · Expectations were in different topics than those addressed in Connections '98. but overall the sessmns were excellent, but too short on creating a neighborhood association and too short on time, · This was a great idea and a valid expenditure of County funds. · Need school division. They've got great local organization, e.g. Fro. · Workshops too short. · Very successfifl - a good start. · It would be nice to follow-up with more opportunities for small groups interested in particular issues - parks, transportation, etc. · Some of the workshops were only offered once (against others only offered once). Need to have,workshops more than once, i.e. Effective Leadership and Basics of Bhilding Community. · I don't feel that the speakers came with the understanding of who their audience is, and our desires to learn more gsassroots info on neighborh~xt organizations and dealing with common problems and how to connect. · Maybe in the future concentrate on one area. County government/Safety/Leadership skills rather then lry to cover everything in 2 ~ hours. · Excellent! More! Keeponpushin'! · Not enough time spent on how to organi?e and maintain neighborhood associations. Would be helpful to hear from snecessthl associations - what works, what doesn't. · Didn't have really high expectations because I really didn't know what was to transpire (didn't get the newsletter...heard about it word of mouth from a neighbor who eauldn't come). It was excellent! · I enjoyed the sessions I attended. They were very informative. · Unable to attend ali sessions. However, there seems to have representation from members of my neighborhood in each sessio~ I-Iopofully information will be shared in our neighborhood group. · This is a good idea from an informational and just plain customer relations viewpoint · Good idea. · It was good. I have gained a better understanding of county government and feel positive about Albemarle's outreach to neighborhoods. · It was a very good meeting. Just wish it was longer. Were there other topics that you would like to see covered? · We have to form a database of Homeowner's Associations. This way we can contact each other. · I wish workshop topics covered would have been longer than 40 minutes. Time restraints only permitted skimming the surface. · Allow more I/me for input at ensuing sessions. · Strategy for productive relationship with county staff and community. · Youth activities in the community. · Nuts and bolts of how to increase safety and security in neighborhood (from police and active neighborhood associations). Sharing among citizens. · Roundtable discussions with neighborhood representatives with their individual Board of Supervisor representative. · Schools as commtmity centers, especially elementary and middle schools. Remember...PTO's are highly organized and should be a part of this effort. · Roundiahle discussion about problems, what works, etc. · Overview of how govemmeat departments interrelate to solve problems. · 'Where is the Board of Supervisors? · Itmightbedifficultbutitwouldbousefultohaveanoverviewofthezoningprocess. How it works, wherethe PRO - proffer systems fits in, etc. · Would have liked to have seen each topic offered at least 2 times so more oppo~tanifies for attending specific presentations. Could use a presentation and practice session for making a public statement at a Board of Supervisors or a Planning Committee Meeting. · Incorporating a Neighborhood Association. Starting a Neighborhood Association. · Getting the High School Student Council involved. 4 COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AGENDA TITLE: Draft Dance Hall Ordinance SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST: To amend current dance hall ordinance AGENDA DATE: April 1, 1998 ACTION: X CONSENT AGENDA: ACTION: ITEM NUMBER: INFORMATION: INFORMATION: ATTACHMENTS: Yes ~,~ STAFF CONTACT~S}: Messrs. Tucker, Huff & Davis REVIEWED BY: ~./ DISCUSSION: Since the County's current Dance Hall Ordinance does not comprehensively cover contemporary concerns, the Board requested staff to develop a revised policy. The attached draft ordinance addresses the main issues the Board previously identified. Highlights of those items include: 1) Backaround Investinations: prior to consideration by the Board of an application for a dance hall permit the application shall be referred to: a) the chief of police for owner criminal background check and public safety issues; b) the tire chief for building & parking lot safety concerns and c) the zoning administrator to determine whether zoning and building requirements have been met for the proposed use 2) Rioht of Entry: members =f the police department and itre department may enter the dance hall at any time to ensure compliance with the applicable laws 3) On-site Security: one special police officer, bonded private security officer, or police officer shall be provided on-site atthe expense of the permittee for every 100 patrons in attendance 4) Loiterinn: it is unlawful for any person to loiter around or about the premises of a dance hail while a dance is being held 5) Re(~ulations for Teen Dance Hall: a) persons 19 years of age or older shall not be allowed to enter or remain on the premises of a teenage dance hall unless they are an employee or guardian of a person attending; b) no alcoholic beverages shall be served or permitted on premises: c) no persons 18 years of age or younger shall be permitted to leave and thereafter reenter during the course of the dance 6~ Restrictions for Adult Dance Hall: no one under the age of 18 shall enter or remain in a dance hall. unless they are accompanied by a parent or legal guardian or by a spouse or sibling over the age of t 8. 7) Revocation: upon finding that there has been a violaiton of any of the provisions of this article, the zoning ordinance, or building code, or upon finding that the use constitutes a nuisance, the board may revoke any permit issued 8) Exemptions: requirements shall not apply [[o dances conducted for benevolent or charitable purpose, nor to dances conducted not for profit under the auspices of religious, educaitonal, civic or military organizations 9) Current Curfew:. our curfew limits minors from being in motor vehicles from 1:00am through 5:00am, unless they have written parental consent. The City of Charlottesville's curfew prohibits minors under the age of 17 to remain in any public place or motor vehicle from 12:01am threugh 5:00am Monday-Friday, and 1:00am through 5:00am Saturday & Sunday, unless they have written parental consent. BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA TITLE: Draft Dance Hall Ordinance April 1, 1998 Page 2 RECOMMENDATION: This information is provided for the Board's review and work session discussion. Guidance is needed in order to decide whether to go to public hearing or not. If a public hearing is needed, additional input is required on hours of operation and an annual permit fee. 98.053 DRAFT: March 20, 1998 ORDINANCENO. AN ORDINANCETO AMEND AND REORDAIN CHAPTER3, AMUSEMENTS, ARTICLE II, DANCE HALLS, OF THE CODE OF THE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE. VIRGINIA. BE IT ORDAINED By the Board of Supervisors of the County of Albemarle, Virgima, that Chapter 3, Amusements, Article II, Dance Halls, is hereby amended and reordained by repealing sections 3-11 through 3-17' and replacing with sections 3-11- through 3-11.18 as follows: Article II. Dance Hall. the age of -:~~"--- ,~o, ...... to enter or remain; ..... ~'" ....~'-" "-~';'- -~---;-~ ;- 3-2 Secs. 3-12 throuoh 3-17 Reserved. Secs. 3-18, 3-19. Reserved. Section 3-11 Section 3-11.1 Section 3-11.2 Section 3-11.4 Section 3-11.5 Section 3-11.7 Section 3-11.8 Section 3-11.9 s~ Section 3-11.11 Section 3-11.12 Section 3-11.1 3 Section 3-11.14 Section 3-11.15 Section 3-11.16 Definitions. Exemptions. Permits-required. Application for permit. Investigation Notice. Issuance or denial of permit. Revocation of permit. Riaht of ent~ b.v police and fire departments. On-site security. Intoxicated persons prohibited. Loitering around dance hall. Restrictions on persons under eighteen years of age. Hours of operation. Reaulations for teenage dance halls Procurina permit by fraud or false representation. Violation of article. 3-3 Section 3-11.17 Section 3-11.18 Relation of article to zoninq ordinance. License Tax. ARTICLE II. DANCE HALL For state law as to authority, of county to adoot this article, see Va. Code §§ 18.2-432 and 433. Sec. 3-11. Defi_nifions. For the purpose of this article, the followinq words and terms shall have the definition ascribed to them by this section. (1) Dance hall. The term "dance hall" means any place open to the oeneral public where dancing is permitted. (2) Dance hall permit. The term "dance hall permit" means a permit to operate a dance hall issued by the board of supervisors pursuant to this article. (3) Teenage dance hall. The term "teenage dance hall" means any dance hall open to persons not less than fourteen ('14) years old and not more than eiohteen (18) years old. Sec. 3-t1.1~ Exemptions. A__= This article shall not apply to dance halls located in ~ncorporated towns in which an ordinance adopted pursuant to Virginia Code Section 18.2-433 is in effect. B~ The requirements of this article shall not aDolv to dances conducted for benevolent or charitable purposes, nor to dances conducted not for profit under the auspices of reliqious, educational, civic or military organizations. Sec. 3-11.2 Permits--required. A__~. It shall be unlawful for any person to operate a dance hall in the county unless such person shall have a valid dance hall permit B~ A dance hall permit shall be nonassig nable and nontransferable. C._~. A dance hall permit shall be void upon a chanoe ~n ownership. management, or location of a dance hall. 3-4 Sec. 3-11.3. Application for permit. An application for a dance hall permit shall be filed with the clerk of the board of supervisors. Such application shall, at a minimum, contain the following information: ('1) The location, description, and maximum capacity of the proposed dance hall. ~ The name and address of all persons who will be an owner, operator, or manaqer of the dance hail together with the name and address of any person havina a financial interest in such dance hall, including stockholders, lienholders or partners. If the owner or operator is a corporation, the names and addresses of the true or equitable owners of the stock of such corporation shall be provided. ~3) The type of food or drink to be offered and a description of the facilities for the preparation and service of such food and drink. (4~ The location and number of off-street parking space available for patrons. (5) The plan for provision of on-site security. (6~ Declaration of whether persons less than nineteen (19) years old are intended to be patrons. Sec. 3-11.4~ Investigation. Prior to the consideration by the board of supervisors of an application for a dance hall permit the application shall be referred for investiaation to: (1) The chief of police to determine whether: ('a) the owner, operator, or manager has been convicted of a crime of moral turpitude, any crime involving the sale, attempted sale or possession of any controlled substance with the intent to distribute, any sexual offense or crime relatino to obscenity., or any oattern of criminal misconduct as evidenced bv a series of convictions: ('b) the owner, operator or manacler is fit to enqaqe in the business of a dance hall: and ('c) there are circumstances which would make the operation of a dance hall at this location a nuisance or a threat to public safety, peace, and order. 3-5 ('2) The fire chief to determine whether: The structure in which the dance hall is to be located meets the applicable provisions of all fire prevention codes and fire safety requlations of the Virqinia Uniform Statewide Buildinq Code; (13) Parkinq facilities provide for an unimpeded approach of fire .apparatus to the dance hall: and (c~ Thers are circumstances which would make the operation of a dance hall at this location a nuisance or a threat to the public safety, health, or welfare. (3) The zoning administrator to determine whether: (a) proposed use: The zoninq and building code requirements have been met for the (b) There are previous zomng or building code violations for this property or bv the identified owner, operator, or manager: and ~ There are circumstances which would make the operation of a dance hall at this location a nuisance or a threat to the public safety, health, or welfare. Sec. 3-11.1i. Notice. A_~. Written notice of an application for a dance hall shall be given by the clerk of the board of supervisors to the same persons and in the same manner as notice is given to persons pursuant to Virginia Code .6 15.2-2204(B). However. failure to be given notice or any defect in notice shall not be arounds for any person to challenae the validity of a dance hall permit Bm Persons receivin notice ursuant to t is section shou d rovide wr'tten comments regarding the aPP ication for the board of supervisors' cons deration prior to its consideration of the application. Sec. 3-11.6. Issuance or denial of permit. Am The board of supervisors shall consider the findings of the investiqation conducted pursuant to .6 3-11.4 and may hear statements and receive evidence, if it deems such necessary, to determine the suitability of the proposed dance hall. B_~ The board of supervisors shall not issue a dance hall permit if it finds: 3-6 (1) The applicant has falsified the application in a material manner; (2~ The owner, operator, or manager has a criminal record of conviction of any crime of moral turpitude, any crime involvinq the sale, attempted sale or possession of any controlled substance with the intent to distribute, an.v sexual offense or crime relating to obscenity., or an.v pattern of criminal misconduct as evidenced by a series of convictions; (3~ The structure does not provide ade(~uate fire protection: (4) The oroposed use does not COmDIv with an.v federal, state or county law; (5) The proposed use will adversely affect or be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or will constitute a nuisance: ('6) There is an undue concentration of dance halls in the area: or (7) The owner, operator, or manager is not fit to engage in the business of a dance hall. C. The board of superv sors sba cons der an application for a dance hall permit within 60 days from the date of a completed application being received by the clerk of the board of supervisors for such permit and shall render a decision to approve or deny the petition within 120 days from that date of a completed application beina received. D~ The board of supervisors may impose upon any dance hall permit reasonable conditions relatino to the use that it deems necessary_ to protect the public interest. Such conditions shall be deemed accepted by the applicant upon the exercise of the dance hall permit for the intended use. E. The board of supervisors may limit the dance hall permit so as to only authorize a teena(~e dance hall. Sec. 3-11.7. Revocation of permit. A. Upon a findinq that thera has been a violation of any of the provisions of this article, the zoninq ordinance, or the buildinq code, or upon flndinq that the use constitutes a nuisance, the board of supervisors may, in addition to any other remedies allowed by law, revoke any permit issued pursuant to this article. 3-7 A nuisance shall be deemed to include, but is not limited to the followinq: (1) The creation or facilitation of any fire or other safety hazard on the dance hall premises: (2) The creation or facilitation of a traffic hazard within the Darkina area servinq the dance hall or the public highway; (3) Overcrowding within the dance hall facility or within the Darkina area serving the dance ha!l: (4) Any public disturbance resulting from the lack of adequate security guards on the dance hall premises; or (5) Recurring unlawful activity on the dance hall premises. B.~. The board of supervisors shall not act to revoke a dance hall r)ermit w thout providinq the permittee five days' written notice of a hearincl opportunity for the permittee to show cause why the permit should not be revoked. Such notice shall be hand delivered to the permittee or sent by registered letter or certified mail to the address given by the permittee when applying for such hermit. Sec. 3-11.8. Right of entry by the police and fire departments. A. Members of the police department may enter any dance hall operated pursuant to a dance hall permit at any time to ensure compliance with applicable laws and that.the peace and quiet of the county is preserved. B__~. Members of the fire department may enter any dance hall o~erated pursuant to a dance hall permit at any time to inspect the premises for fire prevention or fire safety. Sec. 3-1'1.9, On-site security. One special police officer, bonded private security officer, or police officer shall be provided on-site at the expense of the Dermittee for every one hundred (100) patrons in attendance at the dance hall. Sec. 3-1'1.10. Intoxicated persons prohibited. It shall be unlawful for any person operating a dance hall pursuant to a dance hall permit to suffer or permit any person legally under the influence of alcoholic beveraqes to enter or remain in such dance hall, whether participatinq in the dancing or 3-8 not, or to remain outside the dance hall or in the on-site parkinq area servin~l the dance hall. Sec. 3-11.11. Loitering around dance hall. It shall be unlawful for any person to loiter around or about the premises of a dance hall while a dance is beina held therein__ Sec. 3-11,12~ Restrictions on persons under eighteen years of age. It shall be unlawful for any person operating a dance hall pursuant to a dance hall permit to allow any person under the age of eiahteen years to enter or remain in such dance hall while dancinq is being conducted therein, unless such person is accompanied by a parent or legal guardian or by a spouse or siblinq over the aqe of eighteen, except for such persons specifically authorized by a dance hall permit providing for a teenaae dance hall. Sec. 3-11.13. Hours of operation. It shall be unlawful for any person operating a dance hall pursuant to a dance hall permit to have such dance hall open except between the hours of or during any hours otherwise restricted by a condition of the dance hall permit. 3-11.14. Regulations for teenaqe dance halls. ~ No teenaqe dance hall shall operate prior to 12:00 noon nor later than 12:00 midniqht or durinq any hours otherwise restricted by a condition of the dance hall permit. (2) Persons nineteen (19) years of aqe or older shall not be allowed to enter or remain on the premises of a teenaoe dance hall unless they are an employee or a parent or quardian of a person attendinq such teenaqe dance hall. (3) No alcoholic beverages shall be served or permitted on the premises of a teenacle dance hall. (4) Upon the finding of alcohol, drug paraphernalia, illegal drugs or controlled substances, or persons under the influence of alcohol or illeqal drugs or controlled substances the chief of police or his agent may cause all persons in the teena(~e dance hall to vacate the premises and may close the teenaqe dance hall. (5) No person eighteen (18) years of age or younger shall be permitted to leave and thereafter reenter a teenaqe dance hall durinq the course of a dance. 3-9 6~ No teenaqe dance hall shall be open after is a public school day__ p.m. if the following day Sec. 3-11,15. Procurinq permit by fraud or false representation. It shall be unlawful for any person to procure a dance hall permit by fraud or false representation on an application or otherwise. Sec. 3-11.16. Violation_ of article. A_~. Anv_ violation of this article shall be ounishable as a Class 3 misdemeanor__ B~ Any violation of this article in addition to being unlawful shall constitute a public nuisance and shall be abatable as such by an action in a court of orooer jurisdiction. Sec. 3-11.'17, Relation of article to zonin(3 ordinance_ . This article shall not relieve a dance hall from any requirements or re(3ulations of the zoning ordinance. If any reauirement of this article conflicts with anv other statute or law, the more strinqent requirement shall applv. Sec. 3-1'1.18. License Tax~ Prior to opening of business as a dance hall pursuant to this article, the person operatinq or conductinq such dance hall shall pay to the director of finance a license tax of $ . Such license tax shall not be proratable. Thereafter. the license tax for a dance hall shall be in the amount of $ oer annum payable on or before January 31st of each vear. I:\DEPT~ATTORNEY~ORDINANC~DANCE.HLL 3-10 JOH~ COLLIER MARTIN 5115 CATTERTON ROAD FI~E UNION, VIRGINIA 22940 March 24, 1998 The Honorable Forrest R. Marshall, Jr. chairman, Board of Supervisors 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4546 Re: Hunting and Public Safety in Albemarle County Dear Mr. Marshall: This is in reply to your letter of March 2, 1998, by which you advise that the Board of Supervisors has decided against any present consideration of amendments to the Albemarle County Code to provide residential areas with greater protection from hunting gunfire. The purpose of this letter is to request that this decision be reconsidered in the interests of public safety. By previous letters to the Board of Supervisors, dated December 31, 1997, and January 9, 1998, I suggested amendment of the Albemarle County Code to provide residents of this County with the same levels of protection from hunting gunfire as that enjoyed by residents of many other Virginia Counties. Specifically, I proposed that the residents of the County be freed from the threat of high-powered rifle gunfire, and that residential areas be afforded greater protection from hunting activity which now legally can be conducted perilously close to subdivision boundaries, occupied homes, schools and parks. I was initially pleased to learn, that prior to receipt of my letters, the Board had already scheduled a work session for February 4, 1998, to receive information from the Department of Game and Inland Fisheries relating to hunting safety. The scheduling of this work session apparently was prompted by the death of Ms. Janice Garrison, in Albemarle County, on November 30, 1997, in an apparent hunting accident. Upon the invitation of County Supervisor Walter F. Perkins, I attended the February 4 meeting of the Board of Supervisors to listen to the presentation by Game and Inland Pisheries officials. At the beginning of this work session, you stated, inter alia, that you were a hunter, a life-long member of the National Rifle Association and a strong believer in the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution. Although it was not entirely clear as to why these statements were made at the beginning of a fact-finding session, it appeared to some, that your comments possibly reflected a predisposition to maintain the status quo with respect to County hunting laws. Following your preliminary remarks, Game and Inland Fisheries officials presented information relating to management of the deer population and the relative safety of hunting with shotguns vs. high-powered rifles insofar as hunter safety is concerned. With respect to Ms. Garrison's death, the Board was informed, that if her death is confirmed as a hunting accident, it will be the first known death of a non-hunter in Virginia, and that there has been one prior shooting injury to a non-hunter. The work session also included discussion of the adequacy of present enforcement of the hunting laws, and methods to augment law enforcement resources. At the conclusion of the work session you stated that instead of any new laws, the County needed better enforcement of existing laws. Although your comments were made without a vote of the Board, and without any other indication of specific concurrence by other Board members, your comments were construed by the media as a formal decision by the entire Board to reject consideration of any changes in existing law. See, e.a., The Daily Progress, February 5, 1998. "Albemarle supervisors reject further restrictions on hunting." Ms. Lee Caitland from the Office of the County Executive seemed to confirm this interpretation in an interview by WVIR news on February 5. Ms. Caitland stated: A decision was made, [thati before we take that step, to really look at some other options, because they felt that greater enforcement may solve some of the problems which have been brought forward. Also at the conclusion of the work session, however, County Executive Robert W. Tucker, Jr. stated that his office would prepare a report relating to the matters discussed during the presentation. I assumed at that time, that this report would include facts and recommendations, and generally be intended to assist the Board in policy formulation and/or decision making regarding hunting and public safety issues. The fact that a report would be generated offered some encouragement for the belief that, despite your personal comments at the beginning and at the conclusion of the work session, the Board had not yet made a final decision with respect to this matter. Several weeks after the work session, therefore, I contacted Ms. Caitland to inquire as to whether the report mentioned by Mr. Tucker had been completed, and whether it would be available to the public. Shortly after my call, I received your March 2 letter which I must assume is in response to my inquiry to Ms. Caitland. Your letter states that a decision was made by the Board of Supervisors not to consider changes in existing law. Under the circumstances, I assume that no separate report from the County Executive will be forthcoming. With respect to the Board's decision as described in your letter, I understand that the Board has affirmatively decided, as you state in your letter, that "...the best approach to increasing hunting-related safety in affected neighborhoods is to implement more stringent enforcement of existing regulations and ordinances." Toward this end, I understand that arrangements are being made with the Sheriff's Department to dedicate some unspecified number of state-certified auxiliary deputies to hunting law enforcement during hunting season. These additional law enforcement personnel are intended to work in conjunction with County police officers to handle "routine hunting calls for service," thus freeing up game wardens for more proactive enforcement against illegal hunting. I further understand, as you state in your letter, that at the present time, "...the Board feels strongly about trying increased enforcement before considering any possibility of additional legal restrictions on hunting." The decision of the Board seems premised, therefore, upon the finding that complaints by citizens about gunfire near residential areas are attributable to illegal hunting activity; that existing law enforcement resources are inadequate to handle the enforcement of present hunting laws; and, that additional law enforcement resources are needed. By necessary implication, the Board has thus concluded that there is a hunting crime problem in the County of some magnitude. If this is so, County residents have even greater reason to fear the sound of gunfire near their homes, and even greater reason to confine themselves to their homes during hunting season. The situation, therefore, may be more distressing that previously realized. An increase in hunting lawlessness should be also distressing to the vast majority of hunters, who are law abiding and responsible, because it infers that discipline within the hunting community has broken down. Although it was certainly not the Board's intention, its findings with respect to the present adequacy of law enforcement efforts sends a rather ominous message to the community. Based upon the present public record, however, there is little, if any, factual data which suggests that present law enforcement efforts are inadequate and/or that hunting related crimes are on the increase. No information was presented at the February 4 work session regarding the number and types of citizen complaints; the number of complaints investigated; the number of arrests and convictions obtained; the number of recidivists arrested; or, the type and severity of sentences imposed by the Courts. Nor were any representatives even present at the fact- finding session from the County Police, the Sheriff's Office, the Charlottesville Police, the State Police or from the Office of the Commonwealth's Attorney. Nor was there any anecdotal testimony from citizens reflecting dissatisfaction with present law enforcement. Without this type of specific information and data covering a multi-year period, it is, in my view, virtually 3 impossible to assess the extent of any present law enforcement problem; to determine trends with respect to illegal hunting activities; or to allocate scarce law enforcement resources. I am in hope that you will agree, therefore, that substantially more information is needed. Accordingly, I think that it would be extremely useful to obtain from law enforcement authorities a detailed statistical report upon which an assessment of law enforcement efforts could be based. Illegal hunting, especially organized "road hunting" is certainly an exceedingly dangerous activity, and it should be fought aggressively. Whether this can be accomplished with existing resources, however, or whether additional resources are needed, are decisions that can be intelligently made only upon an adequate factual record. Regardless of the outcome of such an inquiry, however, the fact remains, that under present law, hunting can be leaallv conducted with high-powered rifles, close to subdivisions, other residential areas, schools and parks. This is an increasingly dangerous situation in this County, and this cause of citizen concern is entirely separate from issues regarding enforcement of existing law. While a substantial service obviously would be done by improving inadequate law enforcement, if indeed it is inadequate, it is unreasonable to conclude that this will remedy the concerns of County residents which stem from presently leaal hunting activities. Even with perfect enforcement of all existing hunting law, County residents will continue to be exposed to the dangers associated with legal use of high-powered rifles. Additionally, residential neighborhoods will continue to suffer from the presence of legal hunting gunfire literally on subdivision property lines. It is illogical, therefore, to even suggest that increased law enforcement will obviate the need for legislative action to protect residential areas, when even with perfect obedience to existing law, the threats to residential areas from leqal hunting gunfire will remain precisely the same, and when citizen concern over these legal hunting activities will remain precisely the same. No amount of increased law enforcement under existing law will cure these concerns when the problem is that the existing law is simply inadequate and needs to be revised. Certainly, the Board should pursue its concern regarding the adequacy of present law enforcement and increase law'enforcement resources if needed. At the same time, however, I see no reason as to why the Board should not proceed with the study and consideration of changes to the existing law to better protect residential areas from legal hunting activities. With the population of this County increasing at an astounding rate, an increase reported to be 3.3% between 1995 and 1996, any delay in 4 the consideration of changes to existing law to separate hunting activities from residential neighborhoods, schools, and parks is an exceeding dangerous course. Existing State law provides ample predicate for such consideration, and the Board would not be required to "write upon a clean slate." Instead of focusing on reasons for taking no action, the Board should proceed, as have many other Counties, to consider the adequacy of existing County law. In this regard, the Code of Virginia presently provides Counties with explicit authority to adopt specific hunting related ordinances in furtherance of public safety. See, Code of Virginia, §§ 15~2-1209-1210, 29.1-526-528 (copy attached). Summarized below are the specific public safety provisions, not presently contained in the Albemarle County Code, but which this Board of Supervisors is empowered by State law to enact: § 15.2-1209 Prohibitina shootina of firearms or air-operated or qas operated weapons in certain areas. Counties may prohibit shooting of firearms or air-operated or gas-operated weapons in areas which are in the opinion of the County so heavily populated as to make shooting dangerous. § 15.2-1210 Prohibitina huntina in certain areas. Counties may prohibit all hunting with firearms or other weapons in, or within one-half mile of, any subdivision or other area of the County which are in the opinion of the County so heavily populated as to make such activity dangerous. § 29.1-526 Counties and cities may prohibit huntina or trapping near Drimarv and secondary hiahways. Counties may prohibit hunting with firearms within 100 yards (300 feet) of any primary or secondary highway. § 29.1-527 Counties. cities or towns may prohibit hunting near public schools, and county, city. town or regional parks. Counties may prohibit shooting or hunting with a firearm: within 100 yards of the property line of a school within 100 yards of the property line of a park Counties may prohibit the carrying of a loaded firearm: within 100 yards of the property line of a school within 100 yards of the property line of a park 5 § 29.1-528 Counties or cities may prohibit huntinq with certain firearms. Counties may prohibit hunting with shotguns loaded with slugs and rifles larger than .22 caliber rimfire. As is readily apparent, the State government has thus provided Counties with a "menu" of legislative options to better protect the public safety depending upon the individual needs of each County. By providing this "menu" of legislative options in the Code of Virginia, our State government has essentially already made determinations that such provisions are sensible and effective in the improvement of public safety. Significantly, many other Counties have utilized their legal authority under the Code of Virginia to improve public safety. See, Hunting and Trapping in Virginia, 1997-1998 Regulations, pp. 22-27. Clearly, therefore, the Board is not being asked to consider any new or radical reforms. It is simply being asked to give serious consideration to provisions of law which have been tried and tested by other Counties. One of the most significant concerns expressed by Albemarle County residents has been with respect to the legal use of high- powered rifles. Although most, but not all, hunters are careful and responsible, high-powered rifle rounds do not always find their intended targets, and hunters, like everyone else, can make mistakes. When this happens, high-powered rifle rounds can travel 4 to 5 m~les, and the results can be catastrophic. Under State law, the Board has the ability to eliminate this peril. Under Section 29.1-528 of the Virginia Code, the Board has the authority to prohibit the hunting use of high-powered rifles, thus permiting hunting only with shotguns. Restrictions upon the use of high-powered rifles are in place in Appomattox, Buckingham, Caroline, Chesterfield, Cumberland, Dinwiddie, Essex, Fairfax, Goochland, Halifax, Hanover, Isle of Wight, King George, Lancaster, Louisa, Lunenburg, New Kent, Northhampton, Northumberland, Prince George, Prince William, Richmond, Southampton, S~rry, S~ssex, Newport News, Virginia Beach and Williamsburg. Id_. This lengthy "roll call", in and of itself, should place an onus upon the Board of Supervisors to reconsider summary rejection of proposals to control high-powered rifle gunfire near residential areas in this County. The Board may also provide subdivisions and residential areas with greater protection. In this regard, current County law prohibits the discharge of firearms within residential districts which are zoned as residential (R-I, R-2, R-4, R-6, R- IO, R-15, PUD or PRD). Albemarle County Code, Sec. 13-9. 6 Nothing contained in the Albemarle County Code, however, would prohibit hunting next to the boundary line of such a residential district. Also, some "residential" areas in the County are not zoned as residential, and firearms legally can be discharged within such areas even though they are truly residential, and not rural, in nature. Other subdivisions that are zoned as residential are totally surrounded by property zoned as rural where hunting is permitted. Many residential areas in this County are surrounded by gunfire during hunting season, and some of that gunfire, including high-powered rifle gunfire, is as close as the boundary line of the subdivision itself. As I have expressed in my prior letters, and more importantly, as has been demonstrated by the death of MS. Janice Garrison, this is dangerous, highly disturbing and it erodes the quality of life of thousands of County residents. With the growth being experienced by this County, this situation is simply intolerable. Pursuant to Section 15.2-1210 of the Code of Virginia, however, this County has full authority to provide meaningful protection to subdivisions, residential areas and other areas within the County. The County may prohibit: ...all hunting with firearms or other weapons in, or within one-half mile of, any subdivision or other area of such county which, in the opinion of the governing body, is so heavily populated as to make such hunting dangerous to the inhabitants thereof. Although it would require considerable planning and other work by various County governmental agencies, methods to protect residential areas have been adopted in other CoUnties, and it can be accomplished here if, and only if, there is a will to do so. With respect to other provisions which can be enacted from the State public safety menu, the County may prohibit hunting within 300 feet of primary and secondary roads. Code of Virginia, § 29.1-526. Presently, the Albemarle County Code prohibits hunting within only 50 feet of roads. Albemarle County Code, Sec. 13-11. Frankly, I can conceive of no legitimate argument as to why this zone should not be increased to 300 feet by this County. While such action would significantly increase safety on our roads, any intrusion upon responsible hunting activity would be minimal. Moreover, increasing the zone to 300 feet, might actually facilitate the identification and apprehension of illegal "road hunters" by law enforcement officials. Neither does there appear to be any arguable reason as to why zones of protection should not be created around schools and 7 parks. Although section 14-6.8 of the Albemarle County Code currently prohibits hunting within parks, nothing within the code prohibits hunting near parks or schools. Clearly, this County should implement Section 29.1-528 of the Virginia Code. Returning to discussion of your March 2 letter, and the rationale for the Board's decision oontained therein, you state in your concluding paragraph that there are "other options" the Board will be considering while it monitors the effectiveness of a strategy to provide a more visible and aggressive law enforcement effort. There is no indication, however, what these "other options" might be. It is clear from the penultimate sentence in this paragraph, however, that these "other options" do not include consideration of changes in existing law. You state, "At this point, the Board feels strongly about trying increased enforcement b~fore considering any possibility of additional legal restrictions on hunting." [emphasis added]. Those of us who remain very interested in the hunting/public safety issue would be most interested in learning what options exist, other than consideration of changes in existing law, which might serve to promote public safety, and which will be considered by the Board while it monitors its presently announced strategy of increased law enforcement. . As this matter proceeds, if it proceeds at all beyond the present Board's recent decision, the issues involved should be kept in the proper perspective. This truly is not a contest between hunters and non-hunters, or between competing ideological values. Those of us who seek implementation in Albemarle County of public safety protections available to residents of other Counties do not seek to outlaw hunting. Nor do we seek to denigrate "long-standing hunting traditions" referenced in the first paragraph of your letter. But we live here too. We have homes, children, grandchildren, pets and farm animals; we have the right to be outdoors on our own properties, even during hunting season; and, we have the fundamental right to live without palpable fear. We are law abiding, we pay taxes and we vote. We are concerned about hunting gunfire near our homes, schools and parks, and we think, that at the very least, our concerns are entitled to respeot and consideration. S i~cerely, John C. Martin CC: The Honorable Walter F. Perkins The Hon. Charlotte Humphris The Hon. Sally Thomas The Hon. David Bowerman The Hon. Charles Martin Chief John Miller § 15.2-1206 COUNTIES. CITIES AN'D TOWNS 9 15.2-1211 There is noticing in this section ~o indi- cate that it was intended to be a "curative statute~ designed to validate the acts of a board of supervisors if it did not possess preex- isting power. Gordon v. Board of Supvrs., 207 Va. 827_ 153 S.E.2d 270 1967) (decided under prior law~. commented on in 3 [J. Rich. L. Rev. 213 1968) (decided under prior taw). Preex~stlng power of county board. -- Although the enactanent of t2uis section in 1966 does not preclude the preexistence of~e power of a board of super~'tsors :o lend money to a count3, airport authority, nor ~s it a curative statute, it is at [east some evidence that the conciusion that the board had :he power to make the loan is not contrary to the legislative intent ~vith respec: to the existence of the power. Gordon v. Board of Supvrs.. 207 Va. 827. 153 S.E.2d 270 t1967) decided under prior fowl. commented on in 3 L.'. Rich. L. Rev. 213 I968 I. § 15.2-1206. Pistols and revolvers; license tax on dealers. -- The governing body of any county may impose a license tax of not more than ~venty-five dollars on persons engaged in the business of selling pistols ~and revolvers to the public. (Code 1950, § 59-141: 1968, c. 439, § 15.1-523: 199~, c. 587. § 15.2-1207. Same; reports of sales. --The governing body of any county may require sellers of pistols and revolvers to furnish the clerk of the circuit cour~ of the county, within ten days after sale of any such weapon, with the name and address of the purchaser, the date of purchase, and the number, make and caliber of the weapon sold. The clerk shall keep a record of the reports. 'Code 1950, § 59-142: 1968. c. 439, § 15.1-524; 1997, c. 587.) § 15.2-1208. Same; in certain counties. -- Chapter 297 of the Acts of 1944, approved March 29, 1944, requiring permits to sell or purchase pistols or revolvers in any county having a density of population of more than 1,000 a square ~,ile, is continued in effect. (Code 1950. § 59-144: 1968. c. 439. § 15.1-52o; 1997, c. 587.) /- § 15.2-1209. Prohibiting shooting of firearms or air-operated or gas-operated weapons in certain areas. -- Any c?unty may prohibit the ~ shooting of firearms or air-operated or gas-operated weapons ir~ an.~ areas of the county which are in the opinion of the governing body so heavily populated as to make such conduct dangerous to the inhabitants thereof. Code 1950. § 15~20.3: 1954. c. 223: 1962. c. 623. § 15.1-518: 1968. c. 294: 1992. c. 600: 1993, c. 367: 1995. c. 284: 1997. c. 587.) '?" § 15.2-1210. Prohibiting hunting in certain areas. --Any counw may by ordinance prohibit ail hunting with firearms or other weapons in, or ~vithin one-half mile of, any subdivision or other area of such county which, in the opinion of the governing body, is so heavily populated as to make such hunting clangorous to the inhabitants thereof. Any such ordinance shall clearly describe each area in which hunting is prohibited, and shall further provide that appropriate signs shall be erected designating the boundaries of such area. (Code 1950, § 15-20.3:1; 1962. c. 163. § 15.1-518.1: 1997. c. 587.) § 15.2-1211. Boundaries of magisterial and election districts. -- A. County ma~sterial district boundary lines and names shall be as the governing bodies may establish. Su~ect to the provisions of § 24.2-304.1. whenever ~he boundaries of a county have been altered, the governing body shall, as may be necessary., redistrict ~he counw into magisterial districts. .Change the boundaries of existing dhstricts, chang~ the name of any district, or increase or diminish the number of districts. B. Whenever redistricting of magisterial or election districts is required as a result of annexation, the governing body of such counw shall, within a 135 § 29.1-526 CODE OF V~RGI*'Li § 29,1-528 Cross references. --AS to puaishment for Class 2 and 4 misdemeanors, see § 18.2-11. § 29.1-526. Counties and cities may prohibit hunting or trapping near primary and seco.n, dary highways. -- The governing body of any county or city may prubibi~ by ordinance the hunting, with a firearm, of any game bird or game animal While the hunting is on or within 100 yards of any primary or secondary highway in such counw or city and may provide that any violation of the ordinance shall be a Class 3 misdemeanor. In addition, the governing body of any county or city may prohibit by ordinance the trapping of any game animal or furbearer within fifty feet of the .shoulder of any primary or secondary highway in th~ county or city and may provide that any violation of the ordinance shall be a Class 3 misdemeanor. No such ordinance shall prohibit such trapping where the written permission of the landowner ~s obtained. It shall be the duty of the governing body enacting an ordinance under the provisions of this section to notify the Director by registered mail no later than May 1 of the year in which the ordinance is to take effect. If the governing body fails co make such notice, the ordinance shall be unenforceable. For the purpose of this section, the terms "hunt" and "trap" shall not include the necessary crossing of highways for the bona fide purpose of going into or leaving a lawful hunting or trapping area. (1962. c. 141, § 29-144.5: 1964. c. 549: 1977, c. 377; 1982. c. 194: 1987. c. 488; 1989, c. 421.) Class 3 misdemeanors, see § 18.2-11. § 29.1-527. Counties, cities or towns may prohibit hunting near public schools and county, city, town or regional parks. -- The govern- ing body of any county, city or town may prohibit by nrdinance, shooting or hunting with a firearm, or prohibit hunters from traversing an area while in possession of a loaded firearm, within 100 yards of any properW line of a public school or a county, city, town or regional park. The governing body may, in such ordinance, provide that any violation thereof shall be a Class 4 m~sdemeanor. Nothing in this section shall give any county, city or town the authority re enforce such an ordinance on lands w~thin a national or state park or forest, or wildlife managemen~ area. (1985. c. 485. § 29-144.5:1: 1987, c. 488.) Class 4 misdemeanors, see § 18.2-11. § 29.1-528. Counties or cities may prohibit hunting with certain frrearms. -- A. The governing body of any county or city may, by ordinance, prohibit hunting in such county or city with a shotgun loaded with slugs, or with a rifle of a caliber larger than .22 rimfire. However. such ordinance may permit the hunting of groundhogs with a rifle of a caliber larger than .22 rimfire between March t and August 31. Such ordinance may also permit the use of muzzle-loading rifles during the prescribed open seasons for the hunting of game species. Any such ordinance may also specify permissible type of ammunition to be used for such hunting. B. No such ordinance shall be enforceable unless the governing body notifies the Director by registered mail prior to May 1 of the year in which the ordinance is to take effect. C. In adopting an ordinance pursuant to the provmions of thi~ section the governing body of any county or city may provide that any person who violates the provisions of the ordinance shall be guilty ora Class 3 misdemeanor. ~1976, 32O § 29.1-529 GA~%iE. INLA~ND FISHERIES A2';D BOATING § 29.1-530 c. 443. § 29-144.6: 1977, cc. 20, 377: 1978. c. 303: 1986. c. 342: 1987. c. 488: 1989, c, 421.) Cross references. -- As to punishment for Class 3 misdemeanors, see § 18.2-11. § 29.1-529. Killing of deer or bear damaging fruit trees, crops, livestock or personal proper'cy or creating a hazard to aircraft or motor vehicles. -- Whenever deer or bear are dama~ng fruit trees, crops, livestock or personal proper~y in the Commonwealth? the owner or lessee of the lands on which such damage is done shall immediately report the damage to the Director ~r his designee for investigation. If after investigation the Director or his designee finds that deer or bear are responsible for the damage, he shah authorize in writing the owner, lessee or any other person designated by the Director or his designee to kill such deer or bear when they are found upon the land upon which the damages occurred. The DirecTor or his designee may limit such authorization by specifying in writing the number of animals to be killed and the period of time for which the authorization is effective. The Director or his designees issuing these authorizations shall specify in writing that only antlerless deer shall be killed, unless the Director or his designee determines that there is clear and convincing evidence that the damage was done by deer with antlers. Whenever deer are creating a hazard to the operation of any aircraft or to the facilities connected with the operation of aircraft, the person or persons responsible for the safe operation of the aircraft or facilities shall report such fact to the Director or his designee for investigation. If after investigation the Director or his designee finds that deer are creating a hazard, he shall authorize such person or persons, or their representatives. ~o kill the deer when they are found to be creating such a hazard. Whenever deer are creating a hazard to the operation of a motor vehicle within the corporate limits of any city, the opera~or of a motor vehicle may repor~ such fact to the Director or his designee for investigation, tf after mvestigation the Director or his designee finds that deer are creating a hazard within such city, he may authorize responsible persons, or their representa- tives, to kill the deer when they are found to be creating such a hazard. The carcass of every deer or bear so killed may be awarded to the owner or lessee by the Director or his designee, who shall ave such person a certificate to that effect on forms~ furnished by the Department. Any person awarded a deer or bear under this section may use the :arcass as if he had killed the animal during the hunting season for deer or bear. The Director or his designee may revoke any authorization granted under this section when it has been shown bv a preponderance of the evidence that an abuse of the authorization has occurred. (Code 1950, § 29-145.1: 1954, c. 686; 1956, c. 684; 1958. cc. 315. 609: 1960, c. 129; 1962. c. 229: 1970. c. 79: 1980. c. 271; 1987, cc. 48. 488: 1991. c. 99: 1993, cc. 204, 273; 1994. c. 571: 1996. c. 314.) Editor's note. -- Pursuant ~o § 9-77.11. effect has been given in this section, is set out above, ~o Ac~ 1987. c. 48. which amended former § 29-145.1. the comparable provision m former Title 29. The 1996 amendment substituted ~director or his designee' for"local game warden" and for -game warden" throughout this section: substi- tuted 'kwriting the number of animals m be killed and the period of time" for %vriting a period of time~ in the third sentence of the ~rst paragraph: and added the fourth paragraph. § 29.1-530. Open and closed season for trapping, bag limits, etc. -- A. There shall be a continuous open season for trapping nuisance species and 321 DAVID R. GEHR COMMONWEALTH VIROINIA DEPARTMENT OF: TRAN$PORTATION RICHMOND, 2321R-I~$ March 26, 1998 JAMES $. GIVEN& Mr. Robert W. Tucker, Jr, Albemarle Count~ 401 M¢Intire Road Charlottesville, VA 22902-4596 F~xNumb~ 296-5800 Reference: Street additions in Western Ridge Subdivision - Section 1 Dear Members of the Beard of Supervisors and Mr. Tucker: Mr Nat Perkins of the Hunter E. Craig. Company. reclue~ed that ge advise you by fax that the streets in Western Ridge ?hgs¢ 1. listed below, have been accepted and added to the seconda¢~ sysmm of state highways maintained by the Beoam~enr. ¢ff¢¢tNe March 24. 1998 The, s, additions will be included in out April report regarding ali changes to the seconders, system of state highways that have been implemented in the county during March. Street ~ame Route Number Autumn Hill Court 1257 From Spring GroveCourt 1256 From Still Pond Court 1255 From Spring Cove Lane 1254 From Old Fox Trail Court 1253 From Old Fox Trail Lane 1252 From Lake Tr~ Lane 1251 From Park Ririge Drive 125(1 From Route t251 To 0.23 Mile North Route 1251 0.0.3 Mile South Route 1254 To Route 1254 Route 125,1 To 0.03 Mile North Route 1254 0.14 Mile South~vest Route 1251 To Route 1251 0.04 Milo Wes~ Route 1252 To Pxoute 1252 Route 1251 To 0.13 Mile Northwest Route 1251 0.27 Mile Southeast Route 1250 To Route t250 R.oute 1251 To Rout~2~,0 Mr. Nat Perkius, Hunter E. Craig (8041 974-6763 Resident Engtne*'r - Charlottesville Residency gE[OglA EidB8 dO G IVO[t Kenneth M. Smith Transportation Engineering Program Supervisor (804) 786-2576 ' r ~"~ :54 20 05 - 2 ~ - ~ ' '~ ~ WE KEEP VIRGINIA MOVING Date: 1/29t95 Time: 4:27:54 PM Page 1 of 2 The Jarn, ison Group FACSIMILE COVER PAGE To: Board of Supervisors Sent: 1/29/98 at 4:27:54 PM Subject Attn: Ella Carey MS. Carey, thanks for your assistance. From: Jamie Lewis Pages: 2 (including Cover) The Jamison Grc~JD gate: 'l;2g/g8 '~me: 4'27:54 PM Page 2 of 2 Toiler Creek Vineyard and Winery 16~2 FYarris Creek Ro~d, Charlotte~v{lle Virgfnia 22902 804-979-7105, £ax 804-979-2303 SanumT 29, 1998 To: Board of Supervisors Mrs. Sally Ii. Thomas _Mr. David P, Boworman Mrs, Charlotte Y Humphris Mr, Forresl R. Marshall Jr. lVlr. Charles S Martin Jamie Lewis Presidem of Totier Creek Vineyard Re: Cotmty of Albemarle vs Totier Creek Vineyard Ltd. I ~0uld like to speak wilh the Board concerning a malter that involves the Couqty of Albemarle Attorney's Office representing Albemarle Counties Building Official and my company Totior Creek Vineyard. I will be attending your next regularly scheduled meeting on February 4, and request your assistance in ~esolving the situation that exists. While I aSII not have much time to speak atthe meeting, I will provide a package of information that addresses the issues of this situation and hopefully, a amicable resolution can be found that will serve both parties. Thank you for the opportunity and look forward to our meeting. Sincerely, Jamie Lewis lh'esident COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Office of County Executive 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 229024596 (804) 296-5841 FAX (804) 972-4060 FAX (804) 296-5800 March26, 1998 Mr. Richard S. Sclmeiderman Development Specialist American Red Cross Central Virginia Chapter 1105 Rose Hill Drive Charlottesville, VA 22903 RE: Disaster Relief Funds Dear Richard: Thank 3/ou for your recent letter regarding the establishment of an understanding or agreement with the County of Albcnnarle which would designate the Red Cross as the official (and only) recipient of disaster funds raised by pubhc appeal. I have asked our legal staff to review this matter and then' perspective is, and I concur with this, that legally I cannot commit the County to designate the Red Cross as the official and only recipient for disaster fund contributions. While I would suggest that this letter be considered a memorandum ofunderstanding that would be our intent to give full consideration to the Red Cross request to be the official recipient of disaster funds, I cannot bind the County to that position nor represent that the County, in ail circumstances, would agree to this request A potential circumstance, for example, where the County might have conflicting loyalties, would be in a situation where disaster relief funds were requested to offset expenses and services provided by our volunteer fire departments or rescue sq, a& Due to a major disaster, I could envision these volunteer groups or other non-profit groups who have aided our citizens to request that the County appeal for funds on their behalf to help fund th~n' efforts in that disaster relief, tn this circumstance, it may not be appropriate for the County to designate the Red Cross as the official and only recipient of disaster funds raised by public appeal. Should you have any further questions concerning this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me. RWTjr/bat 98-035 pc: Sincerely, ~emarle County Board of Supervisors Board of Supervisors' FY 1998/99 Working Budget CounW General Fund: Beginning Reserves Less County Executive Adjustments: Juvenile Detention Home Reduction Jail - Per Diem increase Reduction in Merit to 2.75% JAUNT Night & Weekend Service Reduction VRS Life Ra~e Reduction (0.72% to 0%) - Life insurance "Holiday' Miscellaneous Salary Adjustments Plus Resource Changes Additional Scotts~/dle Reimbursement - Salary Adjustment Additional E-911 Revenues: Planning (ts Offset Operations) Additional Comp. Board Reimbursement - Salary Adjustme~ (5,099) 3,883 (39,710) (638) (98,946) (2! ,402) 49O 2,272 8.826 $88,971 161,912 1!,888 Net Ending Reserves 562,471 Board of Supervisors' Funding initiatives for Discussion Cost Judicial Parity/Pay Plan Imp[ementsfion - Comm. Atty. Parity/Pay Plan [molementation - Sheriff Additional far Sheriff & Commonwealth's Attorney - Bump ts Minumum 38.960 35,642 2.360 Publ~ S~e~ Fir~Reec~ Educ~on ~mining)Speci~i~($15,269=Co~ ~JanHira) 30.538 Parks, Recreation & Culture Virginia Festival of the Book (Funded through Tourism Fund) 10,000 Community Development 1.0 FTE Engineering Inspector - Soil Erosion [$24,443 Jan. Hire) Albemarle Housing Initiatives Trust Funds - Additional Funds Piedmont Housing Affiance - Additional Funds 25.000 10.000 School Division Additional Transfer to Balance Budget ClP/Debt Service Transfer Adcl'CaonaI Funding for School Debt Service Additional Scheo[ instructional Technology Projects Count/Computer Upgrade COB Maintenance & Repair Projects Cour[house M&R (Deferred to FY00) Sidewalk Construction Fund Count~ Athletic Field Improvements (Deferred to FY00) Revenue Sharing Road Project Funding Chris Greene Lake Property Purohaee (Deferred to FY00) Walnut Creek Park Improvement Funds [Deferred to FY00) Additional Funds ts Other Pro)ects Sub-total ClPIDebt Service 300.000 150.000 25,000 18,023 10.000 21,077 25,000 120.000 113.400 24.500 70,000 877.000 Total Board of Supervisors' Initiatives - General Government 1,029,500 IRemaining Board Reserve Fund Funded Amt 30,538 0 44,354 25,000 10,000 150,000 112.868 372,760 189,711 03/26/9804:53 PM BOSWORK3.WK4 Schoql DivisiQp Budq~t Beginning Reserves Less Superintendent Adjustments: Reduction in Merit from 3% to 2.75% VRS Life Rate Reduction [0.72% to 0%) - Life Insurance "Holiday Plus Resource Changes Additional General Fund Transfer (Recurring) Addltiona[ State Funds IEsfimated to be Betwee~ $130,000 -$180,000) 76,000 120,474 321,326 150,000 18~,000 Net Ending Reserves 846,800 School Board Unfunded Priorities (Excluding One-Time Needs)* Cost Academic Learning Project Schools (ALPS) + Differentiated Funding Additional 4.13 FTE Growth Teachers to Fully Fund Growth (19.1 of 19.1) Additional Funds for CATEC Additional Funds for High School Athletics Elementary Health Clinician Phase-in (4 hfs/day at 6 elem. schools) Elementary Task Force Subcommittee Racom. Phase-in of 2.5 :TE Teachers for Art, Music & PE Standards Extended School Year Pilot (Yancey Elementary) Gifted Services 5 Year Phase-in I2.6 FTE Teachers) Partial Inat(.uctlena] Funding Restoration PaVia[ Textbook Fund Restoration Total Board of Supervisors' Initiatives -School Division INet Reserves/Revised Shortfall 48,000 164,899 30,993 37,072 57,282 99,740 0 105,830 92,800 636,616 210,184 * Total School One-Time is $251 407 to be covered by $195,422 in the School Board Reserve ant any additional savings from fuel, gasoline, atc. in the current year 03/26/9804:53 PM BOSWORK3.WK4 Mandated County Programs Cost Sham Sham Sharo Sham Administration Registrar's Office 193,685 45,075 148,610 76.73% Judicial Commonwealth Attorney's Office 488,229 363,815 124,414 25.48% Sheriffs Department 811,392 473,83¢ 337,562 41.60% Judicial Subtotal 1,299,6211 0t 837,645 461,976 Public Works Recycling (General Fund Only) 118,412 0 0~ 118,412 100.00% Keene Landfill Monitoring 100~Q00 _0. 0 100,000 ~i00.00% Public Works Subtotal 218,4121 01 0 218,412 100.00% Human Services Sqcial SerVices - Proqrams Auxiallary Grants to the Aged 77,930 62,344 15,586 20.00% Auxiliary Grants to the Disabled 88,735 70,988 17,747 20.00% TANF 4,000 2,040 1,960 0 0.00% Emergency Assistance 1,000 510 490 0 0.00% State/Local Hospitalization 28,000 28,000 100.00% Refugee Program 2,000 2,000 0 0.00% Companion Care 60,000 48,000 12,000 20.00% Foster Care 688,900 353,920 333,200 1,780 026% CSA 1,477,778 812,778 665,000 45.00% Adoption subsidies 272,000 113,220 158,780 0 0.00% ChJJd Care Programs 558,240 383,880 141,336 33,024 5.92% Subtotal Programs 3,258,583 855,570 1,629,876 773,137 23.73% Social Services o Mandated Operations Benefit Admininstraticn 905,632 456,599 242,631 2061402 22.79% Services Admininst ration 641,335 608,306 300 32,729 5.10% Employment Admininstration 228,535 149,397 78,358 780 0.34% r Subtntal Administrative Costa 1,775,502 1,214,302 321,289 239,911 13.51% Total Social SerVices 5,034,085 2,069,872 1,961,165 1,013,048 20.12% Health Department Region Ten I Education Special Education 9,422,929 946,448 2,571,460 5,905,021 62.87~ Vocational Education 2,126,271 292,632 1,833,639 86.24% Guidance Counselors 1,449,059 0 1,449,059 100.00% Subtotal Education 12,998,269 946,448 2,864,092 9,187,719 70.68°~ Grand Total 19,744,062 3,016,320 5,697,977 11,029,765 55.~6% 3/24198 1 stateman Background: This report is to provide an updated revenue/expenditure analysis of returning law enforcement responsibilities to the Sheriff's Office in light of the General Assembly's proposed reduction of the minimum staffing standard for law enforcement deputies from one in 2,000 population to one in 1,500 population. An earlier analysis (1994) indicated that the financial benefit associated with abolishing the police department and returning law enforcement fimction to the Sheriff was minimal (~ approximately $191,000 in additional State revenue and savings), using the existing one in 2,000 staffing ratio. This report outlines the costs and benefits of implementing several scenarios of law enforcement duties for the Sheriff's Office in Albemarle County. Executive Summary Based upon the proposed staffing standard of one in 1,500 population, Albemarle County could receive funding for 53 additional law enforcement deputies from the State. Funding for these additional deputies is not guaranteed however, and is dependent upon supplemental appropriations from the General Assembly. However, if funding for law enforcement deputies in Albemarle were to be appropriated for FY 98/99, the financial benefit to the County could range from $4.179 million in additional revenues and savings to $0.774 million, ,depending upon the level of service funded. Three alternative scenarios were examined: 1. The total financial benefit associated with basic law enforcement with 53 deputies paid at the base salary level that the State fully funds, plus local stipends is $4,178,614 in additional revenues and savings. Approximately $3.3 million of this total represents savings resulting from the elimination of 45 uniformed officers (nearly half of the Police Department's uniformed personnel) and the Police Chief, and from cutfmg salaries to the level that the State would fund. The remaining $846,236 represents net additional State revenues. 2. The total savings resulting from basic law enforcement with 53 deputies paid at the average current rate of pay for County police officers is $3,373,996. This figure includes approximately $2_5 million m savings generated by eliminating 45 uniformed officers and the Police Chief,, and $846,236 in net additional State revenues. 3. The financial benefit of maintaining the current level of service, including 98 officers in community poliCing, patrol, investigations, traffic, etc., and the average current rate of pay for County police officers is $773,665. This figure includes approximately $72,572 in additional costs, plus $846,236 in net additional State revenues. Full funding of the decompression issue in FY 98/99 would add approximately $187,000 in costs to Scenario 2, for a net savings of $3,187,218, and $284,000 )co Scenario 3, for a net savings of $489, 702. The attached pages examine the statutory requirements for abolishing the police department, revenue trends for both the Sheriff's Office and Police Department, and the relative costs and financial benefits of implementing the above three scenarios of law enforcement duties for the Sheriff's Office. Discussion: The Process to Transfer Law Enforcement Duties to the Sheriff: The Police Deparunent was adopted by ordinance under the Vkginia Code S 15.2-1702 by the Board of Supervisors in 1983~ In order to abolish the police department a referendum must be held according to Virginia Code S15.2- 1703. This referendum may be initiated by either a petifiun signed by not less than 10% of the registered voters or by a resolution from the Board of Supervisors petitioning the Circuit Court. If the referendum is held and approved, the Police Department may be abolished and its responsibilities transferred to the Sheriffs Office. If the referendum is unsuccessful, another referendum may not be held for another four years. To date, no locality has ever changed from a police department back to a Sheriff's Office. Staffing Levels: The Code of Virginia §14.1-70 states that the Compensation Board must fix the number of law enforcement deputies at not less than one per 2,000 population. However, the FY 98/99 Commonwealth budget approved by both houses of the General Assembly reduces this ratio to one per 1,500 population. Based on a 1997 preliminary population figure of 79,500 provided by the Weldon Cooper Center for Public Service, Albemarle County may receive funding for approximately 53 additional law enforcement deputies. (The court security and civil process deputies currently funded are unaffected by this calculation, since they are allocated based on a separate funding formula.) The State Code only requires the Compensation Board to fix the number of approved positions ar the prevailing staffing ratio, but does not require funding of these positions. In the past, however, the State has funded the 1-2,000 minimum-standard. Additionally, the General Assembly's proposed budget includes sufficient funds to meet the new 1-1,500 ratio in localities whose sheriff currently provides law enforcement. However, no additional funding is available to meet this standard for localities with a police office that wish to ret-urn [aw enforcement responsibilities to the sheriff. For these localities, funding for law enforcement deputies would be dependent upon supplemental appropriations from the State Legislature. Since additional funds at the state level are quite limited, there is no guarantee that even the salaries and benefits of additional deputies for Albemarle County would be funded. Moreover, the County's request for funding most likely would be considered by the State in view of the potential financial ramifications of having to fund similar requests from other, larger, localities where providing these additional deputies would be considerably more expensive. Revenue Trends: Over the past ten years, the state funding trends for both the Sheriffs Office and the Police Department have not been positive. The State has funded salaries and benefits of the Sheriffs deputies that the Compensation Board has approved, but the operations and mileage reimbursements have declined since FY 1988/99. Although total funding for the Sheriffs office has increased by about 39% s'mce FY 88/89, all of the increases have been in compensation, as evident fi'om the chart below. The reimbursements for mileage and operations have declined by approximately 11%. 2 $4.,'~.000 $400,000 $350.000 $300,000 $250,000 $200,000 $150,000 $100.000 $5O,0OO State Reimbursements for Sheriff: FY 88/89 - 98199 1989 19~0 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 Fiscal Year · ShedffODs &K · Sheriff Salaries While total Sheriffs revenues from the State have increased, the local tax contribution to the Sheriffhas increased by almost 500% since FY 88/89. Thus, while expenses are increasing due to a heavier workload, State revenues have not offset dramatically increased operational costs. In FY 88/89, the Compensation Board funded approximately 86% of the Sheriff's total budget, while the County funded 14%. Ten years later, the State is expected to fund only 58%, and the County 42%. $1,000.000 $800.000 $6(~0.000 $400,000 $200,000 $0 Sheriff State v& Local Funding History: FY 1988/89-1998/99 1989 19~0 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 FY99 Local Comp. Board The Police Department receives revenues from the State that are based upon a complex formula which includes average crime rates, population density ag~d number of persons enrolled in various relief programs. This revenue traditionally has been referred to as "599 funds." The 599 funds that the Police Department receives from the State have also declined since FY 88/89. In FY 88/89, the State provided $751,724 in 599 funding. Ten years later, the projected State funding is $605,458, a decline of 11% (although these revenues have recovered somewhat from a low of $577,277 during FY 91/92 - 94/95.) Thus, the 599 funds have declined while the total funding for the Sherkffhas increased over the past ten years. $800.000 State 599 Funding: FY 88/89 -98/99 $700.000 $60C 000 $500.000 $4OO,0O0 $300.000 $200.000 $100.000 $0 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 Fiscal Year Sheriff's Law Enforcement Revenue Assuming that the General Assembly were able to provide sufficient funds to meet the 1-1,500 staffing ratio in Albemarle County, the Compensation Board would reimburse the County for 100% of State salaries for the 53 new deputies (excluding the locally funded stipend), plus approximately 12.46% of salaries as benefits. Thi~ 12.46% includes FICA (T65%) and a portion of the employer share of VRS (4.81%.) Additionally, a portion of operations, mileage and vehicle expenses also would be reimbursed. The estimated operating reimbursement is based on the current level of reimbursement received, or approximately $2,420 per deputy. (Only about 28.6% of the Sheriff's operating and capital costs are reimbursed by the State.) However, the required operating and capital, equipment expenditure for each law enforcement deputy is projected to be approximately $10,795, based on the average cost per police officer currently budgeted for FY 98/99. (This average is equal to the total recurring operating and capital budget of the Police Services division divided by the existing 98 officers in this division, including sergeants, lieutenants and captains.) The level of State reimbursement could change, however, based on the State's ability to pay. However, such a change would be unlikely given the fact that the operational reimbursements cut from the State budget in 1991 never have been restored. As indicated on the attached pages, the resulting anticipated revenue for 53 additional law enforcement deputies is $1,323,434 for salaries and benefits, and $128,260 in operations, for a total of $1,451,694. However, this revenue increase would be offset by the Police Department's toss of State 599 funds in the amount of $605,458 in FY 98/99, for a net revenue gain of $846,236. The Police Department also receives approximately $793,000 in state and federal grant funds for traffic safety, community policing, crime prevention, church arson prevention, criminal history improvements and victim/witness services. (Approximately $238,900 of this amount is received by the General Fund as offsetting COPS revenues.) According to the Police Department, the Sheriff's Office would be eligible for most, if not all, of these grants if law enforcement functions were returned to the Sheriff, provided that the aforementioned services continue to be provided. As such, this grant revenue has been excluded from this analysis, as are the reimbursable overtime revenues generated by Police officers, since it is assumed that Sheriff's Deputies would generate a comparable amount if they performed law enforcement instead of police officers. Scenarios: In order to determine the relative financial benefits of transferring the law enforcement function back to the Sheriffs Office, three scenarios have been prepared. (See Attachment A) All scenarios employ the following assumptions: The Sheriff would provide the same range of law enforcement services as is currently provided by the Police Department, including community policing, traffic control, investigations, evidence, DARE, K-9, · The SherifFs Office also would continue to provide court security and civil process service as well as contract law enforcement in Scottsville with its existing stafi~ who are excluded from th~s analysis. (Court security and civil process deputies are allocated based on a separate funding formula from law enforcement deputies, and thus, would be retained regardless of whether law enforcement responsibilities were returned to the Sheri~.) · All existing clerical and civilian support staff from both offices would be retained, regardless of the number of deputies funded. As such, they are excluded from this analysis, as well. · The Police Department'S Community Services Division (staffed by civilian and cletical personnel) and Animal Control units are excluded from this analysis. · The Compensation Board's mar2mum rank allocation for localities of between 40,000-100,000 . population that perform law enforcement or jail responsibilities is: 5 Grade 8 deputies, 3 Grade 10 deputies and one Grade 11 deputy, regardless of the number of line officers funded. Currently, the Sheriff's Department employs 3 Grade 8 deputies and one Grade 10 deputy, for a net potential addition of 2 Grade 8 deputies, 2 grade !0 deputies and one Grade 11 deputy. · An average operating and replacement capital cost per law enforcement officer of $10,794 is used. · The average compensation for a police officer (of $45,928) refiects the average salary and benefits of all officers in the Police Services unit, excluding the Chief of Police, as well as average overthne, reimbursable overtime, shifr differential, and compensatory time fund expenses. · If the Sheriff were to assume law enforcement functions, court deputies, civil process servers and law enforcement deputies all would be placed on the County's pay plan at the currem Police ranges, for internal equity purposes. Additionally, the decompression of existing officers and for the she~fFs current staffwould need to be funded. Scenario I: The first scenario reflects the cost of basic law enforcement with 53 deputies to be paid m the base salary level that the State fully funds, plus local stipends (for internal equity purposes.) This level of service reflects the very minimum that the State recommends for a locality of our size. The total financial benefit to the County from operating this office is $4,178,614, which consists of $846,236 m net additional State revenues and $3,332,378 in savings resulting from cutting services by eliminating 45 uniformed officers and the Police Chief and cuffing salaries to the level that the State would fund. (The net additional revenues of $846,236 reflects a projected increase in State Compensation Board funding of $1,451,694 and the loss of $605,458 in Police 599 funds.) Scenario 1I. The second scenario reflects the cost of basic law enforcement with 53 deputies paid at the average current rate of pay for County police officers (including overtime and shific differential.) This is the minimum level of service, but assumes that the County would supplement the salaries of law enforcemem deputies and current sheriff's depuues. The cost of operating this office include: · The cost of fimding 53 additional deputies at the current rate of pay for Police officers. · Moving the current sheriWs deputies to the County's pay plan and to the comparable Police ranges, for internal equity purposes. · Decompression costs for both existing sheriffs' deputies (at the comparable Police ranges) and for police officers (~ 33%.) The total financial benefit to the County t~om operating this office is $3;373,996, which consists of $846,236 in net additional State revenues and g2,527,760 in savings resulting from cutting services by eliminating 45 uniformed officers and the Police Chie£ If decompression were to be fully funded in FY 98/99, an additional $186,778 in costs would be added, for a net total savings of $3,187,218. Scenario 112[. The third scenario reflects the cost of maintaining the current level of service, including 98 officers in community policing, patrol, investigations, traffic, etc., and maintaining the current Police pay rate. This scenario continues to assume that the County would supplement the salaries of law enforcement deputies and currem sheriff's deputies. The cost of operating this office include: · The cost of funding 98 deputies at the current rate of pay for Police officers. · Moving the current sheriff's deputies to the County's pay plan and to the comparable Police ranges, for internal equity purposes. · Decompression costs for both existing sheriffs' deputies (at the comparable Police ranges) and for police . officers.(~ 33 %.) The total financial benefit to the County from operating this office is $773,665, which consists of $846,236 in net additional State revenues and $72,572 in total costs. (The minimal savings associated with eliminating the Police Chief's position of $89,443 are more than offset by the $162,015 total cost of funding decompression and of converting the existing Sheriff's deputies to the County's pay plan.) If decompression were to be fully funded inFY 98/99, an additional $283,963 in costs would be added, for a net total savings of $489,702. Attachment A Potential Additional Deputies County Population (1997) F_~sting Ratio: 1/2000 = Budgeted Ratio: 1/1500 = 79,500 39.00 Additional Deputies 53.00 Additional Deputies Scenario I: Cost of 53 Deputy Office, at State Salary Plus Local Stipends Salary Capital & & Benefits Overtime Operations Total Cost 1,516,323 227,385 572,058 2,315,765 Less Net Additional State Revenues (1) Less Savings from Abolishing Police Dept. (2) (846,236) (5,648,143) Net Additional Cost to County (4,178,614) Scenario I1: Cost of 53 Deputy Office, at Current Police Pay Salary, OT Capital & & Benefits Operations 2,548,325 572,058 Less Net Additional State Revenues Less Savings from Abolishing Police Dept. Net Additional Cost to County Total Cost 3,120,383 (846,236) (5,648,143) (3,373,996) Scenario lie Cost of 98 Deputy Office, at Current Police Pay Salary Capital & & Benefits Operations 4,662,948 1,057.767 Less Net Additional State Revenues Less Savings from Abolishing Police Dept. Net Additional Cost to County Total Cost 5,720,715 (846,236) (5,648,143_) (773,665) (1) Additional State Compensation Board funds net of lost Police 599 Funds. (2) Excludes Victim/Witness and Animal Control Functions. 3/24/983:42 PM pol2shr2.xls~Attachment A March 24, 1998 Mr. Forrest R. Marshall, Jr., Chairman Albemarle County Board of Supervisors 401 Mclntire Road Charlottesville. VA 22902-4596 Council GEORGE W. OANSEY DUANE D K~RR CHRISTOPHER J. LONG TIMOTHY M. SMALL CRAIG N, STRATTON LUCINDA B. WHEELER Dear Supervisor Marshall: This is to ackno~vledge your letter dated 17 March 1998 expressing concern aborn an apparent misunderstanding relevant to the Fire Marshal Duties Ordinance adopted by the Town of Scottsville on 20 October 1997. This action was taken in light of several discussions with various County personnel and our local Fire Department officials over a period of almost two years, dating back to when Kimberly Colley was Town Administrator. This discussion continued in newTown Administrator Sara Genthner's letter on 20 September 1997 to Assistant Fire Marshal Mark Spicer. Because such Fire Marshal services are needed in the Town so infrequently (once or twice in five or more years), it was suggested that this could be an adequate and suitable arrangement. Town Attorney Lindsay Dorrier was authorized "to craft the language" of such an ordinance and present same to the County of Albemarle for approval. This led to the 13 November 1997 meeting with Lindsay Dottier and County Attorney Larry Davis, the result of wbJch apparently ted tx{r. Do,,er to conclude that such ~ plan was appropriate and workable. Proceeding to the next step, Mr. Dorrier presented the t~vo documents he had prepared to Town Administrative Official Sara Gentlmer and me for signing. The documents were then sent to County Executive Robert Tucker accompanied by a letter from me. My letter stares: "These two documents are enclosed for your approval and presentation to those necessary for effecting this arrangement. As you might expect, the need for Fire Marshal services in the Town of Scottsville is quite infrequent; so Council has agreed that this is a suitable arrangement as permitted in Section 15.1-20.3 of the Code of Virginia, 1959:;as-amended.'' It should be Fointed out that Ms. Gentlmer's letter of 9 December 1997 to Melvin Breeden wag not meam to sto_rvprogress on the Fire Marshal Agreement;'rather it w~s to state the perceived inequity in the suggested exchange of services. I really find it difficult to understand why it seems impossible for any agreement between the Town of Scottsville and the County of Albemarie to be executed smoothly and *vithout quibbling and gridlock. One of my stated goals when I became Mayor was to try to bring about better communication and relations between the Town and the County administrations. I feel that in this respect I have singularly failed and that the conditions that have existed for so long regrettably persist. I believe the County needs to be more attuned to the rights and needs of its citizens in its southernmost extremities and in its only incorporated town and first County Seat. Forrest, I am dismayed and disturbed at the reprimanding tone of your letter, especially in view of the fact that you are the elected representative of Scottsville on the Board of Supervisors. The Town leaders have certainly not tried to do anything wrong; we simply desire to have proper and legal protection in place in accordance with the Code of Virgima and which I believe is an obligatory arrangement on the parr of Albemarle County and the Town of Scottsville. This entire matter will be revisited with members of Council along with your letter at our April 13t~ work session. Lindsay Dorrier attends these sessions, so he should be able to g~ve us further insight on the proposed arrangement. You or any represemarive of the County would be most welcome to attend our work session. Perhaps then we can go forward with an agreement. Mayor, Town of Scotts¥ille David 1~ Bowen'aan Charlo~c~ Y. Hurnph~s COUNTY OF Al BEMARLE Or, ce of Board of SuPeriors 401 Mdntire Road Charlottesville, V'n!tinia 22902-4696 (804) 296-5843 FAX (804) 296-5800 April 6, 1998 Charles $. Martin Walter E Perkins Sally H. Thomas Mr. Wilson Cropp 375 Rocky Hollow Road Charlottesville. VA 22901 Dear Mr. Cropp: On behalf of the Board of Supervisors, I would like to thank you for your recent comments regarding Route 649. Rocky Hollow Road. In discussing this issue with Angela Tucker, she indicated that VDOT is w/lling to work with you to help address some of the problems. Mrs. Tucker stressed the importance of donated right- of-way and getting the necessary easements for improving gravel roads. Again, thank you for your comments, and Mrs. Tucker will contact you in the near future to discuss options re minimize the situation. Sincerely, FRM,Jr./ec Forrest R. Marshall, Jr. Chairman Printed on recycled paper