HomeMy WebLinkAbout1997-07-09 FINAl.
7:00 P.M.
|ULY 9, 1997
ROOM 241, SECOND FLOOR, COUNTYOFHCE BUII.I)ING
4.
6.
10.
1t.
12.
13.
14.
15.
Call to Order,
Pledge of Allegiance.
Moment of Silence.
Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda from the PUBLIC.
Consent Agenda (on next sheet~.
PUBLIC HEARING on an ordinance to Amend and Reordain tke Code of the County of
Albemarle. in Chapter I2, Motor Vehicles and Traffic, Artide L In General. Section
12-5.4. to clarify that no parldng or standing is allowed in fire lanes within the County
and Article V. County Vehicle Licenses. Section I2-2I.I. to amend the schedule of
fines for failure to have a valid County motor vehicle stid(er.
PUBLIC HEARING on a DEED OF EASEMENT by and betweexi the County of Albemarle
and the City of Charlottesville for the installation of a permanent natural gas line in
the public right-of-way runmng from Route 20 to Route 742 in Albemarle County,
Virginia. a~ shown on plat of the City of Charlottesville Gas Division. dated April 2.
1997,/and identified as WA Fifteen-Foot Wide Easement for 4" PE and 2" PE Gas
Lines".
SP-97-09. Covesville First Baptist Churcl~ (Sign #86L PUBLIC HEARING on a request ro
add 1.0 ac to existing cemetery. Znd RA. TMtO9.P6 (part of) ac TM109.P6E.
Located on S side of Rt 805, approx 0.25 mile W of Rt. 29. Scottsvi]le Dist.
SP-97-I0. Suimyboy Gardens (Sign #85L PUBLIC HEARING on a request to establish a
farm sales on 2 acs. Znd RA. TM3 I.P23. part thereof. Located on SW side of Rt 743
(Eafiysville Rd; near Earlysville. Rio Dist.
SP-97-12. iX [yers Family Division (Sign #83 ~. PUBLIC HEARING on a request for add'l
dvlp right on 31.83 acs. Znd RA. TM47.P32C. Located on priv access easement off S
side of Burnt Mill Rd (Rt 784~ approx 3 '4 mile W of its inter w Watts Passage (Rt
600,. Rivarma Dist.
SP-97-13. 360 Communications of Charlottesville. Eure Communications. Inc. I Signs
#56&.57L PUBLIC HEARING on a request to construct telecornmunications tower
-wi overall height of 200' ac assoc support facilities on portion of 10.3 acs. Znd ILK
TM46.P15. Located on W side of Seminoie Trl Rt 29N~. near entrance to Forest
Lalces South IAshwood Blvd. ~. Site of existing AM Radio towers. Rivanna Dist.
SP~97-16. St. Paul's Church (Signs #81ac82',. PUBLIC HEARING on a request to amend
SP-96-54 for St Paul's Church to expand fadlities w/2 story addition to existing
church on'15.315 acs. Znd VR. TM$8A2.Psl7.18acl9 ~combinedL Located on E
side of O~vensville Rd (Rt 678) at Ivy. Samuel Miller Dist.
Approval of Minutes: October 9_ 1996 and June 11. 1997.
Other Matters not Listed on the Agenda from the BOARD.
Adiourn.
C'ONSENT AGENDA
FOR INFORMATION:
5.1 Copy of Plarm~g Commission minutes for June 10 and lune 17.1997.
5.2
Copy of memorandum dated lune 27. 1997. from David B. Benish. Chief of Commun/ty
Development, to Robert W. Tudcer, Jr., County Executive. re: Review for Compliance ~vith the
Comprehensive Plan ' 15.1-456 Reviews: Albemarle County Service Authority Transmission
Water Main Installation to Key West/Cedar Hill Subdivision.
5.3
Notice of Willingness to hold a Combined Location and Design Public Heating on the
proposed improvement to Route 809 at the intersection of Route 250.
5.4
Memorandum dated July 3, 1997. from Bill Mawyer, Director of Engineering and Public
Works. re: Trees for Route 29 project.
5.5
Memorandum dated July 2, 1997, from V. Wayne Cilimberg, Director of Planning and
Community Development, providing notice that the Public Recreational Facilities
Authority decided to keep its membership at nine.
5.6
Copy of letter dated June 16. 1997. from William L. Woodfin, Jr., Director, Department
of Game and Inland Fisheries. to Patrick K. Mullaney, Director. Department of Parks
and Recreation, re: potential development of Priddy Creek property.
5.7
Copy of 1996-97 Child Assault Prevention (CAP) Project Annual Report for Albemarle
County Public Schools.
FOR APPROVAL:
5.8
Request to set a public hearing to amend and reordain Chapter 10.1. Law Enforcement.
of the Code of the County of Albemarle, Virginia, regarding concealed weapons permit.
PRAT:
w' ~Ir. Bowerman
~Mr~s. Humphris
~M~r. Marshall
I./~. Perkins
Mrs: Thomas
5. CONSENT.AGENDA
i/Mr. Bowerma~
///Mrs: Humphris
11~ M//Mr. Martin
r. Perkins
~l~rs. Thomas
6. MOTOR VEHICLES
Motion: 5 ~ Second:
~//Mr. Bowerman
t// Mrs. Humphris
_~Mr. Martin
////Mr. Perkins
~f Mrs. Thomas
7. DEED OF EASEMENT
Motion: I~ ~ Second:
~b~Mr. Bowerman
rs. Humphris
[//Mr. Martin
i//ffMr. Perkins
1/ Mrs. Thomas
~Mr. Martin
~Mr. Perkins
~Mrs. Thomas
Motion: ~ '~- Second:
///Mr. Bowerman
~/ Mrs. Humphris
r. Martin
r. Perkins
rs. Thomas
10. MYERS FAMILY DIVISION
Motion: ~/~ __ Second:
-~Mr' Bowerman
s. Humphris
t/~g~r. Perkins
~ Mrs. Thomas
11. EUR~MUNICATIONS
Motion:. c..~=~D ~ Second:
Bowerman
t/ Mrs. Humphris
/Nfl Mr. Martin
~Mr. Perkins
rs. Thomas
12.
· Bowerman
s. H~tmphris
?/ Mrs. Thomas
13. MINUTES5
Motis.
,~Mr. Bowerman
rs. Humph~s
~r. M~tin
~r. Per~s
~ Mrs. Thomas
Second:
Second:
,/
Mrs. Humph~s"'/ Mr. Perkins~
M;..¥.~-.~"_~ _ 4 Mrs, Thomas
David P. Bowerman
Charlotte Y. Humph:is
Forrest R. Ma:~h~ Jr.
COUNTY OF Al BEMAR! F
Office of Board of Supervisors
401 McInfire Road
Charlottesville, V'~g}n.~a 22902-4596
(804) 296-S843 FAX (804) 296-5800
Charles S~ Martin
W~lter E Perkins
S~ H. Thomas
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
Robert W. Tucker, Jr., County Executive
V. Wayne Cilimberg, Director of Planning and Community Development
Ella W. Carey, CMC, Cler~/~t~
July 10, 1997
Board Actions of July 9, 1997
At the Board of Supervisors' meeting held on July 9, 1997, the following actions Were
taken:
Agenda Item No. 1. Call to Order. Meeting called to order at 7:02 p.m. by the Chairman.
Mrs. Humphris.
Agenda Item No. 4. Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda from the PUBLIC.
Mr. Warren E. Vandell presented the Clerk a written statement pertaining to reversion.
The statement was placed into the Board folder.
Agenda Item No. 5.4. Memorandum dated July 3, 1997, from Bill Mawyer, Director of
Engineering and Public Works, re: Trees for Route 29 project.
The Board accepted the tree planting design submitted by staff, concerned citizens and
representatives from utility companies. When Route 29 construction plans for the Hilton Heights
area are finalized, staffwill provide recommendations and a cost estimate for planting trees in
that area. Staff will also revisit the Route 250 tree planting project using the same standards used
when planning the Route 29 site.
Printed on recycled paper
Memo to: Robert W. Tucker, Jr.
V. Wayne Cilimberg
Date: July 10, 1997
Page: 2
Agenda Item No. 5.8. Request to set a public hearing to amend and reordain Chapter
10.1, Law Enforcement, of the Code of the County of Albemarle, Virginia, regarding concealed
weapons permit.
The Board set a public hearing to amend and reordain ChaPter 10.1, Law EnfOrcement, of
the Code of the County of Albemarle, Virginia, regarding concealed weapons permit, for 10:00
a.m., August 6~ 1997.
Agenda Item No. 6. PUBLIC HEARING on an ordinance to Amend and Reordain the
Code of the County of Albemarle, in Chapter 12, Motor Vehicles and Traffic, Article I, tn
General, Section 12~5.4, to clarify that no parking or standing is allowed in fire lanes within the
County and Article V, County Vehicle Licenses, Section 12-21.1, to amend the schedule of fines
for failure to have a valid County motor vehicle sticker.
ADOPTED the attached ordinance to amend the County COde.
Agenda Item No. 7. PUBLIC HEARING ona DEED OF EASEMENT by and between
the County of Albemarle and the City of Charlottesville for the installation of a permanent
natural gas line in the public right-of-way rann'mg from Route 20 to Route 742 in Albemarle
County, Virginia, as shown on plat of the City of Charlottesville Gas Division, dated April 2,
1997, and identified as ,A Fifteen-Foot Wide Easement for 4" PE and 2" PE Gas Lines".
Authorized the County Executive to execute the attached Deed of Easement, which has
been forwarded to the County Attorney's office to file with the Clerk of Court.
Agenda Item No. 8. SP-97-09. Covesville First Baptist Church (Sign #86). PUBLIC
HEARJNG on a request to add 1.0 ac to existing cemetery. Znd RA. TM109,P6 (part of) &
TM109,P6E. Located on S side of Rt 805, approx 0.25 mile W of Rt. 29. Scottsville Dist.
APPROVED the request with the following condition recommended by the Planning
Commission:
1. All grave sites shall be located at 100 feet or more from any well.
Memo to: Robert W. Tucker, Jr.
V. Wayne Cilimberg
Date: July 10, 1997
Page: 4
Communications, Inc. (Signs #56&57). PUBLIC HEARING on a request to construct
telecommunications tower w/overall height of 200' & assoc support facilities on portion of 10.3
acs. Znd RA. TM46.P15. Located on W side of Seminole Trl (Rt 29N), near entrance to Forest
Lakes South (Ashwood Blvd.). Site of existing AM Radio towers. Rivanna Dist.
APPROVED the request with the six conditions recommended by the Planning
Commission, plus two added by the Board. The motion passed, with everyone voting
affrrmatively except Mr. Martin, who dissented.
1. Overall height shall not exceed 200 feet;
2. Compliance with Section 5.1.12 of the Zoning Ordinance;
There shall be no lighting of the tower unless required by a federal agency. All
tower lighting shall be shielded so as to minimize visibility from the ground;
Staff approval of additional antennae installation. No administrative approval
shall constitute or imply support for or approval of, the location of additional
towers, ante~mae, etc., even if they may be part of the same network or system as
any antennae administratively approved under this section;
The tower must be designed and adequate separation provided to property lines
such that in the event of structural failure, the tower and components will remain
w/thin the lease area;
The tower shall be disassembled and removed fi.om the site within 90 days of the
discontinuance of the use of the tower for wireless telecommunication purposes;
The tower shall be available for co-location for other wireless communication
users at no greater than fair market rent, if such siting is necessary for the
provision of service in this area by such user, and the tower has the capacity for
such user; and
Vegetative screening of the tower shall be provided at site plan approval, provided
that it does not interfere w/th the grounding mat.
Agenda Item No. 12. SP-97-16. St. Paul's Church (Signs #81&82). PUBLIC
HEARING on a request to amend SP-96-54 for St Paul's Church to expand facilities w/2 story
Memo to: Robert W. Tucker, Jr.
V. Wayne Cilimberg
Date: July 10. 1997
Page: 5
addition to existing church on 15.315 acs. Znd VR. TM58A2,Ps17,18&19 (combined). Located
on E side of Owensville Rd IRt 678) at Ivy. Samuel Miller Dist.
APPROVED the request with five conditions recommended by the Planning
Commissmn:
County Department of Engineering approval of entrance improvements, drainage,
erosion control and runoff control;
Staff approval of landscape/screening plan to address replacement of screening at
northern entrance;
Virginia Department of Transportation approval of northern entrance
improvements;
Virginia Department of Historic Resources certification that addition does not
detract from the integrity of the existing historic s~ructure; and
This special use permit is approved for worship and church related activities only.
Day care, pre-school, or other such activities, shall require amendment to this
special use permit.
Agenda Item No. 14. Other Matters not Listed on the Agenda from the BOARD.
Mrs. Thomas informed the Board that there wi11 be a public meet'rog at the County Office
Building the following Tuesday concerning blasting at the Ivy Landfill.
Ms. Mary Dilbom gave the Board blank petition forms and asked that they collect
signatures in support of a Meals Tax.
Mr. Martin will represent the Board at a news conference at 8:30 a~m. on July 21, 1997
when JABA armounces the public phase of its funding campaign for their Adult Rehabilitation
and Eldercare Center.
APPOINTED Mr. Peter Hallock, Mrs. Charlotte Humphris, Mr. Chuck Rotgin, Mr. Tim
Lindsu'om, Mr. Michael Semanik, Mr. Dermis Rooker, and Mr. Bruce Dotson to the Fiscal
Impact Committee. (Note: This commiuee replaces the previous Fiscal Impact Committee.)
Memo to: Robert W. Tucker, Jr.
V. Wayne Cilimberg
Date: July 10, 1997
Page: 6
Agenda Item No. 15. Executive Session
At 8:45 p.m., the Board went into Executive Session Pursuant to Section 2.1-344(A) of
the Code of Virginia under Subsection (1) to consider appoinrrnems to a committee mad under
subsection (7) to consult with legal counsel m~d staffregarding specific legal matters relating to
reversion and probable litigation regarding claims for attorneys' fees.
Agenda Item No. 16. Certify Executive Session
At 9:30 p.m., the Board reconvened into open session.
Agenda Item No. 17. Adjourn
At 9:35 p.m., with no further business to come before the Board, the meeting was
adjourned,
EC/lbh
Attachments: 2
cc: Richard E. Huff. Il
Roxanne White
Kevin C. Castner
Larry Davis
Amelia McCulley
Bill Mawyer
Bruce Woodzell
Richard Wood
Jan Sprinkle
Yadira Amari
File
I
lo: TO WHOM ADDRESSED
From: Ella Washington Carey, Clerk. CMC ~
Subject: Ordinances Adopted by Board
Date: October I0, 1997
Attached for your use are copies of ordinances adopted by the Board of Supervisors:
(i)
(2)
an ordinance to Amend and Reordaln the Code of the Cotmty of,Albemarle, in
Chapter 12, Motor Vehicles and Traffic, Article I, In General, Section 12-5.4, to
darify that no parking or standing is allowed in fire lanes within the County and
Article V, County Vehicle Licenses. Section 12-21.1, to amend the schedule of fines for
failure to have a valid County motor vehicle sticker. (Adopted on July 9, 1997)
an ordinance to Amend and Reordaln Chapter 10.1 of Code of the County of
Albemarle, Virginia. to require applicants for concealed handgun permits who reside in
Albemarle County to submit to fingerprinting & to provide personal descriptive
information to the Sheriff in order to determine suitability for concealed handgun
permit. The fingerprints and personal descriptive information would be submitted by
the Sheriff to State Police & FBI for national criminal history records check. (Adopted
on August 6. 1997'
(3~
an ordinance to amend reordain Section 2.1-4, of Chapter 2.1, Agricultural & Forestal
Districts. of the Albemarle County Code, in subsection (e) known as the "Keswick
Agricultural and Forestal District" by the add of 4 parcels, totaling 190.872 acs.
TM64_Pds1011 & TM81.Pdsl5B&ISA6. Two pals located on W side of Louisa Rd
(Rt 22} & 2 pals located at end of Clark's Tract Rd (Rt 648). Rivauna Dist. (Adopted
onAugnst 13. 1997'
an Ordinance to amend and reordain Section 2.1-4. of Chapter 2.1. Agricultural &
Forestal Districts, of the Albemarle County Code, in subsection tgi known as the
"Moorman's River Agricultural and Forestal District" by the add 4 parcels totaling
242.38 acs. Designated RA. TM28. Pds12,30,30A&30B. Located on E side of
Ballard's Mill Rd (Rt 671~. 1 pd located at inter of Millington Rd (Rt 665) & 3 pals
located near inter of Wesley Chapd Rd (Rt 609). White Hall Dist. (Adopted on
August 13, 1997~
(5~,
an ordinance to amend and reordain Chapter 2, Admiuistration. Article IV- Airport
Commission. of the Code of the County of Albemarle, in Section 2-30. Compensation
and term of office of members. This amendment will allow members of the Airport
Commission to serve three terms. (Adopted on October 8. 1997'
/EWC
Attachments (5)
CC:
The Honorable James L, Camblos. III
Rolisa Smith
Melvin A. Breeden
Robert Walters
Municipal Code Corporation
File
ORDINANCE NO. 97-12(2)
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND AND REORDAIN
CHAPTER 12, MOTOR VEHICLES AND TRAFFIC,
ARTICLE I, IN GENERAL AND ARTICLE V, COUNTY VEHICLE LICENSES
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 12, Vehicles and Traffic, Article I, in General and Article V, County
Vehicle Licenses, is hereby amended and reordained by amending section 12-5,
Stopping or parking; generally; section 12-5.4, Parking or standing in fire lanes; and
section 12-21.1, Violations, as follows:
ARTICLE I. IN GENERAL
Sec. '12-5. Stopping or parking; generally.
(a) No person shall stop a vehicle in such a manner as to impede or render
dangerous the use of highways or county roads by others, except in the case of an
emergency, an accident, or mechanical breakdown. In the event of any such
emergency, accident or breakdown, the emergency flashing lights of such vehicle shall
be turned on, if the vehicle is equipped with such lights and such lights are operating. A
report of the vehicle's location shall be made to the nearest police officer as soon as
practical. The vehicle shall be moved to the shoulder as soon as possible and then
removed from the shoulder without unnecessary delay. If such vehicle is not promptly
removed, removal may be ordered by a police officer, at the expense of the owner, if
such vehicle creates a traffic hazard.
For state law as to stopping on highways, see Code of Va. § 46.2-888.
(b) The provisions of subsection (a) shall not apply to any vehicle owned or
controlled by the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation or the county,
while actually engaged in the construction, reconstruction or maintenance of highways
and roads.
For state law as to exceptions for certain vehicles, see Code of Va. § 46.2-891.
(c) No person having control or charge of a motor vehicle shall allow such
vehicle to stand on any highway unattended, without first effectively setting the
emergency or parking brake thereon, stopping the motor ~nd turning the front wheels
into the curb or side of the roadway.
(d) The operator of a motor vehicle, trailer or semitrailer, when temporarily
stopped on the traveled or paved portion of a highway so as to create a traffic hazard,
shall flash all four (4) turn signals simultaneously to signal approaching motorists of the
existing hazard, whenever such vehicle is equipped with a device which will cause the
four (4) turn signals to flash simultaneously.
(e) No truck or bus, except a school bus, shall be stopped wholly or partially on
the traveled portion of any highway in the county outside of a town for the purpose of
taking on or discharging cargo or passengers, unless the operator cannot leave the
traveled portion of a highway with safety. A school bus may be stopped on the traveled
portion of a highway when taking on or discharging school children, but such stops shall
be made only at points where the bus can be clearly seen for a safe distance from both
directions.
For state law as to stopping on highways, see Code of Va. § 46.2-893.
(Previous § 12-5 Authority of fire department officials to direct traffic, etc. is now
§ ~2-8)
Sec. 12-5.4. Parking or standing in fire Fanes.
(a) It shall be unlawful for any person to park or stand a vehicle in any
designated and marked fire lane.
(b) The placement of a vehicle, for any purpose, within a fire lane perpendicular
to the curb or edge is prohibited.
(c) Any police officer or the fire marshal or his authorized representatives who
finds any vehicle in violation of this section shall have the authority to remove such
vehicle at the owner's risk and expense. This authority shall extend to any fire or
rescue officer in charge of a fire or rescue operation who finds any such violation to be
interfering with such emergency operations.
(d) The county police or the fire marshal or his authorized representatives are
authorized to enter any fire lane for the purpose of enforcing the provisions of this
section.
(e) No provision of this section shall apply to fire, rescue or police vehicles while
they are involved in emergency operations.
ARTICLE V. COUNTY VEHICLE LICENSE
Sec. 12-21,1. Violations:
Law enforcement officers may issue citations, summonses, warrants, parking
tickets or uniform traffic summonses for violations: A violation of this ordinance may not
2
be discharged by payment of a fine except upon presentation of satisfactory evidence
that the required license has been obtained. The procedure for enforcement of this
section and penalties for violation thereof shall be as provided in section 12-9.1, except
that fines as provided in section 12-9.1(e) shall be as follows:
If paid within ninety-six (96) hours ........................................................... $2&00
If paid after ninety-six (96) hours .............................................................. 50.00
(Ord. of 8-8-90; Ord. of 6-9-93
I~ Ella W. Carey, do hereby certify that the foregoing writing is a true, correct
copy of an ordinance duly adopted by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County by
a vote of six to zero on July 9, 1997.
Clerk, Board of County~/~ervisors
BOARD OF SUPER¥1 SORS
£6-? -.97
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Dept. ot Planning & Community Development
401 Mclntire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
(804) 2964823
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
RE:
Robert W. Tucker, Jr., County Executive
David B. Berdsh, Chief of Community Development
June 27, 1997
Review for Compliance with the Comprehensive Plan (15.1-456 Review):
Albemarle County Service Authority Transmission Water Ma'm Installation to
Key West/Cedar Hill Subdivisions
The Albemarle County Planning Commission, at its meeting on June 17, 1997, unanimously
found the above-noted proposal to be in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan. Attached
please find a staffreport which outlines this proposal.
If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me.
DB/jcf
ATTACHMENT
STAFF PERSON:
PLANNING COMMISSION:
David Benish
June 17, 1997
Review For Compliance With The Comprehensive Plan (15.1-456 ReviewS: Albemarle County
Service Authority (ACSA) Transmission Water Main Installation
BACKGROUND
As per Section 15.1-456 of the Code of Virginia the Albemarle County Service Authority
(ACSA) has requested that the Pla~'mg Commission review the installation of a 12"
transmission water main to serve the Key West and Cedar Hill Subdivisions (228 lots). Both
these subdivisions are located off of Route 20 (Stony Point Road),just north of the Pantops
(Neighborhood Three) Development Area. The subdivisions are currently being served by a
central well system (See Attachment A).
The Albemarle County Board of Supervisors, at its meeting on May 7, 1997, amended the
service area boundaries of the ACSA to provide water only designation to Key West and Cedar
Hills Subdivisions. The water only designation was necessitated by the primary wells serving
these subdivisions being contaminated with a gasoline additive called Methyl Tertiary Butyl
Ether (MTBE). The Virginia Department of Health reported to the County that a petroleum
release occurred in the vicinity of the Key West and Cedar Hills Subdivisions and a potable well
analytical report indicated that primary wells serving these two subdivisions were contaminated.
According to a letter dated March 7, 1997 from Bill Brent, ACSA Executive Director, an attempt
to drill new wells was made but they did not produce the water quantity needed to serve the two
neighborhoods. Also, Mr. Brent added that putting a treatment system on the contaminated wells
would be costly and the long term effectiveness of this possible solution is uncertain. The
Virginia Department of Health indicated that the best solution to serve the subdivisions is a
connection to the public water system (See Attachment B).
It is necessary to install a 12" water main to Serve the Key West and Cedar Hills Subdivisions in
order to deliver the min'unum required fire flow (500 gallons per minute). The water main will
originate, at the point where RWSA's 24" transmission line (Pantops water line) crosses Route 20
at Elks Drive. The water main will extend north 6,000' along the east side of Route 20 and will
be located on properties outside the Urban Area. The line will be sized such that it has the
potential to serve properties located in the Pantops Development Area [Neighborhood Three),
where service is not currently available (See Attachment C).
DISCUSSION
With the Board's approval of the amendment to the ACSA jurisdictional Area boundary, the
policy issues regarding the provision of service to this area have been made. This Compliance
with the Comprehensive Plan Review focuses on the appropriateness of the location and design
of the line as its relates to the Comprehensive Plan.
The following Comprehensive Plan general principles and recommendations are applicable to
this project.
Protect and effeciently utilize County resources by...Designating Development Areas
where a variety of land uses, facilities, and services are planned to support the County's
future growth, with emphasis placed on infill development (Goal, p. 7).
Provide public water and sewer only to areas within the ACSA jurisdictional area
(Recommendation, p. 124)
Provide water service to the northern portion of Neighborhood Three north of an
east/west unnamed tributary of the Rivarma River as necessary by extending a Route 20
waterline to the north (Recommendation, p. 55).
New facilities will be designed according to the densities and uses reflected by the Land
Use Map (Recommendation, p. 117).
Rural Area development will be served by individual water and septic systems only
(General Principle, p. 109).
The 12" distribution line will be located on the east side of Route 20. Its immediate function is
to provide service to the Key West and Cedar Hill subdivisions. The location of the line within
the Route 20 right-of-way eliminates the need to travel overland, potentially impacting multiple
properties. The water main will be sized adequately to provide possible future water service to
existing and furore development located in the northern portion of the designated Development
Area, where water service is not available.
Route 20 is the eastern boundary for the northern pan of the of Neighborhood Three (see
Attachment C). Therefore, with the location of the line along Route 20, it will also front on
properties designated as Rural Area. This may encourage requests for water service in those
areas. However, staffs opinion is that the provision of water service can be limited to
appropriate areas through the ACSA Jurisdictional Area Amendment process.
RECOMMENDATION
This project meets the intent of most of the Comprehensive Plan's general principles and
recommendations. Staff believes that the impact of this project on the Comprehensive Plan's
intent to limit development in the Rural Area will be minimal since water service will be
provided to existing subdivisions. Service to other Rural Area properties cannot be provided
without amendment to the Jurisdicational Area. For these reasons, staff believes that this project
complies with the intent of the Comprehensive Plan and recommends favorable action by the
Planning Commission.
3
ALBEMARLE C OUNTY.
P.O, BOX 1OO9 i68 SPO~N~P RD. CHARILOTTESVLt~E.
. [~-~-~H M E N T A
SEpViOE TAUTH' Op
VA 22902 · (804) 977-4511 FAX (804) 979-0698
May 15, 1997
Mr. Wayne Cilimberg
Director of Planning and
Community Development
County Office Building
Charlottesville, VA
Re: Key West Water Line
Dear Wayne:
This is in response to your E-mall of May 9, 1997, The water line fo serve Key West will
onginate at RWSA s 24 mch transn~ssion line at its crossing of Route 20 at Elks Drive. It will be
necessary to install a !2 inch main in order t0 deliver the minimum required fire flow (5.00 gallons
-Per minute) within~th~ Key west distribution s~.~em. It will be constructed ~wi.',thi~ .thee tight-.of- i,
~vay of Route 20, with' minor deviations, and will likely be on tho east side of. the mgic. way.. It wm
pass properties not currently in the growth area and has the Potential tO provide servace to
properties beyond Key West. Because of its Size (12'~) the line could be termed a transmission
line. By its i~unediate function, it is a distribution line. If it is ever extended to serve other than
this one subdlwslon its function could be termed transnusslon.
In the State Waterworks Regulations the followifi§ definitiOns are given:
"Transmission Main" means a water main whose primary purpose is to move significant
quantities of treated Water among service areas.
'~)istdbution Main" means a water main whose primary purpOse is to provide treated
water to service connections.
I think one could argue that the Key West line is either of the above, I'll let the County
decide which ~t ~s and deternune if you want to re,aew rt.
Let me know if you need additional information and how you want to proceed.
J.W. Brent
Executive Director
· JWB/lbt
c.c: Paul Shoop
MAY ! 6 1997
~l~nnlnr~ ~ar~
ALBEMAPLE ' OUNTY
P.O BOX 1QQ9 168 SPOTNAP RD OHARLOIIESVILLE
I .TT, I C. M ENT BI
SERVICE AUTHORITY
VA 22902 · (804) 977-4511 FAX ,,804) 979-O69B
~4arch 7, 1997
Mr. Wayne Cilimberg
Director of Planning & Community Development
Albemarl~ County office Building
Charlottesville, Virginia 22901
Re: Key West Subdivision
,'4AR 1 1997
?!arming Dept
Dear Wayne:
Yesterday we met with representatives of Virginia
Department of Health, Department of Environmental Quality,
Key West Water Company, and Key West property owners to
discuss the possibility of connecting that subdivision to
ACSA's water system. I previously notified you that the
primary well serving this subdivision had become
contaminated with Methyl Tertiary Butyl Ether (MTBE).
Additional wells have been drilled but they do not produce
the quantity of water needed, although there is no
indication of MTBE in the new wells. Putting a treatment
system on the contaminated well will be costly and its long
term effectiveness uncertain.
Much work has to be done to determine terms under which
the ACSA would take over the distribution system, how the
connection to the ACSA system would be made, and funding.
The first question to be answered is whether the County
would incorporate Key West into ACSA's jurisdictional area.
Sinae ACSA traditionally has not initiated requests to
expand its service areas, who should apply for the
jurisdictional boundary amendment? The water company? The
customers? DEQ? VDH? I would appreciate some direction
from you as to how to proceed in this matter.
JWB:dmg
cc: Board of Directors
Mr. Charles Martin
Paul Shoop
Bob Tucker
Very~ly yours,
J. W. Brent
Executive Director
./
:HMENT C
A~HCROFT
~I~LOOP
MAP C ~
URBAN NEIGBORHOOD o l~oo
DAVID R. GEHR
COMMISSIONER
OBOARD OF SUPERVISORS
COMMONWEALTH of VI I qlA4: 22 , cvD
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
7ol VDOT WAY
CHARLOTTESVILLE 22911 A. G. TUCKER
RESIDENT ENGINEER
June 26, 1997
Route 250 / Route 809
0250-002-112.C501
Albemarle Cotmty
Ms. Ella W. Carey, CWC, Clerk
Board of Supervisors
401 Mclnffre Road
Charlottesville, VA 22902
Dear Ms. Carey:
Enclosed isa copy of the Notice of Willingness to hold a Combined Location and Design
Public Hearing on the proposed improvement to Route 809 at the intersection of Koure 250. The
deadline for requests to hold a hearing is July 7, 1997.
Please provide each Board member with the information of this willingness to hold a
public hearing on this project. Your assistance will be appreciated.
Yours Truly,
Gerald G. Utz
Contract Administrator
/ggn
Enclosure
cc: Mr. D.K Askew
Ms. Patsy Napier
TRANSPORTATION FOR THE 21ST CENTURY
' 'R'O.U T E 25O
Albemarle County
Proposed Proiect:
Interse~ion improvements on Route 250 fxom 0.07 mile west ofthe
intersection of Route 809 to 0.12 mile east of the intersection of
Route 809 west ofthe City of Charlottesville in Albemarle County.
Plan Review:
Maps, drawings and other information concerningthe proposal are
available for you to see at both the Culpeper VDOT District off'ce
located at 1601 Orange Road in the Town of Culpeper and the
VDOT Charlottesville Residency off'ce located at 701 VDOT
BWay, three miles east of the City of Charlottesville.
ythisnoticethe Departmentshows itswillingness tohold a public
hearing, if your questions and/or conenrns cannot be satisfied.
To schedule a convenient time to review the above material or if
you need additional information,/)lease call the Charlottesville
Residency at 804-293-0011.
Written Request:
You may request that a public hearing be held by sendln~ a written
request to the Resident Engineer, A.G. Tucker, at the Virginia
Department of Transportation, 701 VDOT Way, Charlottesville,
Virginia. 2291 l, on or before July 7, 1997.
Eu~her N,a~ce:
Ifa request for a public hearing is received, notice of time and place
of the hearing will be posted.
~l~ Virginia I)el~artment of Transportation
Device for the Hearing/repaired (TTY): 1-800-307-4630
Project: 0250-002-I 12,PE-101,RW-201,C-501
CSx
Location
!
/
/
/
/
/
f
Albemarle County
- f
/ "';tv of
( Chor~ te~v~fie
HIGHWAY IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
ROUTE 25O
ALBEMARLE COUNTY
PROJECT: 0250--002-112, PE101, RW201, C501
· FROM: 0.07 MI. WEST OF INT. RTE. 809
TO: 0.12 MI. EAST OF INT. RTE. 809
DAVID R. GEHR
COMMISSIONER
06-2'7-97A10: 04. RCVD
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
COMMONWEALTH of V RGIN A
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
1401 EAST BROAD STREET
RICHMOND. 23219
J.T. MILLS
OIV[SION ADMINISTRATOR
June 12, 1997
Clerk of the Court
Albemarle County
501 E. Jefferson Street
Charlottesville, VA 22901
Route 250
Proj: 0250-002-112, PE-101,
RW-201, C-501
Albemarle County
Fr: 0.07 Mile West of
To:
Intersection Route 809 ~ ~ ~
0.12 Mile East of Inte~cg~
Route 809 ~ ~'~2.3 \
Attached is a Public Notice and Map advising of a proposed
highway improvement project.
Should you desire additional information or have any
questions or comments concerning this highway matter, please refer
to the above project number and description when you contact this
office.
Sincerely,
Patsy G. Napier
for Location and Design
Division
WE KEEP VIRGINIA MOVING
ROUTE 250
Albemarle County
Proposed Pro|ect:
Intersection improvements on Route 250 from 0.07 mile west ofth,
intersection of Route 809 to 0.12 mile east of the intersection of
Route 809 west oftbe City of Charlott~svillein Albemarle County.
Plan Review:
Maps, drawings and other information eoncemingthe proposal are
available for you to see at both the Culpeper VDOT District office
located at 1601 Orange Road in the Town of Culpeper and the
VDOT Charlottesville Residency office located at 701 VDOT
Way, three miles east of the City of Charlottesville.
Bythis noficethe Department shows its willingness to hold a pubhc
heating, if 3 our questions and/or concerns cannot be satisfied.
To schedule a convenient time to rexaew the above material or if
you need additional information, please call the Charlottesville
Residency at 804-293-0011.
Written Request:
You may request that a pubhc heating be held by sending a written
request to the Resident Engineer, Mrs. A. G. Tucker, atthe Virginia
Department of Transportation, 701 VDOT Way, Charlottesville
Virginia 22911, on or before July 7, 1997.
Further Notice:
Ifa request for a public hearing is received, notice oftime and place
of the hearing Will be posted.
.~_~ Virginia Department of Transportation
Device for the Hearing Impaired (TTY): 1-800-307-4630
Project: 0250-002-112,PE-101,RW-201,C-501
CSx
ect
/
/
I
Albemarle County
/ City of
( ChoH6t tesv~le
\
HIGHWAY IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
ROUTE 25O
ALBEMARLE COUNTY
_ PROJECT: 0250-002-112, PE10t, RW201, C501
~ FROM 0 07 : MI. WEST OF INT. RTE. 809
~ · TO: 0.12 MI. EAST OF INT. RTE. 809 .
Scale
l.~.~,&~ .~. 0~n 0 1/4 Mile !/2 Mile
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
RE:
)~-0~-97P02:36 RCVD
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Engineering & Public Works
Board of Supervisors, Bob Tucker, Rick Huff
Bill Mawyer, Director of Engineering & Public Works
July 3, t997 '~4~ f~x~
Trees for 29 Project
An agreement has been reached between all parties concerned about the trees to be planted in the
Route 29 North median. The parties, which included David Tice, Will Rieley, Peggy and Mitchell
Van Yahres, Phil Garber and D. J. Manafe (City Gas), Angela Tucker, Bill Brent, Susan Thomas,
Lisa GlaSs and myself, successfully developed a plan to plant medium sized trees utilizing an
underground fabric to shield utility lines from root infiltration and damage. The tree species
selected include swamp oak, honey locust, lacebark elm, and hackberry. The locations for these
trees are shown on the enclosed sketches.
Construction bids will be opened on July 22 and the trees wilt be planted this fall and next spring.
If the Iow bid is within the $180,000 construction budget, maintenance of the trees will be
provided by the contractor for three years. The County and VDOT are negotiating an agreement
for maintenance of the trees after the initial three year period.
If you should have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me.
BM/ss
Enclosures
Copy: Lisa Glass
TREES for 29 - Landscaoin~ for Route 29. Albemarle Counw. Virginia - May 1997
SCHEMATIC DRAWINGS (2 of 3):
Rio Road to Hilton Heights Road (91 Trees)
PHASE TWO
Installation Fall '97 / Spring '98
33
SCI-I~MATIC DRAV~NGS (1 of 3):
Hydraulic Road to Rio Road (85 Trees)
,
TREES for 29 - Landscavin~ for Route 29. Albemarle Counw. Virginia - May 1997
PHASE ONE
Installation Fall '97 / Sorin~ '98
I
32
TREES for 29 - Landscapin~ for Route 29. Albemarle CoUnty. Vir_~inia - May 1997
SCHEMATIC DRAWINGS (3 of 3):
Hilton Heights Road to S. Fork Rivanna River Bridge
(48 Trees)
PHASE THREE
Installation Fall 2000
34
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
07-07-~7P02:33 RCV~
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Dept. of Planning & CommuniW Development
401 Mclnfire Road
Charlottesville. Virginia 22902-4596
(804) 296-5823
TO:
Albemarle County Board of Supervisors
FROM:
V. Wayne Cilimberg, Director of Planning & Corm~mnity Development
DATE: July 2, 1997
Recreational Facilities Authority
The Recreational Facilities Authority, at is April 10, 1997 meeting, discussed a proposed change
in the By-laws to reduce the Authority membership from nine to seven. It was the consensus of
the Authority to keep the membership at nine.
If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me.
VWC/jcf
BOARD OF S~J?ER¥lSORS
0~_09_9q ~0:13 RCV¢
COMMONWEALTH o[ VIRCfiNgA
George Allen
Governor Department of Game and Inland Fisheries
Becky Norton Dunlop
Secretary of Natural Resources
June 16, 1997
William L. Woodfin, Jr.
Director
Mr. Patrick K. Mullaney
Director
Albemar'te County Parks and Recreation Department
County Office Building
401 Mclntire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 229024596
R E C =-' V E D,...,
.dttN,1 8, 1991
~t ,Ko &REC. D,.., ,'"".
Dear Mr. Mullaney:
Thank you for your recent letter regarding potential development of the 571 acre
property on Priddy Creek. The Department of Game and/xdand Fisher/es certainly
appreciates your interest in exploring how this property might be best utilized for
outdoor recreation.
In accordance with our mission statement, the Department is always interested in
the development of additional opportunities for hunting, fishing and boating. So
my combined response to your first two specific questions is that we would
certairdy like to be a part of future discussions in considering the ultimate
development ofth/s property. Although our dollars from 1/cense sales are !/m/ted
and capital funds needed to meet dam safety standards for our ex/sting properties
are substantial, we would welcome being a partner in the planning of this project
and would certainly be as proactive as possible to facilitate its development for the
benefit of our states' anglers. You may also wish to contact the Department of
Conservation and Recreation as a potential partner, as'well as the other two
localities of Orange and Greene Counties. With the involvement of all these
players, a si~ificant recreational resource for the region may very well be real/zed.
Your complimentary remarks about Price Smith and John Kauffman from our
Fisheries staffare most appreciated. We constantly recognize what outstanding
people we have here at the Depaxtment and we're really pleased when others outside
~n ~lgency of the Natural Resources Secretariat
4010 WEST BROAD STREET, P.O. BOX 1 t104, RICHMOND, VA 23230-1104
(804) 367-1000 (v, rrDD) Equal Opportunity Employment, Programs and Facililies FAX (804) 367-9147
Page 2
Mr. Patrick K. Mullaney
June 16, 1997
the agency recogn/ze that also. I look forward to sharing your kind words with
Price and John.
Again, thank you for giving us the chance to respond as you cons/der how this
property might be developed. Do not hesitate to contact me if you have any
questions.
WLW, Jr./cas
Sincerel~~~
William L. Woodf'm,
Director/
CC:
Mr. Gary Martel
Mr. John Kauffman
Mr. Price Smith
Assault Resource Agency
SARA serving the Piedmont community
Memorandum
TO: ALBEMARLE COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
FROM: BRENDA DOREMUS-DANIEL
CIqlI,D ASSAULT PREVENTION (CAP) PROJECT COORDINATOR
DATE: JULY 2, 1997
RE:
1996-97 CI-ITLD ASSAULT PREVENTION (CAP) PROJECT
ANNUAL REPORT FOR ALBEMARI.E COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS
Enclosed, you will find the Child Assault Prevention (CAP) Project
Annual Report for the 1996-97 school year as it was implemented
your district. We have submitted this document for your records.
Please review this report and use it as a reference.
in
The report summarizes funding information for the Project, as well
as the number of children and adults who participated in CAP during
the past school year. It also details parents' and teachers' responses
to CAP and includes a statistical breakdown of the kinds of problems
students brought up during our post-workshop review sessions. We
hope you will find this information useful.
During the upcoming school year. we are looking forward to
continuing our rotation through the elementary schools that received
CAP in 92/93. As we continue in our mission to keep children safe.
strong and free, we thought that you would be interested in
receiving this update of our work. As always, you are more than
welcome to sit in on any of our workshops once we return to the
schools in the Fall. If you have any questions please feel free to call
me at 295-7273. Thank you for your time and attention.
Community Education · Hotline · Peer Support/Counseling · Resource Library
P.O. Box 6705 · Charlottesville, Virginia 2;~906 · (804) 295-7273 (office) (804) 977-7273 (hotline)
07-09-97AI0:22 ,C~u
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
Amendment to Chapter 10.1 Law Enforcement
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Request to advertise for a public hearing to amend and
reordain Chapter 10.1. Law Enfomement, of the Code of the
County of AlbemaHe. Virginia
STAFF CONTACTIS):
Messrs. Tucker, Huff, Davis, Miller, Trank
AGENDA DATE:
July 9. 1997
ITEM NUMBER:
ACTION: INFORMATION:
CONSENTAGENDA:
ACTION: X INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS: Yes
BACKGROUND:
The 1997 Session of the General Assembly enacted SB 944, which amended Va. Code § I8.2-308 regarding concealed
weapons permits. Effective July 1, 1997. counties are authorized to enact local ordinances requiring any applicant for a
concealed handgun permit to submit to fingerprinting for the purpose of obtaining the applicant's state and national criminal
history record. The Federal Bureau of Investigation has advised that it will process fingerprints submitted for national records
checks for concealed handgun permits only from localities that have adopted an ordinance pursuant to SB 944 requiring
fingerprinting of such applicants.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that a public hearing be set to consider amendments to Chapter 10 1 Law Enfomement, for August 6. 1997.
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND AND REORDAIN CHAPTER 10.1 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 10.1 is hereby amended and reordalned by adding section
10.1-4. Concealed Handgun Permits, as follows:
Sec. 10.1-4. Concealed Handgun Permits.
As a condition for issuance of a concealed handgun permit pursuant to section
18.2-308 o~' the Code of Virginia. and in order to determine the suitability for a
concealed handgun permit, any applicant for such permit who resides in the County
of Albemarle shall be fingerprinted by the Sheriff and shall provide personal
descriptive information. The fingerprints and personal descriptive information shall
be forwarded through the Central Criminal Records Exchange of the Virginia State
Police to the Federal Bureau of Investigation for a national criminal history record
ched~.
HANDGUN.ORD
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
Amendment to Chapter 12, Motor Vehicles and Traffic
Ordinance
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Request to advertise fora public hearing to amend and
reordain Chapter 12, Motor Vehicles and Traffic, of the Code
of the County of Albemarle, Virginia
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Messrs. Tucker, Huff. Davis. Miller
AGENDADATE: ffEM NUMBER:
June18,1997
ACTION: INFORMATION:
CONSENTAGENDA:
ACTION: X
INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS:
REVIEWED BY:
BACKGROUND:
Amendments to Chapter 12 of the County Code were adopted bythe Board on May21, 1997. Upon review, staff determined
that provisiohs dealing with fire lane enforcement wera inconsistent with similar provisions located in Chapter 9 of the Code
pertaining to fire protec~n. The amendments would cladfy that no parking or standing is allowed in fire lanes within the County.
In addition, the time within which a person may pay a citation for failing to have a valid County motor vehicle sticker has been
extended from 48 to 96 hours, consistent with the time frames established elsewhere in the ordinance for payment of parking
violations.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff' recommends that a public headng be set to consider amendments to Chapter 12, Motor Vehicles and Traffic Ordinance,
for July 9. 1997.
97.112
ORDINANCE NO. 97-12(2)
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND AND REORDAIN
CHAPTER 12, MOTOR VEHICLES AND TRAFFIC;
ARTICLE I, IN GENERAL AND ARTICLE Vi COUNTY VEHICLE LICENSES
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 12, Vehicles and Traffic, Article I, in General and Article V, County
Vehicle Licenses, is hereby amended and reordained by amending section 12-5,
Stopping or parking; generally; section 12-5.4, Parking or standing in fire lanes; and
section 12-21~ 1, Violations, as follows:
ARTICLE I. IN GENERAL
Sec. 12-5. Stopping or parking; generally.
(a) No person shall stop a vehicle in such a manner as to impede or render
dangerous the use of highways or county roads by others, except in the case of an
emergency, an accident, or mechanical breakdown. In the event of any such
emergency, accident or breakdown, the emergency flashing lights of such vehicle shall
be turned on. if the vehicle is equipped with such lights and such lights are operating. A
report of the vehicle's location shall be made to the nearest police officer as soon as
practical. The vehicle shall be moved to the shoulder as soon as possible and then
removed from the shoulder without unnecessary delay. If such vehicle is not promptly
removed, removal may be ordered by a police officer, at the expense of the owner, if
such vehicle creates a traffic hazard.
For state law as to stopping on highways, see Code of Va. § 46.2-888.
(b) The provisions of subsection (a) shall not apply to any vehicle owned or
controlled by the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation or the county,
while actually engaged in the construction, reconstruction or maintenance of highways
and roads.
For state law as to exceptions for certain vehicles, see Code of Va. § 46.2-891.
(c) No person having control or charge of a motor vehicle shall allow such
vehicle to stand on any highway unattended, without first effectively setting the
emergency or parking brake thereon, stopping the motor and turning the front wheels
into the curb or side of the roadway.
(d) The operator of a motor vehicle, trailer or semitrailer, when temporarily
stopped on the traveled or paved portion of a highway so as to create a traffic hazard,
shall flash all four (4) turn signals simultaneously to signal approaching motorists of the
existing hazard, whenever such vehicle is equipped with a device which will cause the
four (4) turn signals to flash simultaneously.
(e) No truck or bus, except a school bus, shall be stopped wholly or partially on
the traveled portion of any highway in the county outside of a town for the purpose of
taking on or discharging cargo or passengers, unless the operator cannot leave the
traveled portion of a highway with safety. A school bus may be stopped on the traveled
portion of a highway when taking on or discharging school children, but such stops shall
be made only at points where the bus can be clearly seen for a safe distance from both
directions.
For state law as to stopping on highways, see Code of Va. § 46.2-893.
(Previous § 12-5 Authority of fire department officials to direct traffic, etc. is now
§ 12-8)
Sec. 12-5.4. Parking orstanding in fire lanes.
(a) It shall be unlawful for any person to park or stand a vehicle in any
designated and marked fire lane.
(b) The placement of a vehicle, for any purpose, within a fire lane perpendicular
to the curb or edge is prohibited:
(c) Any police officer or the fire marshal or his authorized representatives who
finds any vehicle in violation of this section shall have the authority to remove such
vehicle at the owner's risk and expense. This authority shall extend to any fire or
rescue officer in charge of a fire or rescue operation who finds any such violation to be
interfering with such emergency operations.
(d) The county police or the fire marshal or his authorized representatives are
authorized to enter any fire lane for the purpose of enforcing the provisions of this
section.
(e) No provision of this section shall apply to fire, rescue or police vehicles while
they are involved in emergency operations.
ARTICLE V. COUNTY VEHICLE LICENSE
Sec. 12-21.1. Violations:
Law enfomement officers may issue citations, summonses, warrants, parking
tickets or uniform traffic summonses for violations. A violation of this ordinance may not
2
be discharged by payment of a fine except upon presentation of satisfactory evidence
that the required license has been obtained. The procedure for enforcement of this
section and penalties for violation thereof shall be as provided in section 12-9,1, except
that fines as provided in section 12-9.1(e) shall be as follows:
If paid within ninety-six (96) hours ........................................................... $25.00
if paid after ninety-six (96) hours .............................................................. 50,00
(Ord. of 8-8-90; Ord. of 6-9-93)
I, Ella W; Carey~ do hereby certify that the foregoing writing is a true, correct
copy of an ordinance duly adopted by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County by
a vote of six to zero on July9, 1997.
Clerk, ~oard of County S~~
DRAFT: June 12, 1997
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND AND REORDAIN
CHAPTER 12. MOTOR VEHICLES AND TRAFFIC,
ARTICLE I, IN GENERAl_ AND ARTICLE V, COUNTY VEHICLE LICENSES
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
12, Vehicles and Traffic, Article ~, in General and Article V, County Vehicle Licenses, is hereby amended
and reordained by amending section 12-5, Stopping or parking; generally; section 12-5.4, Parking or
standing in fire lanes, and section 12-21.1 Violations, as follows:
ARTICLE I. IN GENERAL
Sec. 12-5. Stopping or parking; generally.
(al No person shall stop a vehicle in such a manner as to impede or render dangerous the use of
highways or county roads by others, except in the case of an emergency, an accident, or mechanical
breakdown, n the event of any such emergency, accident or breakdown, the emergency flashing lights of
such vehicle shall be turned on, if the vehicle is equipped with such lights and such lights are operating. A
report of the vehicle's Iocatior shall be made to the nearest police officer as soon as practical. The vehicle
shall be moved to the shoulder as soon as possible and then removed from the shoulder without
unnecessary delay. If such vehicle is not promptly removed, removal may be ordered by a police officer, at
the expense of the owner, if such vehicle creates a traffic hazard.
For state law as to stopping on highways, see Code of Va. § 46.2-888.
(b) The provisions of subsection (a) shall not apply to any vehicle owned or controlled by the
Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation or the county, while actually engaged in the
construction, reconstruction or maintenance of highways and roads.
For state law as to exceptions for certain vehicles, see Code of Va, § 46.2-891.
(c) No person having control or charge of a motor vehicle sha~l al}ow such vehicle to stand on any
highway unattended, without first effectively setting the emergency or parking brake thereon, stopping the
motor and tuming the front wheels into the curb or side of the roadway.
(d) The operator of a motor vehicle, trailer or semitrailer, when temporarily stopped on the traveled
or paved portion of a highway so as to create a traffic hazard, shall flash all four (4) turn signals
simultaneously to signal approaching motorists of the existing hazard, whenever such vehicle is equipped
with a device which will cause the four (4) turn signals to flash simultaneoudy.
(el No truck or bus, except a school bus, shall be stopped wholly or partially on the traveled portion
of any highway in the county outside of a town for the purpose of taking on or discharging cargo or
passengers, unless the operator cannot leave the traveled portion of a highway with safety, A school bus
may be stopped on the traveled portion of a highway when taking on or discharging school children, but
such stops shall be made only at points where the bus can be clearly seen for a safe distance from both
directions.
For state law as to stopping on highways, see Code of Va. § 46.2-893.
(Previous § 12-5 Authority of fire department officials to direct traffic, etc. is now § 12-8.--~-.)
Sec. 12-5.4. Parking or standing in fire lanes.
(a} It shall be unlawful for any person to ,3ark or stand a vehicle in any designated and marked fire
(b) The placement of a vehicle, for any purpose, within a fire lane perpendicular to the curb or
edge is prohibited.
(c) Any police officer or the fire marshal or his authorized representatives who finds any vehicle in
violation of this section shall have the authority to remove such vehicle at the owner's risk and expense.
This authority shall extend to any fire or rescue officer in charge of a fire or rescue operation who finds any
such violation to be interfering with such emergency operations.
(d) The county police or the fire marshal or his authorized representatives are authorized to enter
any fire lane for the purpose of enforcing the provisions of this section.
(el No provision of this section shall apply to fire, rescue or.3olice vehicles while they are involved
in emergency operations.
2
ARTICLE V. COUNTY VEHICLE LICENSE
Sec. '12-21.1 Violations:
Law enfomement officers may issue citations summonses, warrants, parking tickets or uniform
traffic summonses for violations. A violation of this ordinance may not be discharged by payment of a fine
except upon presentation of satisfactory evidence that the required license has been obtained. The
procedure for enfomement of this section and penalties for violation thereof shall be as provided in section
12-8.2 12-9.1, except that fines as provided in section 12-8.2 12-9.1(e) shall be as follows:
If paid within ~ ninetv-six f96~ hours ................................ $25.00
paid after ~ ninety-six (96) hours ................................ 50.00
(Ord. of 8-8-90; Ord. of 6-9-93)
C:\ORDINANC~OTHERS~PAKK2.WPD
3
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
Public hearing for approVal of Gas Line Easement
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Public hearing for approval of Deed of Easement for
proposed natural gas lines to be installed in the new roadway
accessing Monticello High School.
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Messrs. Tucker. Huff. Davis= Trank
AGENDA DATE:
Juty~, t 997
ACTION: X
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION:
ATTACHMENTS:
REVIEWED BY:
ITEM NUMBER:
INFORMATION:
INFORMATION:
/
BACKGROUND:
Section 15.1-262 of the Code of Virginia requires the Board of Supen, isors to held a public hearing prior to conveying any interest
in County-owned property, including easements. The City of Charlottesville's Gas Division has requested an easement for
installation of permanent natural gas lines to be installed under the new Connector road accessing Monticello High School
between Route 20 and Route 742. The County Engineering and Public Works Department has reviewed the Deed of Easement
provided bythe City and has approved the location of the gas lines, as shown on the attached plat of the City of Charlottesville
Gas Division, dated April 2, 1997, and identified as 'fA Fifteen-Foot Wide Easement for 4" PE and 2" PE Gas Lines.'
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Board grant the Easement and authorize the County Executive to execute the Deed of Easement
on behalf of the County.
97.125
08-27-97A07: 26 ?,CVD
COUNTY OF ALBEMAREBo oF SUPER¥I$OR$
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
Consent Agenda: Request to Advertise for Public
Headng for Approval of Gas Line Easement
AGENDA DATE: ITEM NUMBER:
July 2, 1997
ACTION: INFORMATION:
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Request to advertise for a public hearing for approval of CONSENT AGENDA:
Deed of Easement for proposed natural gas lines to be ACTION: X
installed in the new roadway accessing Monticello High
School.
ATTACHMENTS: Yes /~~
STAFF CONTACT(S): ~,~
Messrs. Tucker, Huff, Davis, Trank REVIEWED B_ ___.__ __ _Y_: ~
INFORMATION:
BACKGROUND:
Section 15. t-262 requires the Board of Supervisors to hold a public hearing prior to conveying any interest in
County-owned property, including easements. The City of Charlottesville's Gas Division has requested an easement
for the proposed natural gas lines to be installed in the new connector mad accessing Monticello High School. The
Engineering and Public Works Department has reviewed the Deed of Easement provided by the City and has
approved the location of the gas lines.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that a public hearing be set to consider granting the requested easement to the City Gas Division.
97.123
DEED OF EASEMENT
THIS DEED OF EASEMENT~ made and entered into on this ~ ~' day of
,1997, by and between the COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA,
Grantor, and the CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA, a municipal corporation,
Grantee.
WITNESSETH:
That for and in consideration of the sum of One Dollar ($1.00), cash in hand paid.
receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, the GRANTOR does hereby GRANT and CONVEY
with SPECIAL WARRANTY to the GRANTEE, subject to the reservations hereinafter set forth,
the permanent easement of fight of way to construct, maintain, operate, alter, repair, inspect,
protect, remove, and replace certain natural gas line improvements, upon and across the public
right-of-way between Route 20 and Route 742 in Albemarle County, Virginia, and more
particularly described as follows:
Permanent natural gas line easement in the public right-of-way running from
Route 20 to Route 742 in Albemarle County, Virginia, as shown on the attached
plat of the City of Charlottesville Gas Division, dated April 2, 1997, and
identified as "A Fifteen-Foot Wide Easement for 4" PE and 2" PE Gas Lines".
The GRANTEE reserves unto itself, its successors and assigns, all of the aforementioned
fights until such time as the Virginia Department of Transportation has issued a permit to the
GRANTEE subject to the following two conditions which shall also be covenants running with
the land:
1. That the above-described improvements of the GRANTEE may continue to occupy
such street or highway in the existing condition and location.
Prepared by Charlottesville City Attorney's Office
April 7, 1997
2. The GRANTEE shall at all times indemnify and save harmless the County of
Albemarle, its employees, agents, and officers from any claim whatsoever arising from
GRANTEE'S exemise of rights or privileges'stated herein.
3. In the event GRANTOR shall hereafter require, for its purposes, that GRANTEE
alter, change, adjust, or relocate the above-mentioned improvements, across or under such street
or highway, the nonberterment cost only of such alteration, change, adjnsunent, or relocation
will be the responsibility of the GRANTEE.
This deed is exempt from state recordation taxes imposed by Virginia Code §§ 58.1-801
and 58.1-802. pursuant m Virginia Code §§ 58.1-811(A)(3) and 58.1~811(C)(3).
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the GRANTOR has caused its name to be signed hereto and
its seal to be affixed and attested by its appropriate officers, all after due authorization, on the
day and year first above written.
STATE OF VIRGINIA
CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE
COUNTY ~('~BEMARLI, VIRGINIA
The foregoing instrmnent was acknowledged before me, a Notary Public in and for the
aforesaid City and State, by fi~ff~t_./L/~ O~'. ~'~ e/(~.. J~- , on behalf of the County of
Albemarle, Virginia, on this ~7,~ day of ~/~, , 1997.
/
My cormmssion expires: c~ ~ ~.~- ~g//~9 7
NOT~RY~P LIC
2 /
I N T E R
0 F F I C E
MEMO
To:
From:
Subject:
Date:
Rolisa Smith, County Attorney's Office
Laurel B. Hall. Senior Deputy Clerk
Easement for Permanent natural Gas Line
July 11, 1997
At its July 9, 1997 meeting, the Board of County Supervisors authorized Mr. Robert
Tucker to sign the enclosed easement by and between the County of Albemarle and the City of
Charlottesville. When this instrument has been recorded in the Circuit Court, please forward a
copy o£the recording receipt for the Board's records.
Attachment
G6-Gg-g7A07:15 RCVD
BOAPd OF SUPER 7 OR$
June 5, 1997
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Dept. of Planning &: Community Development
401 Mclntire Road
Charlottesville. Virginia 229024596
(804) 296-5823
Rauzelle J. Smith
1508 Trailridge Road
Charlottesville. VA 22903
RE: SP 97-009 Covesville First Baptist Church
Tax Map 109, Parcel 6E
Dear Mr. Smith:
The Albemarle County Planning Commission, at its meeting on June 3, 1997, unanimously
recommended approval of the above-noted request to the Board of Supervisors. Please note
that this approval is subject to the following condition:
1. All grave sites shall be located at 100 feet or more from any well.
Please be advised that the Albemarle County Board of Stipervisors will review this petition and
receive public comment at their meeting on July 9, 199Z Any new or additional information
regarding your application must be submitted to the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors at least
seven days prior to your schedule hearing date.
If you should have any questions or comments regarding the above noted action, please do not
hesitate to contact me.
Sincerely,
Eric L. Morrisette
Plmmer
ELM/jcf
Amelia McCulley
STAFF PERSON:
PLANNING COMMISSION:
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS:
ERIC L. MORRISETTE
JUNE 3, 1997
JULY 9, 1997
SP 97-09 FIRST BAPTIST CHURCH, COVESVILLE ! SP 89-021
AMENDMENT
Applicant's Proposal:
The applicant is proposing to amend Special Use Permit SP 89-21, to allow for expansion of the
existing Church cemetery.
Petition:
First Baptist Church, Covesville petitions the Board of Supervisors to amend SP 89-21 to permit
the expansion of an existing cemetery located on 3.0 acres zoned PA, Rural Areas [10.2.2(32)1
(Attachment A). Property, described as Tax Map 109, Parcel 6E, is located on the south side of
Route 805 approximately 0.3 mile west of Route 29 South intersection, in the Scottsville
Magisterial District (.Attachment B). The site is not located in a designated growth area.
Character of the Area:
This site is occupied by the church and the existing cemetery which currently consists of 2.0 acres.
The church wants to expand the cemetery by adding 1.0 acre to the west. The nearest dwelling to
the site is located approximately 150 feet distant on the opposite side of Route 805. The property
entrance is directly offofKoute 805.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staffhas reviewed this request for compliance withthe provisions of Section 31.2.4.1 of the
Zoning Ordinance and recommends approval, with conditions.
Planning and Zpning History_:
SUB 449 Willie Henderson - On June 16, 1969, The Director of Planning and Community
Development signed the plat to create one new lot of 2.0 acres.
SP 89-021 Covesville First Baptist Church - On May 17, 1989, the Board of Supervisors
unanimously approved a permit to allow for construction of a new church facility on 2.0
acres.
SDP 89-091 Covesville Baptist Church - On February 22, 1990, the Site Review
Committee signed a proposal to demolish the existing church and construct a church of
apprOximately 7,150 square feet.
Comprehensive Plan:
The Comprehensive Plan notes this area as a Rural Area. The plan contains no comment related
to the proposed special use permit. The Open Space Plan, notes this area as farmland and forest.
No other features are identified in the Open §pace Plan.
STAFF COMMENT:
Staff will address each provision of Section 31.2.4.1 of the Zoning Ordinance.
The Board of Supervisors hereby reserves unto itself the right to issue all special use
permits permitted hereunder. Special use permits for uses as provided in this ordinance
may be issued upon a finding by the Board of Supervisors that such use will not be of
substantial detriment to adjacem property_,
The proposed activity should have virtually no impact on adjacent property as the current
cemetery exists and this will be an expansion to that use. Section 57-26(A) of the State
Code o£Virgmia requires any residence located within 250 yards of a proposed cemetery
to grant consent to establish the cemetery (Attachment C). Since this proposal is for an
enlargement to an existing cemetery, the requirements of Section 57-26(A) do not apply.
However Sarah Williams, the only residence located within 250 yards of the proposed
expansion of the cemetery, has granted consent for the cemetery expansion (Attachment
D).
that the character of the district will not be changed thereby,
The area proposed for a cemetery is adjacent to the existing cemetery and is overgrown
with underbrush. Based on the existing site characteristics the proposed use should not
change the character of the district~
and that such use will be in harmony with the purpose and intent of this ordinance,
Staff has reviewed the purpose and intent of the Zoning Ordinance and the Rural Areas
and finds no conflict between the proposed use and intent of the Ordinance.
with the uses permitted by right in the district,
The proposed use will not affect the permitted uses on adjacent property.
with additional regulations provided in Section 5.0 of this ordinance,
Section 5.0 contains no additional regulations.
and with the public health, safety and general welfare.
The Health Department requires that all grave sites be located at least I00 feet away from
any well. A portion of the proposed cemetery is within 100 feet of Sarah William's
residential well. The First Baptist Church, Covesville Official Board has agreed to no~
locate any grave sites within 100 feet of the well (Condition 1). The Department of
Transportation has reviewed this request and has no comment.
SUMMARY:
Staff is unable to identify any negative issues for this request. Staff opinion is that the proposed
use is consistent with Section31.2,4.1 of the Zoning Ordinance and therefore, staff recommends
approval of this request subject to the following conditions:
RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL:
1. All grave sites shall be located at 100 feet or more from any well.
ATTACHMENTS:
A - Tax Map And Location Map
B - Applicant's Request For Special Use Permit Amendment
C - Section 57-26 0£The Slate Code o£ Virginia
D - Letter o£Consent From Sarah Williams
A:\SP9709,RPT
IATTACHMENT '~'1
SA
/
/
/
/
__ SP 97-'09 __
COVESVILLE FIRST BAPTIST CHURCH
~ LE ND
SECTION IO~ ,.~.
SAMf
SP 97-09 --t
COVESVILLE FIRST BAPTIST CHURCH
IATTAOHMENT AI
L~
6
ROCK
County of
Albemarle
Application for
SPECIAL USE
PERMIT
IATTACHMENT B]
sP#: q'/
Date Submitted .
Fee Paid q
Receipt Number .. [.
Intake Staff.
Department of Zoning
401 Mclntire Road · Charlottesville, Virginia 229024596 $ 804 296-5875 phone · 804 9724035
,.~ NEW SP (See Zoning Ordinance Section 35.0 for Appropriate Fee)
AMENDMENT OF A VALID SP: SP # ~Cl-&[ ($85.00)
EXTENSION OF A VALID SP: SP# ($55.00)
TaxMnp/P~rcel: 10900-00~00-006E0 ~'irst Baptist Ch 10900-00-00-00600 Edward Henderson
Location: State Rt. 805 Henderson Lane Covesville
PROJECT NAME: Purchase 1.O0 Acre to be use~. for additional cemetery space
Existing Zoning: Commercial
PROPOSED USE:.To extend existing eemeZery
OWNERName: First Baptist Church~ Covesville '~L~3 ~
Ad&ess:, P. 0. Box 92 Covesvllle 22931
Phon~: . 295-5902. . Day T~e Phone: 924~69
Phenolax: Z~Q~ Day T~me Phone:
CONTACTNamc (if different from above): Rauzelle J. Smith
Ad.ess: 1508 Trailridge Rd. Charlottesville, VA 22903
Phone/Fax: 979-2~06 __ Day Time Phone: 924'"~69
I hereby disclose that the owner or owners of the ~ubject property also have an ownership interest in the
following tax map and parcel numbers, which abut or are immediately across the street or road from the
subject property:
If ownership of the Subject property is in the name of any type of legal entity or organization including, but
not limited to, the name of a corporet/on, partnership, or association, or in the name of a trust, or in a
fictitious name, the applicant must sumit with this application a document acceptable to the County which
certifies that the person signing below has the authority to do-so. If the applicant is a contract purchaser
of the subject pmperhy, the applicant must submit a document acceptable to the County containing the
owneFs written consent to the application. If the applicant is the agent of the owner, the applicant must
submit a document acceptable to the County that is evidence of the existence and scooe of the agency,
I hereby certify that the information provided on this application and accompanying information is
accurate, true and correct to the best of my knowledge and beliefi
,~TTACHMENT Bl
Special Use. Permit Application
2
DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST: (Please attach additional nformation as needed'~
First Baptist Church~ Covesville would like to purchase 1.00 acre of
land from Edward E. Henderson Parcel No. 10900-00-00-00600. The proposed
ac~e abuts the ~est' side of the church exiting cemetery, Parcel No.
10900-00-00-006E0.
JUSTIFICATION: (Please at(ach additional information as needed)
The additional land will provide burial sp~ce for the next 50 to 60 years.
OFFICE USE ONLY
TAX MAP/PARCEl.:
q - - - 5. 6.
7. ~ g
REQUESTED UNDER ORDINANCE SECTION: l g, '~g .~5
PROpOSEOUSU:__ _
EXISTING USE:...
t I ISTO RY'
[] V^s:
5~'g~"r~(~ [] ZMAs cmdProfl'crs:
[] Letter o1' Authorization
§ 57-23
RELIGIOUS ANI3 CHARITABLE MATTERS; CEMETERIES
ecclesiastical or other society, as a cemetery. It shall be held by such trustees
and their successors for such nse and no other. (Code 1919, § 50,)
~ 57-23. Appointment, change or removal of trustees. -- On the
application of the governing body of a city or town, the attorney for the
Commonwealth of a county, ten citizens of a ~aagisterial district, or the proper
authorities of any such association or society, for whose use such cemetery is
held, the circuit court of the county in which the cemetery is situated may: from
time to time, appoint, change, and remove the trustees, as provided in § 57-8,
whenever it may seem to the court proper to effect or promote the purposes of
the trust. ~Code 1919, § 51.)
§ 57-24. Powers and duties of trustees. -- Such trustees and their
successors shall have power to make such rules and regulations for tho burial
of the dead, the laying off, assignment and sale of burial lots, and the
management, care, preservation and improvement of the grounds, as they may
deem proper. Theymay take and hold personal property and money for the
purposes of the trust,~ and what is se acqnlred and all money received from the
sale of lots shall be accounted for by them and faitbfully applied to ~uch
purposes, (Code I919, § 52./
§ 57-24.1. Trustee for purpose of suit. -- In the case of any private or
family graveyard, where no trustees have been designated, and it appears that
the interest of justice may be served by the appointment of a trustee or trustees
for the purpose of suing or being sued, on the petition of any interested parw,
the court of record wherein deeds are recorded of the county or city in which
such cemetery is located, may appoint a trustee or trustees for the purpose of
suing or being sued. The petitioner shall bear the expense of such proceedings,
provided that in the event a recovery is effected on behalf of such trustee or
trustees, costs shall he taxed as provided by law. (1970, c. 94.)
§ 57-25. C.o. ndemnation of land for cemeteries. -- If it be desired at any
time to estabhsh a cemetery, for the use of a city, town, county or magisterial
district, or to enlarge any such cemetery already established, and the title to
land needed cannot be otherwise acqnired, land sufficient for the purpose may
be condemned. Application for the condemnation shall be made by the
governing body of ~he city or town, the attorney for the Commonwealth of the
county, or any ten citizens of the'~agisterial district, as the case may be, to the
circuit court of the county in w~ich the land lies, and the proceedings shall be
according to the provisions of Tltle 25 for condemnation of land thereunder, so
far as they can be applied to the case. The title to any land acquired under the
proceedings, if for t~e enlargement of an existing cemetery, shall vest in the
trustees of such cemetery; and if for the establishment of a new cemetery, the
title shall vest in trustees to be appointed under § 57-23. The land shall be
hold by the trustees and their successors as provided by § 57-22. (Code 1919.
"Establish" and "enlarge" are no'~ used "enlarge" to be used interchangeably, but that
lnt&rchangeably.-- The language of this sec- the use of one excluded any ide~ that it em-
tiaa completely demonstrates that the legisla- braced or meant the other. Temple v. City ~f
~ure did not intend the wards "establish" and Petersburg, 182 Va. 418 29 S.E.2d 357 (1944].
~ § 57-26. (Effective until July 1~ 1999) Restrictions as ~o location of
cemeteries and as to quantity of land. -- A. Restrictions as to location. No
cemetery Shall be hereafter established within a county or the corporate limits
of any city or town, unless authorized hy appropriate ordinance s~bject to any
723
IATTACHHENT C I
§ 57-26 CODE OF ViRGI~iA § 57-26
zoning ordinance duly adopted by the governing 6ody of such county, city or
town; provided that authorization by ceunw ,,rdinance s hall not be required for
interment of the dead in any churchyard er lbr interment of members of
family on private property; nor shall any cemetery be established within 250
yards of any residence without the consent at' t]ae owner of the legal and
equitable title of the residence; provided Omi sutljcc~ to the foregmng if tbe
location for the proposed cemetery is separated from any residence I~y a state
highway, it may be established upon such location ,without the consent of tbe
az;ncr of such residence if it be not less than 250 from the residence at its
nearest point thereto; provided such prohibition and restriction shall not apply
where the tract of land intended for use as a cemetery is separated from any
residence by a state highway and now contains a public or private burial
ground and is not within the corporate limits of any cits/ or town; and no
cemetery shall he hereafter established, and no bnrial made in any part of any
cemetery, other than a municipal or city cemetery, located within 300 yards of
any property owned by,any city, town o,r,,watm company, upon wbieh or a
poffcion of which a~e now located driven x~ ells ?om whi,ch ~ater is pumped or
drawn from the ground in connection with tilt. mblic water supply.
B. Quantity et land. Nothing cantmn~.-8- m §§ 07-22 to 57-25 '~
construed as to anthorizea conveyance of more than 300 acres er the
condemnation of more than 2 acres of land for the nsc of a cemetery, except in
counties having a population between 30,500 and 39,550, where no more than
five acres of land for the use of a cemetery may be condemned.
C. Action for damages. When damage is done to adjacent land by tim
establishment of such cemetery whether established by purchase or condem-
nation, the owners whose lands have been damaged shall have a rigbt to action
for such damag,e, against any person, firm, corporation, or municipality,
establishing the cemetery provided such action he instituted within one year
from such establishment.
D. Exceptions. The prohibitions and r~strictmns as m the location or
establishment of cemeteries shall not apply to the town of Stuart. in Patrick
County, to the town of Gretna, in Pittpytvania County, m the rowe of
Shenandoah in Page County, or tn thc W~odbine Cemetery in the city ef
Harrisonburg, Rockingham County. Ami i lh~ Pa:allot for tbe proposed
cemetery be in Norfolk County it may be estah/isbed on such location if censent
thereto be given hy the owners of every sesidence within 250' cbe,'eof at its
nearest point to any such residence, or iffl~e h-,cauon for the proposed cemetery
is separated from any such residence by a state }; [gbway it may be established
upon such location without the consent of tht~ owner of such residence ii' it be
not less than 150' from the residence at its nearest, point thereto. (Code 1919,
§ 56} 1926, p. 8~; 1934, p. I3; 1942, p. 102; 1.q44, p. 462; 1,c148, p. 492: 1952.
c. 108; 1954, c. 10: ~960, c. 161; 1994, c
is effective until July ' 199.q. For the version r~f
this section effective July 1 1999. see the
following section, als, nmnbered 5%26
Editor's note. -- Acts 1994. c. 229 cl. 2
Acts 19S.t r 229. cl. 1. shall expire on July 1,
1999
§ /57-26. (l]ffective July 1 1999] Restrictions as tn location of cem-
eteries and as to quantity of land. -- I Flestrictio~*s os to h) ,o~ior; -- No
cemetery shall be hereafter established wirtain a county er flue corporate limits
of any city er town. unless authm'ized hy apln nprm~ e erdinam:e subject ~ any
zoning ordinance duly adopted by tbe governingjmdy of such county, city or
town; provided thou afithorization hy county ordinance shall not be req6ire~i for
interment of the dead m any churcbym'(~ or fbr interment of members of a
72 .,1
RECEIVED
May 11, 1997
Planning Deer
To whom it may concern:
Members of the First Baptist Church, Covesvitle Official Board have meet with me
and discussed their need to purchase additional land to be used for cemetery plots. They
have also informed me of the statelaw that requires a cemetery to be a distance of 250
yards from the nearest resident. If this distance doesn't exist, then the property owner
must agree to allow the cemetery to be located there.
After taking measurements, it has been determined that the cemetery will be within
250 yards of my property; however the Official Board has assured me that the cemetery
will be well screened with much of the mature vegetation that currently exist an~l that no
plots will be placed within 100 feet or'my well. With this assurance from the Official
Board, I have no objections to First Baptist Church, Covesville using the proposed land
for cemetery plots.
Property Owner
Witness
Witness
6-3-97 2
(part of) and Tax Map 109. Parcel 6E. is located on the south side of Route 805
approximately 0.25 miJe west of Route 29. This property is not located in a
designated growth area and is in the Scottsville Magisterial District.
Mr. Morrisette presented the staff report. Staff recommended approval subject to one
condition.
The applicant was represented by Vasell Smith. He said church representatives have
met with the adjoining property owners and have reached agreement as to how far the
church will extend the cemetery. There,is no plan to use the property within the next
five years because the existing cemetery can.continue to meet needs for that time
pedod. The majodty of the mature vegetation wilt remain. The expansion will meet
the needs_of the church for 50 to 60 years.
There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission.
Mr. Nitchmann said this property is in his district and he received no negative
comments from the public.
MOTION: Mr. Nitchmann moved, Ms. Washington seconded, that SP 97-09 for the
First Baptist Church be recommended to the Board of Supervisors for approval subject
to the following condition:
1 All grave sites shall be located 100 feet or more from any well.
The motion passed unanimously.
6-3-97 2
(part of) and Tax Map 109, Parcel 6E. is located on the south side of Route 805.
approximately 0.25 mile west of Route 29. This property is not located in a
designated growth area and is in the Scottsville Magisterial District.
Mr. Morrisette presented the staff report. Staff recommended approval subject to one
condition.
The applicant was represented by_Vasell Smith. He said church representatives have
met with the adjoining property owners and have reached agreement as to how far the
church will extend the cemetery. There is no plan to use the property within the next
five years because the existing cemetery can continue to meet needs for that time
period. The majodty of the mature vegetation will remain. The expansion will meet
the-needs_of the church for 50 to 60 years.
There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission.
Mr. Nitchmann said this property is in his district and he received no negative
comments from the public.
MOTION: Mr. Nitchmann moved. Ms. Washington seconded, that SP 97-09 for the
First Baptist Church be recommended to the Board of Supervisors for approval subject
to the following condition:
1. All grave sites shall be located 100 feet or more from any well.
The motion passed unanimously.
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Dept. of Planning & Community Development
401 Mclnfire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
(804) 296-8823
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
June 26, 1997
Mary Jane Chisholm
3260 Eariysville Rd
Earlysville, VA 22936
RE: SP-97-10 Sunnyboy Gardens
Tax Map 31, Parcel 23
De~Ms. Chi~olm:
The Albemarle County Plauning Commission, at its meeting on June 24, 1997, unamimously
recommended approval of the above-noted request to the Board of Supervisors. Please note that
this approval is subject to the following conditions:
l. Compliance with Supplementary Regulations for Farm Sales (Section 5.1.35).
2. Water Resources Manager approval for compliance with Runoff Control Ordinance.
The applicant may use the shade arbor as part of the farm sales structure up to 1,500
square feet, including the interior space.
4. Ferfflizers, herbicides and pesticides shall be stored under roof and off of the ground.
The Planning Commission also granted a waiver of the site develpment plan with the
understanding that the plan will go to the necessary departments/agencies under site review.
Please be advised that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors will review this petition and
receive public comment at their meeting on July 9, 1997. Any new or additional information
regarding your application must be submitted to the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors at least
seven days prior to your schedule hearing date.
Page 2
June 26, 1997
If you should have any questions or comments regarding the above noted action, please do not
hesitate to contact me.
Sincerely,
Mary Joy Scala
Sen/or Planner
MJS/jcf
cc: Ella Carey
Jack Kelsey
Amelia McCulley
Andrea & Hunter Davidson
STAFF PERSON:
PLANNING COMMISSION:
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS:
MARY JOY SCALA
JUNE 24, 1997 (DEFERRED
FROM JUNE 3, 1997)
JULY 9, 1997
SP 97-10 SUNNYBOY GARDENS
Applicant's Proposal: The applicant proposes to locate a farm sales usc for the display and sale
ofhorticuitural items and companion items. The applicant is expanding an existing wayside
stand selling plant materials. (See applicant's proposal - Attachment A).
Petition: Proposal to establish a farm sales use on 2 acres, part of 502.22 acres zoned RA Rural
Areas (10.2.2.45). Property, described as Tax Map 31, Parcel 23, is located on the southwest
side of State Route 743 (Earlysville Road) near Earlysville in the Rio Magisterial District. ]2ris
site is designated Rural Area in the Comprehensive Plan. (See maps - Attachment B).
Character of the Area: This site is part of Adventure Farm, and is both wooded and open. The
existing wayside stand use is screened from Route 743 by a wooded area. There is open pasture
to the west; an equipment storage yard and a contractor's office (Haley, Chisolm and Morris)
zoned LI, Light Industrial, to the south: wooded area to the east; and a manufacturing plant
(Avionics Specialties) zoned LI across Route 743 to the north. Other properties in the area
contain single family dwellings. The Charlottesville-Albemarle Airport is located one half mile
east.
RECOMMENDATION: Staffhas reviewed this request for compliance with Section 31.2.4.1
of the Zon/ug Ordinance and recommends approval with conditions.
Planning and Zoning History_:
SDP 95-003 Hunter Davidson (Surmyboy Garden) wayside stand approved administratively on
February 9, 1995.
SDP 95-064 Chisholm Site Plan Waiver Request approved by Plmming Commission on August
29, 1995. Request to locate a dwelling for a night watchman (fourth dwelling on the parcel) for
the Sunnyboy Garden Wayside Stand.
The existing farm sales structure was built as a farm building without a building permit. It was
then determined by Zoning that the swucture required a conunercial buildh~g permit for the
proposed use. A building permit was issued with the agreement that, if the special use permit
was denied, then only 600 square feet of the new structure would be used as a wayside stand.
Comprehensive Plan: This site is designated Rural Area, and is located with'm the South Fork
Rivanna River Reservoir watershed. The Open Space Plan shows this area designated as
Important Farmlands and Forests.
The Growth Management goal states, "Protect and efficiently utilize County resources by:
A. Emphasizing the importance of protecting the elements that define the Rural Area:
1) Agriculture and forestry resources; 2) water supply resources; 3) natural resources;
41 scenic resources; 5) historic and cultural resources; 6) limited service delivery.
Of these, the protection of agriculture mad forestry resources is the highest priority.
B. Designating Development Areas where a variety of land uses, facilities, and services are
planned to support the County's future growth, with emphasis placed on infill development.
Staff opinion is that the applicant's proposal to locate a farm sales use indirectly helps protect
agricultural and forestry resources by supporting an agricultural and forestry use. Because the
farm sales use supports agriculture and forestry, it will not adversely affect the existing level of
service delivery in the Rural Area. It will not affect natural, scemc, or historic resources.
The use may all'ect water supply resources, which will be addressed in the conditions. A
tributary (intermittent) stream which drains to the South Fork Rivam~a River reservoir is located
behind the farm sales structure. The farm sales structure was constructed as a farm building
within the required 100 foot buffer from the tributary strean~. The Water Resources Manager is
requiring mitigation measures for the change in use to address the stream setback situation (See
letter dated June 4, I997 - Attachment C).
.STAFF COMMENT: Staff will address each provision Of Section 31.2.4.1 of the Zoning
Ordinance.
The Board of Supervisors hereby reserves unto itself the right to issue all special use permits
permitted hereunder. Special use permits for uses as provided in this ordinance may be issued_
upon a finding by the Board of Supervisors that such use will not be of substantial detriment ~
_adjacent property,
The farm sales use will not be visible from adjacent properties. The new farm sales building
contains 864 square feet of enclosed space. An attached shade arbor area contains approximately
3,000 square feet. In addition, plant displays are located in open areas adjacent to the farm sales
structure. There are two greenhouses and a maintenance barn which are marked for employees
only. Parking is provided for nine cars. Current hours and days of operation are 9-6 Monday -
Saturday, and 12-5 Sunday. No changes in hours or days of operation are anticipated. No
negative impacts to adjacent property can be identified.
The Virginia Department of Transportation comments are attached, t~ee letter dated 5/16/97 -
Attachment D). There is a conm~ercial entrance in place. The applicant estimates 25-50 vehicles
per day visit the site. Based on that estimate, no changes are recommended at this time by
VDOT.
2
Zorfing comments are attached (See memo dated 5/15/97 -Attachment
that the character of the district will not be chan~ed thereby.
The applicant's proposal will not change the character of the district.
and that such use will be in harmony with the purpose and intent of this ordinance,
Staff has reviewed the purpose and intent of the Zoning Ordinance, relation to the environment,
and relation to Comprehensive Plan as stated in Sections 1.4, 1.5 and 1.6. and has found this
application m be in harmony with these sections, provided the concerns of the Water Resources
Manager are addressed. Specifically, this request provides that the needs of agrianltttre will be
recognized; and provides for an agricultural activity in the Rural Area,
with the uses permitted bv right in the district,
The proposed use will be in harmony with uses permitted by right in rite district.
with additional remflations provided in Section 5.0 of this ordinance.
The definition of farm sales and the supplementary regulations (5.1.35) for farm sales are
attached (See Farm Sales definition and supplementary regulations -Attachment F). Staffhas
reviewed the proposal for compliance with the supplementary regulations and has the following
comnlents;
The horticultural produce growing area has been established and is in production.
Perennials, herbs, and annuals are grown in the greenhouses. The applicants currently
propagate some shrubs; and will do more in the future. The trees and some shrubs are not
grown on the site.
The farm sales stmcture contains 864 square feet of enclosed space, well under the 1500
square foot limit. At least 50% of the retail sales area inside the structure shall be
produce or merchandise produced On the premises. Displays outside the structure
(including the shade arbor area) shall be limited to agricultt~ral and horticultural produce.
If acceptable to the Planning Commission, part of the arbor area could be designated as
farm sales structure (not to exceed 1500 square feet total) so that bagged soil/fertilizer
could be storeit there. Screening from adjacent properties is not an issue.
A preliminary plan has been submitted tSee sketch and topo - Attachment G). Because
the site was previously approved for a wayside stand use, the improvements are in place.
The existing commercial entrance is acceptable to VDOT for the proposed use. Staff
recommends that a requirement for a site development pl?n be waived.
The setbacks from adjoining propertries and the public road exceed the required
minimums. -'
Some companion items that the applicant intends to sell are pots, band tools, potting soil
and fertilizer. No waiver of this regulation is recommended.
f. The existing farm sales structure was built as a farm building without a building permit.
A commercial building permit was subsequently issued for the proposed use.
and with the public health, safety and general welfare.
There are no public health and safety issues. The proposed use may promote the general welfare
by providing an agricultural activity.
SUMMARY: Staffopinion is that this request is in compliance with the provisions of Section
31.2.4.1 of the Zoning Ordinance, subject to the recommended conditions.
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Staff recommends approval subject to the following conditions:
RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL:
1. Compliance with Supplementary Regulations for Farm Sales (Section 5.1.35).
2. Water Resources Manager approval for compliance with Runoff Control Ordinance.
ATTACHMENTS:
A - Applicant's proposal
B - Maps
C- Water Resources Manager letter
D - VDOT letter
E - Zoning memo
F - Farm Sales definition and supplementary regulations
G- Sketch plan and topo
I:\general\share\ascala\sonnyboy.rpt
4
SP 97-10 SUNNYBOY GARDENS - APPLICANT'S PROPOSAL
Description of Request:
Request to change stares of property on which Sunnyboy Gardens exists from Wayside Stand
permit to Farm Use permit for the display and sale of horticultural items, with at least fifty
percem of retail sales within the farm sales structure having been produced on the premises.
Justification:
Smmyboy Gardens is a growing retail nursery requinng more sales space than the allowed 600
square feet (within the sales building) allowed by the Wayside Stand permit. The Farm Sales
building presently has 864 square feet of sales area. In addition, it has become evident that it is
difficult to stay in business based purely on seasonal sales (April through October). By selling
the allowed mount (or less) of companion products, (not produced on site), we can remain open
year-round, offer a diversified inventory, providing for a more complete retail shopping area for
local residents. It is a clean and attractive site, with an emphasis on display gardens, providing a
positive outlet for those who may not get an opportunity to enjoy open spaces. Our nursery
provides plant material and products that customers can use to beautify, and improve their own
residences. Our goals include educating the public, including preservation of historic and native
plants which are significant to Albemarle County.
SP 97-10
SUNNYBOY GARDENS
/
/
~TTACHMENT C1
June 4, 1997
COUNTY OF,ad REMP~I .E
Depadrnent of En~neenng & Public Works
401 Mctnflre Road. Room 211
Charlott~,ille. krn-ginia 229024596
(804) 296-5861
JUN 0 5 997
[ tanning Dept.
Ms. Andrea S. C. Davidson
Sunnyboy Gardens, Inc.
3314 Earlysville Road
Earlysville, VA 22936
RE: Compliance with Runoff Control Ordinance
Dear Ms. Davidson:
Thanks to you and Hunter for meeting me on June 2 to discuss your building project and
compliance with the County's Runoff Control Ordinance.
As you know, the ordinance requires a 100 foot building and septic setback from all streams
that flow to a drinking water reservoir. "Buildings" are defined as anything subject to the
Statewide Building Code. Farm buildings are exempt from the Building Code, and are
therefore exempt from the stream setback. I understand that it is a matter of a technicality as
to whether the building at Sunnyboy Gardens is a farm building or not. If the conclusion is
that this is not a farm building, then some type of mitigation will be necessary to address the
stream setback situation.
Section 19.1-6(c) of the Runoff Control Ordinance requires that additional information or
plans be submitted to the Engineering Department for any change in a plan for development
subject to the ordinance in order to ensure the "control of any additional surface water runoff"
(see highlighted section of enclosed ordinance).
In this case, the additional information should specify mitigation measures for runoff. As we
discussed at our meeting, the mitigation measures will include: (1) filtration and/or infiltration
of roof runoff, and (2) revegetation and "pondscaping' of the area between the building and
the pond. ' --
I have enclosed a couple of schematics for devices to treat roof runoff. Please note the
remarks and sketches in red that I added to address your concern of lack of infiltration at the
site due to soil conditions. I have also enclosed a section from a book, Design of Stormwcaer
Wetland Systems. concerning pondscaping and a species list for the Mid-Atlantic region.
While this material pertains to stormwater wetlands. I think the pondscaping information will
be quite applicable to your situation.
FAX (804) 972-4035
Ms Andrea S. C. Davidson
Sunnyboy Gardens, Inc.
June 4, 1997
Page Two
I ATTACHPIENT C i' '
In order to comply with the Runoff Control Ordinance, the following information must be
submitted and approved: (1) design for roof runoff filtration and/or infiltration with a schedule
for implementation, and (2) design for pondscaping between the building and pond, also with a
schedule for implementation.
I would be glad to work with you on these items. I think I may be able to suggest some
aquatic and riparian species that may be appropriate to your site.
,f"~Sincerely, [1
Water Resources Manager
DJH/ctj
Enclosures
Copy: Jack Kelsey, Chief of Engineering
Mary Joy Scala, Planning & Community Development
John Grady, Building Code & Zoning Services
DAVID R. GEHR
COMMISSIONER
COMMONWEALTH o[ VIRCjINIA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
701 VDOT WAY
CHARLOTTESVILLE. 22911
A. G. TUCKER
May 16, 1997
June Public Hearing
Submittals
Mr. Ron Kseler
Dept. of Planning &
Community Development
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, VA.
22902
Dear Mr. Keeler:
Please find our comments below in regards to the submittals for June Public
Hearings:
f
SP-97-09 Covesville First BaDtist Church, Route 805
No comment.
~P-97-10 Sunny Boy ~ardens, Route 743
There is presently a commercial entrance in place.
A projection of the amount of traffic should be reviewed, although it may not
require turn lanes, there is the potential for such requirements; either by
sheer numbers or. for safety of motorist.
SP-97-11 Panorama Trails, Inc., Route 661
The existing road is a very narrow unpaved surface. Any additional commercial
use will dause this road to be a real maintenance concern. We recommend that
Route 661 be improved from Route 660 to the commercial entrance with a minimum
of the current 3-R standard for traffic projected. There is not presently a
policy on what the pave-in place involves, however there appears to be several
locations where additional right of way or grading easements.would be needed
for widening. A minimum of 40 feet of right of way is recommended
RECEIVED
MAY 1 6 t997
Planning Dept.
TRANSPORTATION :OR THE 21ST CENTURY
Building Code t~ormation
~8D4 296-5832
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Building Code and Zoning Services
401 M¢lntire Road. Room 223
Charlottesville Virginia 22902~4596
FAX (804,972~.126
~FFD 1804/ 972-4012
1997
Zoning information
(804) 296-5875
MEMORANDUM
TO: Ron Keeler. Chief of Planning
FROM: Jan Sprinkle. Zoning Assistant..,,~
DATE: May 15, 1997
RE: SP/ZMA Comments for June Publ'c Hearings
1. SP 97-09 First Baptist Church Covesville - The church and existing cemetery
already have an SP. This SPwill allow expansion of the cemetery on, to the new
~....-. one acre to be acq dired from the adjacent parcel.
SP 97-10 Sunnyboy Gardens This is the first request for farm sales since it was
added to the ordinance. The supplemental regulations of Section 5.1.35 will apply
including the preliminary schematic plan which I haven't seen. Please clarify all
buildings and how they fit the defined structures.
3. SP 97-11 Panorama Trails, Inc. Have reviewed the prior SP97-06 and find no
condition which would preclude this use if the watershed manager and the county
engineer approve the runoff control measures and agricultural BMP's. We are
anticipating a request for a special use permit for a day camp on this same parcel.
it may be helpfu for both reviews to know where the separate uses are in relation
to each other on the property as well as which entrances they use.
4. SP 97-12 Myers Family Division - Please clarify if the development right is to be
allowed with or without subdivision, If dependent on subdivision condition the
plat recordation prior to building permit issuance.
,5. SP 97-13 360 Communications of Charlottesville, Eure Communications Inc.
- Section 4.10.3.1 requires that no tower shall be located closer.in distance to any
lot line than the hei ~ht of the structure except as otherwise permitted by the
commission in a specific case, The commission could waive or modify this now or
condition the tow_er to meet the setback.
6.SP 97-14 Roslyn Private Catholic School -Withdrawn.
7. SP 97-15 Western Ridge Business Park - The zoning administrator has already
sent a letter outlining her pqsition on this reeuest.
8.SP 97-16 St. Paul's Church - No comment. (The temporary design planner is
~/'Farm Sales: The sale of agricultural or~orticultural produce or merchandise
produced on the farm, with subordinate sales of produce or merchandise not
produced on the premises. Merchandise not produced on the premises shall be
companion items intended to be used with (for planting, caring for, display-
· ng, combining with, canning, or preserving) the agricultural or horticultural
produce which is produced on the farm, but shall nor include farm machinery
and equipment (except hand tools), building materials, furniture, or other
like items. Example~: Canning jars, pumpkin carving kits, wreath making
supplies, floral arranging supplies, potting soil, pots, packaged fertilizer,
muich, peat moss, prun-~ng shears, gardening gloves, Christmas tree decora-
tions. (Added ~0-11-95~
5.1.35 FARM SALES
One (1) farm sales structure may be established per farm. In
addition to displays and sales of agricultural or horticultural
produce or merchandise which is produced on the farm, it may
include companion items ho= produced~n the premises, but intended
=o be used with the agricultural or horticultural produce which ks
produced on the farm. The farm sales structure shall no= be
established until the agricultural or horticultural produce
growing area has been established and is in production. Such
growing area shall be reestablished on an annual basis.
The total retail sales area in the farm sales structure shall not
exceed fifteen hundred (1,500) square feet. Greenhouses shall not
be counted as part of the total retail sales area, unless one is
designated as the farm sales struc=ure. At all times, at least
fifty (50) percent of the retail sales area inside the farm sales
structure shall be agricultural or horticultural produce or
merchandise produced on the premises. The remaining fifty (50)
percent area may be companion items. Displays outside the farm
sales structure shall be limited to agricultural and horticultural
produce only.
A preliminary schematic plan in accordance with section 32.4.1
shall be submitted along with, and become a part of, the special
use permit application. The plan shall include the area of the
farm sales s=ructure, parking and entrance. The plan shall
address, in particular, provisions for safe and convenient access
from and to the public road, adequacy of delineation of parking,
and general information regarding the exterior appearance of the
proposed site. Based on the submitted information, the board of
supervisors may then waive the requirement for a site development
plan in a particular case, upon a finding that the requirement of
a site development plan would not forward the purposes of this
ordinance or otherwise serve the public interest. No such use
shall be established without Virginia Depar=ment of Transportation
approval of commercial access to the site.
The farm sales structure and parking area shall not be located
closer than fifty (50) feet to any adjoining property not under
the same ownership. The farm sales structure shall mee= front
yard setbacks for a primary structure. The parking area shall
be located closer than =eh (10) feet to any public or private
street right-of-way.
Farm machinery and equipment (except hand tools), building materi-
als, furniture or other like items, shall not be offered for sale.
Ail farm sales structures shall meet all applicable requirements
of the Virginia Uniform statewide Building Code. (Added. lO-11-9~)
OF SUPER¥ISORS
06_0 c._9,] ~,0,~: 14 RCVD
June 6, 1997
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Dept. of Plannin~ & CommuniW Development
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4696
(8041 296-5823
Hamilton R. Myers
2809 Burnt Mill Road
Charlottesville, VA 22911
SP 97-12 Myers Family Division
Tax Map 47, Prce132C
Dear Mr. Myers:
The Albemarle Coun .ty Planning Commission, at its meeting on June 3, 1997, by a vote of 6-1,
recommnded approval of the above-noted request to the Board of Supervisors. Please note that this
approval is subject to the following conditions:
1
2.
3.
The parcel authorized to be created as a result of this special use permit must quality as a family
division.
The parcel authorized to be created as a result Of this special use permit shall not encroach into
the floodplain of the North Fork Rivarma River.
No building permit for an additional dwelling shall be issued until the plat has been recorded.
Please be advised that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors will review this petition and receive
public comment at their meeting on July 9, 1997. Any new or additional information regarding your
application must be submitted to the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors at least seven days prior to your
schedule hearing date.
If you should have any questions or comments regarding the above noted action, please do not hesitate to
contact me.
Sincerely,
Planner
JS6cf
cc: Ella Carey Amelia McCulley Jack Kelsey
STAFF PERSON:
PLANNING COMMISSION
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS:
JOHN SHEPHERD
JUNE 3, 1997
JULY 9, 1997
SP-97-12 MYERS FAMILY DIVISION {Hamilton R. and Vir~nia Myers}
Applicants' Request: The applicants request one additional development right to permit the
creation of a lot to be conveyed by family division to their daughter and son in law. (Attachment
A)
Petition: Hamilton R. and Virginia Myers petition the Board of Supervisors to issue a special
use permit for one additional development right [Sections 1 0.2.2 (2 8) and 10.5.2of the Zoning
Ordinance] on 31.83 acres zoned RA, Rural Areas. Property, described as Tax Map 47, Parcel
32c is located on the south side of Burnt Mill Road (Route 784) approx!mately one mite west of
its intersection with Watts Passage (Route 600) in the Stony Point are~ in the Rivanna
Magisterial District. This site is not located in a designated growth area (Rural Area 2).
Character of the Area: The property is wooded and gently sloping towards the North Fork
Rivanna River. A small area of this property lies in the flood plain ofthe North Fork Rivanna
River. There are two intermittent streams flowing through the site. There is one dwelling
occupied by the applicants and another dwelling under construction intended for the applicants'
daughter and son in law on the property. There are eight dwellings in the immediate area of the
site. Route 784 is a gravel road.
SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATION: Staffhas reviewed this request for compliance
with the provisions of Section 10.5.2.1 of the Zoning Ordinance and recommends approval.
Planning and Zoning History_:
On December 6, 1985 Parcels 32, 32A and 32B were divided from Tax Map.47,
Parcel 32. Each of these three parcels used a development right. The residue, parcel
32C which is the subject of this request retained two development rights.
The applicant acquired Parcel 32C and Lot 32B in 1987.
On February 9, 1993 the applicant used one development right to divide 4.06 acres from Parcel
32C to create Parcel 32D. This division required a waiver from 18-36 (f) of the Subdivision
Ordinance which was approved on January 9, 1990. The plat that created this parcel also
relocated an access easement and transferred 1.31 acres from Tax Map 47, Parcel 32B to Parcel
32C.
The applicants have conveyed Parcel 32B to Hodges and Jill Myers, their son and daughter in
law. The applicants have conveyed Parcel 32D to Hamilton Jr. and Heather Myers their son
and daughter in taw. Both of these families have .built houses on these parcels.
On May 23, 1997 the applicants conveyed a 4.05 acre lot by family division to Lee and Charles
Linder, their daughter and son in law. This division exhausted the development rights on parcel
32D. The Linders' house is presently under construction.
Comprehensive Plan: This property, istOCated within the Rural Areas as recommended by the
Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan states, "Additional lots are contrary to rural
area preservation. However, there may be parcels which could qualify for additional lots under
the ordinance criteria, especially adjacent to growth areas" (page 204). The Plan observes that,
"The special use permit_provision has resulted in very few additional lots approved since 1980,
which may indicate that few properties meet the established criteria (page 203).
The Comprehensive Plan states on page 203:
"All decisions concerning rural areas shall be made in the interest of the four major
elements of the Comprehensive Plan. The four major elements are: 1) preservation of
agricultural and forestal activities; 2) water supply protection; 3) limited service delivery
to the Rural Area; and 4) conservation of natural, scenic and historic resources."
Staff offers the following comments regarding the four elements: The property is presently in
land use for forestry, The property, is not located within the watershed of a drinking water
impoundment, This proposal results in one additional dwelling above what would be allowed
by right which would result in a limited increase in demand for services. A small portion of the
property lies in the flood plain of the North Fork Rivanna River which is a major stream valley
recommended for protection in the Open Space Plan. This area is not developable because of
flood plain and critical slopes.
STAFF COMMENT: Staff reviews all requests for additional lots in the Rural Area under
Section 10.5.2 of the Zoning Ordinance. Since the adoption of the ordinance in 1980, twenty
(20) requests for additional lots have been heard by the Board of Supervisors. Ten (10)
petitions have been approved for a total of 20 additional lots. (Attachment F) Board approval
has typically been based on a finding that the application adequately meets the criteria of Section
10.5.2.1. such as location next to a growth area or existing development, involved provision of
land for family members or had some unique circumstance.
The Zoning Ordinance specifies criteria in Section 10.5.2.1 which is to be used during rewew
of a special use permit for additional development rights: The following is an analysis based on
those criteria:
The Board of Supervisors shall determine that SUch subdivision is compatible with the
neighborhood as set forth in Section 32.2.4.1 of this ordinance, with reference to the goals and
objectives of the comprehensive plan relating m rural areas including the _type of division
proposed and specifically, as to this section only, with reference to the following:
The size. shape, topogra-nhy and exi~tin? vegetation of the property_ in relation to its
suitabili _ty for agricultural or forestal production as evaluated by the United States
Department of Aericulture Soil Conservation Service or the Virginia Department of
Forestry.
This property consists of 31.83 acres. Slopes in the area of the proposed additional lots range
from two percent to fifteen percent (2-15 %) based on information contained in the Soil Survey
of Albemarle County. The property is wooded except for areas that have been cleared for
house sites and is under use value taxation for forestry.
2
The acmitl suitability of the soil for agricultural or forestal nroduction as the same shall
be shown on the mgst recem Dublishe-d mans hr'the United ~tates Department of
A~iculture Soil Conservation Service or Other source deemed of equivalent reliabili _fy by
the Soil Conservation Service.
An analysis of the soils on this site, based on the Soil Survey of Albemarle County indicates that
the land is well suited for trees. The soils' suitability for pasture and hay crops range from well
suited to poor.
The historic commercial a_ericultural or forestal uses of the property_ since 1950. tO the
extent that it is reasonably available
The applicant has not timbered this property and is not aware of any commercial or agricultural
use of the property since 1950. The exact agricultural history of this property is not known.
If located in an agricultural or forestal area. the probable effect of theproposed
development on the character of the area. For the purposes of this
section, a property_ shall be deemed to be in an agricultural area if fifty (50) percent or
more of the land within one (1) mile of the border of such property has been in
commercial agricultural or forestal use within five (5) years of the date of the application
for special use permit. In making this determination mountain ridges, ma_'~or streams and
other physical barriers which detract from the cohesiveness of an area shall be
considered.
Seventy one (71) percent of the land within one mile of this site, on the east side of the Rivarma
River, including this parcel, is under land use taxation. Land use taxation indicates commercial
agricultural or forestal activity. Based onthe pementage of land in use value taxation, this site
is in a an agricultural or forestal area.
The relationsh~ of the property_ in regard to developed rural areas. For the purpose of
this section, a property shall be deemed to be located in a developed rural area if fifty
(50~ percent or more of the land within one (D mile of the boundary_ of such property
was in parcels of record of five acres or less on the adoption date of this ordinance. In
making this determination mountain ridges, maior streams and other physical harriers
which detract from the cohesiveness of an area shall be considered.
Two (2) percent of the land within one mile of this site. on the east side of the Rivanna River
was in lots of five acres or less on the adoption date of this ordinance. Therefore, this is not a
developed rural area. Staff notes that three of the twelve lots containing less than five acres in
this area are located on Route 784 opposite this property.
The relationship of the ~ro~osed development to existine and proposed ~o~ulation
centers, services and employment centers. A property_ within areas described below
shall be deemed in proximity_ to the area or use described:
a~ Within one mile roadwav distance of the urban area boundary as described in the
comprehensive plan;
b. Within one half mile roadway distance of a commnnity_ lponndary as described in the
comprehensive plan~
c. Within one half mile roadway distance of a villaee as described in the
comprehensive plan.
The property is located approximately 8 miles from the urban area. The property is located
approximately 1 and 3/4 miles from Stony Point, which was once designated as a village.
7. The probable effect of the proposed development on capital improvements ~
in regard to increased provision of ~ervices,
This proposal, if approved, would have a negligible impact on capital improvements
programming as it results in only one additional dwelling.
8. The traffic ~enerated from the proposed development would not. in the opinion of the
Virginia Department of Transportation:
a. Occasion the need for road improvement;
b. Cause a tolerable road to become a non-tolerable road:
c. Increase traffic on an existing non-tolerable road,
Burnt Mill Road (Route 784) is currently listed as non-tolerable and carries 163 vehicle trips
per day. This proposal may result in ten (10) additional trips per day. Staff notes that an
adjoining property owner has raised a concern about the impact of an additional lot on this
road.
$1,YMMARY AND RECOMMENDATION:
Staff has identified the following factors which are favorable to this request:
1. This application meets the requirements and intent of family division;
2. The site is not 'in a water supply watershed;
3. The proposal will have minimal impact on capital improvements programming;
4. The site is not known to have been used for commercial agricultural or forestal purposes.
Staff has identified the following factors that are unfavorable to this request:
1. Applicants bought property with limited number of development rights;
2. The site is within an agricultural/forestal area based on land use taxation records;
3. The site is not within close pro:¢imity to designated growth areas;
4.
The site is not in a developed rural area;
5. The proposal will increase traffic on'a non-tolerable, gravel road;
A small portion of Parcel 32C lies in the flood plain of North Fork Rivauna River, which
is a major stream valley recommended for protection in the Open Space Plan. Staff notes
that this area is not developable.
Staff Comment on Requests for Additional Development Rights-That Involved Family: Section
10.5.2.1 provides no specific criteria for review of additional lots for family members.
However, three spec'nd use permits have been approved for additional development.rights
specifically because the resulting lots would benefit family members. In order m compare this
application to similar applications, staff has reviewed all six requests for additional
development rights Involving family members:
SP-88-103 Lois Beckwith was approved by the Board of Supervisors. Staff finds that the
curt'em request bears little relationship to SP-88-103 because the approval was based on
prior Coumy administrative error. However, the purpose ofthe additional dwelYmg was
to provide independent housing for an elderly family member.
SP-89-57 Rolsert and Sandra Haney was denied by the Board of Supervisors. The
applicant.indicated that they wanted to make a lot available to their daughter and son in
law. The property was the residue of a July 18, 1985 subdivision that created five
additional lots, which the applicants purchased in 1989. The Board denied the
application because development rights had already been exhausted when the property
was purchased and because of concern that approval would set an unwanted precedent.
SP-9246 James Clark was approved by the Board of Supervisors. The applicant
requested one additional development right on a 25 acre parcel in order to create three
parcels; One lot for each of his daughters and a third lot for a public garage. The 25
acre parcel was created on June 21, 1990 with no development rights. The applicant
purchased the property on July 3, 1990. The'concern for setting an unwanted precedent
was discussed but was not determined to be a justification for denial of the request. The
Board based its approval, in part, on sensitivity to the request being for family members.
4&5. SP-92-51 Alan Dunbar and SP 94-01 Alan Dunbar were both approved.by the Board of
Supervisors. Together, these actions permitted two additional dwellings on land owned
by this family. The Board based its approvals on the fact that e~ist'mg development
rights were exhausted by family divisions and the additional development rights were
for additional family divisions.
SP-93-11 James Johnston was denied by the Board of Supervisors. The applicant
requested an additional development right for a daughter. The Board's denial was based
on the fact that the development rights had been exhausted through the commercial sale
of lots pursuant to a plan of development proposed by the applicant and approved by the
Board. Also, the criteria for issuance for an additional lot was not adequately 'met.
Staff opinion is that the reviews of these requests by Planning Commission and Board of
Supervisors focused on certain common elements; a sensitivity for family requests
regarding use of their land, the presence or absence of prior commercial sale of lots and
a concern for setting unwanted precedents. Staff opinion is that the Dunbars' requests
(Sps 92-51 and 94-010) are the most comparable to this request. The Dunbars Owned
their property prior to the adoption of the Zoning Ordinance. The Meyers acquired their
land in 1987 ;:adth all available development rights. The Dunbars have more children than
development rights, as do the Myers. The Dunbars exhausted their available
development rights for family divisions, as did the Myers. The Dunbars' requests
increased traffic on a private road that also served a non-family member. The Meyers'
request will increase traffic on a non-tolerable gravel road. Neither request met the
criteria. However, the Dunbar property was notconsidered viable for agriculture and
was closer to the urban area than the Meyers' property.
Review of this application has providedmixed findings. Staff opinion is that this request
doesnot, on balance, meet the criteria for additional development rights provided in the
Zoning Ordinance. The property is located away from existing development or growth
areas and is, in fact, in an agricultural / forestal area. However, the application is
consistent with' applications for additional development rights involving family members
which have been approved in the past. The applicants have used the two development
rights assigned to this parcel for the benefit of two of their sons and daughters. The
applicants acquired and conveyed an additional lot that came from the original parent
parcel to another of their sons. The addition~/1 development right, subject to this request,
will also be used for a daughter. The applicants acquired all available development
rights when they purchased this property and have not sold any lots to non-family
members: In conversation with staff, the applicant stated that they were not concerned
with development rights when they acquired the property because they did not expect
their sons and daughters m want to live on family property. Based on these
circumstances and the Board's actions regarding additional lots for family members, staff
would recommend approval of this request.
Should the Board of Supervisors choose to approve this request, staff offers the
following conditions:
RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL:
The parcel created as a result of this special use permit must quality as a family division.
The parcel created as a result of this special use permit shall not encroach into the major
Stream valley of the North Fork Rivanna River.
No building permit for an additional dwelling shall be issued until the subdivision plat
has been recorded.
A- Applicant Letter
B- Applicant's Sketch Plan
C- Location Map
D- Tax Map
E- Virginia Department of Transportation
F- Summary of Requests for Additional Lots Heard by the Board of Supervisors
Letter from Thomas and Christine Stephens
6
IATTACHMENT A'I
LOT 4. TAX MAP 47 - Parcel 32
D.B. 261 p. 427
D.B 154 p.429 plat
Request for special use permit for family divisions of real estate
OWNERS: Hanf~lton and Virginia Myers
In 1987. we bought from Richard Wood_ two lots on Rt. 784 near Stony Point. Mr. Wood had previensls, sectioned off
from his original 54+ acres, three lots and had already sold two of them. We bought both the original piece (Lot 4~ (which
retained the remaining two development rights) and the remaining 5 acre lot (Lot 3). We built a home for our family on Lot 4
which was then almost 39 acres. Eventually our children began marrying and seeking to establish their ovm homes. We g~'e to
our oldest son. four acres taken from the front of Lot 4 ~which used up one of the two d~elopment rights assigned to that lot). Our
second son built a house on Lot 3 (which we had down-sized to four acres, making it more equal to the oldest son's lot~. Our oldest
daughter and her husband are finishing their house built on four acres sectioned off of Lot 4 (which used up the last development
right for that lot I. We would like for our next daughter and her husband to be allowed to build their house on part of the
remmnmg 31 acres. We are requesting a "special use permit" allowing us to make this division of approximately four acres for this
daughter.
The land is completely wooded and has been in forestry land-use for many years. We believe we are justified in requesting
this allowance because the homes that have been constructed rand those planned) have not mused a dramatic change in the
character of the area. as only necessary clearing was done for the house site and septic field. We also believe the di,,fsmn is
justified because we believe it is right to fairly share our land with any of our children who would like to Bave a part of it.
RECE VE
2 2 997
Plannin9 De t
Approved for Recordation
County of Albemarle.
Pipe af
20. O'
2~ O'
5. 096 Acs.
~OU~E
o!
?84
gO.0
Pipe
I
~ ~'~, ~ 4"M#d. Walnuf
~1:/'~,, ' Oaksnag N '~ ° IS ' w
$, 107 Acs.
306, 9I '
N46 o1.~'37#w
$8. 0.90
47. 82 wilIam ~ d )
o's' 261 p' 4~_~at
LOTS I,P,b$ COMPRI~HTS'
2 DEVELOPMENV RIGHTS FOR PARCELS LESS THAN
31 ACS. INSIZE ABE ASSIGNED TO LOT
1718. O0 '
K M. 47- $1 B Nature Conservancy~ /nc.
D.B, 434 p. ~G5 P. ~6~ P/at
IATTACHM ENT BI
? While Oak
o! ~K 9 '
~5 °54'37"E
LOT I
5. 145 Acs.
Large
Mkd. Beech
Iron
£ound
Wm. MORRIS FOSTER
LAND SURVEYOR
CHARLOTTESVILLE . VA.
PLAT SHOWING SURVEY OF
LOTS I- 4- , A DIVISION OF
54.2:56 ACRES DESIG NATED
TAX MAP 47 - P A R C E L 52
RI VANNA MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT OF
ALBEMARLE COUNTY , VIRGINIA
Scale : 1"=200' Dec. 6 ,1985
SUE VEYED
FOR RICHARD WOOD
ALBEMARLE
COUNTY
/
43
'?-':~" S P
'~ 97-12
RIVANNA DISTRICT
SECTION 47
Sp-97-1~ Meyers Family DivisiOn
DAVID R, GEHR
COMMISSIONER
IATTACHM ENT E1
COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
701 VDOT WAY
CHARLOTTESVILLE. 22911
A. G. TUCKER
~4ay 16, 1997
June Public Hearing
Submittals
Mr. Ron Keeler
Dept. of Planning &
Community Development
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville~ VA.
22902
Dear Mr. Keeler:
Please find our comments below in regards to the submittals for June Public
Hearings:
SP-97-09 Coves¥ille First Baptist Church, Route 805
SP-97-10 Sunny Boy Gardens, Route 743
There is presently a commercial entrance in place.
A pro~ection of the amount of traffic should be reviewed, although it may not
require cum lanes, there is the potential for such requirements; either by
sheer numbers or for safety of motorist.
SP-97-11 Panoram~ Trails~ Inc.~ Route 661
The existing road isa very narrow unpaved surface. Any additional commercial
use will dause this road to be a real maintenance concern. We recommend that
Route 661 be improved from Route 660 to the.commercial entrance witha minimum
o~ the current 3-R standard for traffic projected. There is nou preeently a
policy on what the pave-in place involves, however there appears to be several
locations where additional right of way or grading easements would be needed
for widening. A minimum of 40 feet of right of way is recommended.
RECEIVED
MAY I 6 ~997
Planning Dept.
TRANSPORTATION FOR THE 21ST CENTURY
TTACHIVIENT Eli
Page 2
May 16, 1997
Mr. Ron Keeler
P~blic Hearing Submittals
An existing private entrance exists and would be satisfactory for a second
user, however when it has three or more users, it will need to meet commercial
entrance standards.
SP-97-13 360 Communications of charlottesville Eure Communications, Inc.,
Route 29 N.
The enurance will need to meet commercial entrance stahdards with an allowable
exception foe the width. Please note that this development is near the
proposed Route 29 ByPass and nhe forthcoming improvement project to Route 29
that may impacu access points.
SP-97-14 Rosl7~ Private Catholic School, Route 743
The existing entrance off of the Roslyn Heights Road is very close no the
intersection Of Route 743. The entrance into the site needs to be maximized
by moving it further from Hydraulic Road for proper turning movements. Route
743 is being reconstructed and it w~ll not have any type ~urn lane into
Roslyn Heigh=s Road. The school will ultimately bring the need for righ= and
left turn lanes off of Hydraulic Road for safe egress and ingress. There are
right and left turn lanes being constructed for turns off of Hydraulic Road
with the intersection of Roslyn Ridge Road. It appears that an entrance with
appropriate turn lane could be constructed for entry into site from the Roslyn
Ridge Roa~. We will point out that the school may need to provide traffic
control at Hydraulic Road during peak hours for school traffic.
SP-97-15 Western Ridqe Business Park, Route 240
The application does not address the site of Day Care Center or the number of
students. The original traffic impact study was very close to requiring a
signal at Route 240 and Western Ridge Road. The ITE Manual reflects that a
1000 square foot Day Care Center generates approximately one and on'e-half
times the number of trip ends to one acre of light industry.
A~TTACHMENT F1
Sana~ary of Requests for Additional Development Rights Heard by the Board of Supervisors
Updated May 27, 1997
SP 81-31 Edward Cleveland and ShannonJ~avis
Tax Map and Parcel: 45- 1
Number of Additional Lots: I
Total Number of Lots: 2
Description: Permitted lot of 14.51 acres to be divided from 704.58 acre pamel without use of
one of five assigned development rights.
Action: Approved
Synopsis of Board Action: Proposal did not effect total number of potential lots (38). Action
did not exceed recommended density in watershed o£ one dwelling unit per ten acres.
SP-94-01 Alan Dunbar
Tax Map and Parcel: 89-52
Additional Number of Lots: 1
Total Number of Lots: 2
Description: Previous divisions, including lot created per SP-92-5~ had exhausted all assigned
and one additional approved development rights,
Action: Approved
Synopsis of Board Action: Approval based on fact that this was for a family member, although
the request did not meet all of the criteria.
SP-94-03 J.E.Simpson Estate
Tax Map and Parcel: 128-85
Numbe~: of Additional Lots: 5
Total Number of LOts: IO
Description: Permitted five additional lots.
Action.' Approved
Synopsis Of Board Action: Request generally met criteria and was to provide affordable housing
Thomas F. and Christine C. Stephens
2893 Burnt Mill Rd.
Charlottesville, VA. 22911
IATTACHMENT G1
John Shepherd
Dept. Of Planning and Community E~velopment
401 Mclntire Road
Charlottesville, VA. 22902
RECEIVED
May 25. 1997 ~iY 2719~?
Planning Dept.
RE: SP 97-12 Meyers Family Division
Dear Mr. Shepherd,
d
I appreciate your taking the time on Fr ay to answer some of our questions on the
phone. As you know, we are adjacent landowners to the Myers and have some concerns
about the granting of additional development rights on their property.
We reseamhed the entire ama before we purchased our property and at that time
were confident that the development potential for those properties around us:was not likely
to cause us any future concerns. We are now afraid that any further development is not
likely to be in the best interests of us or any of the other adjacent owners.
Any further development of this preperb] will inevitably impact those of us who are
their neighbors in a number of ways. To begin with, Mr. Myers has already had some
difficulty obtaining an adequate and reliable groundwater source. While most of the rest of
us have been more fortunate, any further development of this resource could easily impact
other properties. Likewise, the soils in this area are far from ideal for septic systems. They
function adequately, but seldom optimally. Clustering these fields in any arrangement has
the potential for creating ground and surface water problems for a much larger area than
any individual pamel. Thirdly, as you are no doubt aware, our road is unpaved and less that
2 lanes wide for much of its length, and at least to the extent that we are aware, is likely to
stay that way for the forseeable future. The Myers families already living inthe area
represent 2 different home-based businesses with at least 5 commemial vehicles, some
making multiple trips daily, as well as equipment trailers and delivery vehicles. This has
resulted in a significantly higher usage pattern for the read than might be the case for
strictly residential property Realizing that we've had no choice up to this point, we've
accepted this result, but are not at all anxious to see these growing traffic and safety
concerns compounded for us or our netghbors by further development. Finally, I'd like to
point out that the Myers' property shares a long border with the Nature Conservancy's
Fembmok Preserve. While we understand that there is currently not.hing to prevent the
Myers from clearing all of their property, they do not seem interested in doing this. On the
other hanC, granting permission for an additional division right virtually guarantees that it will
occur on some portion that might have gone undeveloped otherwise. Such development
inevitably impacts surrounding properties. As we're sure you are aware, areas such as
Fernbrook that are relatively unaffected by development and open to the public at no charge
are no longer readily available in Albemarle County.
This probably seems to be a long winded criticism of the Myers and their attempt to
keep their famiiy close to home. However, that is not the intent. On the contrary, they have
JPage 2J
for the most part been good neighbors. I suppose that the bottom line of our argument is
that we purchased our property with an understanding of the development potential around
us. All of our neighbors ~resumably did likewise. To now suggest that one of these
neighbors can have the rules altered to allow for a grea[er density has not only all the
potential real impacts on our property and our family that were mentioned above, but an
emotional impact as welt that is not easily quantified. I might also point out that the Myers
have other children still at home. We certainly don't expect that if this effort is successful
that it will be the final one and ignore these "future families" Further, there is currently no
shortage of available building lots already subdivided and approved in the immediate Stony
Point area, manywithin what we understand to be the designated growth area around the
school
I h_ope that we've been clear enough as to our concerns and that this infcvmation is
helpful to you and the Commission in evaluating their request. Please keep us informed on
4his matter and let us know if we can be of any help to you or your staff.
Sincerely,
SP 97-12 Myers Family Division - Request for an additional development right [10.5.2]
on 31.83 acres zoned PA, Rural Areas. Property described as tax Map 47. Parcel
32C,' is located on a private access easement off the south side .of-Route 784 (Burnt
Mill Road) approximately 3/4 mile west of its intersection with Route 600 IWatts
Passage) in the Rivanna Magisterial District. This site is not located in a designated
growth area.
Mr. Shepherd presented the staff report. Staff recommended approval subject to
conditions.
Mr. Shepherd confirmed that if the way the property was subdivided by the family was
ignored, then the 54 acre parcel could have yielded five 2-acre lots, and two additional
larger lots, for a total of seven.
Mr. Tice questioned the use of the term "major stream valley" in condition No, 2. He
thought it would be clearer to usg, the term "floodplain." Mr. Shepherd agreed.
Referring to "favorable factor" No. 2 in the staff report--The site is not in a water
supply watershed.-Mr. Tice pointed out that this statement refers to an Albemarle
SP 97~12 Myers Family Division - RequeSt ~or an additional development right [10.5.2]
on 31.83 acres zoned PA, Rural Areas. Property described as tax Map 47, Parcel
32C, is located on a private access easement off the south side of Route 754 (Burnt
Mill Road) approximately 3/4 mile west of its intersection with Route 600 (Watts
Passage) in the Rivanna Magisterial Distdct This site is not located in a designated
growth area.
Mr. Shepherd presented the staff report. Staff recommended approval subject to
conditions.
Mr. Shepherd confirmed that if the way the property was subdivided by the family was
ignored, then the 54 acre parcel could have yielded five 2-acre lots. and two additional
larger lots, for a total of seven.
Mr. Tire questioned the use of the term "major stream valley" in condition No. 2, He
thought it would be clearer to use the term "floodplain." Mr. Shepherd agreed.
Referring to "favorable factor" No. 2 in the staff report-The site is not in a water
supply watershed,-Mr. Tice pointed out that this statement refers to an Albemarle
6-3-97
- 3
County watershed only, because the R vanna R var s a water supp y watershed for
Lake Monticello and other users .downstream.
The applicant, Mr. Hamilton Myers. addressed the Commission_ He said he has two
younger children still at home who, up to this point, have said they do not want to live
on the property. He said he operates a home-based plumbing business but no
business activity takes place on the property. He said he has experiences some
problem with one of his wells, so he switches back and forth between two wells. He
was got aware of any other well or septic problems on the property.
There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission.
Mr. Dotson pointed out that if this parcel been divided differently, it would have been
'possible to achieve seven development rights as the applicant has requested without
any special action required. For that reason, he said he could suppOrt the request but
he would not look favorably on further divisions for additional children because that
would go beyond the seven development nghts the owner~could have originally had.
MOTION: Mr. Dotson moved. Mr. Nitchmann seconded, that SP 97-12 for the Myers
Family Division, be recommended to the Board of Supervisors for approval, subject to
the following conditions:
1; The parcel authorized to be created as a result of this special use permit
must qualify as a family division.
2. The parcel authorized to be created as a result of this special use permit
shall not encroach into the floodplain of the North Fork Rivanna River.
3. No building permit foran additional dwelling shall be issued until the plat has
been recorded
[NOTE: The wording of the conditions as they appeared in the staff report were
amended es,stated above byMr. Kamptner.]
Discussion:
Though she sympathized with the applicant's desire to treat his children equally, Ms.
Huckle expressed a concern that approval of this request could set a precedent. She
said it does'not meet the provisions of the Ordinance and even though this:is just one
more division there 'are other children who may change their minds and want to live on
the property also. Referring to the well problem described by the applicant, she said
additional wells could have a negative impact on existing wells. She noted.also that
some expensive changes to the road may be required by VDOT. She concluded:
"Balancing the good and the bad, I think this is a dangerous precedent to set."
Mr. Nitchmann said he was not concerned about precedent because there are so few
requests for family divisions. He felt it was important to support families and in this
case, seven development rights would have been possible if the applicant had
purchased all the property at the same time.
6-3-97 4
Mr. Loewenstein also had concerns about precedent and the fact that the site ~s in an
agricultural forestal area. However, because the total division rights will be seven.
which would have been available by-right when the property was purchased, and
because this is a family division, he.said he could, "on balance." support the request.
He-agreed with Mr. Dotson that he would be concerned about any additional requests
for division of this'property.
The motion for approval passed (6:1) with Commissioner Huckle casting the dissenting
vote.
ZMA 97-01 Still Meadows - Proposal to rezone approximately 142 acres from R-1
Residential to PRD. Planned Residential development with a maximum of 155 lots.
Property, described as Tax Map 46, Parcel 21 and Tax Map 45B2, Parcel 2 (part) and
4 (part) is located at the end of Northflelds Road. Access is proposed to both
Northfields Road and Carrsbrook Drive. This site .is located in the Rio Magisterial
District and iS recommended for Neighborhood Density (3-6 dwelling units per acre) in
Neighborhood 2 of the Comprehensive Plan.
Mr. Fritz presented the staff report. Staff recommended approval of the request.
Commission comments about the staff report, and staff answers to Commission
questions were as follows:
--The school impact figures were based on multipliers,found in the ~'old" Fiscal
Impact Model and reflect only the impact created by the increased density which is
above the by-right units-an additional 49 units (106 units by-right vs. 155 units
proposed). Mr. Tice asked why the totals for the entire development had not been
. given. Mr. Fdtz said the Board had directed staff to identify those things contained in
the CIP and Six-Year Secondary Road Plan. Staff does not have the ability, with the
current Fiscal Impact Model, to-consider factors such as revenues. Ms. Huckle said
Mr. Tice had raised an important point because the total impact of operating the
schools is much more than ClP costs. Mr. Loewenstein added that if the numbers
had been based on the new Fiscal Impact Model (not yet adopted), the figures would
be much higher.
--Mr. Tice addressed staff's statement that "no matters of public health and
safety would be effected by an increase in the density of the development." He asked
for more information on how'the Engineering staff had reviewed the request for a
waiver Of stormwater detention requirements. He pointed out that the applicant's
engineer has stated that because the property drains to the Rivanna River.
stormwater detention is not a signifmant factor, Mr. Kelsey explained: "An idea for a
waiver, mostly along-these larger streams, is that their peak flow is able to get into the
river and pass through downstream prior to the peak flow developing in the larger
stream. That is why we tend to support these waivers along these larger streams."
--Ms. Huckle askedWhat measures are used to protect water quality in the
runoff that drains to the river. Mr. Kelsey said a variety of measures may be used to
mitigate water quality, e.g. vegetative filter strips, infiltration, or typical stormwater
management facilities such as ponds or dry basins. Staff has not yet made any
recommendations for this proposal other than to have identified some potential areas
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
June 19,1997
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Dept. of Planning & Community Developmenl
401 Mclnfire Road
Charlottesvilte~ Virginia 22902-4596
(804) 296-5823
37-01-97A08:50 RCV~
M. E. Gibson, Jr
105-109 East High St
Charlottesville, VA 22902
RE:
SP-97-13 360° Communications
Tax Map 46, Parcel 15
Dear Mr. Gibson:
The Albemarle County Planning Commission, at its meeting on June 17, 1997, unanimously
recommended approval of the above-noted request to the Board of Supervisors. Please note that this
approval is subject to the following conditions:
1. Overall height shall not exceed 200 feet.
2. Compliance with Section 5.1.12 of the Zoning Ordinance.
There shall be no lighting of the tower unless required by a federal agency. All tower lighting
shall be shielded so as to minimize visibilib from the ground.
Staff approval of additional antennae installation. No administrative approval shall constitute or
imply support for or approval of, file location of additional towers, antennae, etc., even if they
may be part of the same network or system as any antennae administratively approved under this
section.
The tower must be designed and adequate separation provided to property lines such that in the
event of structural failure, the tower and components will remain within the lease area.
The tower shall be disassembled and removed from the site within 90 days of the discontinuauce
of the use of the tower for wireless telecommunication purposes.
The Commission also approved a modification of Section 4.10.3.1 of the Zoning Ordinance to allow
reduction in setback.
Page 2
June 19, 1997
Please be advised that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors will review this petition and receive
public comment at their meeting on 0rMy 16, 1997, Any new or additional information regarding your
application must be submitted to the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors at least seven days prior to your
schedule hearing date.
If you should have any questions or comments regarding the above noted action, please do not hesitate to
contact me.
Sincerely,
William D. Fritz
Seaior Plalmer
WDF/jcf
CCi
Ella Carey
Amelia McCulley
Jack Kelsey
Eure Communications, lnc
STAFF PERSON:
PLANNING COMMISSION:
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS:
WILLIAM D. FRfTZ
JUNE 17, 1997
JULY 16, 1997
SP 97-13 - 360 COMMUNICATIONS OF CHARLOTTESVILLE
Applicant's Proposal:
The applicant is proposing to construct a new tower for the purpose of providing cellular phone service.
This site will provide for improved coverage and more significantly will increase the handling capacity
of the network. The proposed tower is located within an existing AM radio tower farm.
Petition:
Petition to construct a telecommunications tower with an overall height of 200 feet and associated
support facilities on a portion of 10.3 acres. [10.2.2(6)] Property, described as Tax Map 46, Parcel 15, ~s
zoned RA, Rural Areas and is located on the west side of Route 29, Seminole Trail, near the entrance to
Forest Lakes South (Ashwood Blvd.) and is in the Rivanna Magisterial District. This is the site of
existing AM Radio towers. This site is not located within a designated Development Area. Site
Development Plan 9%042 is being processed concurrently.
Character of the Area:
This site is the location of an AM antennae array consisting of 5 towers. Four of the existing towers are
approximately 250 feet in height, one tower is approximately 200 feet in height. The property is located
directly west of the entrance to Forest Lakes South. An access road and small transmitter building am
also located on the property.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff has reviewed this request for compliance with the provisions of Section 31.2.4.1 of the Ordinance
and recommends approval.
Planning and Zoning History:
The existing towers on this site were approved on January 19, 1983, SP 82-75. The parcel was created
by an administrative plat signed on August 12, 1982.
Comprehensive Plan:
Tbis area is included in the Rural Areas of the Comprehensive Plan. It is located just south and west of
the areas included in the development area of the Community of Hollymead. The area adjacent to the
north is recommended for Industrial Service, the area to the east is recommended for Neighborhood
Service, Institutional and Neighborhood Density. Residential. Areas to the west and south are Rural
Areas.
Currently the Comprehensive Plan contains limited information guiding the review of
telecommunication facilities. However, work is under way to develop a comprehensive policy. A long
standing policy has been collocation of services on existing structures and the construction of new rowers
within tower farms. The existing AM towers do not allow for collocation and therefore a new tower is
needed. The proposed tower is consistent with past attempts to locate new towers within tower farms.
3_
STAFF COMMENT:
Staff will has reviewed this request for compliance with Section 31.2.4.1 of the Zoning Ordinance which
The Board of Supervisgrs hereby reserves unto itself the right to issue all special use permits
permitted hereunder. Special use permits for uses as provided in this ordinance may be issued
upon a finding by the Board of Supervisors that such use will no.t be of substantial detriment to
adjacent property_, that the character of the district will not be changed thereby, and that such use
will be in harmony with the purpose and intent of this ordinance, with the uses permitted by right
in the district, with additional regulations provided in Section 5.0 of this ordinance, and with the
public health, safety and general welfare.
The proposed tower is a maximum of 200 feet high. [The tower itself is proposed as a 180 foot self
support tower with antennae extending up to an additional 20 feet.] The top of the tower will be 726 feet,
ASL, (above sea level). The four taller towers on this site have tops at approximately 750 feet ASL and
are lit. The top ofthe smaller tower is approximately 700 feet ASL. The proposed tower and existing
towers are below the horizontal surface of the Airport Overlay District. The horizontal surface is
established at 791 feet ASL. No penetration of the horizontal surface is permitted.
Based on the presence of the existing rowers and the height of the existing towers the construction of this
telecommunication tower will have limited additional impact. Lighting of the proposed tower may not
be necessary due to its location among other lit towers. Staff opinion is that the request is consistent
with the provisions of Section 31.2.4.1 of the ordinance. Staffhas included conditions to insure
compliance with the provisions of Section 5.0 of the ordinance.
Modification of Section 4.10.3.1 of the Zoning Ordinance
Section 4.10.3.1 states:
"The height limitations of this chapter shall not apply to barns, silos, farm buildings, agricultural
museums designed to appear as traditional farm buildings, residential chimneys, spires, flag
poles, monuments or transmission towers and cables; smokestack, water tank, radio or television
antenna or tower, provided that except as otherwise permitted by the commission in a specific
case, no slructure shall be located closer in distance to any lot line than the height of the
structure; and, provided further that such structure shall not exceed one hundred (100) feet in
height in a residential district. This height limitation shall not apply to any of the above
designated structures now or hereafter located on existing public utility easements".
By the requirements of this provision the proposed tower would need to be located a minimum of 200
feet from the edge of the property. The proposed tower is located approximately 29 feet from the
property line.
Staff opinion is that this provision is designed to prevent undue crowding of the land and to prevent
safety hazards should a tower fall. Historically, towers reviewed by the County are approved subject to a
condition requiring approval of a tower designed to collapse in the lease area in the event of stnmtural
failure. This condition protects the public safety. This site is relatively large and has no topographic
constraints which would prevent relocation of the tower. However, due to the presence of the existing
AM antennae array the construction location of a new tower is limited. This is due to the fact that
WCHV has a directional signal which can be disturbed by the construction of a new tower. IA new tower
may interfere with the propagation pattern of the array.] The location selected for the 360 tower is such
that it does not affect the directional characteristics of WCHV. [Final approval of the design will be
necessary from the FCC.]
2
Staff has histormally supported request for mothficatmn to allow towers to be located closer to the
property line than the height of the tower and staff can identify no purpose which would be served by
denial of this modification request. Denial would likely cause the applicant to seek a new site or would
require the relocation of the tower to such a degree that it would no longer appear to be within a tower
farm.
SUMMARY:
The construction of this proposed tower is consistent with the attempts of staff to locate new towers
within tower farms. Staff is unable to identify any negative factors to this request.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Staff recommends approval of this request subject to the following conditions:
1. Overall height shall not exceed 200 feet.
2. Compliance with Section 5.1.12 of the Zoning Ordinance.
There shall be no lighting of the tower unless required by a federal agency. All tower lighting
shall be shielded so as to minimize visibility from the ground.
Staff approval of additional antennae installation. No administrative approval shall constitute or
imply support for or approval of, the location of additional towers, antennae, etc., even if they
may be part of the same network or system as any antennae administratively approved under this
sec6on.
The tower must be designed and adequate separation provided to property lines such that in the
event of structural failure, the tower and components will remain within the lease area.
o
The tower shall be disassembled and removed from the site within 90 days of the discontinuance
of the use of the tower for cellular communication purposes.
ATTACHMENTS:
A - Location Map
B - Tax Map
C - Site Plan
SP ~ L.-13
360 COMMUNICATIONS OF CHARLOTTESVILE~-
k
CHARLOT~=S -
Fi=VILLE H..
ALBEMARLE COUNTY
-/
45
BC
SDP 97-042
360 COMMUNICATIONS (WCHV)
SECTION
46
GHARLOTTESVILL-='
· ~ ~,~L .==~ .... ~ AND RIVANNA DISTRICTS
70EINOO NOI$OE3 ~ ~
/3 E34~01 AHO~
06-26-97A09: 4~ RCVD
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Dept. of Planning & Community Development
401 Mclntire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
(804) 296-5823
June 25, 1997
M. E. Gibson, Jr.
105-109 East High Street
Charlottesville, VA 22902
RE: SP 9%13 - 360 Communications of Charlottesville, Eure Communications Inc.
Dear Mr. Gibson:
This letter is to notify you that the July 16, 1997 Board of Supervisors meeting has been cancelled. Therefore,
your above-referenced petition, has been scheduled for review by the Board of Supervisors at their July 9, 1997
meeting.
This meeting will be held at 7:00 p.m., Meeting Room #241, Second Floor, County Office Building, 401 MeIntire
Road, Charlottesville, Virgima. You will receive a copy of the staff report and tentative agenda one week prior to
the Planning Commission meeting.
YOU OR YOUR REPRESENTATIVE MUST BE PRESENT AT THIS MEETING.
If you should have any questions or concerns about this petition or schedule, please do not hesitate to contact me
at (804) 296-5823 ext. 3385#.
Sincerely,
William D. Fritz
Senior planner
WDF/jV~/
cc: ~s. Ella Carey
Eure Communications
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
07-01-97A08:22 RCVD
2!
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS: JULY 9. 1997
We are askinq you to exert your power to
"Yes you may get what you need but not
location."
regulate bv telling 360
a lattice tower at this
Q.b_a_K~cter. o~f ~b_e_ _A~.~e_~_:.
360 % leased prosertv is
Comprehensive Plan The
residential and farminG.
included in the Rural Area of the
surroundin~ propertv is used for
360 can improve coverage and increase handlino capacitv in a less
intrusive manner. 360 can collocate their antenna on an existing
tower, tall buildinG, water tower or church steeple. This
common practice in other localities. .360 needs an antenna. A new
lattice tower is not needed. If 360 cannot obtain a collocation
site let them put a monoDole or lattice tower elsewhere.
Since this ia a rural area 360 should locate its tower in an
Industrial Area or put it on a utility easement. If 360's semvice
is for the General welfare then let the General public share the
downside of makino the service available. Let 360 lease a site on
public land, a school campus, park or other county state or
federal proper~v.
The Dolicv of locatin~ new towers within tower farms is unfair to
surroundin~ Propertv owners because it increases their burden bv
further degrading their use and enjoyment of their property as well
as contributing to property devaluation.
In 1982 county officials did the disservice of allowing radio
towe~s in a Rural Area. Now it is a tower farm. ff this permit is
granted an antenna farm will be allowed. The proposed eGu~oment
will be subleased to other telecommunications comoanies, resultin~
in a slum of towers, antennas and satellite dishes.
Comoreheg~l~ Plan:
One of the PurPoses of the Comprehensive Plan as we see it is to
Protect propertv values and protect the inteGr~tv of the community.
this instance we relieve the special-use permit defeats this
ourDose. There are aireadv five towers ~n this site let us not
compound this littering of the iandscaDe, EnouGh is Enough.
Modification of Section 4.10.3.1 of the Zoning Ordinance:
We are also oooosed no the modification of the zoning ordinance
which would allow the Orooosed 200f~, tower To ne located
approxImately 29 ft. from the oropertv line. This prooertV line is
along a 30ft, eublic right of way between Rio Mills Rd, EState
Route 642] and U.S.29. When c%~rb appeal is so important olease do
r~ot allow another tower to De crowded so close 5o the oubiic right
SUMMARY;
360 is In a D~ofitaDle bus,ness and have Drought this nuisance to
our rural communitv, where residents own their homes and farms.
Some residents have lived in their homes ?or over 50 years.
In this situation 360 is better asle to Dear the ourden of not
~ettino what they want, They can s~mmlv select an alternative
solution or Go elsewhere.
We ask that Vou deny 360's request. Please do not a~ain tell us
beca~se we are residents of a rural area and farmers we have no
rights the board should respect when these riohts conflict with the
interest of 360's abilltv to ma~e profits.
\S
ALBEMARLE COUNTY
~HARLOTI'ESWLLE SECTION
06-I£-97P(:~: 45 RCVD
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
June 11, 1997
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Depr of Planning & CommunitF Develooment
401 Mclntire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
(804) 296-5823
David J. Wood, Jr
4 Tennis Road
Charlottesville, VA 22901
RE: SP-97-16 St Paul's Church
Tax Map 58A2, Parcels 17.18 and 19
Dear Mr. Wood:
The Albemarle County Planning Commission, at its meeting on June 10, 1997, by a vote of
4:0:1, recommended approval of the above-noted request to the Board of Supervisors. Please
note that this approval is subject to the following conditions:
County Department of Engineering approval of entrance improvements, drainage, erosion
control, and runoff control.
Staff approval of landscape/screening plan to address replacement of screening at
northern entrance.
3. Virginia Department of Transportation approval of northern entrance improvements.
Virginia Department of Historic Resources certification that addition does not detract
from the integrity of the existing historic structure.
This special use permit is approved for worship and church related activities only. Day
care, pre-school, or other such activities, shall require amendment to this special use
permit.
Please be advised that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors will review this petition and
receive public comment at their meeting on July 9, 1997. Any new or additional information
regarding your application must be submitted to the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors at least
seven days prior to your schedule hearing date.
clergyman, and rector of St. Paul's from 1888-1923.
The Growth Management goal states, ' Protect and efficiently utthze County resources by:
A. Emphasizing the importance of protecting the elements that define the Rural Area:
1) Agriculture and forestry resources; 2) water supply resources; 3)natural resources;
4) scenic resources: 5) historic and cultural resources; 6) limited service delivery.
Of these, the protection of agriculture and forestry resources is the highest priority.
B. Designating Develupment Areas where a variety of land uses, facilities, and services are
planned to support the County's thture growth, with emphasis placed on infill development."
Staff opinion is that the applicant's proposal to add an addition to the existing church facility
does not affect agricultural or forestry resources, natural resources, or scenic resources. Because
the church is existing, and the proposed addition is not an intensification of use, the proposal will
not affect the existing level of service delivery in the Rural Area. Water supply resources may be
affected by increased runoff. Runoffconcerns will be addressed through plan revtew.
A Natural Environment goal states, "Protect the County's natural, scenic, and historic resources
in the Rural and Growth Areas." An Objective is, "Copserve the County's historical and cultural
resources, including historic sites, structures and landscape features; archaeological sites; and
other umque man-made features."
Staff opinion is that the applicant's proposal, subject to proposed condition #4, Supports this goal
and objective by protecting an important historic resource through Virginia Department of
Historic Resources certification that the addition does not detract from the integrity of the
existing historic structure.
STAFF COMMENT: Staffwill address each provisiun of Section31.2.4.1 oftheZoning
Ordinance.
The Board of Supervisors hereby reserves unto itself the right to issue all special use permits
permitted hereunder. Special use permits for uses as provided in this ordinance may be issued
upon a finding by the Board of Supervisors that such use will not be of substantial detriment to
adiacent property,
Staffopinion is that the proposed addition will not be of substantial detrimenl to adjacent
property. An adjacent owner has noted an existing drainage problem, whifih will be addressed by
County Engineering approval of a drainage plan. Some trees will be removed at the northern
enmmce to construct a new taper and to increase sight distance. Proposed new landscaping in
this area will screen the parking area from the road. The large parking area in front of the church
will remain unchanged. Some new parking is being added behind the building, which is several
hundred feet from the property line. No changes in hours or days of operation are anticipated.
The Virginia Department o£Transportation comments are attached./See letters dated5/16/97
2
and 2/5/97- Attachment C). They are recommending minor grading along the embankment
between the northern entrance and State Route 1607 to attain a sight line. They are also
recommending a right turn taper at the northern entrance. The applicant has agreed to do both.
The Zoning Department comments are attached./See memo dated 5/30/97 -:Attachment Dj.
Zoning staff has determined that the applicant's proposal is not an intensification of use, that no
site plan is required, and that Entrance Corridor regulations do not apply, since/he church is not
within 500 feet of Route 250 West.
The Engineering Department comments are attached. (See memo dated 5/--/97 - Attachment E).
that the character of the. district will not be changed thereby,
The applicant's proposal will not change the character of the district.
and that such use will be in harmony with the purpose and intent of this ordinance,
Staffhas reviewed the purpose and intent of the Zoning Ordinance, relation to the environment,
and relation to Comprehensive Plan as stated in Sections 1.4, 1.5 and 1.6, and has found this
application to be in harmony with these sections. Specifically, this request protects against
destruction of historic area, and facilitates provision of apublic requirement.
with the uses permitted by right in the district,
The use will be in hammny with uses permitted by right in the district.
with additional regulations provided in Section 5.0 of this ordinance,
Section 5.0 contains no additional regulations for this type of use.
and with the public health, safety and general welfare.
The applicant's proposal will promote the general welfare by providing for the church's needs.
Public health and safety issues, noted earlier with VDOT and Engineering Department
comments, are addressed by the conditions.
SUMMARY: Staffopinion is that this request is in compliance with the provisions of Section
31.2.4.1 of the Zoning Ordinance. Concerns addressed by the conditions are: sight distance and
taper at the northern entrance; replacing screemng at the northern entrance; drainage at the
southern entrance; and protecting the historical integrity of the church.
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Staff recommends approval subject to the following conditions:
RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL:
1. County Department 0f Engineering approval of entrance improvements, drainage, erosion
control, and rtmoff control.
2. Staff approval of landscape/screening plan to address replacement of screening at
northern entrance.
3. VDOT approval of northern enlrance improvements.
4. Virginia Department of Historic Resources certification that addition does not detract
from the integrity of the existing historic structure.
ATTACHMENTS:,
A - Applicant's proposal
B- Maps
C- VDOT letters
D ~ Zoning memo
E - Engineering memo
I:\general\share\ascala\stpauls2.rpt
4
Special Use Permit Application
2
DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST:(Please attach additionalinforrnation as needed) (lst fl. 4,370
This ~roposal for amendment is for the future 2 story ad05tion of 8,780 2nO fl. 4,410)
to the existing church structure on subject parcel.
The proposed expansion doesn't result in an increase tn seating capacity
or assembly space.
Floor plans and elevations as well as site plan concept and plats are
included as a part of this submission.
3USTIFICATION:(Please attach additionalinformation as needed)
Primarily, the new addition provides needed classroom spaces, improveU
kitchen and bathroom facilities, and qreatly improves handicapped access.
OFFICE USE ONLY
TAX MAP/PARCEL:
'I. 2. 3. - - -
4. 5. 6.
7. - - - 8. 9. ~ - -
ZONED: MAG DIST:
REQUESTED UNDER ORDINANCE SECTION:
EXISTING USE:
PROPOSED USE:
HISTORY:
[] SPs: [] ZMAs and Proffers:
[] VAr: [] Letter of Authorization
I:XG ENERAL~;H AREXZONING~STACY~S PUS E.FR~q
SL
ALBEMARLE
COU,~TY
A~TA(~HMENT ~
SP 97--16
ST. PAULS CHURCH
IVY
OAKS
57
tOO
SAMUEL MILLER DISTRICT
SECTION
58
ALBEMARLE
GOUN1,
iATTACHMEN~ BI
SP 97-16
ST. PAULS CHURCH
SAMUEL MILLER DISTRIOT
SECTION 5 8-A(?.}
I
~" IATTACHMENT C
Page 3
May 16, 1997
Mr. Ron Keeler
Pbblic Hearing Submittals
/-97-16 St. Paul's Church, RouEe 678
See comments letter dated February 5, 1997 (attached). In addition to
previous commencs, a right turn taper into the Northern most entrance would be
recommended. This improvemen5 will allow traffic to merge from main road into
the entrance as well as provide additional sight line to the South.
SP-97-17, .18, 19, 20, 21, 22 CFW ~%reless, Various Routes
Ail locations will require commercial sight distance to the proposed ennrance~
In addition ~ paved entrance will be required from existing roadway to right
of way or a distance to satisfy egress and ingress landing.
SP-97-04 Daniel Bieker, Route 1054
This should not be a major impact within the Glenmore site itself s~nce a
traffic signal will ultimately be installed at Route 250 intersection. It
does of course bring additional traffic to the Route 250 Corridor which is
extremely crowded in the peak hours. There also appears by lookingat a plat
of this property that it does not touch the right of way to the new road,
making it landlocked. If access can be obtained through the existing right of
way it will need to meet sight distance requirements for a commercial
entrance.
Z~4A-97-3 Westminister Canterbury of the Blue Ridqe. Route 250 E.
The proposed offices do not fit within the existing Comprehensive Plan for
this area. The office complex has a much more intense traffic generation than
the Retirement Village. A full blown traffic study is not warranted, however
we need to see how'this development will impact the intersection of Route 250
with a intersection analysis. The analysis should reflect the level of
service with and without a traffic signal. There may need to be a signal au
this location with full developmenc of Peter Jefferson site across the road,
but we do not want a signal until it would be warranted, either by this
developmenn or combined with Peter Jefferson site.
Fs~uaz'y 5, 199";
February P~li~ ~earin~s
comm%~ity Develo!'ment
CoUnty Office
Charlottesville, VA.
22~02
Dearer. Keeler:
·lease find cur commence £or Pttblic ~earings listed belew~
~-9~-~.'~ ~ul't Investment Cora_or_at_ion, P~Dute 1722
Zn rav£ew o:: the site plan we r~ccmmend that ~ha in~ernal enuranoe be shifted
as far as p::ssible ~ro~ Route 17~2. The proposed entrance Should reflect
~ri~in~ of entrance ~o allow for owe e~re~s lanes an~ One in,ross ~ane.
The request!~d use has no major impac= ~o the public road, however it would be
beneficial :,f ~he entrance into the man.ion cou3~d be ~ervedfrom
course en=rnnce which has left and ri~h~ ~urn lanes.
mi~g~ at the interSeotio~ of ROUte 250 ~d the $~tranoe go the golf ¢o~rse
Presently at:tess to this ~an be made from three accesses off of Route
678. Two o:~ ~he entrans~s off of Rcu~e 678 actually are into ROODS 1607 and
~han t~here :,s a southern entrance into the church site off of Rt. 1607. The
~wo acc~s~e~ for ROUte 1607 do nog meou s£~h= disgance requlrsmsnts. This
location col~ld be added ~o County Road Construction Improvement Plan, however
i~ would mont likely require sipht easements across Priva~e property on the
opposite si~e o~ Rouse 678. The northern moas church entrance alas goos not
meet sight :lista~ce repuireme~ts, b~t could mos~ likely attai~ a sight line
with ~i~or ~{ra~in~ alon~ embankment between nort~hern sntrmnce =nd Route 1~07.
We recommend:, tko improv~ to Route 1~07 as a %TDOT Covl~ty Project, but there
may ~s ~i~[~ul~y in ohta~nin~ easements, therefor~ ~ke minor ~radi~ should
be re~ir~d for t~e nor~he=~ ~ost e~tr~ce for safe in,ross a~ ogress.
$~-~-55 Ro>.srt teller. Re,ate 14~2
del!very c~Dany ~hat is parking trucks near the enurance, which blocks si~hu
d~stancs. ';~ts o~ oo~roe can be handled by "NO PARKINO" signs, but ~his
ll~lts on s':ree~ par~, DOes the Co~ty~ve ~y e~force~le orinoco to
ZMA-9$-2S R:~ver ~eiqkts Associates Limited~ Rout.~ 29
We rscommen¢! that the connection be maintained ~o alleviate ally further
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
RE:
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Departme~ o£ Engineering & Public Works
MEMORANDUM
Mary Joy Scala, Senior Planner
Glenn E. Brooks, Senior Engineer ~6
30 May 1997
St. Paul's Church, Special Use Permit
I ATTACHMENT E I
The plans for travelway, parking, and entrance improvements, received on 21 May 1997 have
been reviewed. Albemarle County Engineering recommends approval with the following
recommendations and condition.
It is recommended that entrance radii be increased to 25' minimum, which is the standard
radius required on new entrances.
It is recommended that the travelway which joins the southern entrance to the circular
turnaround be moved back from the entrance to avoid conflicts at this entrance. See the
attached sketch for clarification.
A total impervious cover an~oum must be computed to ascertain whether this site meets
the requirements ofthe Runoff Control Ordinance. If the total impervious cover, both
proposed and existing (including gravel areas), is greater than 5%, then a runoff control
permit will be required. Ifa runoff control permit is required, drainage plans and
computations addressing runoff quality and quantity will need to be approved by the
Engineering Department. Copies of the RunoffControl Ordinance and guidelines for the
computation procedure may be obtained from this department.
Engineering Department approval of an erosion control plan is required. It appears from
the plan that the disturbed area will be greater than 10,000 square feet, the 1Lrnit at which
a plan is required according to the Erosion Control Ordinance. The drainage
computations for the pipes at the southern entrance and any other ditches or channels can
be addressed with the erosion control plan.
Please contact me at your earliest convenience if you have questions or require additional
information.
GEB/ctj
Attachment
Copy: SP-97-16
RECEIVED
1997
, tan,,,ns Dept
i ATTACHHENT E i
752 Neves Lane
P. O. Box 463
Ivy, Virginia, 22945
July 9. 1997
Ms. Charlotte Humphris, Chair
Albemarle County Board of Supervisors
Albemarle County Office Building
Charlottesvitle~ Va., 22901
Dear Ms. Humphris:
I am writing to you concerning the proposed construction to St. Paul's
Ivy Episcopal Church. [ own property adjacent to the church and I have
had continuing problems with water drainage from church property down
my street, Neves Lane. The water carries much of the gravel from the
church's property into the drainage ditches on either side of Neves Lane.
These ditches subsequently become filled with gravel and the water begins
to traverse the road, leaving gravel and rock strewn in its path. It is not
unusual for large amounts of this residue to end up in my yard, left there
by run off from both the drainage ditch overflow and from the water that
drains from the church's property. This problem has persisted for over
ten years that I have lived at this residence.
As a result of the good auspices of Mary Joy Scala in the Department
of Planning and Community Development and Glenn Brooks in the
Engineering Department, I believe that appropriate changes have been
made to the church's plans for Phase two. Phase two involves new
construction and road renovation, as I understand it. I applaud the county
and the church's efforts to rectify this long-standing problem. In the past,
this water drainage issue has negatively affected the condition of Neves
Lane and subsequently, the value of my property. I trust that this problem
will indeed be solved by the proposed changes to the church's plans. If the
problem persists beyond attempts to solve it. I will return to the Board of
Supervisors to seek other methods of addressing the situation. I am
bringing this situation to the attention of the Albemarle County Board of
Supervisors so that they are aware of the problem and of the attempts to
solve it.
Sincerely,
1'o: Members. Board of Supervisors
From: Ella Wash ng~on Care¥, CMC, Clerk
Subject: Reading List for July 9, I997
Date: July 2, 997
October 9, 996 -
:ages 15 ~ ~em ~9~ - 26 (Item # I0) - IX'Irs. mum~hris
Pages 26 Otem # O~ - eno - Mr. Martir
June . 1997- Mrs. Thomas
~ ~J~ed hereunder do he~eby'~elIllon~lhe~olroul~eou~o enler, ~ order,
be held con Ihe~qu~Ilon IJs~ed below:
~UEST~O~: Shah fl~e. Cou~ty.oL A~bemarle be aufl~orized ~o levy a meaJs ~ax o~ no more
fl~an ~our percent on ~o~ and beverages ~oJd ~or human consumption by restaurants and on
pr?ared s~dwiches'anc?ingle~'meal'platters sold by grocery stores and convenience stores at
dehcates~eh courters2 ::.' ;.'~ ":". ]:'; :''~'
VOTERS
FOR REFERENDUM
RESIDEHT ADDRESS
Ilouso No. & Stloet Name or
$1GtlA~'UItE OF IIEGISI'EtlED VOTEII Ilmal Houlo & Box i"]o. & Cily/Fown [)ATE SOCIAL SECUR~Y
[PtMNF NAME ON LJttE B~LOW SIGNAItJHE] JPOST OFFICE Boxes ARE riOT ACCEPFABLE] SIGHED NUMBER
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
O.
~2.
~4.
CO~I'IHUE ADDITIONAL 81GHATURES AND COMPLEI'E AFI=IDAVIT O~ R£VERSE
Tho social security number Is part of each voter's offlclal'record and Is requested only to make It posslbte to check this petition mere quickly ar
greete; e~ur;t~y. It Is not mandatory that It be provided. Tho General Registrar or Clerk o! Circuit Court. when copying this document for
Inspection, must cover the column containing social eecqri!y n~mbers.
Ail signatures requ red by law need.not be.aa the same pace, eli .th9 .~tlt op i~,_,m3m-~t; page-~ may be clrcu;atud. The circulator of each pag~
be a person v/no is a qualified wter ellgDle .to. vote !or the Issue'.tor which ho/aha Is circular!ag tho po!ilion. The clrcul~tor also must swear or al
the affidavit on the reverse side of this Iorm that he/shq pemoha.[ly witnessed the signature of each voter,
8BE-684.1(I) REV;'I2A35 i ':'::'" '~" ':/' ~ '" '' '~
County of Albemarle
MEMORANDUM
08-07-9~/A68: 30 RCVD
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
RE:
Albemarle County Board of S//u~~'~
Robert W. Tucker, Jr.
July 7, 1997
Police Skills Proficiency Plan
I have enclosed for your information, a copy of a memo from Chief Miller regarding some
changes that he is proposing in the Skills Proficiency Plan for Police Officers. These changes
come as a result of requests from a number of officers to make the compensation component of
the plan equal for all officers rather than a percentage of salary as well as a need to make the
budgeting component easier to project costs.
lohn will be gathering comments on his proposal over the next few days and I wanted to share
this information in case you should get any calls. There may be a few officers who like the plan
as it exists (and who benefit at the expense of others) and who may express concern. I would
encourage you to refer questions about the proposal to Chief Miller should they arise.
If there are any questions regarding this correspondence, please do not hesitate to contact me.
RWTjr/reh
County of Albemarle
POLICE DEPARTMENT
To.'
From:
Date:
Robert W. Tucker, Jr., County Executive
Chief Jonn F. Miller ~'~'~,-
July 2. 1997
Subject:
Skills Proficiency Plan
BACKGROUND
The police department skills proficiency plan was implemented in 1992 after approval of the Board of
Su~)ervisors. The program is designed to:
Provide a system that will attract and retrain highly competent individuals to the Police Officer
profession
Provide oolice officers with skills that are more consistent with the critical services the police
department provides to the community
Fulfill one of the basic values of the Albemarle County Police Department which is the belief that
"its greatest potential is achieved by supporting the development of its employees and their active
participation in the development and implementation of department policies".
· Provide an alternative incentive for police officers who do not desire supervisory positions, or for
who supervisory vacancies are not available
· Provide a professional system of skill proficiency designation for Police Officers.
The I~lan originally was designed with four levels with each level requinng certain skills, performance
standards, training and experience standards. The plan has helped ensure that the department has the
highly specialized skills necessary to provide quality police services to the community.
Compensation for the plan provided for a 5% vested increase at Level I as well as increas ng the
officers pay grade one level. The remaining three levels were corn pensated with $1000 cumulative
stipends for each additional level achieved in the plan.
DISCUSSION
The plan is clear that it is a year-to-year plan with no guarantees regarding its perpetuation. The
Hendricks pay compensation plan evaluate(~ the skills proficiency plan during the analysis of the
county's pay structure. The consultant recommended that officers m the plan be placed on the pay
scale as follows; Level I -grade 12, Level It- grade 13, Level III- grade 14, Level IV- grade 14. The
new pay system created several challenges to administering the plan. The plan was adjusted to three
MEMORANUDUM
Robert W. Tucker. Jr.
July 2, 1997
Page 2
levels and officers were placed on the pay scales as recommended by the consultant. The financial
incentives received continued to be 5% for Level I and $1000 cumulative stioends for Level II and
Level III.
During the past year, staff has reviewed the plan and its compensati.on. Issues of equity (same financial
reward for s~me extra duties/activities), financial irnpact and plan ad'ministration have been analyzed.
Based on this analysis and em ployee input (see attached employee survey results), we have
recommended the following financial incentives for the plan;
· Level I - Personnel who achieve Level I in the plan will received a 5% increase in the current base
hourly rate. and they will be placed on pay grade 12.
Level II - Personnel who achieve Level II in the skills proficiency plan will receive 6% of the entry
level salary of pay grade 12 as a stipend to their base pay. The stipend for this level using the
current pay scale is $1 580.88. Officers in Level I will remain on ~ay grade 12
Level III - Personnel who achieve Leve] III in the skills proficiency plan will receive 12% of the
entry level salary of pay grade 12 as a stipend to their base pay. The stipend for this level using ti~e
current pay scale is $3.161.76. Officers in level III of the plan will remain on pay grade 12.
BENEFITS
Structuring the compe~ sation for the plan will provide the following benefits:
· Creates equity - Officers will earn the same %increase and stipend amount for performing the same
collateral duties and oerformance standards. This type of equity is a concern for many of our
officers.
· Budgeting- The recommended compensation method is easier to determine long-range fiscal
impact of the plan.
· Original compensation structure maintained - The earning potential of the original plan is
maintained.
· Hourly Rates / VSRS Benefits - The non-discretionary nature of the compensation structure provides
for including ail skill proficiency plan financial incentives in the hourly rate as well as VSRS
reported compensation. Officers have expressed a desire to ensure that all skills plan payments are
part of hourly rate and retirement benefit calculations.
· Plan Requirements - The three level plan allows officers to reach the highest level / earning
potential in the plan with 10 '/ears experience (compared to 15 years being required under the four-
level model).
· Officer Support ~ While some officers do not agree with the recommended restructuring of the
plan, the majority of officers do support a stipend system.
POTENTIAL DRAWBACKS
The recommended changes have several disadvantages. These include;
MEMORANUDUM
Robert W. Tucker, Jr.
July 3. 1997
Page 3
· Merit Calculations - Placing ali plan participants on the same pay scale will effect merit
calculations. Officers in Level I and Level II of the plan woula have lower salary/midpoint ratios
(assuming they were to remain on grades 13 and 14 of the pay scale) and therefore would obtain
higher merit increases on the higher grades of the pay scale.
· Reduced Salary Range - Placing all plan participants on grade 12 reduces the long term earning
potential of an officer (lower maximum salary levels).
· Loss of Status - Officers lose the status of being on higher / different pay grades.
While some officers may express dissatisfaction I wanted you and perhaps the Board to be aware of the
changes and urge anyone who might have questions be directed to me for further clarification.
cc: Mr. Richard Huff, Deputy County Executive
Albemarle
Neighborhood
Association
OS-OT-9?P02:75 RCVD
July 7, 1997
Albemarle County Board of Supervisors
401 Mclntire Rd.
Charlottesville, VA 22901
Dear Members of the Board.
The members of the Albemarle Neighborhood Association recently
discussed their concerns about the Mechums West Land Trust proposal to
add about 57 acres to the Crozet Growth Area. The concerns expressed by
members varied. One concern was the fact that two years ago the Planning
Commission reviewed Crozet's growth area and found its capacity
sufficient to accommodate development expected over the next 20 years.
Another concern was in regard m the potential detrimental effects to the
City and County's drinking water supply. This project would lie wittfin the
watershed but out of the area of the regional storm water detention basin.
Some members also voiced concern that approval of this project could set a
dangerous precedent that would result in the Board having to approve
similar requests on the periphery of other growth areas throughout the
County. Other members expressed opposition to this type of piece-meal
approach to making changes to the Comprehensive Plan, especially at this
time when the plan is still being studied.
The one area of concern in which ANA members were unanimous
was that the County should oppose any expansions to the Growth Areas at
this time. The County recently formed the Infill Development Area
Initiatives Committee and is in the beginning stages of working with a
consultant to establish better policies regarding the use of Growth Area
lands. It would be unwise to make a decision on Growth Area expansion at
this time. The members of the Albemarle Neighborhood Association
request that you deny this addition as well as any others that follow until
the consulting firm hired by the County has made its recommendations.
We appreciate your consideration of this information.
~sa H~arman, ANA President
JULY 9, I 997
EXECUTIVE SESSION MOTION
I MOVE THAT THE BOARD GO INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION
PURSUANT TO SECTION 2. I -344(A) Of THE CODE OF VIRGINIA
UNDER SUBSECTION ( I ) TO CONSIDER APPOINTMENTS TO A
COMMI~-~EE AND UNDER SUBSECTION (7) TO CONSULT WITH LEGAL
COUNSEL AND STAFF REGARDING SPECIFIC LEGAL MA~-EERS
RELATING TO REVERSION AND PROBABLE LITIGATION REGARDING
CLAIMS FOR A~-rORNEYS FEES.
~ full !~gal name is Warren Edwards Vandell, and I reside at
737~C Nom~i~ik~ood Road, Charlottesville,~ Virginia, 229~-6527~
I understand that this is not a forum for~debate, as debate can
easily deo~enerate ir~to m~re argu£ug~, If the su~.is in the south~
a man on the west side of a pillar will say that the shade is om t~
left, while a man. on, the east side will say that the shade is on
the rig~t slde. Different'points of view suc~ as these cannot be reso!ved
By argui~g~ Sometimes whatis populkr in, the s~tort term~is unfeasible:
i~ t~e ~or~g~rUrr~ Arguing cannot resoIve such disagrem~nts.,
Perhaps goverrm~e~t is like that pillar, tha~ no one ma~ca~see
Ets ent[rety~a~ one t[m~,~ur~hermore,~ That no one man-can dm all
~hat is necesary to make that pillar at the same time. Perhaps
this is the best argument against tyranny- that because one man
ca~:t do all that is necesary or see all that is necesary, then,
necesary thdngs are ommitted~ I fully understand t~at I am ~ust
one man~ I would hope that you could understand'that t~ese are
my sentiments on taxation.
Albemarle County is facing several possible futureso~ The status
quo can be maintained, and the revenue sharing agreement with the
city would remain unchangedo, The city and county could agree
to modif~ S~c-t~o~ I~ para~rap~ E as per sec~ion~Vl~paragrap~
The city couId revert to a town-an8 keep conl~rol of i~s schools and
continue to service the debt of the city, if any~ The city; could
revert to a to~ combin~sc~oo!s with the county and continue to
service its debt, if any., The city could revert to a town and
combin~chools with the county and have the county service its debt
if any° F~nally, the city and the county could be entirely consolidated
into one political unit as per Section VI paragrap~A~ ~ understand
that some of t~ese scenarios are improbable, unfeasible or against
pub!isled longstanding policy of the Board or the Councii~ You
must understand that in every case, there is a shortfall of revenue
versus projected expenses, and that means taxes have to be raised°
The Question becomes what taxes to raise, when to raise rheem, and
to what purpose will the revenue go. Rai~sing taxes is onerous,.
but when it is so ~ecesary, it becomes an~or~rous duty~
~o~t people want to see cigarette taxes go to individual hea!tk
and not to th.e financial health of governmentS~ Furthermore~ the.
federal govern~ent i~ taking as big a bite out of' smokers~' wallets
as it dares. T~e lodgin~ tax has already been raised once.
THe meal's tax has been defeated twice and its referendo~ petiti.on
seems to be foundering. The county will qualify tc~hold a pub!ih
~zearing and then vote i~ a meals tax U~der Title 58~!-3835 (B~
after the decennial census Of 2000, which must be on the president"s
desk in late December 2000, if the city has not reverted before t~n~
Any meals tax collected in areas arn~_exed by the town of Charlottesville
would go to the town and not the county~ p~rhaps to service the
former city'~ debt,, if any~ The personal property tax has interesting
possibilities° ~f the Gilmore Gambit succeeds, personal property
taxes on som~ ~tems would be eliminated and the state would replace
the lost revenue° Perhaps an exception could be enacted into the
~aw to allow a city and a county engaged in a reversion process,
negotiated or otherwise, to recieve the state share and also continue
to collect ~e property tax on all personal property ~$hey taxed
before the gambits. ~aybe enough revenue could be accrued to solve
our future financial woes with a combination of the aforementioneds,
but I doubt it would come ~o pass° That leaves the realestate tax°
When to raise taxes is now° Currently federal taxes are lowo
They are low so that tbs states and localities can raise their taxes
to do the things they want, without having to put up with the red
1990'~ and run into
unwise, because the
trillion dollars in
Will our working poor have to
boom has died to not only pay
federal taxes concurrently?
tape that the federal governmenm revels iHo The state is not considered
a high' tax state by other americans, although many tourists express
outrage that ~ve have a s~les tax on food. There is room to tax now°
The local economy is strong, with jobless rates being very low.
i hms means that those who need ~o get a secQnd or third job to
pay for a weal estate property tax hike stand a good chance of landiHg
thkt needed job° Charlottesville experienced rapid growth in the
1960"s and 1970~s, and in the near future, it will have financial
problems° Will Albemarle experience rapid growth iH the 1980~ and
financial problems in the2020's~ This is
federal EoverD~ent will be redeeming over a
social security "itus" during this time~
try to find a job after the economic
county taxes, but also pay increased
I would hope that the county wout~ raise enough, revenue to not
only continue with current fundings and debt servi6e, but also toc
generate a I~rge surplus° That the surplus be dedicated to reducir~g
the debttof the county and thsn funding capital improvemsn~so That
when~tha new schools are'built and financed, and the improvements
to the Noores creek plant and feeder lines are done and paid for
and that when thewaterlines and resevoirs are ihstalled and no deb~t
is owed on t~m tD~t the county then reduce its taxesto a rate that
will allow current services to be maintatned.~
Firmlly, and on an entirely different subject, I would hope that
th~ Board wou~d cede its right to draw the new district lines to
the CLG, to avoid any apperence of ' ' ~
lmproprlety~ ~ ~4~ ~
A LIST OF RESATED ~TERIELS FOR TKEREADERS CONVENIEN~E
I~ The Annexatio~and revenue sharing a?reement dated F~b,~ 17.~, 1982
2-The ~ Newsletter-printed-~eb%. !1,~ 1997~
3~ City Council S~atement concerning the reversion of the City
of Charlottesville to Town StatUs dated Septo 24, 19960
4- Resolutio~ concerning the reversion of the city of C~arlottesville
to Tow~ Status datedSepto. 17,1996~.
5~ Albemarle County Board of Supervisors Albemarle County school
Board Joint Press Release dated April 3,. 1996~
relevant portions: of the 1950 Cbdes of Virginia as amended
i-13~22 defines populatio~
58,1-38D3<.sets forth the procedures to enact a meals tax°
15oi-963~10 sets forth the orocedures by which a city can petition
a three judge panel for reversion°
15,1~965,23 sets forth thepotential treatments of the deblt of
a city reverting to a town, if any~.
ANNEXATION AND REVENUE
SHARING AGREEMENT
This Agreement is between the COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, acting
through its Board of Supervisors, and the CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE,
acting through its City Council:
SECTION I. PURPOSE.
This agreement arises out of the annexation statutes found
in Title 15.1 of the Code of Virginia. The Board of Supervisors
recognizes that those statutes permit the City to initiate court
proceedings to annex County territory; however, the Board believes
annexation to be ineffective as a solution to the social and
financial problems of cities, and generally opposes the concept of
annexation on philosophical grounds. The City Council believes
that annexation has been historically effective as a method for
cities to increase their tax bases and provide for effective
delivery of urban services and that the City would be justified in
asking to annex parts of the County at this time.
In spite of .these philosophical differences, the City Council
and the Board of Supervisors realize that their jurisdictions have
much in common and that-the interests of their citizens often
extend across jurisdictional boundaries. They are proud of many
instances in which their two governments have cooperated to serve
the interests of those citizens, and they share the hope of a
future filled with more cooperative measures, perhaps ultimately
resulting in the combination of the two jurisdictions into one.
Whatever the merits of annexation might be, an annexation
suit initiated by the City at this time would threaten the spirit
of cooperation now existing between the City and County governments.
It would involve great expenditures of time and money, and it
would introduce an element of uncertainty into the political and
governmental processes of both jurisdictions which both the City
Council and the Board of Supervisors would prefer to avoid.
Recognizing all of these circumstances, the Board of Super-
visors and the City Council have sought through negotiations to
find a solution which would lessen the City's need to annex County
territory and thereby permit the County to proceed with its
planning and other governmen=al processes free of the threat of
annexation. Both bodies believe that the revenue and economic
growth sharing plan described in this agreement is an equitable
solution, which permits both jurisdictions to share fairly in the
property tax revenues created by
co~Lm%unity regardless of whether that growth occurs
County.
future economic growth in the
in the City or
SECTION II. REVENUE AND ECONOMIC GROWTH SHARING PLAN.
A. Agreement to Contribute and Share.
Pursuant to Va. Code Ann. ~15.1-1t66, for as long as this
agreement remains in effect, the County and City agree annually
to contribute portions of their respective real property tax bases
and revenues to a revenue and economic growth sharing fund as
described in this Sectidn. Each agrees to transfer to the other
the net amount determined by applying the calculations described in
this Section to the fund so created.
B. Determination of Contributions to Fund.
The City and the County will each annually contribute to the
revenue and economic growth sharing fund, from their respective
real property tax revenues, thirty-seven cents for each one hundred
dollars of value of locally assessed taxable real property, improved
and unimproved, within their respective political boundaries.
The city manager and county executive, or their designees.,
shall meet in the month of January in each year in which the agree-
ment is in effect to determine the amount each jurisdiction will
contribute to the fund in the ensuing fiscal year. The sum of the
contributions of the City and County shall constitute the "fund"
as referred to below.
In each year that this agreement is in effect, the assessed
values used to calculate the respective contributions shall be
those reflected on the land books of the two jurisdictions for
the most recent year for which population and true tax rate
figures are also available, as provided in Subsection D. However,
for any year in which one jurisdiction conducted a general
reassessment and the other did not, the contributions of both
jurisdictions shall be based on the assessed values for the mos~
recent year in which both conducted a general reassessment, plus
subsequent new construction and less subsequent demolitions in
both jurisdictions.
C. Determination of Distribution of Fund.
After computing the total contributions to the fund, the
designated officials, using the steps set forth in Subsection D,
shall determine the distribution of the
year. This determination shall be used
in the preparation of their budgets and
purposes.
fund for the ensuing fiscal
by the two jurisdictions
for fiscal planning
The distribution of the fund and the resulting net transfer
of funds shall be made initially on January 31, 1983, and on each
January 31 thereafter that this agreement remains in effect.
D. Procedure for Computin~ Distribution.
The procedure to compute distribution of the fund requires
the determination of the following figures:
Population of the City
Population of the County
True Real Property Tax Rate of
True Real Property Tax Rate of
the City
the County
The population figures shall be determined by official
United States Census figures for years in which a census has been
taken. For years between censuses, the population figures shall
be the final population estimates of the Tayloe Murphy Institute
of the University of Virginia.
True real property tax rates shall be as determined by the
Virginia Department of Taxation.
In the event the Tayloe Murphy Institute or the Department
of Taxation ceases to make such determinations, the city manager
and county executive shall jointly select another source for such
figures.
The.distribution shall be computed as follows:
Step 1.
Compute relative population indices for both
jurisdictions by dividing each jurisdiction's
population by the sum of the populations for
both jurisdictions.
Step 2.
Compute relative tax effort indices for both
jurisdictions by dividing each jurisdiction's
true real property tax rate by the sum of the
true real property tax rates for both
jurisdictions.
Step 3.
Compute a composite index for each jurisdic-
tion by averaging the relative population
index and the relative tax effort index for
the respective jurisdictions.
Step 4.
Multiply the composite index of each juris-
diction by the total contributions to deter-
mine each jurisdiction's share of the fund.
Step 5.
Compute the net transfer by finding the
difference between each jurisdiction's contri-
bution and its share of the distribution.
Each time the contribution and distribution are computed
the computation shall be based on the assessment, population and
true tax rate figures for the most recent year for which all three
such figures are available.
EXAMPLE
This example shows how such a computation would be made for
the Fiscal Year 1983 (July 1, 1982-June 30, 1983), using the
figures for the most current year for which all three elements
are available, 1980.
Contributions to Revenue and Economic Growth Sharing Fund
Total Assessed Values of Taxable Property (Jan. 1, 1980):
Charlottesville: $651,387,930
Albemarle : $1,229,123,396
These multipled by 37 cents per $100 of valuation, yield the
following respective contributions:
Charlottesville :
Albemarle :
Total Contributions:
$2,410,135
$4,547,759
$6,957,894
Distributions (based on 1980 populations and true tax rates
for 1980):
Step 1. Relative Population Indices:
Jurisdiction
Charlottesville
Albemarle
Totals
Population
39,916
55,783
95,699
Index
.4171
.5829
1.0000
Step 2__ Relative Tax Effort Indices:
Jurisdiction
Charlottesville
Albemarle
Totals
True Tax Rate
.91510
.49848
1.41368
Index
.6474
.3526
1.00.00
Step 3. CompositeIndices:
Jut lsd iction
Charlottesville
Albemarle
Total
Composite Index
.5323
.4677
1.0000
Step 4. Actual Distribution:
Multiply Composite Indices by amount of Total
Contributions ($6,957,894) to obtain the following
distribution of the pooled amount:
Jurisdiction
Charlottesville
Albemarle
Total
Composite Index
.5323 x $6,957,894=
.4677 x $6,957,894=
Distribution
$3,703,687
$3,254,207
$6,957,894
The net transfer of funds which will result from this
formula is the difference between each jurisdiction's contribution
and its distribution. The 1980 figures yield the following net
transfer from Albemarle to Charlottesville from this example:
Distribution :
Contribution :
Net Transfer :
city
$3,703,687
-2,410,135
+$1,293,552
County
$3,254,207
-4,547,759
-$1,293,552
As can be seen from this example, the contribution of each
jurisdiction will rise or fall as the tax base rises or falls, and
the distribution will increase or decrease as a combination of
relative populations and relative tax rates.
E. ~imitation on Distribution.
The contributions, distributions and the net transfer of funds
for fiscal year 1983 shall be as shown in the example in subsection
IID above. In all subsequent fiscal years, the amount transferred
to either jurisdiction for any year shall not exceed one tenth of
one percent (.1%) of the total locally assessed value of taxable
real estate used to compute the contribution of the other juris-
diction for that year.
F. Disputes About Cgmputa.tions.
In the event the city manager and county executive canno~
agree with regard to any computation made under this agreemen~
or any figure to be used in such computations, they shall jointly
select a person knowledgeable about governmental finances to
resolve the dispute.
SECTION III. ANNEXATION.
During the time this agreement is in effect, the City will
not initiate any annexation proceedings against the County, with
the exception that the City may, if it chooses, petition for
annexation of that property presently owned by the City, adjacent
to its corporate limits, known as Pen Park. A plat of the Pen
park property is attached to this agreement and marked as Exhibit
A. If the City decides to petition for annexation of Pen Park,
the County agrees that it will not oppose that annexation. The
City further agrees that while the agreement is in effect it will
oppose any petitions filed by County residents or property owners
seeking to have territory annexed by the City.
SECTION IV. DISCRIMINATORY TAXES.
The County and City agree that, except for ad valorem
property taxes, taxes on restaurant meals, transient lodgings or
admissions to public places or events and other general or selective
sales or excise taxes, neither jurisdiction will, during the life
of this agreement, impose or increase any tax that would affect
residents O~ the other jurisdiction if the other jurisdiction is
not legally empowered to enact that tax at the same rate and in
the same manner. This provision is specifically intended among
other things to ensure that neither 3urisdiction will enact a so-
called "commuter" or payroll tax unless the other jurisdiction has
the legal authority to do so.
SECTION V. CONS'OLIDATI'ON STUDY.
The City Council and Board of Supervisors agree that immedi-
ately after the approval of this agreement pursuant to Section VII
they will appoint a committee to study the desirability of combin-
ing the governments of the two jurisdictions, or some of the
services presently provided by them, either in a consolidation as
provided in Va. Code S15.1-1131, or in some other manner for which
special legislation might be requested.
The study committee will be comprised of two members of City
Council, two members of the Board of Supervisors, the city manager
and the county executive. Each governing body shall select the
members to represent it on the committee. The city and county
attorneys will attend the meetings of the committee and advise it,
but will not be voting members.
The committee will begin meeting as soon as possible after
its appointment and will make a preliminary report to the Board
of Supervisors and City Council within six months after its first
meeting to set forth the manner in which it thinks the study
should proceed, including a request for whatever staff or other
assistance it anticipates will be needed. The City Council and
Board of Supervisors agree to act on the preliminary recommenda-
tions within thirty days after receiving them.
~ full public report of the final conclusions and recommenda-
tions of the study will be made to both governlng bodies not later
than January 30, 1983. However, the Board of Supervisors and City
Council may jointly agree to extend this time limit.
SECTION VI. DURATION OF AGREEMENT.
This agreement will'remain in effect until:
A. The City and County are consolidated or otherwise combined
into a single political subdivision; or
B. The concept of independent cities presently existing in
Virginza is altered by state law in such a manner that real
property in the City becomes a part of the County's tax base; or
C. The City and County agree to cancel or change the
agreement.
SECTION VIT. APPROVAL OF' AGREEMENT.
This agreement shall be effective when it has been signed by
both jurisdictions, following the adoption of resolutions approved
by majority votes of the City Council and Board of Supervisors after
publication of notices and public hearings, as required by Va. Code
~15.1-1167, and in the case of the County, following approval by
the qualified voters of the County in a referendum conducted
pursuant to state law.
SECTION VIII. SEVERABILITY.
The provisions of Sections II and III of this agreement are
not considered severable, and any determination by a court of
competent jurisdiction that the revenue and economic growth sharing
plan or the City's agreement not to initiate or support annexation
petitions (except for Pen Park) is invalid shall cause this entire
agreement to be null and void. All other provisions are considered
severable, and a determination that any of them is invalid shall
not affect the remaining provisions.
SECTION IX. BREACH OF AGREEMENT.
If either party deems the other to have breached any provision,
it shall so notify the other in writing, and the party deemed to
have breached the agreement shall have 60 days to remedy the breach.
In the event remedial action has not been taken within the 60 day
period, the aggrieved party shall be entitled to seek specific
performance of the agreement in the circuit court of the City or
County.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF the City Council has authorized the Mayor
to sign this agreement b~ a resolution adopted March 15 , 1982',
and the Board of Supervisors has authorized its Chairman to sign
it by resolution adopted Feb. 17 , 1982, and pursuant to 'the
results of a referendum of the qualified voters conducted
May 18
, 1982.
Clerk of t~e Council
CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE
Mayor
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
~airman, Bo~/~ ~upervisors
Clerk of the Board
STATE OF VIRGINIA
CITY/CorY OF to-wit:
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged
day of ~/k~ , 1982, ~y Francis L. Buck, Mayor,
the City 6f ~ha~16~tesville.'
My commission expires f~ -~O--
before me this ~
on behalf of
/
/
STATE OF VIRGINIA
~mT~f/COUNTY OF CL~.'~t~_~, to-wit:
The fpregoing instrument was agknowledged before me this
of the Board of Supervisors, on behalf of the County of Albemarle.
My commission expires . ~t~o~7~ ~ /
~tary ~ublic
In place of our regular monthly FYI Newsletter, we are
sending out this brochure that we have prepared on reversion.
Because of the many questions and inquiries we have received from our citizens, we
wanted to devote thi~ month's publication to discussing the issues surrounding
reversion. For more information On any of the topics mentioned in this brochure,
please contact your Board of Supervisor representative at the numbers listed below
or call the Count' ExecutiVe's 'Office at (804)296-$B4L We hope this material is
helpful to you in understanding the very critical and complex issue of ci(y to town
reversion and how it may impact our community.
Next month we will return to the standard FYI Newsletter formal
Virginia has a unique system, of 'city-county
separation. The state's basic units oflo~al government
are counties, incorporated municipalities and special
districts. Municipalities Can be either cities or towns. Only
in Virginia are cities independent political entities,
separate and distinct from counties, with both having
similar service responsibilities. Towns, however, are
considered part of counties. Town residents SUpport both
town and county governments with their taxes and vote
for officials of both political subdL~isions.
In 1988 the General Assembly of Vi~:ginia passed
This brochure was published by
the County Board of
Supervisors Ior county
residents.
¥ Charlotte Humphrls(Ch)
legislati6n' known as the
Reversion Statute ' which
permits an independent city
l~e charlottesville to revert
to town status, thereby
integrating the former city
Highlights...
· Only in Virginia are cities politically and
fiscally separated from counties, with both
haVing similar service responsibilities
· Towns are part of counties, with
residents paying both town anti county _
taxes and. voting for officials in both
jurisdictions
· Towns benefit from the major services
their parent counties provide such as
social services, mental health, courts and,
in most counties, education
· When a city reverts to town status it
gives up its independence but regains the
right .to petition for the annexation of
property from the county
/ackJouett/296.7806
~ Forrest Marshall (ViceCh)
Scot. vi#e~295-7038
· David Bowerman
Rio/973-0813
· Charles Martin
Rivanna/978.4856
· Sally Thomas
Samuel Miller/295-1819
· Walter Perkins
White HalI/82S-4987
(printed February 11, '1-997)
into a surrounding or
neighboring county. While the new town could continue to function as
a distinct entity, it would be relieved of its sole responsibility for many of
the most expensive services previously required to_ b~ provided by the
city.
If Charlottesville became atown it would n6 longer be subject.to
the revenue-sharing agreement prohibiting City-initiated annexations and
could therefore petition to annex areas within Albemarle County. If
annexed, those areas would remain part of the.County but businesses and
residents in annexed areas would become subject to all Town taxes, as
well as County real and personal property taxes, and to the Town's land
use regulations. ,:
Highlights..,.
· The county woUld assume full
responsibility for constitutional
officers, election officials, courts,
social services, health and 'mental
health sel~ices and possibly
education
· The town could continue to
provide other public services like
utiliUes, police, public works, parks
and recreation and Community
development depending on
negotiations
After reversion, the County and Town would have a different
relationship regarding the provision of services, many of the details of
which could be established by a special three-judge reversion court.
Charlottesvlqle~s constitutional offices, including the Commonwealth's
Attorney, Sheriff, Clerk of the Court, Treasurer and Commissioner of
Revenue would be abolished and their responsibilities would be
assumed by the County constitutional officers and the County Finance
Depamnent. The County would assume full responsibility for courts,
social services, health and mental health services, and possibly
education. The new Town could continue to provide other public
services to its residents such as utilities,, police, fire, public works,
parks and recreation, and planning, zoning and subdivision regulation,
but would not ~he required to4o .so. Some of these services,could
become the responsibility of the County as part of the court order,
through a negotiation process or if the Town chooses to no longer
provide the serdce. If the County is ordered to provide education services for the Town's children,
it would be provided as a part of a County school systein as determined by the Coanty school board
Under such circumstances, there would not be a Town school board.
The reversion action and subsequent redistricting would be subject to preclearance by the
United States Departrnent of Justice undgr the Voting Rights Act. tfthe reversion were approved,
the County~seleetion district lines would be redrawn by the County Board of Supervisors Residents
of the Town would be eligible to vote for members of the County Board of Supervisors and School
Board in subsequent elections. Both School Board and Board of Supervisors representatives would
be elected according to the established election cycle. No specially scheduled elections would occur
unless additional election districts are created prior to regularly scheduled elections - elections would
only be heldin the new districts. ]?he former City's etectoral board would also be abolished and the
County electoral board would assume respons~ility within the new Town· A new election for Town
Council members would be held at least 30 days before the effective date of the reversion.
1995 Per Capita Expenditures by Service Category (taken from the I~6 Comparative
Raport o~ Loca/ Gover~nment Revenue$& Expenditures)
Albemarle 45 08 22·21 118·54 29.08] 120.39 931.40 42.03 36.52
Charlottesville 98.59 22.46 273.19' 218.542 317.74 894.66 120.46 43.60
Average VA 64.47 23~45 172.76 84.~0 I60.92 917.98 47.52 39.56
County
Avarage VA 76.38 28.3I 299.26 I73.26 · 199.35 892.29 79.t3 52.60
City
Does not include Albemarle County Service Authority or Virginia Department of Transportation
expenditures
Includes expenditures for water, sewers and roads
Taxes for both City and County residents potentially could be affected if reversion were to
take place. If the City were to revert to town status, taxpayers in both the Town and the County
would pay County taxes at a level required to support those additional services which the County
would be providing for the-town.~ In addition to County taxes, Town residents would alSO paya
Town tax to finance those services which remain under the Town's control and which benefit only
Town residents. At this point in the.reversion process it is impossible to predict what taxes will
increase, decrease or stay at the sams level for County and Town residents, although it is likely that
County taxes wilt have to be increased.
For example... Currently the real estate tax rate in Albemarle COunty is 50.72.
Under reversion, Charlottesville residenta would pay the County tax rate of $0.72 plus
the Town tax rate thaLwould be established by the Town. County residenLf outside
~of-the-Town-woutd payonly theCounty tax-rate. - .......
l.,ooldng }it 'i'axcs and Finances ill ! 996
Real Estate ' Personal Property Total School Expenditures
Tax Rate Tax Rate Budget Budget Per Student
(per $100 in (per $I00 in (FY 96/97) (FY 96/97) (96/97 School
assessed value) assessed value) Year).
Albemarle $0.72 ($0.62 after $4.28 $118.6 $67.17 $5,921.003
revenue sharing) . million million
Charlottesville $1.11 -. $4.20 $74.5 $33.16 $7,575.00
million, million
If reversion were to occur, tax revenues W°uld be redistributed between the new
Town and the County as follows:
! The Town would receive its real estate tax, its personal property tax (if any), a portion of the
County'ssales tax based onthe percentage of school-aged children, and all other taxes-cUrrently
being collected by the City except for recordation taxes.
~ The County would receive the same taxes as now and in'addition would collect real estate and
personal property tax on Town real and personal property. The County would gain the recordation
taxes and gain the sales taxes collected in the Town but would have to share a portion of its total
sales taxes with the Town based o~ the percentage of school-aged children.
' ~ In areas later annexed by the Town, the County would lose its authority to tax in those areas
except for realproperty, personal property and sales taxes and the Town taxes would be imposed and
collected by the Town.
3 Albemarle per pupil based on adopted FY 96197 School budget of $67,i 72,182 divided by 11,344
students
4 Charlottesville per pupil based on adopted Fy 96/97 Sclmol budget of $33,157,093 divided by
4,377 silents
The special reversion cOurt will order reversion if it finds the following:
The proposed reversion will not substantially impair the County's ability to meet the service needs of
its r~sid~ts
· The proposed transition to town status will not result in a substantially inequitable sharing of the
resources of the Town and County
· The proposed change is in the best interests of the City, the County, the Commonwealth and the people
of the City and County
· The proposed change from city slams to town status is in the best interests of the Commonwealth in
'promotinl~ stronl~ and viable units of ~ovemment
C~ Can Charlottesville return to independent city status after reverting to a town?
No. The General Assembly amended the reversion statute in 1996 to stop a reverted town
from becoming a city again without the consent of the county.
[] Can the newly formed town annex property from the surroundin9 county?
A new town of Charlottesville would have the authority to annex land from the County.
County residents and businesses in the annexed areas wouM be subject to all Town taxes as well as
County real estate and personal property taxes. An annexation can be filed two years after the
effective date of the reversion order. The annexed area wouM be subject to the Town's land use
regulations.
El Who will determine the newly formed ma§isterial districts and the educational
poliCiesand programs of a merged school system followln9 reversion?
Current low restricts the County and City from negoaating these items as part of a reversion
agreement. Following reverston, magisterial districts wouM be determined by the County Board of
Supervisors and education policies and programs would be determined by the County School Board.
Town residents would participate in elections for representatives to both of these bodies in the
districts in which they live.
13 What Will happen to the regional agreements and services currently shared by the
City and County?
The Town must continue to participate in all regional agreements in the same capacity as
the City unless it withdraws from the agreements pursuant to applicable withdrowal requirements
or unless such agreements are terminated or modified by order of the special reversion court.
Towns can be full participants in regional jails, water & sewer, and solid waste authorities.
0 What input does the County and its residents have in the reversion process?
Although the County is a party to the reversion proceedings, neither County officials nor
citizens have a vote in whether or not reversion will occur. Currently County officials and staff are
preparing for the proceeding to be hem bp the Commission on Local Government. The County must
demonstrate the impact reversion will have on the County ~o that appropriate terms and conditions
will be ordered by the special reversion .court to balance the impacts of the transition and the
financial equities. This is essential to protect the interests of the County residents because reversion
is likely to be ordered if Charlottesville City Council decides it wants the city to become a town.
~3 If the special reversion court orders reversion, does reversion take place?
Not necessarily. Charlottesville City Council can decline to allow town status by simply
adopting an ordinance or resolution declining to accept town status within 21 days of the Court's
order. If the City Council declines to accept town status, all the proceedings are nullified.
Reversion proceedings can hot be initiated again for five years
NOTICE OF SPECIAL MEETING
A SPECIAL MEETING OF THE COUNCIL WILL BE HELD ON Tuesday, September 24,
1996 AT 11:30 a.m. IN THE Second Floor Conference Room.
THE PROPOSED AGENDA IS AS FOLLOWS:
Continuation of meeting of September 23, 1996
Consideration of statement regarding reversion to town status
BY ORDER OF THE MAYOR
BY Jeanne Cox (signed)
SECOND FLOOR CONFERENCE ROOM - September 24, 1996
Council continued the meeting from September 23rd with the following members
present: Mr. Cox, Ms. Daugherty, Ms. Richards, Ms. Slaughter, Mr. Toscano.
On motion by Ms. Daugherty, seconded by Ms. Richards, the following statement
regarding reversion to town status was unanimously approved by Coune'rk
CITY COUNCIL STATEMENT
Concerning the Reversion of the City of Charlottesville
to Town Status
September 24, 1996
In the absence ora joint statement with Albemarle County, the City Council wishes to
make its position clear. First, some background.
The City Council has been studying the issues of consolidation and cooperation of
government services through a possible reversion to town status. The City presently is
strong and vital, as evidenced by its Triple A financial bond rating, its finandal surplus
generated in FY 95-96, its consistently high rankings as a place to live by national periodicals,
the level of economic activ/ty within its borders, and the quality of its schools.
At the same time, a citizens group in the City of Charlottesville has been actively
c'trculating a petition to initiate legal proceedings to cause the reversion &the City of
Charlottesville to town status. Two years ago, the City commissioned a study on the
economic forecast of the City's future over the next ten years, which estimated that the
modest increase of tax revenues would not match projected increases in the costs of
providing services, especially in our schools. Analyses by the City and County indicate that a
reversion of the City to town status is not financially feasible unless there is a consolidation of
the City and County school systems. The City of Charlottesville also recently completed a
study comparing the financial implications of a consolidated school system under reversion, a
report that has been shared with the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors, the two school
boards, and the public The Charlottesville City Council has not yet determined that
reversion of the City of Charlottesville to town stares is in the best interest of either the City
or the broader community, nor has the City completed its study of how reversion would
affect the school system.
To the extent that reversion is in the best interest of the community, it should be
negotiated rather than litigated. The Charlottesville City Council believes that it would be in
the best interest of the City and County to avoid protracted and expensive litigation that
~[ght be incurred in a reversion action. If reversion is initiated by citizen petition, the City
Council believes that a negotiated reversion of the City to town status is preferable to a
judicial solution which the City would have to accept or reject in toro.
Against this back~-ound, Council issues the following statements:
The City of Charlottesville remains willing to discuss with the Albemarle County Board
of Supervisors any and all options available to resolve long-term problems facing both
jurisdictions.
Citizen petitioners should suspend their efforts at filing a reversion petition to permit
County and City representatives and the community time to complete a school study. In
recognition of the foregoing request by this City Council to the citizen petitioners to suspend
their efforts, Coune'fi hereby asks that the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County pledge
to join the City in doing everything within reason to maintain the status quo concerning
Virginia iaw as it relates directly or indirectly to reversion and the reversion process.
If the citizen petitioners, for whatever reason, do initiate legal proceedings to cause the
reversion of the City of Charlottesville to town status, then the City is committed to pursuing
a negotiated reversion of the City of Charlottesville tc town status to provide for a long-term
solution for the provision of governmental services to the community rather than incur the
costs ora litigated reversion, and calls on the County to confmue negotiations in the face of
any citizen-initiated action. Any negotiated reversion should include provisions to ensure fair
and equitable political representation of the City's diverse population in future County
governance.
The City of Charlottesville believes that the initiation of a joint study by the Albemarle
County and Charlottesville school boards to determine how the City and County school
systems would merge under reversion may prove helpful to the City and County and their
respective schools boards in delivering the best education to the children in the community,
and will jim the County in funding a reasonably priced study, whether or not a reversion
petition is filed.
Independent of any joint school study and negotiated reversion, the City supports the
joint and systematic study of the services provided by the City and County to provide
information and analysis to aid the City and County in reaching agreements designed to solve
long-term problems. Any discussions with the County, regardless of whether the same occur
within the framework of negotiated reversiorg should include adjustments of funding
formulas for shared services and joint service agreements, and explore new arrangements for
delivery of services in a cost-effective manner to both jurisdictions. The Council and Board
must seek the input of citizens of both jurisdictions before deciding on any long-term
solutions to mutual problems. The Charlottesville City Cotmcil will continue to work with
the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors regarding these matters and will issue joint status
reports with the Board as these matters progress.
The meeting was adjourned.
RESOLUTION
CONCERNING THE REVERSION OF
THE CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE
TO TOYVN STATUS
WHERhAS_ citizens of the City of Charlottesville are actively
circulating a petition to initiate the legal proceedings to cause the reversion of the
City of Charlottesville to town status: and
WHEREAS, the Charlottesville City Council can unilaterally initiate
the legal proceedings to cause the reversion of the City of Charlottesville to town
status: and
WHEREAS. the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors believes st is
timely for its position to be dearly and publicly stated: and
YVHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors has determined that it would be
in the best interests of the County of Albemarle to avoid protracted and expenswe
litigation and the court-imposed terms and conditions of a litigated reversion: and
WHEREAS. if reversion is initiated by citizen petition or by City
Council_ the Board of Supervisors would prefer, if possible, to achieve a negotiated
reversion of the City to town status; and
WHEREAS, analyses by the County and City indicate that a reversion
of the City to town status is not feasible unless there is a consolidation of the City
and County schools systems: and
WHEREAS, the County and City agree that a ioint study of the issues
relating to a consolidation of schoots under reversion should be conducted by the
County and City school boards as the first step in determining whether a negotiated
reversion is feasible; and
WHEREAS. the Board of Supervisors has determined that a
consolidation of County and City schools, unless such consolidation is a result of the
City's reverting to town status, does nor provide a tong term and lasting solution to
the City's projected financial, problems.
NOW, THEREFORE. BE IT RESOLVED that the Albemarle County
Board of Supervisors has determined it will not ( I ) negotiate any amendment to the
Annexation and Revenue Sharing Agreement which would provide either additional
revenue to the Ciw or expand the City's boundaries, (2) renegotiate the funding
formulas of existing joint service agreements to subsidize sermces provided to the
City, or ~31 consent to a consolidation of County and City schools unless such
consolidation is a result of the City's reverting to town status.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors that if
after the joint study of school consolidation is completed, ( 1 ) the citizens or the City
Council of Charlottesville initiate the legal proceedings to cause the reversion of the
City of Charlottesville to town status and ~21 it is determined by the County that a
consolidated school system resulting from the reversion is beneficial and in the best
interests of the community_ then the Board is committed to pursuing a negotiated
reversion of the City of CharIottesvilte to town status to provide for a long tem~
solution for the provision of governmental services to the communiw in lieu of court
imposed conditions of a litigated reversion. If the citizens or the Ciw Council of
Charlottesville initiate the legal proceedings to cause the reversion of the City of
Charlottesville to To~m status prior to timeIy completion of the iomt study, the
County will oppose those proceedings to the extent necessary to protect the interests
of its citizens from any court-imposed conditions.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors supports
the initiation of a :oxnt study by the Albemarle County and City of Charlottesville
school boards to determine the feasibility and benefits of the abolition of the City
school system under reversion and the resulting effects on the County school system
which would be required to provide education to the children of both the County
and the new town. The Board agrees that the County will equally share the costs of
such study with the City of Charlottesville.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that after the ioint school study is
completed and if a negotiated reversion is pursued the Board of Supervisors suppolxs
the iomt and systematic study of the sermces provided by the County and City to
provide information and analysis to aid the County and City m reaching a negotiated
reversion agreement
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Board of Supermsors will
continue to work with the Charlottesville City Coundl regarding these matters and
will issue ioint status reports with the Coundl as these matters progress.
2
I, Ella W. Carey, do hereby certify that the foregoing writing is a true,
correct copy of a Resolution duly adopted by ~he Board of Supervisors of Albemarle
County by a vote of four to zero on September t 7, 1996.
Clerk, Board of C~unty S~p)ervisors
ILEVERSIO, DOC 3
ALBEMARLE COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
ALBEMARLE COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD
JOINT PRESS RELEASE
APRIL 3, 1996
The Albemarle County School Board with the support of the Albemarle
County Board of Supervisors is requestin9 that the Chadottesvil'le City School Board
participate in a joint study to determine if a consolidated school system resultin9 from
the reversion of the City to town status is feasible and is in the best interest of delivering
education to the children of our community. It is noted that both County and City
financial analyses have confirmed that reversion is not financially feasible for the City
unless there is a consolidated school system paid for by the County. A consolidated
school system without reversion will not solve the City's projected financial problems
because the City would be required to continue to fully fund the cost of its students and it
is unlikely to significantly decrease its education expenditures. This joint study by the
school boards is essential to provide a basis for any further discussions conceming
reversion.
The Albemarle County Board of Supervisors has concluded that any
further consideration of reversion should not occur unless and until there is a
determination that a consolidated school system is feasible and is in the best interest of
delivering education to the children. It is the Board of Supervisors' conclusion that the
school boards are the appropriate bodies to undertake this analysis. The Board of
Supervisors believes the proposed joint study will provide a forum for an open dialogue
by both County and City citizens to discuss how reversion could affect the school
systems. These discussions could ultimately influence how the Board of Supervisors
and City Council proceed: and could help axoid spending millions of dollars in legal fees
to litigate reversion before adequately knowing the effects reversion might have on the
single most important service provided education.
It is believed that a consultant could be jointly retained by the school
boards to assist in the consolidation analysis. In this regard, the Board of Supervisors
wiII ask City Council to either jointly share or to suspend its study bein9 conducted ~y
Educational Consulting Services, Ltd. The County previously has requested to
participate in and to share that study and in the spirit of cooperation, hopes that City
Council will cooperate with a joint school board study, tn addition, after the feasibility
component is completed, the school boards jointly should provide public information
regarding this study and hold public meetings to gather citizen input.
We hope that the City School Board and City Council wilt agree to go
forward with this cooperative study and look forward to a thoughtful and thorough
analysis of this important issue.
FAX TRANSMITTAL
TO Dana Hubbard FROM Laurie Hall
CO Daily Progress CO Albemarle County
DEPT Classified PHONE ~ 296-5843
FAX ~ 978-7223 FAX ~ 296-5800
; CLASS,MonAd,AlbemarleCounty
PUBLIC NOTICE\qcr\
Albemarle County\qcr\
Board of Superwsors\qcr
July 9, 1997\qcr\
...Notice is hereby given that the Board of County Supervisors of Albem adc County,
Virginia, will conduct public hearings on July 9, 1997, 7:00 p.m., Meeting Room #241,
Second Floor. County Office Building, 401 Mclntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia, to
consider the following petitions:\qlr\
1) SP-97-09. First Baptist Church, Covesville (Sign #86). To add 1.0 ac to existing
cemetery. Znd RA. TMIOg,P6 (part of) & TMIO9, P6E. Located on S side of Rt. 805,
approx 0.25 mile W of Rt. 29. Scottsville Dist.
2) SP-97-10. Sunnyboy Gardens (Sign #85). To establish a farm sales on 2 acs. Znd RA.
TM31 ,P23, part thereof. Located oH SW side of (Rt 743) Earlysville Rd near Earlysville.
Rio Dist.
3) SP-97-12. Meyers Family Division (Sign #83). Request for add'l dvlp right on 31.83
acs. Znd RA. TM47,P32C. Located on private access easement off S side of Burnt Mill
Rd (Rt 784) approx 3/4 mile W of its inter w/Watts Passage (Rt 600). Rivanna Dist.
4) SP-97-16. St. Paul's Church (Signs #81&82). To SP-96-54 for St. Paul's Church (SP
96-54) to expand facilities w/2 story addition to existing church on 15.315 acs. Znd
VR. TM58A2,Ps17,18&19 (combined). Located on E side of Owensville Rd. (Rt 678) at
Ivy. Samuel Miller Dist.
...Anyone desiring further information about the above petitions, please contact the
County Department of Planning and Community Development, Second Floor, County
Office Building, or telephone 296-5823.\qlr\
...Reasonable accommodations will be provided to persons with disabilities, if requested.
Please call 296-5827,\qlr\
Ella W. Carey, Clerk, CMC\qlr\
Purchase Order No. A~1374
Bill to: Albemarle County
Account Number 204066
~te: Oune../l~9, 19,97
~'D~'~'Ea~dn~'23:~nd June 30~ ,19:9l
..Monday. June 23.1997
~t.- Monda,-"June. 30;19~7
FAX TRANSMITTAL
TO Dana Hubbard FROM Laurie Hall
CO Daily Progress CO Albemarle County
DEPT Classified I PHONE ~ 296-5843
FAX 9 978-7223 FAX 9 296-5800
$CLASS,MonAd,AlbemarleCounty
PUBLIC NOTICE\qcr\
Albemarle County\qcr\
Board of Supervisors\qcr\
July 9, 1997\qcr\
...Notice is hereby given that the Board of County Supervisors of Albemarle County,
Virginia, will conduct a public hearing on July 9, 1997, 7:00 p.m., Meeting Room #241,
Second Floor, County Office Building, 401 Mclntire F~oad, Charlottesville, Virginia, to
consider the following petition:\alr\
1) SP-97-13. 360 Communications of Charlottesville, Eure Communications, Inc. (Signs
#56&57). To construct telecommunications tower w/overall height of 200' &
associated support facilities on portion of 10.3 acs. Znd RA. TM46,P15. Located on W
side of Seminole Trl (Rt 29N), near entrance to Forest Lakes South [Ashwood Blvd). Site
of existing AM Radio towers. Rivanna Dist.
.,.Anyone desiring further information about the above petition, please contact the
County Department of Planning and Community Development, Second Floor, County
Office Building, or telephone 296-5823.\qlr\
...Reasonable accommodations will be provided to persons with disabilities, if requested.
Please call 296-5827.\qlr\
Ella W. Carey, Clerk, CMC\qlr\
Purchase Order No. A-1378
Bill to: Albemarle County
Account Numb/er 204066
Date: June 2,~,.199~ ~
Date~_~' ~4-and J~ 30; ~1-997~-~ ~'
FAX TRANSMITTAL
TO Dana Hubbard FROM Laurie Hall
CO Daily Progress CO Albemarle County
DEPT Classified P~ONE ~ 296-5843
FAX ~ 978-7223 FAX # 296-5800
CLASS, MonAd,AlbemarleCounty
PUBLIC NOTICE\qcr\
Albemarle County\qcr\
Board of Supervisors\qcr\
July 9, 1997\qcr\
...Notice is hereby given that the Board of County Supervisors of Albemarle County,
Virginia, will conduct a public hearing on July 9, 1997, 7:00 p.m., Meeting Room #241,
Second Floor, County Office Building, 401 Mclntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia, on an
ordinance to Amend and Raordain the Code of the County of Albemarle, in Chapter 12,
Motor Vehicles and Traffic, Article I, In General, Section 12-5.4, to clarify that no
parking or standing is allowed in fire lanes within the County, and Article V, County
Vehicle Liceses, Section 12-21.1, Lo amend the schedule of fines for failure to have a
valid County motor vehicle sticker.\qlr\
...A complete copy of the wording of this ordinance amendment may be obtained from
the Clerk, Fourth Floor, County Office Building, Mclntire Road, between the hours of
8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, or by calling 296-5843.\qlr\
...Public comments are invited at this time.\qlr\
...By Order of the Board of County Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia.\qlr\
..Reasonable accommodations will be provided to persons with disabilities, if requested.
Please call 296-5827.\qlr\
Ella W. Carey, Clerk, CMC\qlr\
Purchase Order No. A-1375
Bill to: Albemarle County
Account Number 204066
Date: June 20, 1997
Date Ru~c/. Juner2~ar~d June 3_0, ,.t 98?
FAX TRANSMITTAL
TO Dana Hubbard FROMEIla Carey
CO Daily Progress CO Albemarle County
DEPT Classified PHONE Cf 296-5843
FAX Cf 978-7223 FAX Cf 296.5800
$CLASS,ThursAd,AlbemarleCounty
PUBLIC NOTICE\qcr\
Albemarle County\qcr\
Board of Supervisors\qcr\
July 9, 1997\qcr\
...Notice is hereby given that the Board of County Supervisors of Albemarle
County, Virginia, will conduct a public hearing on July 9, 1997, 7:00 p.m.,
Meeting Room #241, Second Floor, County Office Building, 401 Mclntire
Road, Charlottesville, Virginia, on a DEED OF EASEMENT by and between
the County of Albemarle and the City of Charlottesville for the installation of
a permanent natural gas line in the public right-of-way running from Route
20 to Route 742 in Albemarle County, Virginia, as shown on plat of the City
of Charlottesville Gas Division, dated April 2, 1997, and identified as "A
Fifteen-Foot Wide Easement for 4" PE and 2" PE Gas Lines".\qlr\
...A complete copy of the wording of this Deed may be obtained from the
Clerk, Fourth Floor, County Office Building, Mclntire Road, between the
hours of 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, or by calling
296-5843.~qlr\
...Public comments are invited at this time.\qlr\
...By Order of the Board of County Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virgin-
ia.\qlr\
...Reasonable accommodations will be provided to persons with disabilities,
if requested. Please call 296-5827.\qlr\
Ella W. Carey, Clerk, CMC\qlr\
Purchase Order No. A-1379
Bill to: Albemarle County
Account Number 204066
Date: July 1, 1997
Date Run: July 3, 1997