HomeMy WebLinkAbout1996-11-06 I I.% \!
9:00 't.M.
R()()M 211.¢:()[ \'IYI')III(:I I~l II
1
2.
3.
4.
5.
6,
7.
8.
9
I0
II
i2.
13
14
15
16
17
18
Call to Order.
Pledge of Allegiance.
Moment of Silence.
Other Matters not Listed on the Agenda from the PUBLIC.
Consent Agenda ~ on next sheet,.
Approval of Minutes: August 2 and December 12 1995; January 3, August 14 and September 18. 1996,
Transportation Matters.
Presentation by Bryan Elliott on Long Range Plans for the Charlottesville-Albemarle Airport.
Discussion: Request to set a public hearing to amend the service area boundaries of the Albemarle
County Sercice Authority to add water service to VDot Headquarters on Route 250 East.
Discussioni Staff response to Albemarle Neighborhood Assodation Growth Management Proposal.
I 1:00 A.M. - Discussion: Analysis of Reinstatement of Scenic Highway Regulations.
Housing Program Presentation: "Homebuyers Club".
Discttssion: FY I997-98 Preliminary Revenue Proiections and Budget Guidance.
Cancel Board of Supervisors' meeting of November 20. 1996.
Other Matters not Listed on the Agenda from the ]BOARD.
Executive Session: Legal Matters and Property Disposition.
Certify Executive Session.
Adlourn.
FOR APPROVAL:
APPROPRIATIONS/REAPPROPRIATIONS:
5.1
5.2
5.3
5.4
5.5
5.6
General Fund (Attorney's FeesL $6,923.50.
Circuit Court Records Preservation Grant. $11.202 (Form #96036),
School Division, $34,287 (Form #96037).
Dixie Little Leagae Field. $36.000 (Form #96038).
EMS Recruitment and Retention Mini-Grant, $3,470 (Form #96039).
General Fund (Commonwealth Attorney's office). $26.740 (Form #96040).
5.7
RESOLUTIONS:
]?o take Weston Lane in Weston Subdivision into the State Secondary System of Highways.
5.8
1'o take roads in Willoughby Subdivision, Section V. Phase I. II and III into the State Secondary
System of Highways.
5.9
Authorize destruction of paid tax tickets in accordance with the Library of Virginia's Retention and
Disposition Schedule.
5.10 Appointment of Katherine A. Ralston as the Acting Director of Sodal Services.
FOR INFORMATION:
5.11 Letter dated October 16, 1996. from Angela G. Tucker. Resident Highway Engineer. to Ella W. Carey,
Clerlc responding to transportation matters that were discussed at the September 4 and October 2.
1996. Board meetings.
5. I2 Notice from the Federal Communications Commission that the Cable Services Bureau has extended the
time to file comments on the proposed resolution for Adelphia Communications Corporation.
5.13
Notice of an application filed with the State Corporation Commission by CCI Telecommunications of
Virginia. Inc., for certificates of public convenience and necessity to provide local exchange and
interexchange telecormnunications services.
5.14
Notice of an application filed with the State Corporation Commission by Alternet of Virginia, Inc., for a
certificate of public convenience and necessity to provide local exchange telecommunications services
and to mend its interexchange certificate of public convenience and necessity.
5.15
Letter dated July 25. I996 from Betty L. Ne~vell_ Executive Director. Charlottesville Free Clinic. to
Roxanne Wtxite. Assistant County Executive. expressing appreciation to the Board for its contribution to
the Free Clinic
5.i6
Copy of letter dated October 17. 1996. fromAndrew J. Winston. Chairman. Board of Corrections, to
Albert A. Tumminia. Superintendent. Albemarle-Charlottesville Regional Jail, regarding the Jail's
Compliance Audit Report
5.17 Copies of minutes of the Planning Commission for October 6 and October 15. 1996.
5.18 Copies of minutes of the Board of Directors of the Albemarle County Service Authority for August 15
~nd September I9. 1996.
5.19 Copy of Piedmont Court Appointed Special Adv%cates. Inc.. (CASA~ I995-96 Annual Program Report.
5.20 Arbor Crest Apartments (Hydraulic Road Apts.) Bond Program Report for September, 1996.
David P. Bowerman
Ch~lotta Y. Humphfis
Jack Joueii
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Office o~ Beard of Supervisors
401 Mclnfira Road
Charlottesville, ¥~inia ~902~596
(804) 2965843 FAX (804) 296-5800
Wall:et E Perkins
White Hall
Sally FI. Thoma~
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
Robert W. Tucker, :Ir., Count~, Executive
Ella W. Carey, CMC, Clerk~~-~
November 7, 1996
Board Actions of November 6, 1996
At the Board of Superx4sors' meeting held on November 6, I996, the following actions were
taken:
Agenda Item No. I. Call to Order. Meeting was called to order at 9:02 a.m., by the Chairman.
(Mr. Marshall was absent.)
Agenda Item No. 4. Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda l[rom the PUBLIC.
Mr. Jim Bennett, a landowner along the Moormans River in Sugar Hollo~v, spoke concerning
VDOT's proposal to replace the last two bridges across the Moormans River. He expressed doubts
about VDOT's ability to carry out this task irt art environmentally responsible manner and keep as its
first priority the feelings of Albemarle Cotmty citizens for this spedal area. He proposed that the Board
consider designating the last three miles of Sngar Hollow Road, below the dam, as a County scenic area
with a sign at the entrance indicating slower speeds and reminders to drivers of the diversity of traffic
on the road.
Item No. 5. I. Appropriation: General Fun,, (Attorney s Fees), $6,923.50. APPROVED.
Original form forwarded to Melvin Breeden.
Item No. 5.2. Appropriation: Circ~t Court Records Presel~ation Grant, $11,202 (Form
#96036). APPROVED. Original form forwarded to Melvin Breeden.
Item No. 5.3. Appropriation: Scttool Division, $34,287 (Form #96037). APPROVED.
Original form forwarded to Melvin Breeden.
Printed on recpcl~d paper
Memo To: Robert W. Tucker, Jr.
November 7, 1996
Page 2
Item No. 5.4. Appropriation: Dixie Little League Field, $36,000 (Form #96038).
APPROVED. Original form forwarded to Mdvin Breeden.
Item No. 5.5. Appropriatipn: EMS Recrttitment and Retention Mini-Grant, $3,470 (Form
#96039). APPROVED. Original form forwarded to Melvin Breeden,
Item No. 5.6. General Fund (Commonwealth Attorney's office), $26.740 (Form #96040).
APPROVED. Original form forwarded to Melvin Breeden.
Board members asked that the Commonwealth's Attorney provide information justifying the
need for this position.
Item No. 5.7. Resolution to take Weston Lane in Weston Subdivision into the State Secondary
System of Highways. ADOPTED. Original forwarded to Engineering.
Item No. 5.8. Resolution to take roads in Willoughby Subdivision, Section V, Phase I, II and III
into the State Secondary System of Highways. ADOPTED. Original forwarded to Engineering.
Item No. 5.9. Authorize destruction of paid tax tickets in accordance with the Library of
Virginia's Retention and Disposition Schedule. APPROVED.
Item No. 5.10. Appointment of Katherine A. Ralston as the Acting Director of SodaI Services.
APPROVED.
Item No. 5.16. Copy of letter dated October 17, 1996, from Andrew J. Winston, Chairman,
Board of Corrections, to Albert A. Tumminia, Superintendent, Albemarle-Charlottesville Regional Jail,
regarding the Jail's Compliance Audit Report.
*Mrs. Thomas asked that the Board be updated on the Jail. (This was done during Executive
Session.)
Agenda Item No. 7. Transportation Matters:
Mr. Bill Mills was present on behalf of VDOT. He announced that Angela Tucker had given
birth to a baby gift. He would respond to any questions about the October 16th letter from VDOT.
Memo To: Robert W. Tucker, Jr.
November 7, 1996
Page 3
Mr. Mills said a preconstruction meeting is being held today, November 6th, on the project to
construct the acceleration lane off of 1-64 eastbound onto Route 20 southbound. Construction should
begin soon.
Mr. Mills said VDOT has sent out notices concerning the design public hearing for the proposed
improvements to the two bridges on Route 6 I4 (Sugar Hollow Road). VDOT plans to meet with David
Hirschmann and the Scenic River Committee prior to the public hearing to address some of the
environmental concerns.
Mr. Tucker asked that VDOT be sensitive to the Sugar Hollow area mad the Moormans River, in
the same fashion that was displayed with the Millington Bridge.
Mr. Mills said a public hearing will be scheduled some time in December on the relocation of the
Bellair Entrance. Mrs. Thomas said several plans have been mentioned, but one concerned moving the
BelIair Road to align with the exit of the Route 250 Bypass. Mr. Mills said VDOT is considering the
alignment of the road with the Route 250 Bypass under the railroad structure and the installation of a
signal.
Mrs. Thomas said she attended a meeting about the Ivy intersections and there were a lot of
questions about the warrant system for signals. Since she wants to understand this system better, she is
setting up a briefing with VDOT staff.
Mr. Bowerman said a representative from VDOT is supposed to be attending the 1Laintree
Homeowners Association meeting on Friday to discuss the warrant system for signals. He asked that
whoever attends this meeting provide that stone information.
Mr. Perkins said he thinks the Cotmty should look at designating Sugar Hollow Road, from the
intersection of Route 6 I4 to Route 676, as some sort of spedal road with a reduced speed limit. He
asked the posted speed limit. Mr. Mills said there is no posted speed limit on the road; there are notices
posted of curves for safe speeds. Normally on curvy roads there is more success with speed warning
signs than with speed limit signs because drivers will slow down to a proper speed for a curve.
Mrs. Humphris said she also would iike consideration given to designating something for that
road or area.
Mr. Tucker said if it is the consensus of the Board, he will ask staff to look at the best way to
handle the road. He thinks consideration should be given to designating the entire area, not iust the
road, as a natural resource. Mrs. Humphris suggested that any other areas in the County'that are
comparable or significant in some way to justify a spedal designation also be considered.
Memo To: Robert W. Tucker, ]fr.
November 7, I996
Page 4
Mr. Martin again asked VDOT to consider a "right turn on red" at the intersection of Rio Road
and Route 29 North. He did not see what the problem was with this request. VDOT has the authority.
The turn movement can be restricted to certain times.
Board members offered congratulations to Angela Tudcer on the birth of her daughter.
Agenda Item No. 8. Presentation by Bryan Elliott on Long Range Plans for the Charlottesville-
Albemarle Airport.
The Board requested that commtmity input be included in the RFP as part of the consultant's
charge for the proposed upgrade of Route 649.
The Board recessed at 10:09 a.m., and reconvened at 10:22 a.m.
Agenda Item No. 9. Discussion: Request to set a public hearing to mxqend the service area
boundaries of the Albemarle County Service Authority to add water service to VDOT Headquarters on
Route 250 East.
Based on its stated policy, it was the consensus of the Board not to go forward with the request to
set a public hearing.
Agenda Item No. 10. Discussion: Staff response to Albemarle Neighborhood Association
Growth Management Proposal.
In discussing the recommendations from the staff's report, the Board reached the following
conclusions:
# I - "Limit speculative development...." Consensus of the Board that staff provide a detailed
analysis (i.e., other land already zoned for that use, projected demand for proposed use based upon
current population projections, relevant employment dam) of major commercial and industrial
rezonings..
#2 - "Develop a program to purchase development rights...." Directed staff to prepare a list
of possible citizens for Board appointment to serve on a committee to work on a proposal to purchase
development rights for consideration by the Board. The committee should include a cross section of
representation, not iust one special interest group.
#3 - "Reduce commercial speculation in the rural areas...." Concurred that this be taken up
as a consideration during the Comprehensive Plan Rural Areas review scheduled in the Development
Departments' Work Program to occur over the next year.
#4 - "Increase the size of rural lots from 21 to at least 42 acres ..." To be considered in the
upcoming review of the Rural Areas section of the Comprehensive Plan.
Memo To: Robert W. Tucker, Jr.
November 7, I996
Page 5
#5 - "Support the principles embodied in the recommendations of the County's Mountain
Protection and Historic Preservation Committees ,.." Review of the Mountain Protection Plan is
underway ~vith the Planning Commission. When the Historic Preservation Comrrdttee's work is
completed, it will also be reviewed by the Commission and the Board.
#6 - "Hire a nationally recognized consultant experienced in neighborhood design...."
Endorsed the creation of a Community Steering Committee (as set out in the staff'q report) to provide
assistance and guidance in implementing the Development Area Initiatives process. The Board also
endorsed hiring a consultant to undertake and manage a public input/education process and provide a
report with findings and recommendations for implementing the commtmity consensus. The Board
requested that there be a little leeway to add other representation to the group.
Mr. Perkins said he thinks the Farm Bureau should be involved in any steering committee
considering land use issues..
Agenda Item No. 11. Discussion: Analysis of Reinstatement of Scenic Highway Regulations.
Consensus of Board to establish a committee to look at all the issues and develop a concrete
proposal of what practically could be done to make sure the rural entrance corridors designated as
bpvays have as much protection as possible, taldng into account the political and legal realities. This
would apply to all roads with the scenic byway designation. Mrs. Thomas and Mr. Perkins agreed to
*vork with staff to draft a proposal.
Agenda Item No. I2. Housing Program Presentation: "Homebuyers Club".
Received, no action.
Agenda Item No. 13. Discussion: FY'I997-98 Preliminary Revenue Proiections and Budget
Guidance.
Approved the proposed FY 1997-98 allocation of new revenues as recommended by the County
Executive's staff.
Agenda Item No. 14. Cancel Board of Supervisors' meeting of November 20, I996.
CANCELED~
Agenda Item No. I5. Other Matters not Listed on the Agenda from the BOARD.
Mr. Tucker introduced Thomas ~ Hanson, the newly employed Director of the Emergency
Communications Center.
Memo To: Robert W. Tucker, Jr.
November 7, 1996
Page 6
Mr. Tucker asked for a volunteer from the Board to serve on a wireless commtmications task
force concerning towers. Mrs. Humphris said she would serve on the committee.
Mr. Tucker asked for a voltmteer from the Board to serve on the Development Area Initiatives
Steering Committee. Mr. Martin volunteered.
Mr. Martin commended the whole concept of the Homebuyers Club.
Mrs. Thomas said Albemarle County was asked to make a presentation to the Commission on
Intergovernmental Relations on Monday, November 1 lth, at the Homestead. The presentation should
include what Albemarle is doing to protect or enhance its visual quality, its relationship to economic
development, and what changes in State funding, regulations or enabling legislation would most enable
Albemarle to continue with any programs in terms of visual attractiveness. If anyone has any ideas, she
would like to hear them.
Mr. Tucker suggested mentioning what we have tried to do with the trees on Route 29 and how it
relates to YDOT's involvement. Mr. Davis suggested that the State give the County enabling
authority to regulate aesthetics.
Mr. Bowerman requested a status report from the Fiscal Impact Committee.
Mr. Tucker provided Board members with a copy of the brochure developed by the staff on the
subject of "Barking Dog" which will be provided to citizens.
Agenda Item No. 16. Executive Session: Legal Matters and Property Disposition.
At I2:43 p.m., the Board went into Executive Session pursuant to Section 2.1-344(A) to discuss a
personnel matter; to discuss the disposition of Cotmty property; to consult with legal counsel and staff
regarding specific legal matters concerning reversion and pending litigation of a tax matter; and
personnel and specific legal matters related to the Regional Jail Authority.
Agenda Item No. 17. Certify Executive Session.
At 2:58 p.m., the Board Certified the Executive Session.
Mrs. Humphris told the Board about a dinner she attended for some educators visiting from
Ireland and hosted by Dr. DiCroce.
Mr. Martin said he met the Russian ballerina and presented her with a tee shirt.
Menm To: Robert W. Tudcer, Jr.
November 7, 1996
Page 7
Mrs. Thomas said it would be nice if ail Board members were kept up-to-date on invitations they
individually receive.
Agenda item No. 16. Adjourn. The meeting was adjourned at 3:03 p.m.
/ewc
Attachments (8)
cc: ¥. Wayne Cilimberg
Richard E: Huff, II
Roxanne White
Amelia McCulley
Jo Higgins
Bruce Woodzell
Larry W. Davis
Kevin Castner
Richard Wood
Jan Sprinlde
File
Ladies and Gentlemen;
I am Jim Bem~ett and I speak to you on behalf of myself and my wife Donna
and our twe children. We are riparian landowners along the Moormans river
in Sugar Hollow, and I wish to presen~ to you today an issue of great
concern to us and many of our neighbors. The Virginia Dept of
Transportation is proposing to replace the last two bridges across the
Moormans in Sugar Hollow. While we do not disagree at all with the
necessny of bridge replacement, we have serious doubts about the capability
of VDOT both to carry out this task in an enviromuentally responsible
manner and to keep as its first priority the best interests of Albemarle County
citizens' feelings for this special area.
During the June, 1995 flood the Sugar Hollow road was extensively damaged.
As you may recall, at that t/me there was passionate disagreement expressed
before this Board by both local residents and many others within Albemarle
Cotmty as to whether the Sugar Hollow road should be restored to its original
state or widened and paved. Well, the road was paved, but what you may
not know and what I wish to tell you today is "the rest of the story".
VDOT engaged in many envirom,nentally destructive practices dm4ng the
course of widening and paving Sugar Hollow Road. The most heinous of
these was dredging the river and adjacent floodplain in three places for fill
rock. As you may recall, river dredging continued even after this Board had
specifically requested that it stop. The river chaunel was unnaturally widened,
many valuable riverbmxk trees were removed, mhd at our bridge site a new
river cham~el was created which the river gladly filled during the flooding this
past Sept as a consequence ofhmTicane Fran. As a result, 50 feet of
approach road were lost unnecessarily and had to be replaced. We have lived
through many episodes of 'thigh water" comparable to or even greater than
what occurred with Fran and have never lost more than a minor amount of
bridge approach. This most recent episode was the restdt of man's attempt to
reshape a river channel.
Other VDOT practices last smurner involved creating a suburban vision of
what had previously been considered a wild mountain river that has been
given official scenic river status by both the County and the Commonwealth.
Hundreds of truckloads of clay were imported to construct traffic pullouts,
none of which existed before, h~ the name of creating one of these pullouts,
a magnificent sycamore tree was bm4ed under 4 feet of this clay until protests
by residents forced VDOT to remove the fill. Hundreds of yards of riverbank
foilage were scraped away and replaced with tamatural grass.
And now we are again faced with another VDOT project in Sugar Hollow.
I'm sure vou can understand our inabilitv to beheve that this agency has the
proper feeling for th/s area and will be sensitive to the special enviromnental
and aesthetic requirements necessary to protect the interests of Albemarle
County's citizens in Sugar Hollow.
The Moormans river corridor in Sugar Hollow is tm/que in many ways. It is
the steepest and most pristine of the county's rivers, provides the highest
quahty water to our municipal supplies, and is a source of great biodiversity.
The Related Lands Stady jointty sponsored by Albemarle County and the
Shenandoah National Park recognized the Moormans corridor in Sugar
Hollow as a natural extension of the Park's wilderness. Sugar Hollow has not
had and must not ever be allowed to acquire a subttrban character. Rather,
preserving its w/ld nature serves several practical purposes, not the least of
which is preserving a valuable County watershed.
We implore you to keep a vision of Sugar Hollow as a very special place for
all County citizens and those who visit. Do not allow the mindless
application of highway building standards to further degrade this area. The
Sugar Hollow road is not a thoroughfare to typical destinations. Rather, it is
a winding country lane which deadends at the base of the Shenandoah
National Park. As plans for bridge replacement in Sugar Hollow develop,
please remember that this visio&~ oSSuga/' ~ollou/as a s~pecial wilderness area
is shared by at least 30 _ p di /Ib a/v oT"mC y cooperated
with Albemarle County over the last 15 years to keep the river corridor wild
and natural. Please do not let Sugar Hollow again be transformed by VDOT
into something that neither you nor we want.
We also ask you to remember that hikers, bikers and children at Camp Sugar
Hollow regtdarly use this road, and that all have a right to safety. We
propose that you consider designating the last 3 miles of Sugar Hollow road
below the dam as a County scenic area, with a special sign at the entrance
indicating slower speeds and reminders to drivers of the diversity of traffic on
the road. This will in no xvay interfere with the use of Sugar Hollow road by
vehicular traffic. Rather, it will enhance its use by all citizens m~d will
encourage those of you not fortunate enough to live there to visit often and
experience its special, addicting magic.
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
RE:
Melvin A. Breeden, Director of Finance
Ella W. Carey, CMC, Cler~t~/
November 8, 1996
Board Actions of November 6, 1996
At its meeting on September 6. [996, the Board of Supervisors took the following actions:
Item No.5. L Appropriation: General Fund (Attorney's Fees), $6,923.50, APPROVED. Attached
is the signed form.
Item No. 5.2 Appropriation: Circuit Court Records Preservation Grant. $ I 1,202 (Form #96036).
APPROVED. Attached is the signed form,
Item No. 5.3. Appropriation: School Division. $34.287 (Form #96037). APPROVED.
Attached is the signed form.
Item No. 5.4. Appropriation: Dixie Little League Field, $36,000 [Form #96038). APPROVED.
Attached is the signed form.
Item No 5.5. Appropriation: EMS Recruitment and Retention Mini-Grant. $3.470 (Form
#96039L APPROVED. Attached is the signed form.
Item No. 5.6. General Fund , Commonwealth Attorney's office), $26.740 (Form #96040),
APPROVED. Attached is the signed form.
Memo To: Melvin Breeden
Date' November 8. 1996
Page 2.
Item No. 5.9. Authorize destruction of paid tax ridders in accordance with the Library of Virginia's
Retention and Disposition Schedule. APPROVED.
Item No. 5.10 Appointment of Katherine A~ Ralston as the Acting Director of Social Services
APPROVED.
Agenda Item No. 13. Discussion: FY 1997-98 Preliminary Revenue Pro~ections and Budget
Guidance
Approved the proposed FY 1997-98 allocation of new revenues as recommended by the Cotmty
Executive's staff.
Agenda Item No. 1.4. Cancel Board of Supervisors' meeting of November 20. 1996
CANCELED.
Attachments (6)
cc: Richard E. Huff. II
Roxanne W. White
Robert Walters
Kevin Castner
Jackson Zimmerman
Pat Mullaney
Carl Pumphrey
APPROPRIATION REQUEST
FISCAL YEAR 96 97 NUMBER 96C41
TYPE OF APPROPRIATION
ADEITIONAL
TP~tNSPER
NEW
X
ADIrERTISEMENT REQUIRED ~ YES
NO X
FUND GENEP~AL
PURPOSE OP APPROPRIATION:
FUNDING FOR ATTORNEY FEE RELATED TO EMPLOYEE ACCIDENT.
EXPENDITURE
COST CTR/CATEGORY DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
1100031012312100 ATTORNEY FEES $6,923.50
TOTAL S6,923.50
REVENUE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
2100051000510100 GENERAL FUND BALANCE $6,923.50
TOTAL $6,923.50
REQUESTING COST CENTER:
COUNTY EXECUTIVE
APPROVALS: SIGNATURE DATE
DIRECTOR OF FINANCE
BOARD OF SUPERVISOR
APPROPRIATION REQUEST
FISCAL YEAR 96/97
TYPE OF APPROPRIATION
ADVERTISEMENT REQUIRED ~
FUND
PURPOSE OP APPROPRIATION:
NUMBER
ADDITIONAL
TRANSFER
NEW
YES
NO X
GRANT
96036
X
REAPPROPRIATION OF CIRCUIT COURT RECORDS PRESERVATION DP. ANT.
EXPENDITURE
COST CTR/CATEGORY DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
1155421060331000 REPAIRS & MAINT. $11,202.00
TOTAL Sll,202.00
REVENUE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
************************************************************************
2155~51000510100 GRANT FUND BALANCE $11,202.00
TOTAL $11,202.00
REQUESTING COST CENTER:
APPROVALS:
DIRECTOR OF FINANCE
BOARD OF SUPERVISOR
CIRCUIT COURT CLERK
S I GNATURE
DATE
APPROPRIATION REQUEST
FISCAL YEAR 96/97
TYPE OP APPROPRIATION
NUMBER
ADDITIONAL
TRANSFER
NEN
X
X
96037
ADVERTISEMENT REQUIRED
YES
NO
X
FLTND
GRANT
PURPOSE OF ~PPROPRtATION:
SCHOOL GR3~NTS.
EXPENDITURE
COST CT~/CATEGORY
1310~60601312500
131~46Q602312500
1310460603312500
1310460604312500
DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
PROP. SERVICES-INSTRUCTIONAL S2,573.00
PROF. SERVICES-INSTRUCTIONAL 1,050.00
PROF. SERVICES-INSTRUCTIONAL 2,328.00
PROF. SERVICES-INSTRUCTIONAL 1,707.00
1320861311312700
1320861311312701
1320861311380100
1320861311420100
1320861311550100
1320861311580500
1320861311601300
1320861311800710
PROF. SER. CONSULTANTS
DATA PROCESS CONSULTANTS
PUPIL TUITION-OTH.SCHOOLS
FIELD TRIP MILEAGE
TRAVEL-MILEAGE
STAFF DEVELOPMENT
EDUC. & RECREATION SUP.
DATA PROCESSING SOFTWARE
10,629.00
800.00
3,600.00
1,675.00
1,000.00
4,225.00
4,500.00
200.00
TOTAL $34,287.00
REVENUE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
2310424000240295
2310424000240296
2310424000240244
2310424000240298
2320833000330108
GR3%NT ~97-0246
GRANT ~97-0241
GRANT ~97-0244
GRANT ~97-0250
COMM. BASED VOC.
ED.
TOTAL
$2,573.00
1,050.00
2,328.00
1,707.00
26,629.00
S34,287.00
REQUESTING COST CENTER:
EDUCTION
APPROVALS:
DIRECTOR OF FINANCE
BOA-RD OF SUPERVISOR
SIGNATURE
DATE
APPROPRIATION REQUEST
FISCAL YEAR 96~97
TYPE OF APPROPRIATION
ADVERTISEMENT REQUIRED
FI/ND
PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION:
FUNDING FOR EIXIE LEAGUE
EXPENDITURE
COST CTR 'CATEGORY
NUMBER
ADDITICNAL
TRANSFER
NEW
YES
NO X
CIP-GENERAL
FIELD.
DESCRIPTION
96038
X
AMOUNT
1901071000950045 DIXIE LEAGUE FIELD $36,000.00
1901071000800665 B_DA STRUCTURAL CHANGES {36,000.00}
TOTAL $0.00
REVENUE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
S0.00
TOTAL So.O0
REQUESTING COST CENTER:
APPROVALS:
DIRECTOR OF FINANCE
BOARD OF SUPERVISOR
PARKS & RECREATION
S I GNATURE
DATE
//- F- y£
APPROPRIATION REQUEST
PISCAL YEAR 96/97
TYPE OF APPROPRIATION
ADVERTISEMENT REQUIRED ~
FUND
PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION:
NUMBER 96339
ADDITIONAL
TRANSFER
NEW X
YES
NO X
GPJ~NT
EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICE NEWSLETTER GRANT,
EXPENDITURE
COST CTR CATEGORY DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
1155551050350000 PRINTING & BINDING S3,%70.00
TOTAL $3,%70.00
REVENUE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
2155551000512004 TRANSFR FROM GENERAL FUND $1,735.00
2155524000240425 CATEGORICAL AID-STATE 1,735.00
TOTAL S3,470.00
REQUESTING COST CENTER:
APPROVALS:
DIRECTOR OF FINANCE
BOARD OF SUPERVISOR
FIRE/RESCUE
S I GNATURE
DATE
FISCAL YEAR 96
TYPE OP APPROPRIATION
APPROPRIATION
97
REQUEST
NUIVlEER
ADDITIONAL
TRANSFER
NEW
X
96040
ADVERTISEMENT REQUIRED ?
YES
NO X
FUND GENERAL
PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION:
FUNDING FOR ADDITIONAL POSITION IN COMMWEALTH ATTORNEY OFFICE.
EXPENDITURE
COST CTR/CATEGORY DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
1100022010110000
1100022010210000
1100022010221000
1100022010231000
1100022010232000
1100022010270000
1100022010520300
1100022010800200
1100022010800700
SALARIES-REGULAR
FICA
VIRGINIA RETIREMENT SYSTEM
HEALTH INSURANCE
DENTAL INSURANCE
WORKER'S COMPENSATION
TELECOMMUNICATIONS
FURNITURE & FIXTURES
ADP EQUIPMENT
S16,375.00
1,255.00
1,475.00
870.00
30.00
100.00
450.00
2,985.00
3,200.00
TOTAL $26,740.00
REVENUE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
2100024000230101 STATE COMPENSATION BOARD-SALARIES $18-265.00
2100024000230102 STATE COMPENSATION BOARD-OFFICE (1,000.00)
2100051000510100 GENERAL FUND BALANCE 9,475.00
TOTAL $26,740.00
REQUESTING COST CENTER:
COMMWEALTH ATTORNEY
APPROVALS: SIGNATURE DATE
DIRECTOR OF FINANCE
BOARD OF SUPERVISOR
COUNTY OF
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
Attorneys' Fees
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Request for fund balance appropriation to cover
attorneys' fees in misdemeanor trial.
STAFF CONTACT(Si:
. Messrs. Tucker, Huff, Davis
AGENDA DATE:
November 6, 1996
ACTION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: X
ATTACHMENTS:
REVIEWED BY:
ITEM NUMBER:
,~, I1~,~ ~
INFORMATION:
INFORMATION:
BACKGROUND:
§~5.1-~9.2:1 of the Code of Virginia gives the Board of Supervisors discretion to reimburse all or any portion of
attorneys fees expended defending a cdminal charge against an employee that has been dismissed and which
arose out of the exercise of that employee's official duties. Mr. John Baber, an employee in the County Police
Department, had been charged with reckless driving while on duty and driving an official vehicle. These charges
have been dismissed with no other cdminal charges pending against Office Baber. This dismissal makes the
payment of his legal fees eligible for his reimbursement under the code section listed above~
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that Mr. Babeds attorneys fees in the amount of $6,923,50 be paid from an appropriation from
the General Fund balance in recognition of Mr. Baber acting in his official capacity at the time of the accident, which
then generated these charges.
96.189
COUNTY OF ALBEM/
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
Reappropriation - Circuit Court Records Grant
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Request approval of a reappropriation #96036 in the
amount of $11,202.00 for the Circuit Court Records
Preservation Grant.
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Messrs. Tucker, Huff, Breeden
AGENDA DATE:
November 6, 1996
ACTION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: X
ATTACHMENTS:
REVIEWED BY:
ITEM NUMBER:
INFORMATION:
INFORMATION:
BACKGROUND.:
At its meeting on June 19, 1996, the Board of Supervisors approved the receipt and disburaal of funds for the Circuit
Court Records Preservation Grant from the Library of Virginia to repair and preserve books and records in the Circuit
Court Clerk's Office.
DISCUSSION:
The grant proceeds were received during FY 95/96, however, all expenses related to this project were not incurred
until FY 96/97. These funds need to be reappropdated from FY 95/96 to FY 96/97 so that the expenses related
to this grant can be paid. This project is being administered by Shelby J. Marshall, Clerk to the Circuit Court.
RECOMMENDATION:
Request approval of appropriation #96036 in the amount of $11,202.00
96.200
COUNTY OF AI_BEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
Appropriation - School Division
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Request approval of appropriation #96037 in the
amount of $34i287.00 for the Artists-In-Education
Residency Program and the reappropriation of funds for
the Improving Vocational Education through Community
Based Organization Grant.
STAFF CONTACT(SI:
Messrs. Tucker, Huff, Castner, Breeden
AGENDA DATE:
November 6, 1996
ACTION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: X
ATTACHMENTS:
REVIEWED BY:
ITEM NUMBER:
INFORMATION:
INFORMATION:
/
BACKGROUND:
At its meeting on October 14, 1996, the School Board approved the following grant appropriations.
DISCUSSION:
· Appropriation of $7,658.00 from the Virginia Commission for the Arts. The Virginia Commission for the Arts
has awarded grants in the Artists-In-Education Residency Program (Pre-K-12) category to Hollymead
Elementary School in the amount of $2,573.00, Stone Robinson Elementary School in the amount of
$1,707.00, Stony Point Elementary School in the amount of $2,328.00, and Murray High School in the
amount of $1,050.00. These grants will center upon activities that develop awareness of African arts that
have influenced and will continue to influence culture in Amedca and develop an awareness of and value
for poetry that can reflect the inner eye and express the inner voice of children. These funds will provide
opportunities and encouragement through training in creative writing and poetry workshops for the students.
Re-appropriation of $26,629.00 for the Improving Vocational Education through Community Based
Organization Grant. At the June 10, 1996 meeting, the School Board accepted funds for this grant in the
amount of $26,629.00. Since this grant was not expended in the 1995-96 fiscal year, it is requested that
the grant funds be reappropriated for the 1996-97 fiscal year. The grant will provide pre-vocational, basic
skills development, and work-based learning experiences to selected students to facilitate their completion
of vocational educational programs or their entrance into the local work force. Collaborative partners for this
grant ara MACAA, CATEC and Charlottesville City Schools.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the appropriation and re-appropriation in the total amount of $34,287.00
as detailed on Appropriation #96037.
96.201
OCT 2 8 'c. 90
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
RE:
ATREMARLR COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS
Memorandum
October 16, 1996
Rober~eker, Jr., County Executsve
Kevir~er, Division Superintendent
Request for Appropriation
At its meeting on October !4, 1996, the School Board approved the
following appropriations:
Appropriation of 57,658.00 from the Virgsnia Commission for the
Arts. The Virgsnia Commission for the Arts has awarded grants in
the Artists- in-Education Residengy Program (Pre-K-12) category to
Hollymead Elementary School in the amount of $2,573~00, Stone
Robinson Elementary School in the amount of $1,707.00, Stony Point
Elementary School in the amount of ~2,328.00, and Murray High School
in the amount of $!,050.00. These grants will center upon activities
that develop awareness of African arts that have influenced and will
continue to influence culture in America and develop an awareness of
and value for poetry that can reflect the inner eye and express the
inner voice o~ children. These funds will provide opportunities and
encouragement through training in creative writing and poetry
workshops for the students.
o Re-appropriation of $26,629.00 for the Improving Vocational
Education Through Community Based Organization Grant. At the
June 10, 1996 meeting, the School Board accepted funds for this
grant in the amount of $26,629.00. Since this grant was not
expended in the 1995-96 fiscal year, it ss requested that the
grant fu_~ds be reappropriated for the 1996-97 fiscal year. The
grant will provide pre-vocational, basic skills development,
and work-based learning experiences to selected students uo
facilitate their completion of vocational educational programs or
their entrance into the local work force. Collaborative partners
for this grant are MACA3%, CATEC and Charlottesville City Schools
It ss requested that the Board ~f Supervisors amend the appropriation
ordinance ~o receive and disburse these funds as displayed on the attachment,
/smm
Attachment
xc: Melvin Breeden
Ella Carey
Request for Appropriation
'Pa~e 2
VIRGINIA COMMISSION FOR THE ARTS
2-3104-24000-240295
2-3104-240002240296
2-~104-24000-240297
2-3104~24000-240298
Grant $97-0246
~rant $97-0241
Grant 397-0244
Grant $97-0250
$2,573.00
$1,050.00
$2,328.00
~1.707.00
$7~658.00
Expenditure:
1-3104-60601-312500
'1-3104-60602-312500
1-3104-60603-312500
1-3104-60604-312500
Prof. svc. Inst.
Prof. Svc. Inst.
Prof. Svc. Inst.
Prof. Svc. Inst.
$2,573.00
$1,050.00
52,328.00
$1,707.00
97,658.00
REAPPROPRIATION - IMPROVING VOCATIONAL GRANT
Reven~e:
2-3208-33000-330108
Com. Based Voc. Ed. Grant
526,629.00
ExPenditure:
1-3208-61311-312700
-312701
-280100
-420100
-550100
-580500
-601300
-800710
Prof. Svc. Consultant
Data Proc. Consultant
Summer-Tuition
Student Transportation
Travel-Mileage
Staff Dev.
Inst/Rec. Supplies
Computer Software
$10,629.00
5800.00
$3,600.00
$1,675.00
$1,000.00
$4,225.00
$4,500.00
$200.00
$26,629.00
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
Appropriation Dixie League Field
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Request approval of Appropriation # 96038 in the amount of
$36,000 to Wansfar Parks/Recreation funds within the Capital
Improvement Program.
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Messrs. Tucker, Mullaney, Ms. White
AGENDA DATE:
November 6, 1996
ACTION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: X
ATTACHMENTS:
REVIEWED BY:
]~ACKGROUND:
ITEM NUMBER:
INFORMATION:
INFORMATION:
At the October 4 meeting, the Board of Supervisors approved County funding in the amount of $36,000 for a Dixie League Field at
McIutire Park.
I)ISCUSSION:
The attached appropriation form authorizes the t~ansfer of $36,000 witl~ the Capital Improvement Fund f~om unused ADA structural
improvement funds for parks and recreational facilities to the Dixie League Fiel&
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of Appropriation #96038 in the amount of $36,000 for the DLxie League Field.
A96038.EXE
96.204
COUNTY OF ALBEMARL -
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
Appropriation - EMS Recruitment and Retention Mini-Grant
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Request approval of Appropriatien 96039 in the amount of
$3.470.00
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Messrs. Tucker, Walters, Pumphrey, Ms. White
AGENDA DATE:
November 6. 1996
ACTION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: X
ATTACHMENTS:
REVIEWED BY:
ITEM NUMBER:
,FO.,
INFORMATION:
INFORMATION:
BACKGROUND:
The Virginia Department of Heal~, Office of Emergency Medical Services, has approved a mini-grant. The grant provides funds
to purchase brochures and other supplies to inform the public about tire and rescue agencies.
DISCUSSION:
The mini grant will be funded by a $1.735.00 Office of Emergency Medical Services grant and a $1,735.00 local match. The
local match is funded [rom current operations..
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of Appropriation 96039 in the amount of $3,470.00.
96.202
OCT 2 9.,~ac~
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
Appropriation - General Fund
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Request approval of Appropriation #g6040 in the
amount of $26,740.00 for funding of an additional
position in the Commonwealth Attorney's office.
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Messrs. Tucker, Huff, Breeden, Camblos
AGENDA DATE:
November 6, 1996
ACTION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION:
ATTACH MENTS:
REVIEWED BY:
ITEM NUMBER:
INFORMATION:
INFORMATION
./
DISCUSSION:
The Albemarle County Commonwealth Attorney has requested and received approval from the State Compensation
Board for an additional prosecutor position effective January 1, 1997. This request also included funding for office
and computer equipment totaling $6,612.84, of which only the computer equipment in the amount of $1 990.00 was
approved. The Commonwealth Attorney has requested that the County fund the remaining office expenses and
fringe benefits that are not funded by the State (health and dental insurance). The total cost of this position for 6
months, plus the one-time cost is $26,740, of which the State will be funding $20,255, leaving a balance of
$6,485.00 to be funded locally. The attached appropriation form also includes an adjustment of $1,000 to reflect
actual State funding for office expenses which was less than projected in the original FY 96~97 budget.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of an appropriation in the amount of $26,740 as detailed on attached appropriation form
#96040.
96040.WPD
96.206
David P Bowerman
COUNTY OF ALBEMARI ,E
Office of Board of Supervisors
401 Mdntim Road
Charlottesville. Virginia 22902-4696
(804) 296-5848 FAX (804] 296-5800
Charles S. Martin
Walter E Perkins
Sally H. Thomas
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
Mark B. Henry. Civil Engineer
Engineering Department
Ella W. Carey, CMC, Clerk~
November 8, 1996
Road Resolutions
At its meeting on November 6, 1996, the Board of Supervisors adopted the following
resolution:
to take Weston Lane in Weston Subdivision lmo the State Secondary
System 'of Highways
(2)
to take roads in Willoughby Subdivision, Section V, Phase I, II and III into the
State Secondary System of Highways.
Attached are the original and four copies of each adopted resolution.
/EWC
Attachments (10)
Printed on recycled paper
The Board of County Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, in regular meeting
on the 6th day of November, 1996, adopted the following resolution:
RESOLUTION
WHEREAS, the street ~n Weston Subdivision (SUB-93-173) described on the attached
Additions Form SR-5(A) dated November 6, 1996, fully incorporated herein by reference, is
shown on plats recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of Albemarle County,
Virginia; and
WHEREAS, the Resident Engineer for the Virginia Department of Transportation has
advised the Board that the street meets the requirements established by the Subdivision
Street Requirements of the Virginia Department of Transportation.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Albemarle Board of County Supervi-
sors requests the Virginia Department of Transportation to add the road in Weston' Subdivi-
sion as described on the attached Additions Form SR-5(A) dated November 6, 1996, to the
secondary system of state highways, pursuant to §33.1-229, Code of Virginia, and the
Department's Subdivision Street Reouirements; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Board guarantees a clear and unrestricted right-
of-way, as described, and any necessary easements for cuts, fills and drainage as described
on the recorded plats; and
FURTHER RESOLVED that a certified copy of this resolution be forwarded to the
Resident Engineer for the Virginia Department of Transportation.
Recorded vote:
Moved by: Mrs. Thomas.
Seconded by: Mr. Bowerman
Yeas: Mr. Perkins, Mrs, Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris and Mr. Martin.
Nays: None.
Absent: Mr. Marshall
A Copy Teste:
"Ella W. Carey, Clerk,
The Board of County Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, q regular meeting on the
6th day of November, 1996, aOopted the following resolution:
RESOLUTION
WHEREAS, the streets in Willoughby Subdivision, Section V, Phases I, II and III (SUB 12.69)
described on the attached Additions Form SR-5(A) dated November 6, 1996, fully incorporated
herein by reference, are shown on plats recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of
Albemarle County, Virginia; and
WHEREAS. the Resident Engineer for the Virginia Department of Transportation has advised
the Board that the streets meet the requirements established by the Subdivision Street
Reouirements of the Virginia Department of Transportation.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Albemarle Board of County Supervisors
requests the Virginia Department of Transportation to add the roads in Willoughby Subdivision,
Section V, Phases I, II & III as described on the attached Additions Form SR-5(A) dated November
6, 1996, to the secondary system of state highways, pursuant to §33.1-229, Code of Virginia,
and the Department's Subdivision Street Requirements; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Board guarantees a clear and unrestricted right-of-way,
as described, and any necessary easements for cuts, fills and drainage as described on the
recorded plats; and
FURTHER RESOLVED that a certified copy of this resolution be forwarded to the Resident
Engineer for the Virginia Department of Transportation.
Recorded vote:
Moved by: Mrs. Thomas.
Seconded by: Mr. Bowerman.
Yeas: Mr. Perkins, Mrs, Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris and Mr. Martin.
Nays: None.
Absent: Mr. Marshall
A Copy Taste:
The 'Board of County Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, in regular meeting on the 6th day of
November, 1996, adopted the following resolution:
RESOLUTION
WHEREAS, the street in Weston Subdivision (SUB-93-173) described on the attached Additions Form
SR-5(A) dated Nove~nber 6, 1996, fully incorporated herein by reference, is shown on plats recorded in the
Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of Albemarle County, Virginia; and
WHEREAS, the Resident Engineer for the Virginia Department of Transportation has advised the
Board that the street meets the requirements established by the Subdivision Street Requirements of the Virginia
Department of Transportation.
NOW. THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Albemarle Board of County Supervisors requests
the Virginia Department of Transportation to add the road in Weston Subdivision as described on the attached
Additions Form SR-5(A) dated November 6~ 1996, to the secondary system of state highways, pursuant to
§33.1-229, Code of Virginia, end the Department's Subdivision Street Requirements; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Board guarantees a clear and unrestricted right-of-way, as
described, and any necessary easements for cuts, fills and drainage as described orr the recorded plats; and
FURTHER RESOLVED that a certified copy of this resolution be forwarded to the Resident Engineer
for the Virginia Department of Transportation.
Recorded vote:
MOved by:
Seconded by:
Nays:
A Copy Teste:
Ella W. Carey, Clerk, CMC
The road described on Additions Form SR-5(A) is:
(1)
Weston Lane from Station 0+08, the right edge of State Route 789. 757 lineal fee to Station
7+65, the rear of the cO-de-sac, as shown on plats recorded 11/30/94 in the Office of the
Clerk of the Circuit Court of Albemarle County, Virginia, in Deed Book 1443, pages 243-246
with a 50 foot right-of-way, with additional plat recorded 10/9/96 in Deed Book 1569, page
111, for a total length of 0.15 mile.
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
RE:
Ella Carey, Clerk, Board of Supervisors
Mark B. Henry, Senior Engineer ~
October 11, 1996
Weston Subdivision (SUB-93-173)
The road serving the referenced subdivision is substantially complete and ready for
VDOT acceptance. At the next opportunity, I request the Board of Supervisors to adopt
a resolution for the roads specified in the attached VDOT SR-5(A) form. After the
adoption of the resolution, please provide me with the original and four copies of the
signed and dated resolution and SR-5A.
Thanks for your assistance. Please contact me if you have any questions.
MBH/ctj
Attachment
The Board of County Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, in regular meeting on the
6th day of November, 1996, adopted the following resolution:
RESOLUTION
WHEREAS, the streets in Willoughby Subdivision, Section V, Phases I, II and III ISUB
12.69) described on the attached Additions Form SR-5(A) dated November 6, 1996, fully
incorporated herein by reference, are shown on plats recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit
Court of Albemarle County, Virginia; and
WHEREAS, the Resident Engineer for the Virginia Department of Transportation has
advised the Board that the streets meet the requirements established by the Subdivision Street
Requirements of the Virginia Department of Transportation.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Albemarle Board of County Supervisors
requests the Virginia Department of Transportation to add the roads in Willoughby Subdivision.
Section V, Phases I, II & III as described on the attached Additions Form SR-5(A) dated
November 6, 1996, to the secondary system of state highways, pursuant to §33.1-229, Code
of Virginia, and the Department's Subdivision Street Requirements; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Board guarantees a clear and unrestricted right-of-
way, as described, and any necessary easements for cuts, fills and drainage as described on the
recorded plats; and
FURTHER RESOLVED that a certified copy of this resolution be forwarded to the Resident
Engineer for the Virginia Department of Transportation.
Recorded vote:
Moved by:
Seconded by:
Yeas:
Nays:
A Copy TaSte:
Ella W. Carey, Clerk, CMC
The roads described on Additions Form SR-5(A) are:
(1)
Harris Road from Station 2+42.09, end of previous dedication, 1781.91 lineal
feet to Station 20 + 24, back of the cul-de-sac, as recorded by plat dated 3/15/88,
in Deed Book 983, page 277 in the office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of
Albemarle County, with a right-of-way width of 40 feet; additional plat recorded
6/19/91 in Deed Book, 1160, page 409, for a length of 0.34 mile.
(2)
Royer Drive from Station 10 + 13, right edge of pavement of Harris Road 1000
lineal feet to Station 20 + 13, back of the cul-de-sac, as recorded by plat dated
3/15/88, in Deed Book 983, page 277 in the office of the Clerk of the Circuit
Court of Albemarle County, with a right-of-way width of 40 feet; additional plat
recorded 2/15/90 in Deed Book, 1087, page 549, and on plat recorded 9/27/96
in Deed Book 1566, page 267, for a length of 0.19 mile.
(3)
Olton Place from Station 10 + 13, left edge of pavement of Royer Drive 212.35
lineal feet to Station 12 + 25.35, back of the cul-de-sac, as recorded by plat dated
2/15/90, in Deed Book 1087, page 549 in the office of the Clerk of the Circuit
Court of Albemarle County, with a right-of-way width of 40 feet, for a length of
0.04 mile.
(4)
Landin Circle from Station 10 + 13, left edge of pavement of Harris Road 533 lineal
feet to Station 15 + 46, back of the cul-de-sac, as recorded by plat dated 6/19/91,
in Deed Book 1160, page z~09 in the office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of
Albemarle County, with a right-of-way width of 40 feet, for a length of 0.10 mile,
Total Mileage - 0.67 mile.
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
RE:
Ella Carey, Clerk, Board of Supervisors
Mark B. Henry, Senior Engineer ~k~
October 18, 1996
~illoughby Subdivision, Section V, Phases I, /I & III (SUB 12.69)
The roads serving the referenced subdivision is substantially complete and ready for
VDOT acceptance. At the next opportunity, I request the Board of Supervisors to adopt
a resolution for the roads specified in the attached VDOT SF~-5(A) form. After the
adoption of the resolution, p/ease provide me with the original and four copies of the
signed and dated resolution and SR-5A.
Thanks for your assistance. P/ease contact me if you have any questions.
MBH/ctj
Attachment
COUNTY OF ALBEMARL
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
Authorization for Destruction of Paid Tax Tickets
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Request authorization to destroy paid tax tickets
in accordance with the Library of Virginia's Retention
and Disposition Schedule.
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Messrs. Tucker, Huff, Breeden
AGENDA DATE:
November 6, 1996
ACTION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: X
ATTACHMENTS:
REVIEWED BY:
ITEM NUMBER:
iNFORMATION:
INFORMATION:
BACKGROUND:
The Library of Virginia's Record Retention and Disposition Schedule requires paid tax tickets to be retained by the
locality for a pedod of five years after audit. At that time, after approval from the Library of Virginia and the Auditor
of Public Accounts, tax tickets can be destroyed but only after authorization from the governing body.
DISCUSSION:
Approval has been received from the Library and Auditor of Public Accounts to destroy approximately 55 cubic feet
of distribution records, which include paid tax receipts, for the period of July 1, 1988 through June 3C, 1991.
RECO M M ENDATION:
Request authorization from the Board of Supervisors to dispose of the records as indicated above,
RECORDS.WPD
96.199
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
RE:
Juliet Jennings, Director, Human Resources
Ella W. Carey, Clerk, CM~
November 8, 1996
Board Actions of November 6, 1996
At irs meeting on November 6, 1996, the Board of Supervisors appointed Katherine A.
Ralston as the Acting Director of the Department of Social Services.
/ ewe
cc: Katherine Ralston
COUNTY OF ALBEMAR
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
RE:
Albemarle Comity Board of Supervisors
Robert W. Tucker, Jr,, County Executive
October 30, 1996
Appointment - Acting Director of Social Services
As you know, Karen Morris, Director of Social Services, has recently retired with 25 years of service
to Albemarle County. With Karen's departure, I am recommending that you appoint Ms. Kathy
Ralston as Acting Director of Social Services.
Kathy, as you may know, is currently Depu~j Director of Social Services and has served in that
capacity for mm~y, many years. She will provide strong and fair leadership to the department and I
look forward to her service to the entire organization in this capacity.
Should you have any questions concerning this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me.
RWT,Jr/dbm
96.136
pc;
Ms. Roxanne W. White
Ms. Katherine A. Ralston
Dr. luliet C. ]ennings
DAVID R. GEHR
COMMISSIONER
COMMONWEALTH o[ VIRQINL- c-[
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION .~
701 VDOT WAY .... ~ ~' ~?~' ~ ~
CHARLO~FESV[LLE. 22911 2~ ~'~} ~.2~"~.~ TUCKER
:: ;.~ '
October 16, 1996 RESIOENT ENOINEER
Board of Supervisors Meeting
September ~ and October 2, 1996
MS. Ella Carey~ Clerk
Board of Supervisors
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, VA 22902
Dear Ms. Carey:
We offer the following comments regarding %ransportation matters that were
discussed an the September 4 and October 2, 1996, Board meetings.
- A meeting has been scheduled for October 16, 1996, with the Deparcmen£ of Soil
and Water Conservation to review e~vironm~ntal contYols:'~'the ,Ro~t~ 682 project.
An update-Uf thi's meeting wi~lbe provided ~the=~'~emb~r~6'Boar~d mA~ti~g. ',_
- "~dditi~n~l ~ve~eht~ ~arkings~~: ~nc'i~d=~g~ t~ ~n~';~rows~': ~iii be instail~d
along the ~centIy'paved,s~cti~'of-~ou~'~f2~£ i~
NO PARKING signs have been installed along the Davis proper~y at Miltingnon
Bridge on Route 671.
The requesn for PLAYGROUND s~gnage, in lieu of CHILDREN PLAYING signs, is being
reviewed for conformance re applicable standards, tf warranted, these szgns will be
installed on Roune 797, near the church, in Yancey Mills.
We are reviewing the suggestion for a restricted NO RIGHT TURN ON RED BETWEEN
THE HOURS -- an the intersection of Rio Road and Route 29.
We have discussed the need no replace the exclusive right nurn lane on Route 29
soutbJDound into Hilton Heights Drive an Walmart as soon as possible during
construction. It appears that this additional lane may be possible by December 1
this year no be coordinated with the next 5raffic switch.
"Puppy tracks" are scheduled ~o be placed through the mntersectzon of Routes
29/649 withih the next 30 days.
A s'ign~l ~tudy-hasr':bee~'reque~t~d ~or:the inter~tion.Q~ Route 678/250 in Ivlz.
A spee~'squdy'to~view~the 'Rou~'253 '&~hor ~6r a ~o~'s{Bi~"reduc~i~n {'n spe~d-%0
a legal posting of 35 mph has also been requested for the Ivy area Trimming around
szgns, along Route- 250 'west is currently underway. We have advmsed the Culpeper
District~ Office of the Ivy community's;'desir~to'3 partlci~ate'~n 6h~'Rout~ 250 we~t
corridor study. We will work with the County Plarmin§ staff ~o prioritize
improvemenEs re Route 250 aE Route 678 within the Secondary Six Year Plan.
TRANSPORTATION FOR THE 21ST CENTURY
Ms. Ella Carey
Board of Supervisors Meetings
September 4 & October 2, 1996
Page 2
October 16, 1996
The pro]eon 5o construct an acceleration lane off 1-64 eastbound onto Route 20
southbound was advertised in September. Construction should begin around December
1, 1996.
We have requested a review of the Greenbrier Drive/Route 29 intersecmion for
clarification of the RIGHT TURN ONLY lane and signage currently in place. This
intersection is also being reviewed for conflicting turning movemenne on green
arrows for left turns northbound Route 29 onto Greenbrier Drive and right turns
easmbound Greenbrier Drive onno Route 29 southbcund.
If there are any questions regarding the above issues, Mr. Bill Mills or Mr.
Charlie Williams will be prepared to discuss them am the November 6 Board meeming.
All items under review will be discussed with the Board after studies are complete.
I will begin an extended personal leave through February 1997 within mhe nexm £wo
weeks. Thank you for sharing this information with the Board.
AGT/smk
Sincerely,
cc: Jeff Hores
Harold Gentry
Paul Huckins
PUBLIC NOTICE
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
1919 M STREET, N.W.
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554
News media information 202/~t18-0500 F~x-On-Demaud 202/418-2830
DA96-1648
Interact: hr~p://www.t~¢.gov flpl~.gov
Released: September 30, 1996
CABLE SERVICES BUREAU ANNOUNCES EXTENSION OF TIME
TO FILE COMMENTS ON THE PROPOSED RESOLUTION
FOR ADELPIHA COMMUNICATIONS CORPORATION
The Cable Services Bureau is extending the period for f'ding comments in Adelphia
Communications Corporation, Resolution of Rate Complaints, Order, FCC 96-373 (released
September 10, 1996) ("Order"). The Commission is seeking comment on the Proposed
Resolution received from Adeiphia Communications Corporation ("Adelphia") to resolve rote
complaints in 40 communities served by Adelphia.
The Office of Cable Television COCTV") of the New Jersey Board of Public Utilities
("Board") filed a motion for an extension of time on September 27, 1996. requesting that the
comment period on the Proposed Resolution be extended from October 10, 1996 to October 24,
1996 to enable the OCTV to examine the impact of the Proposed Resolution on affected
subscribers in New Jersey communities and permit the Board to consider OCTV's analysis and
recommendations. The OCTV states that Adelphia has consented to this request.
For good cause shown, the Bureau as extending the deadline for filing comments to
October 24, 1996 and reply comments to November 8, 1996.
The Order and the attached Proposed Resolution are available for reference in the Cable
Services Bureau's public reference room, Room 333, 2033 M Stzeet, N.W., Washington, D.C.
Copies are available from the Commission's copy contractor, International Transcription Services,
Room 246 at the Federal Communications Commission, 1919 M Street, N.W., Washington, D.C.,
telephone (202) 857-3800.
Media Contact: Morgan Broman (202) 418-2358
Cable Services Bureau Contact: John Norton (202) 418-7200.
CHRIS/TNE TODD WHITMAN
Governor
New Jersey
DEPARTMENT OF LAW AND PUBLIC SAFETY
DIVISION OF LAW
PO BOX 45029
NEWARK NEW IERSEY 07101
Tel. No. (201) 648-4726
JAYNEE LAVECCHIA
Asststant Attorney General
Director
September 27, 1996
William A. Caton
Acting Secretary
Federal Communzcatlons Commission
1919 M Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20554
Re:
In the Matter of Adelphia Communications
Corporation
ProgrammIng
Proposed Resolution of Cable
Service Rate Complaints
FCC 96-373
Dear Mr. Caton:
Please accept this letter in lieu of a more formal filing
as a recluesc on behalf of the New Jersey Board of Public Utilities'
("Board") Office of Cable Television (~OCTV") for an excenszon of
time ~o file the Board's comments with regard co a Proposed
Resolution resolving various programming service complaints ~o be
entered into by Adelphia Communications Corporation ("Adelphia")
and the Federal Communications Commission ("Commission"). For the
reasons sen forth below, the Board will not be able ~o complete a
thorough revzew of the Proposed Resolution and provide informative
commencm by the October 10, 1995 deadline sec forth in the
Commission's Order released September 10, 1996. Therefore, the OCTV
is respectfully requesting that the Commission extend the time for
filing commenns an additional 14 days ~o October 24, 1996. Be
advised that Adelphia has consented co this request.
At a meeting held on September 24, 199'6, Adelphia and the
OCTV discussed various zssues relating to the Proposed Resolution.
As a result of that meeting, the OCTV has a much clearer
understanding of the Proposed Resolution and is currently exploring
with Adelphia various ways to implement its terms in a manner which
will be zn the best interesns of its New Jersey subscribers. While
this process is hOC unduly complicated, more time is necessary co
September 27, 1996
Page 2
examine the actual impacn of the Proposed Resolution on
subscribers, tn addition, because the Board meess once every
weeks, more time is necessary so than the Board may consider the
OCTV's analysis and recommendation on this manner an its public
agenda meeting currently scheduled for October 23, 1996.
We believe that this requesn will not cause undue delay
and will ~llow the Board sufficient nlme no submit informed
commenns. Therefore, it is respectfully requested that the
Commission grant this reques5 for ~ 14-day extension of time to
file commenns.
Thank you for your consideration.
Very truly yours,
PETER VERNIERO
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF NEW JERSEY
Dames Eric Andrews
eputy Attorney General
Service List
Celeste Fasone, Director,
Meredith J. Jones, Esq.,
John Norton, Esq., Cable
Randall D. Fisher, Esq.,
OCTV
Chief, Cable Services Bureau
Services Bureau
Vice President and General Counsel,
Adelphia Communications
L ~ P S New Jersey Is An Equal Opportunity Employer. Printed on Recycled Paper and Recyclable
STATE CORPORATION COMMISSIO~~ ~ ~- ~f-~'~(.¥;23 )
DOCUMENT
C_A~.k_i. Ui_ilvtOND,flN'[R~t OCTOBER 7, 1996
96 OCT-8 AM 8:51
APPLICATION OF
OCT" ~
£ ~; cO
CCI TELECO~LTNICATIONS OF
VIRGINIA, INC.
CASE NO.
For certificates of public
convenience and necessity 5o
provide local exchange and
interexchange telecommunications
services
ORDER FOR NOTICE AND HEARING
On August 22, 1996, CCI Telecommunications of Virgmnla, Inc.
("CCI" or "Applicant") filed an application for certificates of
public convenience and necessity ("certificate") to provide local
exchange and interexchange telecommunications services throughout
the Commonwealth of Virginia. CCI is a wholly-owned subsidiary
of Continental Telecommunications Corp., a Massachusetts
corporation. Continental Telecommunications Corp. is a wholly-
owned subsidiary of Continental Cablevision, Inc., a Delaware
corporation which is the third largesE cable television sysmem
operanor mn the United States. CCI plans to offer local
exchange, toll and interexchange telecommunications services
initially in the Richmond menropolitan area. At first, the
Applicant plans to have ius local calling areas match those of
the incumbent local exchange carrier. CCI states that it has the
necessary technical, managerial and financial capability to
provide the proposed services.
NOW UPON CONSIDERATION of the application, the Commission is
of the opinion that CCI's application should be docketed; that
the Applicant should give notice to the public of its
application; that the Commission Staff should conduct an
investigauion into the reasonableness of the application and
present its findings in a Staff report; and that a public hearing
should be convened to receive evidence relevant to CCI's
application for a certificate to provide local exchange services,
and if substantive objections are received, evidence shall be
received at the public hearing with regard to CCI's application
for a certificate to provide interexchange services.
Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED TFtAT:
(1) This case is docketed and assigned Case No. PUC960119.
(2) A public hearing for the purpose of receiving evidence
relevant to CCI's application for a certificate to provide local
exchange services is scheduled for November 22, 1996, au
10:00 a.m. in the Commission's second floor courtroom located in
the Tyler Building, 1300 East Main Street, Richmond, Virginia.
If substantive objections
CCI's application for a certificate
provide interexchange services are received on or before
November 8, 1996, the Commissmon will also hear evidence on this
issue at the November 22, 1996 public hearing. If no such
substantive objections are received on or before November 8,
1996, the Commission may grann
provide
(3)
CCI's requested certificate to
interexchange services without conducting a hearing.
On or before October 22, 1996, the Applicant shall
throughout the Commonwealth of Virginia:
NOTICE TO THE PUBLIC OF AN APPLICATION BY
CCI TELECOMMUNICATIONS OF VIRGINIA, INC.
FOR CERTIFICATES OF PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND
NECESSITY TO PROVIDE LOCAL EXCHANGE AND
INTEREXCFLANGE TELECOMMUNICATIONS SERVICES
THROUGHOUT THE COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA
CASE NO. PUC960119
On August 22, 1996, CCI
Telecommunications of Virginia, Tnc. ("CCI"
or "Applicant") filed an application for
certificates of public convenience and
necessity ("certificate") to provide local
exchange and interexchange telecommunications
services throughout the Commonwealth of
Virginia. CCI plans to offer local exchange,
toll and interexchange telecommunications
services initially in the Richmond
metropolitan area.
A public hearing on CCI's application
will be convened on November 22, 1996, at
10:00 a.m. in the Commission's second floor
classified advertising mn newspapers having general circulation
complete publication of the following notice, to be published as
courmroom located in the Tyler Building,
1300 East Main Street, Richmond, Virginia, no
hear evidence relevant to its application for
a certificate no provide local exchange
services. The Commission will hear evidence
on CCI's application for a certificate to
provide interexchange services am ~he
November 22, 1996, public hearing only if
substantive objeczlons 5o this portion of the
application are filed on or before
November 8, 1996. If no such substantive
objections are received, the Commission may
grant the certificate ~o provide
interexchange services without a hearing,
Copies of the application are available for
public inspection between Ehe hours of 8:15
a.m. and 5:00 p.m. in the Commission's
Document Control Cermet located on the first
floor of the Tyler Building, 1300 East Main
Street, Richmond, Virginia 23219, or can be
ordered from CCI's counsel, Donald G. Owens,
Esquire, Mays & Valentine, 1111 East Main
Street, P.O. Box 1122, Richmond, Virginia
23218-1122.
On or before November 5, 1996, persons
desiring 5o participame as Protestants as
defined in Rule 4:6 of the Commission's Rules
of Practice and Procedure ("Rules"), and
desiring no presenm evidence and cross-
examine witnesses shall file a Notice of
Protes~ with the Clerk of the Commission am
the address set forth below and shall mail a
copy of the same on or before November 5,
1996, to CCI and all other parties of record.
Service upon CCI shall be directed to its
counsel at the address sen forth above.
Any person desiring 5o comment in
writing on CCI's application for a
cernificate to provide local exchange
services or interexchange services may do so
by directing such commenms on or before
November 8, 1996, to the Clerk of the
Commission am the address listed below. Any
person desiring to make a statement at the
public hearing concerning CCI's application
for a certificate to provide local exchange
services need only appear in the Commission's
second floor courtroom at 9:45 a.m. on the
day of 5he hearing and identify himself or
herself as a public witness to the
Commission's Bailiff.
Any person who e~pec~s 5o submit
evidence, cross-examine witnesses, or
otherwise participate in the proceedings as a
Protestant pursuanz ~o Rule 4:6 shall file on
or before November 12, 1996 a Protest and the
prepared testimony and exhibits the
Protestan5 intends to presen5 at the hearing
with the Clerk of the Commission at the
address set forth below, referring to Case
No. PUC960119 and shall on t~e same day mail
a copy thereof to CCI's counsel at the
address set forth above and to any other
Protestants.
Individuals with disabilities who
requlre an accommodation to participate in
the hearing may consac5 the Commission at 1-
800-552-7945 (voice) or 1-804-371-9206 (TDD).
Individuals requesting accommodations should
con,ac5 the Commission at either of these
numbers at least seven (7) days before the
scheduled hearing date.
Ail written communications to the
Commission concerning CCI's application
should be directed to William J. Bridge,
Clerk of the State Corporation Commission,
c/o Document Control Center, P.O. Box 2118,
Richmond, Virginia 23218, and must refer to
Case No. PUC960119.
CCI TELECOMMUNICATIONS OP VIRGINIA, INC.
(4] On or before October 18, t996, Applicant shall give
notice of its application to each local exchange telephone
carrier certificated in Virginia and each interexchange carrier
certificated in Virginia by personat delivery or first-class
mail, postage prepaid, to the cus5omary place of business or
residence of the person served.
(5)
furnish a
On or before October 18, 1996,
copy of this Order mo
the Applicant shall
supervisors of the counmies and
ciuy or town within the service
equivalent officials Ln counties, cities, and towns having
altername forms of government) by personal delivery, or first-
class mail, postage prepaid, to the customary place of business
the chairman of the board of
the mayor or city manager of each
territory sought {or to
or residence of the person served.
(6) On or before October 18, 1996,
prefile with the Commission an original
the Applicant shall
and twenty (20) copies of
any additional direct testimony im
public hearing. Copies shall
files a Notice of Protest.
(7) On or before November 5,
intends to presenn at the
also be served on any person who
participate as a Protestant as defined in Rule 4:6 of
Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure ("Rules")
1996, any person desiring to
the
shall file
an original and uwenuy (20) copzes of a Notice of Protest as
provided in Rule 5:16(a), and shall serve a copy of the same on
CCI's counsel, Donald G. Owens,
1111 East Main Street, P.O. Box
1122.
Esquzre, Mays & Valentine,
1122, Richmond, Virginia 23208-
(8) On or before November 8, 1996,
lodge an objection to CCI's application
any person wishing
for a certificate to
provide interexchange service shall file an original and fifteen
(15) copies of its objection mn writing to William J. Bridge,
Clerk of the State Corporation Commission, c/o Document Control
Center, P.O. Box 2118, Richmond, Virginia 23218. Written
objections shall refer to Case
specificity why a hearing is
objections are received, the
No. PUC9601!9 and shall state with
necessary. If substantive
Commiss!on will hear evidence
relevant uo this portion of the application
1996, public hearing.
(9) Any person desiring uo comment on
a certificate to provide interexchange services
directing such comments on or before November 8,
Clerk of the Commission au the
commenus must refer to Case No.
ar the November 22,
CCI's application for
may do so by
1996,
address listed above.
PUC960119.
to the
Written
7
(10) Any person desiring to comment in writing on CCI's
application for a certificate to provide local exchange services
may do so by directing such comments
1996, to the Clerk of the Commission at the
Comments must refer to Case No. PUC9601tg.
to make a statement a~ the public hearing
application
only appear
on or before November 8,
address listed above.
Any persons desiring
concerning the
for a certificate for local exchange services need
in the Commission's second floor courtroom at
9:45 a.m. on the day of the hearing and identify himself or
herself to the Bailiff as a public witness.
(11) Any person who expects co submit evidence, cross-
examine witnesses, or otherwise participate in the proceeding as
a Protestant pursuant to Rule 4:6 shall file on or before
November 12, 1996, an original and twenty (20) copies of its
Protest with the Clerk of ~he Commission at the address listed
above, referring to Case No. PUC960119, and shall on the same day
a copy thereof to CCI's counsel at the address listed above,
mail
and to any other
preczse statement of the interest
proceeding; (ii) a full and clear
Protestants. The Protest shall set forth (i)
of the Protestant in the
statement of the facts which
the Protestant is prepared to prove by competent evidence; and
(iii) a statement of the specific relief sought and the legal
a
basis
evidence, cross-examine witnesses, or otherwise
Pro~essan~ mus~ be represented by leqal counsel
therefor. Any corporane entity that wishes mo submit
participaue as a
in accordance
with
the requirement of Rule 4:8 of the Commission's Rules.
(12) On or before November 12, 1996, each Protestant shall
file with the Clark of the Commission an original and twenty (20)
copies of the prepared mesmimony and exhibits the Protestant
intends to present am the hearing,
mail a copy of the same co counsel
Service upon counsel for CCI shall
forth above.
The Commission Staff shall analyze
(13)
of CCI's application and present
its
co be filed on or before November 15,
(14) On or before November 15,
Commisslon Staff may
original and twenty
and shall on the same day,
for CCI and other Protestants.
be made at the address set
findings
1996.
1996,
file with the
(20) copies of
the reasonableness
in a Staff Report
if necessary, the
Clerk of the Commission an
any prepared testimony and
exhibits it intends to present am the public hearing. A copy of
the Staff direct testimony shall be mailsd to the counsel for the
Applicant and to each Protestant.
(15) On or before November 19, 1996, the Applicant shall
file with the Clerk of the CommIssion an original and twenty (20)
9
copies of any testimony it expecns to
any direct prefiled testimony of Staff
of the rebuttal Testimony shall be mailed
Protestant by overnight delivery.
introduce ~n rebuttal to
and Protestants. A copy
to Staff and each
(16) At the commencement of the hearing scheduled herein,
CCI shall provide ~o the Commission proof of the notice and
service required by ordering paragraphs (3), (4), and (5) herein.
(17) The Applicant shall respond ko.the written
interrogatories within ten (10) business days after the receipt
of the same. Protestants shall provide to the Applicant, other
Protestants and Staff any workpapers or documents used in
preparation of their prefiled testimony, promptly upon request.
Excepn as so modified, discovery shall be in accordance with
Part VI of the Rules.
AN ATTESTED COPY hereof shall be senn by the Clerk of the
Commission To: Donald G. Owens, Esquire, and James C. Roberts,
Esquire, Mays & Valentine, ~111 East Main Street, P.O. Box 1122,
Richmond, Virginia 23208-1122; Donald L. Crosby, Continental
Cablevision, Inc., 7800
Florida 32256; Edward L.
General,
General,
Belfort Parkway, Suite 270, Jacksonville,
Petrini, Senior Assistant Attorney
Division of Consumer Counsel, Office of the Attorney
900 East Main Street, Second Floor, Richmond, Virginia
10
23219; Warner F. Brunda~e, Vice President, General Counsel, &
Secretary, Bell Atlantic-Virginia, Inc. 600 East Main Street,
P.O. Box 27241, Richmond, Virginia 23261; Stephen C. Spencer,
Regional Director-External Affairs, GTE South, Inc., One James
Center, Suite 1602, 90i East Cary Street, Richmond, Virginia
23219; and the Commission's Divisions of Communications, and
Economics and Finance.
S~m Coremt~o~ Cemnd#ion
1!
DOCUHENT CroNiROL
.96 0~'[ -8 i~ 9:03
APPLICATION OF
COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA ~i~ribU~ ~ ~;)~r6:.
S A:
AT RICHMOND, OCTOBER 7, 1996
ALTERNET OF VIRGINIA, INC.
For a Certificate of Public
Convenience and Necessity ~o
Provide Local Exchange
Telecommunications Services
and to Amend its Interexchange
Certificate of Public
Convenience and Necessity
OCT 2 2 ~
CASE NO. PUC~¢ ~l~2q~ .......... .~ ....
On AugusE 22,
or "the Applicant")
ORDER FOR NOTICE AND HEARING
1996, AlterNet of Virginia, Inc. ("AlterNet'
filed an application with the State
Corporation Commission for a certificate of public convenience
and necessity "certificate") to provide local exchange
telecommunlcatmons services and to amend its certificate to
provide interexchange telecommunications services. AlterNet
requests Eo amend the service area of its interexchange
certifi2ate from the Richmond metropolitan area ~o the
Commonwealth of Virginia. AlterNet is a partnership between
Continental TelecommunlcaEions Corp. of Virginia, a Virginia
corporatmon, and Hyperion Telecommunications of Virgmnia, Inc.
AlterNeE plans Eo offer local exchange, toll, and switched access
services. Initially, the Applicant will introduce switched
services into the Richmond metropolitan area. The Applicant
an~icipases furnishing services in other communities as market
conditions warrant and technological developmenss occur. At
firss, AlterNet plans to have its local calling areas match those
of the incumbent local exchange carrier. The Applicant s~a~es
that it has the necessary technical, managerial, and financial
capability to furnish the proposed services.
NOW UPON CONSIDER3~TION of the application the Commission is
of the opinion that AlterNet's application should be docketed;
that the Applicant should glve notice 5o the public of its
application; that the Commission Staff should conduct an
lnvessigasion into the reasonableness of the application and
presen5 its findings in a Staff repots; and that a public hearinq
should be convened 5o receive evidence relevant 5o AlterNet's
application for a certificate 5o provide local exchange services,
and if substantive objections are received, evidence shall be
received a5 the public hearing with regard 5o AlterNet's
application for amendmen5 5o its certificase 5o provide
interexchange services.
Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT:
(1) This case is docketed and assigned Case No. PUC960120.
(2) A
relevant to
public hearing for the purpose of receiving evidence
AlterNet's application for a certificate to provide
local exchange services is scheduled for November 22, 1996, at
!0:00 a.m. in the Commission's second floor courtroom located in
the Tyler Building, 1300 East Main Street, Richmond, Virginia.
If substantive objections to AlterNet's application for amendment
to its certificate to provide interexchange services are received
on or before November 8, 1996, the Commis.sion will also hear
evidence on this issue au the November 22 public hearing. If no
such
1996,
certificate
a hearin9.
(3)
complete publication of
classified advertising
throughout
substantive objections are received on or before November 8,
the Commission may grant AlterNet's reques5 uo amend its
uo provide interexchange services without conducting
On or before October 22, 1996, the Applicant shall
the following notice, uo be published as
in newspapers having general circulation
the Commonwealth of Virginia:
3
NOTICE TO THE PUBLIC OF AN APPLICATION BY
ALTERNET OF VIRGINIA, INC., FOR A
CERTIFICATE OF PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND
NECESSITY TO PROVIDE LOCAL EXCHANGE
TELECOMMUNICATIONS SERVICES THROUGHOUT THE
COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA AND TO AMEND ITS
CERTIFICATE OF PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND
NECESSITY TO PROVIDE INTEREXCHANGE
TELECOMMUNICATIONS SERVICES
· CASE NO.' PUC960120
On kugusn 22, 1996, AlterNet of
Virginia, Inc. ("AlterNet" or "the
Applicant") filed an application with the
State Corporation Commission for a
certificate of public convenience and
necessity ("certificate") ~o provide local
exchange telecommunications services and no
amend its certificate to provide
interexchange telecommunications services.
AlterNet requests no amend the service area
of its interexchange certificate from the
Richmond menropotitan area no the
Commonwealth of VirglnLa.
A public hearing on AlterNet's
application will be convened on November 22,
1996, an 10:00 a.m. in the Commission's
second floor cournroom located in the Tyler
Building, 1300 East Main Street, Richmond,
Virginia, no hear evidende relevann to. its
application for a certificate no provide
local exchange services. The Commission will
hear evidence on AlterNet's application for
amendmenn no its certificate no provide
lnterexchange services an the November 22,
1996, public hearing only if substantive
objections no this portion of the application
are filed on or before November 8, 1996. If
no such substannive objections are received,
the Commission may amend the certificate no
provide interexchange services without a
hearing. Copies of the application are
available for public inspection between the
hours of 8:15 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. in the
Commission's Document Control Center located
on the first floor of the Tyler Building,
1300 East Main Street, Richmond, Virginia
23219, or can be ordered from AlterNes's
counsel, Donald G. Owens, Esquire, Mays &
Valentine, P.O. Box 1122, Richmond, Virginia
23218-1122.
On or before November 5, 1996, persons
desiring to participaEe as Protestants as
defined in Rule 4:6 of the Commission's Rules
of Practice and Procedure ("Rules"), and
desiring ~o present evidence and cross-
examine witnesses shall file a Notice of
Protest with the Clerk of the Commission at
the address set forth below and shall mail a
copy of the same on or before November 5,
1996, 5o AlterNet and all other parties of
record. Service upon AlterNet shall be
directed 5o its counsel at the address set
forth above.
Any person desiring to comment in
writing on AlterNes's application for a
certificate ~o provide local exchange
services or its request for amendmen5 to its
certificase to provide interexchange services
may do so by directing such commenss on or
before November 8, 1996, ~o the Clerk of the
Commission a~ the address listed below. Any
person desirinq 5o make a ssatement au the
public hearing concerning AlterNet's
application for a cersificate 5o provide
local exchange services need only appear in
the Commission's second floor coursroom at
9:45 a.m. on the day of the hearing and
identify himself or herself as a public
witness 5o the Commission,s Bailiff.
Any person who expects ~o submit
evidence, cross-examine wltnesses, or
otherwise participate in the proceedings as a
Protestant pursuan~ 5o Ru~e 4:6 shall file on
or before November 12, 1996, a Protes5 and
the prepared testimony and exhibits the
5
Proses~anE intends Eo presen~ a5 the hearing
with the Clerk of the Commission at the
address set forth below, referring to Case'
No. PUC960120 and shall on the same day mail
a copy thereof ~o AlterNet's counsel a5 the
address see forth above and to any other
Protestants.
Individuals with disabilities who
require an accommodation ~o participate in
the.hearing may contact the Commission aE 1-
800-552-7945 (voice) or 1-804-371-9206 (TDD) .
Individuals requesting accommodations should
contac~ the Commission a5 either of these
numbers aE least seven days before the
scheduled hearing date.
Ail written communications ~o the
Commission concerning AlterNet's application
should be directed ~o William J. Bridge,
Clerk, State Corporation Commission, c/o
Documen~ Control Center, P.O. ~Box 21~18,
Richmond, Virginia 23218, and muss refer to
Case No. PUC960120.
ALTERNET OF VIRGINIA, INC.
(4) On or before October 18, 1996, Applicant shall give
nonice of its application to each local exchange telephone
carrzer certificated in Virginia and each interexchange carrier
certificated in Virginia by personal delivery or by first-class
mail, posEage prepaid, to the cus%omary place of business or
residence of the person served.
(5) On or before October 18, 1996, the Applicann shall
furnish a copy of this Order to the chairman of the board of
supervisors of the coun5ies and the mayor or city manager of each
6
city or town within the service territory sought (or to
equivalent officials in counties, cities, and towns having
alternate forms of governmenn) by personal delivery, or first-
class mail, postage prepaid, to the customary place of business
or residence of the person served.
(6) On or before October 18, 1996, the Applicant shall
prefile with the Commission an original and twenty (20) copies of
any additional direct testimony it intends no preset5 an the
public hearing. Copies shall also be served on any persons who
file a Notice of Prosesn.
(7) On or before November 5, 1996, any person desiring to
participate as a Protestant as defined in Rule 4:6 of the
Commission's Rules of Practice and
an original and 5wenny (20) copies
provided in Rule 5:16(a), and shall
AlterNet's counsel, Donald G. Owens,
Procedure ("Rules") shall file
of a Notice of Protest as
serve a copy of the same on
Esquire, Mays & Valentine,
Box 1122, Richmond, Virginia 23218-1122.
'8) On or before November 8, 1996, any person wishing to
lodge an objection no AlterNet's application for amendment to its
certificate to provide interexchange service shall file an
original and fifteen (15) copies of its object!on in writing with
William J. Bridge, Clerk, State Corporation Commission, c/o
7
Document Control Center,
Written objections shall
state with specificity why a hearing
substantive objections are received,
evidence relevant to this portion of
November 22, 1996, public hearing.
(9) Any person desiring to comment
P.O. Box 2118, Richmond, Virginia 23218.
refer to Case No. PUC960120 and shall
is necessary. If
the Commission will
the application au
on AlterNet's
hear
the
application for amendment to its certificate to provide
interexchange services may do so by directing such comments on or
before November 8, 1996, to the Clerk of the Commission at the
address listed above. Written comments must refer to Case
No. PUC960120.
(10) Any person desiring 5o comment in writing on
AlterNet's application for a certificate ~o provide local
exchange services may do so by directing such comments on or
before November 8, 1996, uo the Clerk of the Commission au the
address listed above. Comments musu refer to Case No. PUC960t20.
Any persons desiring
to make a statement at the public hearing
concerning the application for a certificate for local exchange
services need only appear in the Commission's second floor
courtroom au 9:45 a.m. on the day of the hearing and identify
himself or herself to the Bailiff as a public witness.
(il) Any person who expects to submit evidence, cross-
examine witnesses, or otherwise participate in the proceeding as
a Protestant pursuant to Rule 4:6 shall file on or before
November 12, 1996, an original and twenty (20) copies of its
Protest with the Clerk of the Commission at the address listed
above, referring 5o Case No. PUC960120, and shall on the same day
mail a copy thereof to A15erNet's counsel at the address listed
above, and 5o any other Protestants. The Protest shall set forth
(i) a precise ssasement of 5he interest of the Protestan~ in the
proceeding; (ii) a full and clear s~a~ement of the facts which
the Protestant is prepared 5o prove by competent evidence; and
(iii) a statement of the specific relief sought and the legal
basis therefor. Any corporase entity that wishes 5o submit
evidence, cross-examine witnesses, or otherwise participate as a
Protestant mu~5 be represented by legal counsel in accordance
with the requirement of Rule 4:~ of the Commission's Rules.
(12) On or before November 12, 1996, each Protestant shall
file with the Clerk of the Commission an original and twenty (20)
copies of the prepared testimony and exhibits the Protestan5
intends to present at the hearing, and shall on the same day,
mail a copy of the same to counsel for AlterNet and other
Protestanus.
the address set forth above.
(13) The Commission Staff shall
of AlterNet's application and present
Service upon counsel for AlterNet shall be made au
analyze the reasonableness
its findings in a Staff
Report to be filed on or before November 13, 1996.
(14) 0n or before November 13, 1996, if necessary, the
Commission Staff may file with the Clerk of the Commission an
original and twenty (20) copies of any prepared testimony and
exhibits it
the Staff direct
Applicant
(15)
file with
copies of
any direct
intends to presenu at the public hearing. A copy o~
testimony shall be mailed ~o the counsel for the
and to each Protestant.
On or before November 19, 1996,
the Applicant shall
the Clerk of the Commission an original and twenty (20
any testimony it expecEs uo introduce in rebuttal uo
prefiled uesuimony of Staff and Protestants. A copy
of the rebuttal testimony shall b~ mailed co Staff and each
Protestant by overnight delivery.
(16) At the commencemenu of the hearing
AlterNet shall provide to the Commission proof of
service required by ordering paragraphs (3), (4),
(17) The Applicant shall respond to writuen
within
scheduled herein,
the notice and
and (5) herein.
interrogatories
ten (10] business days after the receipu of the same.
10
prefiled
modified,
Rules.
Protestants shall provide to
Staf~ any workpapers or documents used
5estimony, promptly
discovery shall be
the Applicant, other Protestanus and
in preparation of zheir
upon request. Excepu as so
in accordance with Part VI of the
AN ATTESTED COPY hereof shall be sent by the Clerk of the
Commission uo: Donald G. Owens, Esquire, and James C. Roberts,
Esquire, Mays & Valentine, P.O. Box 1122, Richmond, Virginia
23218-1122; A. R. Schleiden, Telecommunications Manager, and
Donald L. Crosby, Esquire, Regulatory Counsel, Southeastern
Region, Continental Cablevision, Inc., 7800 Belfort Parkway,
Suite 270, Jacksonville, Florida 32256; Edward L. Petrinl, Senior
Assistant Attorney General, Division of Consumer Counsel, Office
of the Attorney General, 900 East Main Street, Second Floor,
Richmond, Virginia 23219; Warner F. Brundage, Jr., Esquire, Vice
President, General Counsel, and Secretary, Bell Atlantic-
Virginia, 600 East Main Street, P.O. Box 27241, Richmond,
Virginia 23261; Stephen C. Spencer, Regional Director-External
Affairs, GTE South Incorporated, One James Cen~er, Suite 1602,
901 East Cary Street, Richmond, Virginia 23219; and the
Commission's Divisions of Communications and Economics and
Finance.
11
~l~e Cor~o~a~i~r~ Comm~l~z
FREE
CLINIC
F~X~CUT{VE OFFiC~
July 25, 1996
MS. Roxanne White
Deputy County Administrator
Albemarle County
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, VA 22902
OCT ,7
Dear Roxanne,
Please pass along our sincere appreciation to the Board of
Supervisors for the $5150.00 contribution which the County of
Albemarle made to the Charlottesville Free Clinic on July 5th for
this year. It is gratifying to know that the Board recognizes the
contributions made by the Free Clinic and our wonderful volunteers.
We have all worked hard to provide essential health care to the
uninsured working families in our community who might otherwise go
without the care they need.
We are also very pleased to be able to move along with our
plans for permanent office space at the Thomas Jefferson Health
District building on Rose Hill Drive. We believe this innovative
sharing of expensive resources in definitely in the best interest
of the community and appreciate the County's recognizing the value
of our collaborative arrangement.
We will be holding an Open House at our new offices early next
year and hope that you will take that opportunity to visit us and
see how your money has been put to good use!
Thank you again for your personal support and for the support
of the County Board. It is great to be part of a community that
works together and we appreciate your working with us to make this
community a healthier Dlace.
Sincerely,
F~~. Newell
Executive Director
Box 3282 Charlottesville, VA 22903 (804') 296-5525
RON ANGELONE
DIRECTOR
COMMONWEALTH of VtRGIN [A
Department of Corrections
October 17,1996
Albert A. Tumminia, Superintendent
Albemarle-Charlottesville Regional Jail
1600 Avon Extended
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902
OCT 2 8 J996
Dear Superintendent Tumminia:
On October 16,1996, the Board of Corrections reviewed materials regarding your
facility's Compliance Audit of July 24-26, 1996. The Board has decided to place the
Albemarle-Charlottesville Regional Jail on Probationary Certification pending a review
by the Department's Certification Unit of those practices at the facility that relate
directly:to-the d.eficiencies noted in your most recent Compliance Audit Report. That
. ~eview wilt take:p[sce 00,soener than sixty days from the date of this correspondence.
Among the Board's ~oncerns, are those management issueS that relate directly to
deficiencies which require documentation to verify compliance with Local Jail and
Lockup Standards, as well as adherence to facility policy which provides guidance on
Life,Health,Safety standard 5.33. It is felt that a review of the practices of facility
personnel as they pertain to the deficiencies noted in your audit, will provide the Board
with the necessary information needed to recommend an Unconditional Certification or
move to Decertify your faoility if corrective plans of action are not being adhered to.
Please contact R.M. Woodard, Supervisor for the Department's Certification Unit,
regarding the completion of the remaining requirements of the certification process.
Mr. Woodard will coordinate the re-inspection of your facility as it pertains to those
deficiencies noted in your Compliance Audit.
Thank you in advance for your cooperation in this matter.
Sincerely,
' d J.~Win. stop Charman .... :~ . ._ _
Board· of Oorrectiqns :
CC:
The Honorable J.T. Swett, Judge
The Honorable P. M. Peatross, Judge
~oWn Council, Charlottesville
ard of Supervisors, Albemarle County
John Britton
Mike Howerton
A child's voice in court.®
Piedmont Court
Appointed Special
Advocates, Inc.
1995-96 Annual Program Report
Piedmont CASA, Inc. Mission Statement
Piedmont_Court Appointed Special Advocates. Inc. is a non-profit organization
which advocates for the best interests of abused and neglected children in the 16th
Judicial District of Virginia. Piedmont CASA, Inc. recruits, trains, supports and monitors
canng volunteers to advocate for abused and neglected children in juvenile court
proceedings.
Piedmont CASA. Inc
P,O. Box 603
409 East High Street
Charlottesville, VA 22902
(804) 971-7515 or971-1121
FAX: (8{:)4) 971-3060
E-Mail: pcasa@maiLcomet.net
A child's voice in court.
PIEDMONT CASA, INC
RO. Box 603
409 East High Street
Charlottesville. VA 22902
Teleehone: 804-97'1-7515
FAX: g04-97~ -3060
Messa.qe from the Board President
Looking back over the past year. I cannot help but feel excitement and pride
when I recount all that the PCASA program has achieved in our first full year of
operation.
With the leadership of our Executive Director, Ruth Stone. and the valuable
assistance of our Volunteer Coordinator, Ayana Conway, we graduated our first
24 volunteers in the fall and an additional 11 in the spring. Due to the dil ~gence
and commitment of these individuals, we have bee able to serve 51 children in
the past seven months:
We have become a presence in the Charlottesville/Albemarle community. We
have received very positive coverage in the local news media and have spoken
to many community groups. We have worked closely with the judges, guardians
and social service organizations to help serve each individual child to whom we
are appointed, and have gained their support and respect. Due to Ruth's
energetic involvement, we have also become an integral part of the Virginia
CASA scene.
For the second year, we have raised all funds necessary to realize next year's
budget. This was accomplished mainly through grant writing; nevertheless, we
are beginning to seek and receive more broad-based community support.
Having achieved our initial goals of starting our program and beginning to place
trained volunteers with children, we developed a two-year plan. This will direct
us into expansion into our outlying counties: shifting our fundraising from grants
to greater community-based support, developing additional evaluations tools.
and establishing new relationships with service providers.
We are grateful to all of those who have made this first year of our program so
successful - our volunteers, our staff, and our supporters in the community,
We look forward to meeting the challenges we have set for our program, and we
remain committed to providing high quality advocacy for the children we serve.
Sincerely,
COURT APPOINTED SPECIAL ADVOCATE PROGRAM
A Commitment to Children
All children have a right to a home with loving people to care for them. but each
year in the United States, millions of children are abused, neglected, or
abandoned by their families. In Virginia last year, there were 10,107 "founded,"
and 4,554 "suspected." child victims of abuse and neglect. Ninety-four child
homicides were documented.
Child abuse and neglect is a senous problem in our community as well. In the
year ending June 30. 1995, 1 384 complaints of child abuse and neglect were
filed with the social services departments of the 16th Judicial District. A total of
223 complaints, involving 323 children, were later classified as "founded." What
happens to these children? Many end up in court with a judge deciding their
futures - foster care, reunion with the parents, or adoption.
CASA volunteers are responsible for taking the time to find out as much as
possible about the children. CASA volunteers review court records, interview
parents, talk to teachers, neighbors, and, most importantly, the child. These
volunteers then appear in court to report their findings to the judge.
AGE Number Percent
0 - 24 mos 2 4%
2 - 5 yrs 8 16%
6 - 10 yrs 21 40%
11 - 14 yrs 12 24%
15+ yrs 8 16%
SEX Number Percent
Male 27 I 53%1
Female 24 47%
TOTA I I oo%
RACE Number Percent
Black 17 33%
White I 34 67%
Hispanic 0 0%
Asian 0 0%
Other 0 0%
Native American 0 0%
TOTAL 51 t00°~
Piedmont CASA, Inc.
Children Served - 1995/96
11 - 14yrs
24%
Age
15+ yrs O- 24 mos
2- 5yrs
16% 4%
16%
6- 10yrs
40%
Sex
Female
47%
Male
53%
Race
Hispanic, Native
American Asian
0% Black
White --
67%
Chart I
95-g6FY Profiles
Speakin.q Up for Troubled Children
A child's case may come before the court for a variety of reasons. Typically,
CASA volunteers are assigned by the juvenile court judges to cases involving
allegations of child abuse or neglect. Of the 51 children served by Piedmont
CASA last year, 35 were victims of physical abuse or neglect, 7 were victims of
sexual abuse and 23 were victims of emotional abuse.
Children also come to the court's attention through petitions alleging that the
child is in need of services or need of supervision. These are typically children
who have run away from home or are truant from school. Almost invariably,
such troubled children have a long history of abuse and neglect - they have
already fallen through the cracks of the welfare and court systems.
CASA volunteers work to help stabilize the lives of these vulnerable children and
to assure that each is placed in a safe, nurturing, and permanent home as
quickly as possible.
TYPE OF CASE Number Percent
~,buse/Neglect 31 61%
Custody (AJN alleged) 13 25%
CHINS 7 14%
Other 0 0%
TOTAL I I 00%
JURISDICTION Number Percent
Charlottesville 16 31%
Albemarle 17 33%
Goochland 3 6%
Greene 1 2%
Madison 13 25%
Fluvanna 1 2%
TOTAL I SI I 100%
PLACEMENTS Number Percent
Relative (non-foster) 9 18%
Relative (foster) I 2%
:oster Care 6 12%
Home 35 68%
TOTAL I 51 I 100
Piedmont CASA, Inc.
Children Served - ~1995/96
Type ofCase
CH[NS'
14%
Custody (AJN alleged)~ ~Abuse/Neg[ect
25% -- 61%
~Child in Need of Services or Child in Need of Supervision
Jurisdiction
Madison 2% Chariottesville
25%~ 31%
A!bemade
34%
Placements
Relative (non-foster)
18%
Relative (foster)
2%
Foster Care
. 12%
Chart
95-96FY Profiles
Advocates for the Innocent
Community volunteers are the heart and center of the CASA movement. After
completing 40 hours of training, these dedicated individuals are appointed by the
juvenile court judge to advocate for abused and neglected children as their
cases move through the maze of the court system
CASA volunteers provide thorough case invesbgation, independence of
viewpoint, monitoring of the case, positive relationships with the child and
assistance 'tn securing needed services. Piedmont CASA volunteers donate an
average of 10 - 15 hours each month to the children they serve, and many travel
great distances to reach their children.
CASA volunteers come from all walks of life, and have a variety of professional.
educational, and ethnic backgrounds. Piedmont CASA is an equal opportunity
volunteer organization, and it is committed to recruiting and training volunteers
from all sectors of the community.
SEX Number Percent
Male I 4
Female 34
TOTAL 38
11%
89%
100%
RACE Number Percent
Black 6 16%
White 32 84%
Hispanic [ 0 0%
Asian 0 0%
Native American 0 0%
TOTAL I 38 I 100%
AGE
21-35
36-50
Number Percent
8 I 21%
16 42%
50+ 14 37%
TOTAL I 38 } 100%
Piedmont CASA, Inc.
Volunteer Profiles - 1995196
Sex
Male
11%
Female
89%
Race
Black
16%
White
84%
Age
21-35
50+ 21%
36-50
42%
Chad
95-96FY ProfiJes
Piedmont CASA 1995-96 Volunteers
Nadine Armstrong
Diane Berkeley
Dena Bowers
Gloria Bowers
Ramona Chapman
Stephanie Commander
Ayana Conway
Kathleen Comett
John Cunningham
Katherine Dorrier
Stephanie Edinger
Gwen Ferguson
Michael Fitzpatrick
Juliet Gee
Brad Goodwin
Jeanne Hineline
Edith Heilberg
Caren Hill
Beth Hochstefler
Jennie Liebermann
Karyn Leign-Manuell
JB McCraw
Donna Merritt
Katherine Morris
Janet Mott
Susan Netigan
Sarah Price
Patdcia Pullen
Kal Rady
Tim Rombach
JoNeal Scully
Linda Schroll
Helen Stevens
Ruth Stone
Gladys Swift
Sarah Westmoreland
Eva Wiley
Paula Vest-Woodfolk
Organizational Structure
Piedmont CASA, Inc., a private, non-profit corporation, was formed in the summer
of 1994 to serve the children of the greater Charlottesville/Albemarle area. The
program ~s managed by a nine-member volunteer Board of Directors and
regulated by the Virginia Department of Criminal Justice Services. A full-time
executive director oversees the administration of the program, and a part-time
volunteer coordinator assists with screening, training and supervising volunteers.
Piedmont CASA is a member of the National CASA Association and the Virginia
CASA Association.
Board of Directors - 1995-96
Carolyn Achenbach, President
Edward M. Wayland, Vice President
Tracey Hopper, Secretary
B. Stephanie Commander, Treasurer
Richard Balnave
Rudy Beverly
Kimberly Carpenter Emery
Sarah Dandridge
Barbara Kessler
Staff
Ruth L. Stone
Executive Director
Ayana Morrison Conway
Volunteer Coordinator
Contributors
Piedmont CASA's first-year success has been greatly enhanced by the many
members of our community who have donated time. expertise and talents, as well
as in-kind goods and services, to support the CASA volunteers and the children
with whom they work. Others have donated much-needed funds to support the
on-going operation of program, helping to provide staff and supervisory suppor[ to
the volunteers. Piedmont 'CASA gratefully acknowledges the generosity of the
following who have contributed between July 1, 1995 and June 30. 1996.
Traininq Facilitators 1995 - 1996
Carol Alonzo
Richard Balnave
Dr. Barbara Bateman
Diane Berkeley
Judge Edward DeJ. Berry
Blair Carter
Dave Chapman
Richard Christoph M.D.
Marion Collins
Ishmail Conway
Susan Cosca
Gretchen Ellis
Jack Gallagner
Charlene Green
Charity Haines
Sheila Haughey
Sue Houchens
Joan Kammire
Pynke Gohaner Lyles
Dr. Robert Marvin
Susan Porter
Patricia Pullen
Judy Randle
Lisa Robertson
Judge Jannene
Fran Slayton
Deborah E. Smith. M.D.
Bill Traylor
Jane Vanderzwet
Eva Wiley
Shannon
Contributors 1995 - 1996
Carolyn & William Achenbach
Richard & Linda Balnave
Rudy Beverly
B. Stephanie Commander
Ishmail & Ayana Conway
Sarah & Victor Dandridge, Jr.
Kimberly & Robert Emery
Forest Lakes Community
Tracey Hopper & Doug Campbell
Humagen Diagnositics Inc. for
Lyn Wallace
Kappa Alpha Theta Sorority
Sharon Kendall
Barbara & Jay Kessler
Jennie Liebermann
MJ Designs
John & Ruth Stone
E.C. Wareheim Foundation
Edward M Wayland & Craig
Williams
In-Kind Donors 1995 - 1996
Heidi & Jess Achenbach
Albemarle County
Almost Paradise
Renita Sheesley Banks
Dr. Barbara Bateman
Rudy Beverly
Boar's Head Inn & Sports Club
Charlottesville Broadcasting
Chili's Bar & Grill
Comet,Net
Crestar Bank
Will Dickie
Jerri. Joel & Paula Dufault
Fry's Spring Beach Club
Rebecca Garrity
Giant Food,
Mr. James Harris
Edith Heilberg
Anne Hemenway
Karen Horridge
Cathy Kahn
Kroger Food Stores
Ann Mills
MJ Designs
National Legal Research Group
Mary Susan Payne
Plantscapes Florist
Susan Porter
ROCOCO'S
D. French Slaughter
Tremblay & Smith, LLP
Janice Stegall
The Flower Man
The Hardware Store Restaurant
The Michie Company
The Tadeton Quartet
Amanda Hazlett
Sally Holt
Lucan Klyne
Elizabeth Sapir
The Village School
Proal Heartwell
Jamie Knorr
University Florists
Vinny's New York Pizza & Pasta
Virginia CLE
Wintergreen Resort
Piedmont CASA, Inc,
Revenue Report
SOURCES OF FUNDING
C harlottesvitle-Albernar[e
Community Foundation
7%
Donations Victims 0f Crime Act
10% 14% Depa, rtment of Crirnina[
Justice Services
11%
Virginia Law Foundatio",
27%
National CASA
Associatior
31%
REVENUESOURCES PERCENT AMOUNT
Victims of Crime Act 14% $10,360.00
Department of Criminal Justice Services 11% $ 8,333.00
National CASA Association 31% $23,500.00
Virginia Law Foundation 27% $20,000.00
Chariottesville-AIbemarle Community Foundation 7% $ 5,000.00
Donations 10% $ 8,054.00
TOTAL I 100%I $75,247.00
Chart I
Financial Reports
Piedmont CASA, Inc.
Expense Report
PROGRAM EXPENSES
Office Expenses
(Supplies, Phone,
Program Expenses Utilities)
9%
(Recruiting/Training)
~2%
Capital Expense..
14%
PROGRAM EXPENDITURES
PERCENT AMOUNT
Personnel 65% $41.826.00
Capital Expenses 14% $ 9.000.00
Program Expenses (Recruiting/Training) ~2% $ 7.548.00
Office Expenses (Supplies, Phone, Utilities) 9% $ 5,960.00
TOTAL I 100%I $64,334.00
Chart It
Financial RepoNs
Piedmont CASA, Inc.
Statement of Activities
July 1995 through June 1996
Donations
In-Kind Donations
Cash - Undedlgnated
Wareheim
Kappa Alpha Theta
Cash - Designated
Total Donations
Grant Income
Total Income
Gross Proffi
Expense
Rent
Audit
Computer Equipment
Cloneland Computer& Monitor
Digital Computer & Monitor
Other Equipment/Supplies
printer
Computer Equipment - Other
Total-computer Equipment
Depreciation
Dues & Fees
General Liability
Total Insurance
Legal & Accounting
Ubrary Resources
Miscellaneous
Office Equipment
Bookshelves
Copier Maintenance
Copy Machine
FAX Machine
Other Equipment/Supplies
Overhead Prejastm
Total Office Equipment
Office Supplies
Payroll Expenses
Postage
printing
Public Relations
Staff/Board Training
Telephone
Travel
Utilities
Volunteer Development
Volunteer Recognition
Total Expense
Jul '96 - Jun '96
4.180.9~
3.109.34
4.000.00
400.00
550.00
12,240.30
63,737.08
75,977.38
75.977.38
2.402.16
754.13
-1 024.99
0.00
475.00
173.48
-13.72
716.77
395.66
700.00
-350.00
350.00
1.378.80
189.33
1.019.78
249.00
743.46
0.00
549.99
114.48
189.99
1.846.92
910.98
42,400.67
663.25
2.1{37.77
600.00
770.53
1.507.98
2.344.97
608.97
1 287.14
648.41
62.890.04
Net Income 13.087.34
Piedmont CASA, Inc.
Statement of Finart ial Position
As of July 1, 1996
ASSETS
Current Assets
Checking/Savings
NationsBank
Total Checking/Savings
Accounts Receivable
Accounts Receivable
Total Accounts Receivable
Other Current Assets
Prepaid Expenses
Total Other Current Assets
Total Current Assets
Fixed Assets
Furniture & Fixtures
Accumulated Depreciation
Total Fixed Assets
TOTAL ASSETS
LIABILITIES & EQUITY
Liabilities
Current Liabilities
Accounts Payable
Accounts Payable
Total Accounts Payable
Other Current Liab5Jfies
Deferred Grant Revenue
Payroll LiabStiies
Total Other Current Liabilities
Total Current Liabilities
Total Liab5~es
Equity
Retained Earnings
Total Equity
TOTAL LIABILITIES & EQUITY
Jul 1, '96
11.012`85
11.012.85
982.00
982.00
350.00
350.00
12.344.85
7.~67.69
-716.77
6.450.92
t8,795.77
152.16
152.16
3,455.92
1.921.61
5.377.53
5.529.69
5,529.69
13,266.08
13,266.08
18.795.77
A safe, permanent home...
Lookin.q to the Future
Piedmont CASA's goal for fiscal 1996-97 is to continue to provide approximately
35 volunteers for the Charlottesville-Albemarle region of the 16th Judicial District.
and to expand its program by adding 15 new volunteers to begin assisting
children in Madison, Fluvanna and Greene Counties. Thus, a comprehensive
recruitment effort will begin ~n the late summer. It is estimated that these 50
volunteers will serve 80 - 100 children during the 1996-97 fiscal year.
In order to comply with the Department of Criminal Justice Services regulations
which mandate a 1:30 staff to volunteer ratio Piedmont CASA plans to expand
the volunteer coordinator staff position to accommodate the proposed
expansion. Planned activities include implementing an educational campaign in
the three counties to introduce the CASA program= recruiting and screening
volunteer applicants to serve those counties, training 15 new volunteers, and
developing closer working relationships with other child abuse and neglect
service providers in those communities.
Piedmont CASA has been very successful in obtaining start-up grants, but a
substantial portion of this funding will cease at the end of the current fiscal year.
The challenge to raise funds to sustain the quality volunteer program makes it
necessary for Piedmont CASA to turn to the local community for help.
Development of alternative funding sources will be a primary focus of board
activities during the coming year.
Most importantly, however, Piedmont CASA and its CASA volunteers will work to
stop the cycle of child abuse by speaking up for the abused anc~ neglected
children in our community. Through monitoring and reporting, the CASA
volunteers will work to protect these innocent victims from further harm. Through
action and advocacy, CASA volunteers will seek to assure that each abused and
neglected child's hope for a better life may be realized.
·.. what every child deserves.
ABG ~ FINANCIAL SERVICES, /NC.
October 28, 1996
&
Ms. Arlene Hernm~dez
Assistant Treasurer
The Bank of New York
101 Barclay Street. 21W
New York, New York 10286
Re: Arbor Crest ApartmenTs (Hydraulic Road Apts.)
Dear Ms. Hemandez:
Enclosed please find a copy of the Bond Program Report for the above referenced project for the
month of September 1996.
/fyou have any questions, please do not hesitate to call me.
Sincerely,
S e' aH. oynihan
Projec~ Monitor
/shm
enclosure
cc: Ms. Ella W. Carey, Clerk, CMC
Albemarle County Board of Supervisors
401 Mclntir¢ Road
Charlottesville, VA 22902-4596
CHURCHVILLE MARYLAND 21028
'~i0-879-9918
F^X 410-838-5360 : - ..
Effective September 30, 1996
MONTHLY REPORT PURSUANT TO
SECTION 7(a) OF THE DEED RESTRICTIONS
ASG Associates, Inc.
300 E. Lc~d street
Baltimore, Maryland
21202
RE:
Hydraulic Road Apartments - Ar~or Cres= A~=s
Charlottesville, Virginia
Pursuant to Section 7(a) of the Deed Restrictions (the "Deed
Restrictions"), as defined in an Indenture of Trust dated as of
April 1, 1983, between the Industrial Development Authority of
Albemarle County, Virginia (the "Authority"), and your bank, as
trustee, the undersigned authorized representative of
Richmond-Albemarle Limited Partnership, a Virginia Limited
Partnership (the "Purchaser"), hereby certifies with respect to
the operation and management of Hydraulic Road Apartments,
Charlottesville, Virginia (the "Project"], that as of the date
shown below:
l) The number of units in the F~o~ect occupied by
lower income tenants is
2)
The number of units in the Project unoccupied and
held available for Lower Income Tenants is -o-
3)
The number of units rented and the number of units
held available fo~ rental other than as described
(1) and (2) is 50 .
4)
The percentage that the number of units described in
(1) and (2) hereof co~stit~%~ of the total number of
units in the Project ~s .....
5) The information contained in this report is true,
accurate and correct as of the date hereof.
As of the date hereof, the Purchaser is not in
default under any covenant or agreement contained
in the Deed Restrictions or in an Agreement of Sale
dated as of April 1, 1983, between the Authority and
the Purchaser.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF,
0etober ~, 1996
the undersigned has signed this Report as of
RICHMOND-ALBEMARLE LIMITED
PARTNERSHIP, a Virginia
limited partnership
A~fthorized Representative
Arbor Crest A~a~tments (Hydraulic Road Apts.) p~Qj~.~: ~ , . 051-35371
Charlottesville, VA Numar o! Unill 66
Loretta Wyatt October 4, 1996 Effective 9/30/96
Dy: · . , -
To~a/ Occupied 66
~ond Occupied
tO~a ~O~
21. Beverly T. Lane
22 Wilma M. Atkimson
23 ·Ruth M. Jones ...
2¢ Virgini~ Burton
25 _G, Robert Stone
4 Arbor Crest Dr
6 Arbor Crest Dr
7 Arbor Crest Dr
9 Arbor Crest Dr
4~12 Arbg~rest Dr
14 Arbor Crest Dr ~Betty L. Reed
? 18 Arbor Crest Dr 2~ Ann S. Kemp
30 Arbor Crest Dr ..~'.Mar¥ Cox Allen
4~ Arbor Crest Dr Sam Atherton
~ ~_ 29 ....
56 Arbor Crest Dr Harlan W. Hooe
10. ~Q.,
76 Arbor Crest Dr ~1 Ann G. Saylor
12.78 Arbor Crest Dr 32 Ernest M. Nease
84 Arbor Crest Dr ~ Juanita Boliek
90'Arbor Crest Dr $¢ Be~tty B. Elli~,tt
Arbor Crest Dr ~5 M. Eileen Knick
~5106-Arbor ~rest Dr Katherine Nowlen
,. ~6
~? ....
~8 ,.
.~ 40 ....
3 13
7 , 17
8 ........ 16 .
~0 ..... 20 ~
I0,,
., 12.
13..
_, 14.
., I.~,_
16.
17, - --
18. ,
· 19.
. . 20.
To:
FrOm:
Subject:
Date:
Members, Board of Supervisors
Ella Washington Carey, CP1C, Clef
Reading List for November 6, 1996
NOVember I, 1996
August 2, 1995 - pages I - 13 (Item #9) - Mrs. Humphris
pages 13 (Item #9) - end - Mr. Perkins
December 12, 1995 - Mr. Bowerman
january 3, 1996 - pages 15 (Item # 14) - end - Mrs. Thomas
August 14, 1996 - Mr. Martin
September i8, 1996 - Mr. Bowerman
David t~ Bowerman
Bio
Charlotte h( Humphrls
Fane. st R. Marshall, Jr.
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Office of Board of Supenasors
401 Mcln~re Road
Charloltesville, V'n*ginia 229~2-4596
(804] 296-5848 FAX (804) 296-5800
Charles S. Martin
Waiter E Perkins
Sally H. Thomas
November 8. 1996
Mrs. Angela G. Tucker
Resident Engineer
701 VDoT Way
Charlottesville, VA 229i t
Dear Mrs. Tucker:
At its meeting on November 6. 1996, the Board of Supervisors made the following comments
regarding transportation matters:
Agenda Item No. 4. Other Matters Not Hsted on the Agenda from the PUBLIC.
Mr. Jim Bennett a landowner along the Moormans River in Sugar Hollow. spoke concerning
VDOT's proposal to replace the last two bridges across the Moormans River. He expressed doubts about
VDOT's ability to carry out this task in an environmentally responsible manner and keep as its first priority
the feelings of Albemarle County citizens for this special area. He proposed that the Board consider
designating the last three miles of Sugar Hollow Road, below the dam. as a County scenic area with a sign
at the entrance indicating slower speeds and reminders to drivers of the diversity of traffic on the road.
Agenda Item No. 7~ Transportation Matters:
Mr. Mills said a preconstruction meeting is being held today, November 6th, on the proiect to
construct the acceleration lane off of 1-64 eastbotmd onto Route 20 southbound. Construction should begin
soon
Mr. Mills said VDOT has sent out notices concerning the design public hearing for the proposed
improvements to the two bridges on Route 614 (Sugar Hollow Road~, VDOT plans to meet with David
Hirschmann and the Scenic Pdver Committee prior to the public hearing to address some of the
environmental concerns,
Mi. Tucker asked that VDOT be sensitive to the Sugar Hollow area and the Moormans River. tn
the same fashion that was displayed with the Milling'mn Bridge.
Mr. Mills said a public hearing wSll be scheduled some time in December on the relocation of the
Bellair Entrance. Mrs~ Thomas said several plans have been mentioned but one concerned moving the
Bellair Road to align with the exit of the Route 25~pass. Mr. Mills said VDOT is considering the
Printed on recycled paper
Mrs. Angela Tucker
November 8. [996
Page 2.
alignment of the road with the Route 250 Bypass under the railroad structure and the installation of a
signal.
Mrs. Thomas said she attended a meeting about the Ivy intersections and there were a lot of
questions about the warrant system for signals. Since she wants to understand this system better, she is
setting up a briefing with VDOT staff.
Mr. Bowerman said a representative from VDO~f is supposed to be attending the Raintree
Homeowners Association meeting on Ftidav to discuss the warrant system for signals. He asked that
whoever attends this meeting provide that same information.
Mr. Perkins said he thinks the County should look at designating Sugar Hollow Road. from the
intersection of Route 614 to Route 676. as some sort of spedal road with a reduced speed limit. He asked
the posted speed limit. Mr. Mills said there is no posted speed limit on the road: there are notices posted
of curves for safe speeds. Normally on curvy roads there is more success with speed warning signs than with
speed limit signs because drivers will slow down to a proper speed for a curve.
Mrs. Humphris said she also would like consideration given to designating something for that road
Mr. Tud<er said if it is the consensus 6f the Board. he will ask staff to look at the best way to handle
the road. He thinks' consideration shodid be given to designating the entire area, not iust the road. as a
natural resource. Mrs. Htwnphris suggested that any other areas in the County that are comparable or
significant in some way to iustify a special designation also be considered.
Mr. Martin again asked VDOT to consider a "right turn on red" at the intersection of Rio Road and
Route 29 North. He did not see what the problem was with this request. VDOT has the authority. The
turn movement can be restricted to certain times
Board members offered their congratulations on the birth of your daughter.
Sincerely,
Ella W. Carey, CMC. Clerk /
~EWC
cc: Robert W. Tucker, Jr.
V. Wayne Cilimberg
Richard E. Huff. II
Mr. Bill Mills
PROPOSED STATE ROUTE
649 UPGRADE.
CHARLOTTESVILLE-ALBEM,~RLE AIRPORT
AIRPORT
Chc rlotCesville/AIbemarle.,
"September 27, 1996
The Honorable Charlotte Y. Humphris, Chair
Albemarle County Board of Supervisors
401 Mclntire Road
Charlottesville, VA 22902-4596
Re:
Airport Road (State Route 649)
Application for Intermodal Surface Transportation
Efficiency Act (ISTEA) Enhancement Fund Grant
Dear Mrs. Humphris:
On behalf of the Charlottesville-Albemarle Airport Authority, we would tike to take this
opportunity to express our appreciation to the County of Albemarie for its support and
commitment to improving Airport Road (State Route 649).
While County resources, Airport Access Funds and Airport Authority Passenger Facility Charge
Revenues are available to support this project, it seems that since this road links ground and air
transportation funding fi'om the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA)
Program and Nationai Highway Administration might be appropriate as well.
VvSth regards to the ISTEA program, it is our understanding that the County of Albemarle is very
interested in providing bike lanes and sidewalks for Airport Road (Route 649). As such, it would
seem appropriate for the Couray to file an application through the ISTEA Enhancement C~'ant
Program for this phase of the project Moreover, this road is now eligible to receive National
Highway System (NITS) funding consideration g/yen that it is a connector to U.S. Route 29. It is
not known if this implies that an additional source of funds is available to support construction;
however, it would seem prudent to pursue the viability of utilizing the NHS program.
The Charlottesville-Albemarle Airport Authority endorses the concept of seeking to maximize
federal aid for improvements to Airport Road (Route 649) and respectfully requests that the
County of Albemarle file all necessary appl/cations under the ISTEA Enhimcement Grant Program
for the bike lanes and sidewalks and, at the same time, seek to utilize NHS funds for this project
Charlottesville-Albemarle Airport Authority
201 Bowen Loop · Charlottesville, VA 22901 · (804) 973-8341
· Fax (804) 974-7476
Mrs. Charlotte Y. Humphris
September 27, 1996
Page 2
Thank you for your time and continued assistance with this most important project.
Sincerely yours,
Chairman
Executive Director
pc~
Gary B. O'Connetl, City Manager and Vice-Chair, Airport Authority
Robert W. Tucker, Jr., County Executive and Albemarle County Representative to
the Airport Authority
COUNTY OF ALBEMARI E---L/'
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
Request to amend the Albemarle County Service
Authority (ACSA) Jurisdictional Area
SUBJECTIPROPOSAUREQUEST:.
Consider holding a public hea~ing to amend the AOSA
Jurisdictional Area to provide water se~ce designation for
Virginia Department of Transportation (Tax Map 79,
Parcel 3A)
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Mssre. Tucker, Cilimberg, Benish
BACKGROUND:
AGENDA DATE:
November 6, 1996
ITEM NUMBER;
ACTION: X INFORMATION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION:
INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS://~.~Yes
REVIEWED BY:
/
The Virginia Department of Transportation O/DOT) requests amendment of the Albemarle County Service Authodty's
jurisdictional area in order to provide for water service to their preperbJ. This would require access to the ex[sting 16"
waterline which crosses the applicant's property and runs along Rt. 250 East. The applicant states that they are
experiencing water quality problems (bad taste and corrosiveness), however, their tests have not shown the water to be
health threatening. The applicant also states that they lack water for rest room facilities during power outages. (see
Attachment A)
DISCUSSION:
The applicant's property is located outside of the designated Development Area off of Rt. 250 East in Rural Area 2, and
is zoned PA, Rural Areas. (see Affachment B) The applicant's properbJ currently is located outside the Albemarle County
Service Authority (ACSA) jurisdictional area for "water and sewer" service. (see Attachment C)
With the development of Glenmore in the Village of Rivanna, a water line was installed along the Rt. 250 East corridor
from the Urban Area to Glenmore. Subsequently, the Stone Robinson School receded jurisdictional area designation
for water, and a water line was constructed to serve the school [rom the main line on Rt. 250. Regarding the Village of
Rivanna, the Comprehensive Plan states the following recommendation: "Water capacity shell be reserved for a potential
new school in the Vii{age until such time as determined that the school is not necessary." Regarding provision of public
utilities, the Comprehensive Plan is intentionally specific in objective and strategies as to where and under what
circumstances public utilities should be made available. The Comprehensive Plan states:
Strate(~ies for Definin,q Public Water and Sewer Service Areas:
Follow the Boundaries of the designated Development Areas in delineating jurisdictional areas.
Only allow changes in jurisdictional areas outside of designated Development Area boundaries in cases where
the property is: (1) adjacent to existing lines; and (2) public health or safety is endangered."
The Comprehensive Plan also warns that "such utilities are not to be extended to the Rural Areas as these services can
increase development pressures." (p. 146) Public water service to this parcel is not consistent with this intent and could
set a precedent for allowing water service to other parcels along this corridor.
No information has been provided that indicates that public health or safety are endangered, nor have any steps to solve
the poor taste, smell and corrosiveness problems been documented. The ACSA indicates that it can provide~ the s~ervlce,
and that an onsite pressure reducing valve will be required. No other s gn ficant improvements w be ['equ.~d ]~o~ov_ de
water to the property. (see Attachment D)
The Virginia Dept. of Health indicates that as a result of a history of problems with water quality ah~ ae'sth[~tics~bf the
drinking water supply, they would be supportive of an extension of water service to serve this site.. (s_e.e~tta.~h~e~t
The Board of Supervisors has considered and denied two requests for water only service for nearby parcels along this
stretch of 250 East (Booth/Exum (Geco Oil) and Alten G. Dillard). The Booth/Exum request (TM 79, Parcels 18 and 19)
was based on concemswith groundwater contamination. The Dillard request (TM 79, Parcel 4P) was based on a need
for fire suppress'mn. The Board has also considered and approved one request for water only service to Clifton, The
Country inn (TM 79, Parcels 23B, 23C, 23F). However. the circumstances for Clifton distinguish it from the VDOT
request now under consideration as well as THE Booth/Exum and Dillard requests. The applicant in the Clifton request
made welFdocumented efforts to solve the health and safety issues related to water on their site whi~e working closely
with the VA Department of Health and a private well-drilling company. Staff opinion was that Clifton had exhausted all
reasonable avenues for addressing water quantity and quality concerns.
RECOMMENDATION:
This request is not consistent with the strategies of the Comprehensive Plan for the provision of sewer service outside of
the designated Development Areas and is not consistent web prior Board decisions in this area regarding the prowsion
of water service. No verification of endangerment to public health and safety has been provided. Based on this
information, staff does net recommend approval of this request and, therefore, does not see a necessity for this to
proceed to public hearing~
ATTACHMENTS:
A- Applicant's Description and Justificafion
B - Locafion Map
C - Jurisdictional Areas Map
D - Letter from Albemarle County Service Authofibj
E - Letter from Virginia Department of Health, Thomas Jefferson Health District
VDOT,SUM
96.207
AMEND TIlE
ounBr of Albemarlo
qn~ment 6f Plsnni,~g and Community Development
401 McintLm Road
· COzAPPL[CANT Name (or agenl, if any)
Signature:
:bOcCie
For Staff Use
DAVID R. GEHR
COMMISSIONER
COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
701 VDOT WAY
CHARLOTTESVILLE. 22911
September 12, 1996
~ G. TUCKER
~ESIDENT ENGINEER
Jurisdictional Water Tap
Mr. Wayne cilimber9
Dept. of Planning &
Community Development
401 MeIntire Road
Charlottesville, VA.
22902
Dear Mr, Cilir~berg:
Attached. please find application for a cap into the water line along Route
250 them passes through our property. Although we have been told that the existing
well wame~ is not e health hazard, it poses a problem for corrosiveness and a foul
taste. We currently use bottled waser for our drinking needs.
In addition to above stated problems with the water, we do not have access mo
any wamer when the power is off for rest room facilities. If the ~ap ms allowed,
we could install our own water line to necessary facilities.
We appreciate your consideration of a jurisdictional amendment mo make this
allowable.
Yours truly, ///
~. W, Mills
Assistant Resident Engineer
HWM / 1 dw
Attachment
TRANSPORTATION FOR THE 21ST CENTURY
COUNTY
5A
ALBEMARLE
Jur±sdicttenal Area Request
SHADWELL
RIVANNA AND
SGOTTSVILLE DISTRICTS
SECTION 79
REVISION DATES:
~I. BEMARLE
12/18/91; 6/3/92
COUNTY
~ATTACHMENT C~
BO
%5o
RIVANNA DISTRICT
SECTION
'79
SERVICE AUTHORITY
JURISDICTIONAL AREAS MAP KEY
WATER ONLY
WATER AND SEWER
WATER ONLY TO EXISTI.NG STRUCTURES
These are existing structures as of the
adopted date, either 10-1-82 or 8-10-83
Please see "List of Existing Structures
OR Development Rights" for sPecific
structures and, dates.
LIMITED SERVICE
Please see "List. of Existing Structures OR
Development Rights" for specific limitations,
ALBEMARLE
FROM:
DATF :
J ATTACHMENT D
C OUNTYS IRVICE AUTHOIRIT',,,'
Claudia Paine, Planner g~~
Paul A. Shoop, Director of ~gineerin
Septe~er 30, 1996
~OT - Rt. 250 Prope~y
In response to your inquiry concerning water service to VDOT
headquarters on Rt. 250E, I offer the following:
-There is an existing 16" waterline onsite.
-Pressure will exceed 100 psi'and a private pressure
reducing valve will be required.
-No recent flow tests are available, but fire flow will
exceed 2500 gpm~
-The subject property is not within our jurisdictional area.
Other than having to provide an onsite pressure reducing
valve, no significant engineering will be required to
provide water to the property. If you need additional
information, feel free to call.
PAS:dmg
In Cooperation with the
State Department of Health
Phone {804) 972-6219
FAX (804) 972-4310
COMMONWEALTH o[ VIRGINIA
Thomas Jefferson Health District
1138 Rose Hill Drive
P, O. Box 7546
Charlottesville, Virginia 22906
IATTACHt4ENT E [
October 17. 1996
Claudia L. Paine, Senior Planner
Albemarle County Dept. of Planning
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, VA 22902
Dear Claudia:
As you have most recently brought to my attention, VDOT has requested that the
jurisdictional area for public water service be extended to their Rt. 250 Headquarters so that they
may connect to the public water line. Given the past history of their present water supply and
problems stemming from its quality and aesthetics as a drinking water supply, this department
would support any initiative to extend water service to these headquarters. With that in mind. it
might also help address future development in the Hunters Hall Subdivision commercial
development in meeting needs for "public" water supplies without drilling more wells in the
area.
I hope this addresses your request relative to the aforementioned request, however if you have
any further questions or need assistance, please do not hesitate to contact me.
Sincerely,
G. Stephen Rice
Senior Field Advisor
I § 1996
Planning Dept,
~ISTR~E~L~T~:~ TO BOARD
COUN
OF
AL~NIAKL~
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
Alb~marle Ne/ghborhood's Association Growth Management
Proposal
SUB.rECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Discussion oftheabove noted proposal,
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Messrs. Tucker, Cilimberg, Ben/sh
AGENDA DATE:
November 6, 1996
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION:
ATrACHMENTS:
REVIEWED BY:
ITEM NUMBER:
INFORMATION: X
INFORMATION:
BACKGROUND:
Attached please find comments from the Department of?lanning and Community. Development and County
Attorney's Office to the Albemarle Neighborhood's Association proposed Growth Management Plan, which
was presented to the Board at its September 4, 1996 meeting.
DISCUSSION:
See attached information.
RECOMMENDATION:
For discussion.
SUMMARY FORM
96.209
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Dept. of Planning & Community Development
401 Mclntire Road
Charlottesville Virginia g2902-4596
(804) 296-5823
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
RE:
Robert W. Tucker, Jr., County Executive
David B. Benish, Chef of Community Development
October 30, 1996
Albemarle Neighborhood Association Growth Management Plan
This is to provide stuff comment regarding the Albemarle Neighborhood Association's "Growth
Management Plan for Albemarle County." This report provides preliminary comments regarding
feasibility, appropriateness, and timing for consideration of these recommendations. At the
outset, we wish to ackmowledge our appreciation for the interest, energy, and thought put into
this effort. Also attached are comments from the County Attorney's Office regarding the
Association's recommendations.
Limit speculative development. All rezonings, regardless of compliance with the Comprehensive
Plan, and changes to the Comprehensive Plan allowing more intensive uses shall be considered only
ff accompanied by a detailed staff analysis,of:
the undeveloped land already zoned for the use proposed. Rather than just expressing this
figure in acres, staff should estimate the amount of building square footage possible on land
zoned for commercial and industrial developmem. For residentially zoned land, staff
should calculate the number of dwelling units which could be built.
projected demand for the proposed use based upon current population projections and
relevant employment data.
Rezoulngs allowing expansions of existing businesses shall be exempt from this requirement.
Staff can provide additional information for rezoning requests regarding the inventory of
existing zoned land. However, it should be noted that the fact that land is zoned does not
necessarily mean that it is available for development to meet demand. For Comprehensive
Page 2
October 30, 1996
Plan Amendments, an analysis of need and existing availability of land in the proposed land
use are already a fundamental part of the review process. In terms of evaluating projected
demand for the proposed use (b, above), the acreage recommended In the Land Use Plan for
the various types of development in the Comprehensive Plan are based on population and
employment projections. The Plan is npdated every five years which allows for adjustment to
Land use Plan based on future trends/needs. The most recently adopted Land Use Plan was
targeted by the Planning Commission to meet projected needs in the next five years rather than
trying to accommodate a greater 20 year need. There are not vast designated development
areas not zoned to their Comprehensive Plan designations. In fact, much of the designated
industrial and commercial land is currently zoned in those uses. Therefore, industrial and
commercial rezonings consistent with the Plan are generally considered to also be consistent
with five to ten years growth projections and not highly speculative. It should also be noted
that residential development is not considered in and of itself to drive growth, but rather
accommodate it. While the inventory of residential land for potential development far exceeds
5 to 10 year demands, a significant proportion of that inventory is in the Rural Areas.
Rezonings for greater residential density in Development Ares need to be viewed in that
context, for if residential development cannot be achieved in the Development Areas, the goals
for conserving the Rural Areas can be frustrated Staff opinion is that this recommendation as
regards speculative development, particularly as it pertains to projections, is most appropriate
to Comprehensive Plan Amendments.
2o
Develop a program to purchase development rights. The purchase of development rights program
shall target the permanent protection of selected areas ofprime farmlands critical habitat to insure
biodiversity, environmentally sensitive land and greenbelts and greenways in the growth areas.
Funding would not necessarily come from a general tax increase, but from additional revenues from
tourism-based taxes and tax increment financing tied to industrial and office development (if
authorized by state law.) One way to fund the purchase of development rights would be to present a
bond issue to the voters, which may be linked to the construction of new schools or infrastructure.
This proposal acknowledges that not all community desires can be realized through regulation.
and that the County will need to take a more proactive approach to ensure that its resource
protection goals are achieved. The Open Space Plan amendment to the Comprehensive Plan
identifies a PDR program as a possible tool to achieve resource protection. The Mountain
Protection Plan identifies a PDR program as a possible implementation tool. One of the
primary difficulties with this type of program is establishing a sufficient and stable source of
funding. Also, based on the Virginia Code provisions which enable such a program, the area
of the County eligible for such a program may be limited (See County Attorney comments).
Nevertheless, the County should further evaluate the development of such a program as a
mechanism to address priority areas for protection/conservation which are, or may be,
Page 3
October 30. 1996
established the Comprehensive Plan (significant open space resources, mountain areas, historic
sites, etc.). Such a program should also be considered with the discussion of any other
initiatives which may reduce development potential in the Cotmty, unless that reduction is
clearly supported under zoning criteria.
Reduce commercial speculation in the rural areas by phasing annually the existing development
rights per owner. Phasing these development rights will provide economic safeguards for rural
families while preventing residential development of a commercial scale.
Tiffs may deter, but is unlikely to prevent commercial subdivision in the rural areas. It can have
the affect of piecemeal subdivision with increased stripping of existing mad frontages since
subdividers would not want to hold post long-term bonds for internal roads. Therefore, it could
become a disincentive for any sort of planned approach to the rural subdivision development that
can take place by-right. One possibility to evaluate would be to require an annual phasing of
development rights except in the cases where the rural preservation development option is
utilized. This would serve as a incentive for the RPD development alternative. This should be
taken up as a consideration during the Comprehensive Plan Rural Areas review scheduled in the
Development Departments' Work Program m occur over the next year.
Increase the size of rural lots from 21 to at least 42 acres. According to the Board-appointed
Agricultural and Forestal Industries Support Committee, "Forest sizes below 40 acres are difficult to
manage economically. The Comprehensive Plan identifies agriculture and forestry as the two
primary uses of the Rural Areas, yet the 21-acre parcel size leads to tracts too small to manage
efficiently and eeonomic~ally as forests.
Tiffs option should also be considered in the upcoming review of the Rural Areas section of
the Comprehensive Plan. During the previous review of the Comprehensive Plan in 1989, the
Staff and Planning Commission bad recommended increasing the rural lot size to 40 acres for
reasons similar to those identified by the Agricultural/Forestry Industries Support Committee.
That recommendation was not endorsed by the Board at that time. It should be noted that this
increase in the rural lot size does not significantly reduce the inventory of potential lots in the
Rural Areas. A very preliminary estimate is that of the 59,000 potential lots inventory in the
Rural Area. about 6,000 potential large lots would be would be extinguished. Nevertheless, it
does provide some reduction in the available inventory of lots and establishes a rural lot size
more appropriate to agricultural and forestry activities. An alternative would be to also
consider a maximum development right lot size. While not reducing the number of lots, it
would reduce the area devoted to small lots, potential providing more visible open space.
Page 4
October 30, 1996
Support the principles embodied in the recommendations of the County's Mountain Protection and
Historic Preservation Committees in order to protect important natural and man-mode resources.
The review of the Mountain Protection Plan is underway with the Planning Commission. The
Commission has already adopted a resolution to amend various ordinance provisions consistent
with the Committee's recommendations. The Planning Commission will be holding a public
hearing on the Plan and amended regulations. Once the Historic Preservation Committee work is
completed it will also be reviewed by the Commission and Board. The Historic Preservation
Committee will be providing a stares report on its progress to the Board within the next six
weeks.
Hire a nationally recognized consultant experienced in neighborhood design to work directly with
neighborhoods and a steering committee to develop detailed, graphic plans for in-f'fll and new
communities.
With the assistance of the steering committee, the consultant will develop strategies for implementing the
community plans which are consistent with State law. Based upon the consultant's recommendations, the
County will establish guidelines to be used in determining the impact of residential and non-residential
development on each of the communities and neighborhoods within those communities;
These plans will:
a. develop or retain a neighborhood diaracter/identify for each of the communities;
b. indicate areas appropriate for in-fill development, including type and density;
c. indicate overall patterns of land uses;
d. reflect the cultural and landscape heritage of the Central Virginia Piedmont;
e. incorporate natural features;
f. delineate outside boundaries for communities which shall be protected by establishing permanent
greenbelts;
g. indicate relationship of development to existing and projected infrastructure as needed to serve the
community over the next 20 years, including utilities, roads, parks, greenways, schools, etc.; or
identify the infrastructural limits to growth;
h. ~nstratc preliminary community design concepts for key areas witifin each
growth area (e.g. the intersection of Route 29 and Proffit Road).
Staff, in conjunction with Bruce Dotson and Pete Anderson of thc Planning Commission, have
forwarded to the Planning Commission a recommendation for proceeding with the Development
Page 5
October 30, 1996
Area Initiatives, i.e., encouraging high quality development infilled and/or retrofitted, within
exist'mg Develop Areas. The recommendations include the creation of a Community Steering
Committee to provide assistance and guidance in implementing the Development Area Initiatives
process. It also recommends hiring a consultant to undertake and manage a public
input/education process and providing a report with findings and recommendations for
implementing the community consensus (See Attachment C). At their meeting on Tuesday,
October 29 the Commission, by a 4-0 vote (three members absent) endorsed tltis proposal and
has forwarded to the Board for appropriate action.
DBB/jcf
STAFF PERSON:
WORK SESSION:
WAYNE CILtMBERG/DAVID BENISH
OCTOBER 29, 1996
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR PROCEEDING DI~
Based on the discussions with Bruce Dotson and Pete
carrying out the Development Area initiatives, i.e., en
infilled, and/or retrofitted, within existing Developme
Community Input and Education - It is esse
what would be considered a desirable characte
educate the public as to benefits and qualities
Residents, landowners, and businesses, particr
where most new development is expected and
of this effort and feel comfortable with, and ac
development in the County. It is argued by so
often raised by residents result from the genen
development. If there is an understanding and
development will look like, how it relate to its
by community facilities and services, the Corn
build such a community.
To provide tbis public input and education ef
public forums or charrettes, will be necessar,
form of a consultant with experience in conser
development and design concepts. This proce'.
appropriate examples, both local and from oth,
public to understand the implications of new d
the concepts and possibilities.
Initial Changes to Implement Ne~v Initiative
thorough iu identi£ying the vision/character of
to make the necessary and appropriate policy ~
new development to beg~n to meet the County
Development Areas is being established, an in
appropriate policies and regulations to begin ir
that is occurring as the County deliberates ~i.e.
maximum setbacks [build-to line], reduce and/
requirements, establish minimum developmen'
VELOPMENT AREA INITIATIVES
Anderson regarding the process for
:ouraging high quality development
~t Areas, several conclusions were reached;
~tial to obtain general public input on
: of development and concomitantly
~£ achieving more urban style development.
larly those in the Development Areas
mcouraged, need to understand the value
:epting of, the ultimate character of new
ne that the concerns for new development
1 lack of quality and character of that new
general consensus of what new
surroundings, and how it will be supported
ty will be better able to move t'orward to
rt a public participation process, such as
This will require outside assistance in the
sus building and expertise in urban
s needs to be visually oriented with
~,r places. It is difficult for the general
,~velopment without being able to visualize
s - While we need to be deliberate and
the Development Areas, we must also start
nd ordinance changes to encourage"require
expectations. As the picture for the
tial phase of changes should be made to
lplementing this vision in development
reduce minimum setbacks or establish
>r establish maximum parking
density, standardize review process for
critical slopes waivers in Development Areas, provide greater flexibility for alternative
approaches for providing public road access/road design).
Modeling and Implementing at Neighborhood/Community Level -
Neighborhood/Community level planning will be an essential step in identifying a
localized vision for sub-areas of the Development Areas. The Cotmty began developing
of Neighborhood/Community plans in 1992, and prior to the beginning of the update of
the Comprehensive Plan, had completed two: the Neighborhood Three (Pantops) Plan
and The Crozet Community Plan. The approach to development of these Plans needs to
be revisited and given high priority. Even greater emphasize in these plans needs to be
placed on community design, scale, and land use relationships. A concept of "target"
plans should be explored that might better show how the actual physical development of
these areas should occur. The preparation of an advance target plan could be a pre-
condition for adding new areas to the designated Development Areas.
Proposal--Steps
Consider implementation of infill development as a three step process reflective of the three
points raised above. Steps to undertake this process:
A. Organ~ze a public involvement/charrette process
Establish a citizen steering committee to assist in developmem of public
involvement\charrette process.
Develop an RFP for a consultant to undertake and manage the public input/charrette
process and provide professional assistance in providing visual examples of design
possibilities, analysis of findings, and recommendations to implement infill program.
Consultant to provide a report with findings and recommendations for implementation of
the community consensus.
Findings and recommendations forwarded through steering committee to Planning
Commission and Board.
B. Begin Implementation of Measures
Staffmoves forward with basic implementation measures. This work can be done al staff
level by the Development Departments and County Attorney's Office, and forwarded
through the Steering Committee to the Planning Commission and adopted by Board with
standard public hearing process.
This initial phase would focus on very basic changes; those that are non-controversial and
predictable in their impact (such as revision to setback, parking, and road frontage
requirements, and other road design modifications). This initiative would be undertaken
concurrent with Step A above.
C. Develop Community or Neighborhood Plans
The purpose is to provide a more detailed general planning document for the
Neighborhoods and Communities that make up the Development Areas.
The plans would:
-specifically define the character of an area and the vision for its furore development as
a building block in the community;
-evaluate existing build out potential and resultant impacts and compare this to alternative
land use patterns and development scales;
-establish site specific implementation measures (recommendations, development
standards/guidelines) regarding land use patterns, futura development
character/scale/design, and the provision of public facilities, services, and transportation
and other infrastructure;
-other local issues as appropriate.
Development of these plans would begin after completion of Step A.
Initial Plan development would function as a model for other Community/Neighborhood
plans and will, m an even greater extent than in previous Neighborhood/Community
plans, emphasize desired scale and character of physical development intended for thal
study area ("Target Plan" concept). Developmeut of Neighborhood plans is already a
recommended Action Agenda initiative in the newly adopted Land Use Plan.
A community advisory committee would be established for the selected
Community/Neighborhood to assist in development of the Plan.
The Community of Hollymead (or Hollymead and Piney Mountain together), including
the North Fork Research Park and other non-residential uses, is recommended for the
next Plan.
CITIZEN STEERING COMMITTEE
Purpose of committee
The purpose, or mission, of the committee is to provide assistance and guidance in the
development of a public input/education process m define the general vision for, and character
of, the built environment of our Development Areas consistent with the Goals, Objectives, and
General Principles of the Land Use Plan.
3
The steering committee will:
~establish the expectations for the type of public input process and desired outcome;
-provide input in RFP development and consultant selection (through selected
membership on interview committee);
-work with consultant in development of presentation materials and public participation
process;
-review and comment on the findings/recommendations from the consultant.
Citizen/professional groups potentially to be represented on the Steering Committee:
Citizen Groups:
Albemarle Neighborhood Association
Citizens for Albemarle
Piedmont Environmental Council
League of Women Voters
Business Groups:
Chamber of Commerce
Blue Ridge Home Builders Association
Board of Realtors
Professional Organizations/Interests:
Design Review Council
American Institute of Architects (AIA)
American Society of Landscape Architects (ASLA)
County Elected/Advisory Bodies:
Board of Supervisors
Planning Commission (two members, w\ one the U.Va. ex-off, member)
Housing Committee
Others:
Thomas Jefferson Sustainablility Council
City of Charlottesville Dept. of Community Development
NAACP
A:\INFILL.RFT
4
COUNTY OF AI BEMARLE
MEMORANDUM
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLe-_
I:::XECUTIVE OFFICE
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
RE:
Robert W. Tudcer, Jr., County Executive
V. Wayne Cilimberg, Director, Planning and Community Development
David Benish, Chief of Commtmity Development
Larry W. Davis, County Attorney~
October 28, 1996
Legal Review of Growth Management Plan for Albemarle Count.v
I have been asked to provide a legal overview of the six components of the
proposed Growth Management Plan for Albemarle Coun(y presented to the Board of
Supervisors on September 3. 1996. The Plan is set forth below with a brief legal analysis
following each component.
1, Limit speculative development. All rezonings, regardless of compliance with the
Comprehensive Plan, and changes to the Comprehensive Plan allowing more intensive uses shall be considered
only if accompanied by a detailed staff analysis of:
a. the undeveloped land already zoned for the use proposed, Rather than just
expressing this figure in acres, staff should estimate the amount of building square
footage possible on land zoned for commercial and industrial development. For
residentially zoned land, staff should calculate the number of dwelling units which
could be built.
b. projected demand for the proposed use based upon current population
projections and relevant employment data.
Rezonings allowing expansions of existing businesses shall be exempt from this requirement.
Legally, the Board of Supervisors can request its staff to provide the
analysis identified above for it to consider as parr of its rezoning decision-making
process. However, the law encourages the County to implement its Comprehensive Plan.
Robert W. Tud, er, Jr., County Executive
V. Wayne Cilimberg, Director, Planning and Community Development
David Benlsh, Chief of Community Development
October 28, 1996
Page 2
Caution should be exercised in denying rezomng applications based on criteria not found
in the Comprehensive Plan. A more prudent approach would be to amend the
Comprehensive Plan to address speculative development so that any action taken by the
Board would be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
2. Develop a program to purchase development rights. The purchase of development
rights program shah target the permanent protection of selected areas of prime farmland, critical habitat to
insure biodiversity, environmentally sensitive land and grecnbelts and greenways in the growth areas.
Funding would not necessarily come from a general tax increase, but from additional revenues
from tourism-based taxes and tax Increment financing tied to industrial and office development (if authorized
by state law.) One way to fund the purchase of development rights would be to present a bond issue to the voters,
which may be linked to the construction of new schools or infrastructure.
Albemarle County is enabled under the Open Space Land Act to develop
a program to purchase development rights. Such a program is limited to the "urban
area" of the County as defined by the Act. Although that definition is quite broad, it
may not indude the entire County.
Funding a program to purchase development rights may be challenging.
Funds available from property taxes and most other general taxes can be used to
purchase development rights. However, transient occupancy taxes (greater than 2% of
the room receipts) and tax increment financing do not appear to be available sources of
funding under existing law. The Countv is enabled to borrow money to purchase
development rights. However, such borrowing would require approval by referendum
of the voters because it would constitute long term debt.
A funding program similar to that used by Virginia Beach is not available
to the County because of the debt restriction for counties tmless the debt was approved
by referendum. Virginia Beach leverages its funds ( 11/2 cents of real estate tax plus other
general revenues) by entering into installment purchase agreements in which the City
pays only the interest on the purchase price of the development tights it acquires in each
of the first 25 years and then pays the principle in one lump sum payment in the 25th
year. This provides a means for the City to immediately purchase millions of dollars of
development rights and accumulate the funds to pay for these rights over 25 years.
Robert W. Tucker, Jr., County Executive
V. Wayne Cilimberg, Director, Plam~ing and Community Development
David Benish, Chief of Community Development
October 28, 1996
Page 3
3. Reduce commercial speculation in the rural areas by phasing annually the existing
development rights per owner. Phasing these development rights will provide economic safeguards for rural
families while preventing residential development of a commercial scale.
Phasing of development rights in the RA Zoning District if implemented
as part of a comprehensive downzoning of the rural area of the County is enabled. Such
a plan would reqttire a careful amendment to the Zoning Ordinance to assure that it was
uniformly and reasonably applied based on sound land use principles.
4. Increase thc size of rural lots from 21 to at least 42 acres. According to the Board-
appointed Agricultural and Forestal Industries Support Committee, "l%rest sizes below 40 acres are difficult to
manage economically." The Comprehensive Plan identifies agriculture and forestry as the two primary uses of
the Rural Areas, yet the 21-acre parcel size leads to tracts too small to manage efficiently and economically as
forests.
Increasing rural lot sizes if implemented as part of a comprehensive
downzoning of the RA Zoning District is enabled. Again, such a plan must be supported
by a comprehensive study identifying a reason for the downzoning based on sound land
use principles.
5. Support the principles embodied in the recommendations of the County's Mountain
Protection and Historic Preservation Committees in order to protect important natural and man-made resources.
Analysis of the Mountain Protection Ordinance and Historic Preservation
Ordinance is on-going. Although there is no specific enabling authority to protect the
mountain vistas, most of what is being proposed is enabled and can be implemented as
part of a comprehensive rezoning of the areas included in the designated overlay zoning
districts.
6. Hire a nationally recognized consultant experienced in neighborhood design to work
directly with neighborhoods and a steering committee to develop detailed, graphic plans for in-fill and new
communities.
With the assistance of the steering committee, the consultant will develop strategies for
implementing the community plans which are consistent with State law. Based upon the consultant's
recommendations, the County will establish guidelines to be used in determining the impact of residential and
non-residential development on each of the communities and neighborhoods within those communities.
These plans will:
a. develop or retain a neighborhood character/identify for each of the communities;
Robert W. Tucker, Jr., County Executive
V. Wayne Cilimberg, Director. Planning and Community Development
David Benish, Chief of Commtmity Development
October 28, 1996
Page 4
b. indicate areas appropriate for in-fill development, including type and density;
c. indicate overall patterns of land uses;
d. reflect the cultural and landscape heritage of the Central Virginia Piedmont;
e. incorporate natural features;
delineate outside boundaries lor communities which shall be protected by establishing
permanen! greenbelts;
indicate relationship of development to existing and projected infrastructure as needed
to serve the community over the next 20 years, including utilities, roads, parks,
greenways, schools, etc.; or identify the infrastructural limits to growth;
illustrate pre community design concepts for key areas within each growth area (e.g.
the intersection of Route 29 and Proffit Road).
Legally, the Board can retain an outside consultant to assist in developing
strategies for implementing plans to address the above issues. However, any strategy will
likely require amendments to the Zoning Ordinance and/or Subdivision Ordinance to
create the tools necessary to implement the strategy during the development review
process. Any development occurring prior to the adoption of such ordinance
amendments must be reviewed under existing ordinances, policies, and procedures.
Tiffs legal overview is intended only to provide assistance in devdoping a
general strategy to address a further review of the proposed Gromh Management Plan for
Albemarle Coun{y. More detailed review and analysis can be undertal<en at such time as
specific approaches or questions are developed or identified. If you need additional
information or opinions at this time, please contact me.
LWD:rcs
96-750.001
PIEDMONT ENVIRONMENTAL COUNCIL
~)ro~ec~in~ 'T-r~ ~n~ ~ onme~ i~ E~er~udy s ~;~s~ess
Comments on Albemarle County Staff's Response to ANA Growth Management Plan
November 6, 1996
1. Limit speculative development. Your staff recommends that this proposal is most
appropriate to Comprehensive Plan amendments, rather than rezonings. The PEC urges
you to:
a. Implement the method of calculating the potential for job formation which is
laid out in the ANA proposal.
b. Conduct this analysis as part of the rezoning review.
c. If a Plan amendment is needed to accomplish this, adopt such an amendment.
The current method employed by County staff projects the amount of land needed versus
the amount of land zoned in acres. While this is an appropriate start, it doesn't tell us how
many jobs could be accommodated on the land zoned. Determining job potential is a key
to mxderstanding the potential for population change and the attendant impacts on County
resources.
To complete the analysis suggested by the ANA would involve translating acres of
potential development into square feet. This analysis would include determining the total
amount of building area which could be accommodated on a site taking into consideration
zoning setbacks, floor area ratios and parking requirements. This square footage would
then be divided by the approximate number of square feet required per employee for that
type of land use.
Knowing the number of employees is essential to knowing whether the number of jobs
provided bears any relationship to the number of people expected to arrive here over the
next 20 years. This information helps determine whether the County is zoning more land
for industry and offices than it needs to provide jobs for the population it expects.
It is also important to remember that the Comprehensive Plan projects land use over 20
years. The County has both the authority and the responsibility to insure that the
recommendations of the Plan are phased over that 20 year period rather than put into
place the first year or two of the plmx.
Zoning substantially more land than needed ('which can best be determined using the
method suggested by the ANA proposal) leads to overzoning. This reduces the
"-5 Home: Street Bo>: 460. Warrcnto~ Virgmm 22186/703-'~47-2~34/Fa× 349-900]
1ili Rose Hfl': Drive 3tli~e 1 Chario~es',i'~e Virginia 22903/804-977-2033/Fax 9-'-6306
commurtity's control over its future and can fundamentally undermine the Comprehensive
Plan.
Overzoning is already a problem in Albemarle County. A PEC analysis indicates that
current LI zoning could accommodate between 63,000 and 66,000 new employees--a
number far in excess of the number of jobs needed to serve population growth estimates
over the next 20 years. A copy of this analysis is attached.
Planning staff implies that amending the Comprehensive Plan to require phasing is not
necessary because "there are not vast designated development areas not zoned to Comp
Plan designations." While it is true that few large tracts remain unzoned, there are over
300 acres in the County zoned Rural Areas, but designated in the Plan for industrial
development, according to a May, 1996 inventory of industrial sites generated by the
Plann~g Department. It makes sense tc amend the Plan to insure that rezonings for these
sites can be phased.
2. Develop a program to purchase development rights.
The Open Space Land Act defines "urban area" as "any area which is urban or urbanizing
in character, including semi-urban areas and surrounding areas which form an economic
and socially related region." This Act, with its broad definition of "urban area," is the basis
for the number of easements which have already been accepted by the County's Public
Recreation Facility Authority on rural preservation tracts all over the County. The entire
County falls within the Charlottesville metropolitan statistical area, which confirms the
economic and social connection between the rural and urban areas of the County and the
City of Charlottesville. It seems safe to assume that little, if any, land in Albemarle would
be excluded by this broad definition which has been unchallenged anywhere in Virginia in
the over 30 years that the Open Space Land Act has been law in the Commonwealth.
With regard to using the transient lodging tax, the Code of Virginia states that the
revenues collected from the portion of the tax exceeding two percent "shall be designated
and spent for promoting tourism, travel or business that generates tourism or travel in the
locality." in some cases, the County might contemplate the purchase of development
rights which would not meet this criteria and another source of revenue would have to
fund that purchase.
In many cases, however, the land so protected would directly benefit and promote tourism
by protecting the assets tourists come here to visit. According to the 1992 NFO Virginia
Pleasure and Business Visitor Study conducted by the Virginia Division of Tourism, 67% of
our tourists visit historic buildings, houses or sites. Another 62% visit national or state
parks. It appears well within both the letter and the spirit of the statute to use this revenue
to protect from inappropriate development land within Monticello's viewshed, land
surrounding significant historic buildings, land along Statescenic highways and land
visible from our State and National parks.
6. Hire a nationaIly recognized consultant.
We are pleased that Planning staff and the Planning Commission have endorsed ANA's
proposal to hire a consultant to work with the infill committee and citizens to devise
design standards for attractive, livable communities in the growth areas. The PEC
supports this initiative and we're ready to assist in any way we can. We ask that you take
the necessary steps to implement the recommendations of your staff and Commission,
PIEDMONT ENVIRONMENTAL COUNCIL
Pro~ecE~g 7'he £n~.i~onrnen~ Is ,Everybody's ~usi~ess
Employment potential based upon existing industrial zoning
7/15/96
Albemarle County's "Industrial Inventory Database" as revised for 1995 shows
840.21 developable acres acres zoned for industrial use. This acreage has been
adjusted to delete land in critical slopes or floodplain. This figure includes only zoned
acreage. It does not include apprordmately 1,000 acres of land zoned for office or
retail use allowed in zones other than industrial.
This 1995 estimation must be adjusted to reflect the 3 million square feet approved
for UREF and the 400 thousand square feet approved for the NGiC site. This
adjustment is made as described below.
In order to estimate the number of jobs which could provided on this land area it is
necessary to translate the acreage into square feet so that a building area factor can
be applied. 840.21 acres equals approximately 36,600,000 square feet.
Building area must be determined because projections of job potential associated with
allowable land use are calculated from building area, not acreage. Building area
reflects set backs ~mposed by the zoning ordinance and, most importantly, parking
requirements which can substantially reduce building area available to create work
space for job formation.
Two sets of factors for estimating building area in Albemarle County are available,
one for gross acreage (including critical slopes and flood plains), the other for net
developable acreage (excluding critical slopes and flood plains). In a 1993 report
County Staff stated that building coverage in the County has been historically
around 9% (3,900 square feet of building per acre). However. this is for gross acreage
-- not developable acreage. More current gross acre factors include 13% for the
UREF No,Ch Forks proposal (3 million sf/526 acres) as approved by the Board of
Supervisors in June, and 32% for the NGIC project (400 thousand sf/29 acres)
approved by the Board in May.
However, the projection made here is based on net developable acreage. In a 1988
Staff analysis of the development potential of the portion of the UREF site which was
then zoned PD-IP building ceverage of 49% l appro~im ately 2.5 million square feet of
potential building space on 115.6 developable acres) was assumed. This assumption
includes the assumption that construction would be limited to one s~ory buildings and
above-ground parking lots (no parking svructures). It also assumed
industrial/research facikities which require less parking area than office structures
under County ordinances ~hence more building space per acre).
Hornet Street Box ~-6C Warrenton. Virginia 22186/703-347-2334/Fax 349-9003
Rose Hill Drive Suite i. Charlottesville, Virgmm 22903/804-977-20J3/Fax 977-6306
P.E.C. staff familiar with parking and set back requirements of County ordinances
estimated building coverage for office development assuming one story buildings and
above-ground par~ing lots (no structuresj at 42% per net developable acre.
As described above the developable amount of industrially zoned land in the County m
1995 was 36,600,000 square feet. However, this includes 115.6 acres of developable
land zoned PD-IP owned by UREF in 1995 (115,6 is the net acreage determined
developable by a Planning Staff analysis in 1988). 115.6 acres ~s 5,035,536 square
feet. The 1995 base of developable industrially zoned land must be reduced by this
amount before estimating building area potential using the building coverage factors
suggested above:
36,600,000 sf -- 5,035,560 sf -- 31.564,464 sf.
Assuming a range of building area of 42% to 49% based upon the above factors, total
building area which might be realized on developable land zoned industrial in 1995
consistent with County ordinances m 14,554,875 sr. to 15~466,587 sf., excluding the
UREF land.
To this total is then added the amount of building area allowed by express proffers in
the UREF North Forks rezoning approved by the Board of Supervisors in June, 1996
(3 million sf.) and the amount of building area allowed by express proffers in the NGIC
rezoning m May~ 1996 (400 thousand sr.) to estimate of total building area allowed by
existing County industrial zoning:
14,554,875 s£ + 3,000,000 sr. + 400,000 sr. = 17,954,875 sE
15,466,587 s£ + 3,000,000 sr. + 400,000 sr. -- 18,866,587 sr.
In 1993 County staff estimated that, based upon County experience, the average
number of square feet of work space per employee m industrial facilities in the
County was 283 sf]employee, Applying this ratio to the potential total industrial
building area described above yields between 63,445 and 66,666 jobs.
If the ITE Manual estimate of 750 square feet of industrial space per employee is
used it indicates employment potential of 23,939 to 25,155 -- per shift.
Not included in this estimate:
land in other non-residential zoning categories
· spin~off jobs (considered to equal 75% of basic jobs)
jobs created by the public sector to which zoning is not applicable (e.g.
University faculty/staff expansion due to enrollment increases)
This memo suggests potential allowed under existing County industrial zoning, not
necessarily what will happen.
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE°U~
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
US Rte. 250 W Scenic Highway Provisions
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REOUEST:.
Analysis for reinstatement of scenic h/ghway regulations
STAFF CONTACT(SI:
Cilimberg, Davis, Joseph, Keeler
AGENDA DATE:
November 6, 1996
ACTION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION:
ITEM NUMBER:
]iNFORMATION: X
INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS: Yes~n ~[~
REVr~WED ~¥: ~/'TAf {
/
BACKGRO121ND:
At its May 17 meeting, the Board of Supervisors requested a study of possible rgmstimlion of Scenic Highway zomng provisions on
U. S. Rte. 250 W. Since that time, the Board has discussed the matter twice, the ARB has discussed the matter twice, and it has been
subject of a Quarterly RoundTable attended by 22 citizens and 11 staff
DISCUSSION:
The current staff repoxt discusses matters related to the Board of Zoning Appeals and vmances, the RoundTable meeting, the
Architectural Review Board, the Comprehensive Plan/Open Space Plan and development related issues. The Original staffreport
evaluated what was perceived as the problem or threat to be addressed- vacant commeruial/induslrial sites along Rte. 250 W. That
report stated that 19.5 acres existed in seven sites and that preliminary plans had been approved for ~wo of these sires.
This report expands the discussion:
In overview,/fthe sceuic pmv/sions are madopted, the regulations would logically apply to all Virginia B)~vays. From rough
count, this would make over 460 buildings nonconforming as to setback
The ARB dees not andorse the 150 foot setback as an aesthetic provision. The regulations should not be administered by the
ARB.
The setback cannot be made immune from variance by the BZA.
It would seem more appropriate to address underlying zoning ffland use is a concern since neither the Scenic Highways nor
Entrance Corridor provismns are intended for that purpose. Il'the intent of additinnal setback along these roadways is to
maintain a rural scenic character, evon within designated development areas, then a uniform 75 foot setback (as for the Pg.
zone) may be appropriate.
RECOM2VlENDATION:
Staff remahas of the opM/on that the current Entrance Corridor provisions provide for adequate aesthetic protection and the Architectural
Review Board supports this position. Staff continues to believe that readopfion of the Scenic Highways promsions is not necessary as
an aesthetic measure and recommends no action.
Should the Board choose to pursue the matter further, staff offers the following resolution language:
ro seine the pubhc necessity, convenience, general welfare, or good zoning practice, the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors hereby
resolves to amend the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance to include a Scenic Highways Overlay district ~'e~'~$ ~'~et-b a-~
f~or all buildings and structures of 150 feet fi-om the rights-of-way of Rt. 250 West, Rt. 20 North, Rt. 20 ~ 4/l ~ ~¢7¢.~/.~,.. ~1_5 ~, J:~. 231,
Rt. 22 from Rt. 250 East to Rt.231, Rt. 654, Rt. 601 from Rt. 654 to Rt. 676, Rt. 676 from Rt. 601 to Rt561:4 and Rt. 614.
SmEXEC.WPD }~¢1 ' 11996
96.206
Board Date: November 6, 1996
Staff:
Cilimberg, Davis, Joseph, Keeler
SCENIC HIGHWAY OVERLAY ZONING: UPDATE REPORT
BACKGROUND
At its May 17 meet'rog, the Board requested a study of possible reinstitution of Scenic Highway
zoning provisions on U. S. Route 250 W. Since that time, the Board has discussed the matter on
two occasions, the Architectural Review Board has discussed the matter on two occasions, and;
at direction of the Board, the County Executive's office and the Development Departments have
conducted a discussion at a Quarterly RoundTable attended by 22 members of the public and 11
staff.
During this period, staff has considered various comments, conducted additional study, and has
had discussion with the Cotmty Attorney's office and the ARB Design Planner. Staff has
reviewed the July 3 staff report in view of these activities and reissues that report in its entirety
(Attachment A ). Staff remains of the opinion that the current Entrance Corridor provisions
provide for adequate aesthetic protection. The Architectural Review Board supports this position
and staff continues to believe that readoption of the Scenic Highways provisions ~s not necessary.
The remainder of this report will qualify comment from the July 3 report, seek to summarize
comment received and provide comment on aspects not previously addressed.
VARIANCES
The July 3 report stated that 28 out of 30 variances had been granted by the BZA to the former
Scenic Highway setback regulations. This comment was not intended as evaluation or criticism
of BZA actions. To the contrary, it was intended to emphasize the variance activity resulting
from the 150-foot setback requirement. When a zoning reqmrement results in recurring variance
request, solution may not be variance but evaluation of the requirement itself. Section 34.2 of
the zoning ordinance, derived form the Code of Virginia, states that:
No variance shall be authorized unless the board of zoning appeals finds
that the condition or situation of the property concerned or the intended
use of the property is not of so recurring a nature as to make reasonably
practicable the formulation ora general regulation to be adopted as an
amendment to the ordinance.
It has been observed that only about two variances per year were requested to the Scenic
Highways setback. Unfortunately, no more thorough analysis can be provided as to how many
properties complied with the setback requirements and how many sought variance without
extensive research. However, the Scenic Overlay District was not intended to frustrate those
seeking m build. Likewise, there is no guarantee that variance will be granted in all cases. Staff
does believe that a zoning requirement that results in a substantial number of variances does raise
question as to its consistency with the intent of variances as set out in the Virginia Code.
The original staff report evaluated what was perceived as the problem or threat to be addressed-
vacant commercial/industrial sites along Rte. 250 W. That report stated that 19.5 acres existed
m seven sites and that preliminary site plans had been approved for two of those sites.
Staffhas performed a rough comet of existing buildings which would be made nonconforming if
a 150 foot setback were reimposed (This count represents addressable structures and does not
include accessory structures). If the setback were imposed along existing Virginia Byways, 464
buildings would become nonconforming. If the setback would be imposed at some future date to
additional Virginia Byways as proposed in the Virginia Department of Conservation and
Recreation's draft Virginia Outdoors Plan. an additional 197 buildings would become
nonconforming for a total of 661 existing buildings (Attachment B analyzes each roadway).
QUESTIONNAIRE- ROUNDTABLE MEETING
On September 28,.1996, a Quarterly RotmdTable was held to discuss aspects of reinstituting the
Scenic Highways zoning regulations. To provide a framework for discussion and seek comment
on various aspects which an ordinance would address, five questions were asked of the attendees
(Attachment C).
The meeting was attended by proponents, opponents and other members of the public. There
seemed to be consensus among the proponents that a 150 foot setback applicable to all types of
buildings should 1se required along all Virginia Byways and that there should be no general
allowance for setback reduction by either the ARB (or other County body) or by the Board of
Zoning Appeals. Not as clear is whether the EC district should be amended to include a 150 foot
setback or ( a hybrid) Scenic Highways district should be readopted. Also, if some provision for
reduction is included, there did not seem to be clear opinion as to criteria for reduction.
Some observations as to technical aspects of the zoning ordinance and zoning m general:
1 While there are certain types of variances that the BZA may not grant, the BZA clearly
has authority to grant setback variance. Therefore, the 150 foot setback could not be made
inviolate if included in the zoning ordinance and the County Attorney has stated that it could not
be made a 'non-zoning' provision of the County Code. If the setback is readopted, any property
which is formd to be restricted so that it has no economically viable use would either be entitled
to a variance or claim could be made that the property has been "taken."
2. One of the current and three of the proposed Virginia Byways do not meet the criteria
for EC designation set forth in the Code of Virginia (since they are not arterial roads or
highways). Therefore, not all Virginia Byways could be designated as EC roadways.
3. In 1987, the Scenic Highways provisions were amended to allow expansion of
existing agricultural and residential structures ~vithout requirement of variance. The prior
ordinance also allowed the Planning Commission to reduce setback under specific criteria during
site plan review.
4. Scanic Overlay provisions are not intended to reduce development potential provided
by the underlying zoning, but instead provide for additional protection of the.special or unique
character of an area. If the land use potential afforded a particular property or area by its zoning
is considered inappropriate or inconsistent with the intent of the Comprehensive Plan, that
underlying zoning should be considered for amendment.
5. The County Attorney has advised that application of the regulation would need to be
comprehensive and applied to all similar properties and that the roads it applies to would have to
be based on some rational basis. Since the Commonwealth has'already designated Virginia
Byways, it would seem that designation of all of these roadways would be approprime or reasons
for designating fewer roads should be clearly defined.
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD
the Architectural Review Board met on June 17, 1996 and made no recommendation for an
increased setback, preferring [o leave the design guidelines in generic form. This was reported to
the Board on July 3, 1996. On July 22 the ARB met again and discussed the matter with two
proponents of increased setback. The ARB believed this to be more ora zoning/land use issue
than an aesthetic consideration. In fact, comment was made that a mandatory 150 foot setback
could constrain the ARB from seeking design solutions in keeping with the context of a
particular site (Minutes of the June 17 and July 22 meetings are Attachment D).
The enabling legislation from which the EC regulations were derived stares that a locality may
adopt regulations requiring that "no building or structure, including signs, shall be erected,
reconstructed, altered or restored within any such district tmless the same is approved.. _ as
being architecturally compatible with the historic landmarks, buildings or structures" in the
district. While this provision does not directly speak to siting of buildings, it is staffopinion that
the extensive review afforded to the ARB ss appropriate to address historic and architectural
compatibility.
Adoption o£a 150 foot 'blanket' setback or an EC regulation could be viewed as a finding that
such setback is consistent with the historic development patterns throughout the County. Staff
does not believe this has consistently been the case since most older country stores, taverns/inns
and other historic commercial buildings are generally situated much closer to roadways..
In view of connnents by the ARB and after further review of the Code of Virginia provisions,
staff opinion is that a mandatory 150 foot setback within the EC district or ARB gu/delines
would be inappropriate, if not contrary, to the intent of that district. The EC district is a design-
based district not intended to reduce development potential of property nor to protect existing
business areas from competition.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: OPEN SPACE PLAN
Regarding Scenic Highways, the 1989 Comprehensive Plan contained the following strategies (p.
87):
--- Establish criteria for local scenic highways and streams and Virginia
Byways and Virginia Scenic Rivers. Prioritize qualifying roads and
streams and pursue local and state designations.
--- Review the Scenic Overlay District regulations for effectiveness and
amend as necesdary.
The Entrance Corridor (EC) Overlay district was added to the zoning ordinance in October,
1990.
The Open Space Plan was developed as an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan and adopted
in July, 1992. An implementation strategy from that plan states ~p.22):
--- Evaluate the effectiveness of the County Scenic Highways Overlay
regulations as compared to the Entrance Corridor (ECl Overlay
regulations and amend as necessary. Pursue additional County EC
designations as necessary (such as Meadow Creek Parkway).
--- Pursue Virginia Byway designations for roads meeting the state criteria.
In February, 1992, staff presented a number of zoning ordinance amendments m the Planning
Commission, As to Scenic Highways, staff stated that:
Section 30.5 Scenic Areas would become 30.5 Scenic Streams due to
recommended deletion of scenic highways provisions. Staffopinionis
that the EC, Entrance Corridor district (30.6) provides superior protection
to the sceptic highways provisions, therefore, the scenic highways provisions
are no longer needed (All Scenic Highways have been designated with EC
4
zoning). The only scenic highways requirements which could not be
required under EC regulation is a mandatory 150 foot setback for single
family detached dwellings. (Note: Several other ordinance sections are
proposed for amendment to reflect deletion of scenic highway regulations).
The Board of Supervisors repealed the Scenic Highways provisions on September 9, 1992.
Staff opinion is that County actions were in accord with the Comprehensive Plan and the Open
Space Plan.
The Comprehensive Plan is currently under revision. As with any extensive body of policy
statements, the plan may contain strategies or recommendations which when apphed to a
particular situation or context, may result in some conflict. The issue of applying increased
setback within designated development areas should be-weighed against infill, affordable
housing and other development policies. At[achment E is a graphic representation of the effect
of a 150 foot setback on minimum lot sizes for RA, VR, R-l, R-2, and R-4 zoned properties. As
can be seen, minimum lot size cannot be achieved for lots in the R-4 or denser zoning districts.
SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATION
If the intent of additional setback requirement is to maintain a rural, scenic character along the
entire route of certain roadways (including lands within designated development areas) then a 75
foot setback regardless of underlying zoning may accomplish that intent. This is the RA setback
requirement along existing state roads. Of note is that six of the BZA variances reduced setback
to 75 feet and eleven required more than a 75 foot setback.
Staff remains of the opinion that the current Entrance Corridor provisions provide adequate
aesthetic protection and the Architectural Review Board supports this position. While staff has
been unable to find any discussion as to the origin or basis of the prior 150 foot setback, neither
staff nor the ARB can clearly articulate any significant aesthetic advantage offered by a 150 foot
setback. Staff continues to believe that readoption of the Scenic Highways provisions is not
necessaryas an aesthetic measure and recommends no action.
Should the Board choose to pursue the matter further, staff would recommend a resolution of
intent to amend the zoning ordinance that would provide the broadest opportunity to fashion a
desired regulation. That is to say, the resolution should provide for the most restrictive
combination of provisions, which could be made less restrictive during public hearings. In terms
time involved in this procedure, written notification is required to be provided to owners of
properties that may be affected by the amendmem (i.e.- along existing Virginia By~vays). The
amendments would need to be written prior to advertisement for public hearing before the
Planning Commission. The following resolution lm~guage is offered:
To serve the public necess~ty, convenience, general welfare, or good zoning practice, the
Albemarle County Board of Supervisors hereby resolves to amend the Albemarle County Zoning
Ordinance to include a Scenic Highways Overlay district to require a minimum setback for all
buildings and structures of 150 feet from the rights-of-way of Rt. 250 West, Rt. 20 North, Rt. 20
S6uth, Rt.6, Rt. 151, Rt. 231, Rt.22 from Rt. 250 East to Rt. 231, Rt. 654, Rt. 601 from Rt. 654
to Rt, 676, Rt. 676 from Rt. 601 to Rt.614 and Rt. 614.
6
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
ATTACHMENT A
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
US Rte. 250 W Scenic Highway Provisions
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:.
Analysis for reinstatement of scenic highway regulations
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Cilimberg, Joseph, Keeler
AGENDA DATE:
July 3, 1996
ACTION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION:
ATTACHMENTS:
REVIEWED BY:
ITEM NUMBER:
INFORMATION:
INFORMATION:
X
BACKGROUND:
At ~ May 17 meeting, the Board of Supervtsers requested a study of possible reinstitufion of Scenic Highways zoning provisions
on US Rte. 250 W.
DISCUSSION:
The Scenic Highway zoning mgulafions were effec'dve in sign control, which ultimately resulted in State designation as a Scenic
Byway. The setback regulations were not effective. Of the 30 setback variances reviewed by the BZA (along all scenic roads),
28 were granted. Following adoption of the Entrance Corddor zoning regulations, establishment of the Architectural Review
Board and adoption of new signege regulations, the Scenic Highway provisions were repealed.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Architectural Review Board met on June 17, 1996 to discuss amending the zoning ordinance to redesignate Scenic
Highways by requiring a separate set of design standards. The ARB preferred to leave the design standards in their generic form
with a sensitivi~ in determining the applicafion of the guidelines that will recognize the contextual nature of the properties under
review (For example, the mrel area might be considered differently than the. urban areas). The ARB made no recommendation
for an increased setback in this area
There has been no demonstrated situation in which the current Entrance Corridor previsions have not provided superior
protection compared to the regulations of the Scenic Highways provisions. The Architectural Review Board has broad powers
which exceed those of the Planning Commission in site plan review. Staff has identified no area in which ARB powers of review
are inadequate for its intended purpose.
OPTIONS: The Board requested options to the current regulations:
'1. Add Scenic setbacks and sign regula~ons to EC zoning text:
Repeal EC designafion of Rte. 250 W and readopt Scenic Highways zoning district;
3, Increase setback to 75 feet along entire length of Rte. 250 W (i.e.-require Rural Areas setback for all zoning districts).
SCENICSU.WPD
96.119
BACKGROUND: SCENIC HIGHWAYS PROVISIONS
Prior to construction of 1-64, US Route 250 W was a major east-west route as well as the primary link
between Charlottesville and the southern end of the Skyline Drive. As such, the roadway was
developed with highway oriented businesses (motels, restaurants, gasoline service stations, country
stores, fruit stands, gift/craft/antique shops) to a greater extent than other County roadways. Billboard
signs were also prevalent along the road, particularly close to the City.
With the advent of zoning, citizen groups sought regulatory controls along the roadway m, among
other things, make the road eligible for state designation as a Virginia Scenic Byway. Two major
impediments to state designation were the proliferation of billboards and lack of local corridor
controls. Through dedicated efforts of the citizen groups, the Scenic Highways Overlay zoning district
was adopted in 1976.
The primary regulatory aspects of the Scenic highways ordinance were: a) sign regulation; and b)
increased building/parking setbacks. These regnlations were amended over the years, therefore, not
all of the provisions in the following analysis were in effect at once:
Signs: Generally, signs allowed in the district were smaller, fewer, and otherwise more restricted than
allowed in the underlying zomng districts. Some types of signs were not permitted (i.e.- roof signs).
The ordinance also regulated design features such as color and setback and required design approval
by Planning for individual signs. Many signs were made nonconforming with implementation of the
ordinance, and through amortization of these signs, Rte. 250 W eventually became eligible for State
designation. Therefore the ordinance was effective as to its purpose to restore scenic qualities related
to signage in order to obtain Virginia Scenic Byway designation.
Setbacks: At time of development of the Scenic Highway provisions, other localities were addressing
roadway aesthetics by such measures as increased setback to create a 'corridor' effect. Albemarle's
ordinance required a 50-foot parking and signage setback and a 150-foot building setback from the
road right-of-way. While the Board of Zoning Appeals heard 5 variances to sign regulations, the BZA
entertained 30 variances to setback regulations and approved 28 of the requests (These actions were
along all County scenic highways. Mapping of variances along Rte. 250 W will be presented atthe
Board meeting). Section 34.2 of the Zoning Ordinance, derived from the Code of Virginia, states that:
No variance shall be authorized unless the board of zoning appeals finds
that the condition or situation of the property concerned or the intended
use of the property is not of so recurring a nature as to make reasonably
practicable thb formulation of a general regulation to be adopted as an
amendment to the ordinance.~
~ While this language applies to the BZA, similar experience with private road waivers led to
amendmem to restrict the circumstances under which waiver could be granted. The Commission had
concluded that waivers had been so numerous that the "ordinance" did not exist in practice. Also, in
analysis of mobile homes by special use permit, stuff observed that so few permits had been denied
that continued special use permit review appeared unwarranted.
Based on this provision, it was evident that amendment to the regulations was warranted. While
amendments were made which allowed the Planning Commission to reduce setback under certain
circumstances, the BZA continued to grant variances. Therefore, the ordinance was not viewed as
effective in regard m setback.
While the Scenic Highways Overlay zoning district provided effective regulation of signs, setback
provisions were not as effective. During the period before repeal it was also observed that even
if effective, the regulations were of questionable aesthetic value in that there were no controls
over building design within the district. Also, sign regulations were effective only within the
district (i.e.- a depth of 150 feet). There was recognition that the County should have an
architectural review board.
DEVELOPMENT OF ENTRANCE CORRIDOR (IGC) OVERLAY ZONE
When directed to develop Entrance Corridor zoning regulations, staff initially recommended that the
regulations be accompanied by an historic zoning district. Also it was recommended that an
architectural review board be created and tasked with developing design guidelines for each of the
individual Entrance Corridor roadways before being given review authority. In the interim,
standardized measures were to be implemented by the Planning Commission (i.e.-additional
landscaping; increased setback) along with carry-over sign controls from the Scenic Highways
provisions. This approach was rejected as being ineffective as to aesthetic concerns and the staff'was
directed to develop more permanent provisions. Following extensive work sessions and public
hearings, the Board of Supervisors adopted the Entrance Corridor Overlay zoning district and created
the Architectural Review Board in November, 1990.
In July, 1992, new sign regulations, developed by Zoning with extensive public participation, were
adopted. These regulations prohibit 'billboards' throughout the County (Section 4.15.6 m.). While the
size and number &signs permitted within the EC district is the same as for the underlying zone, a
certificate of appropriateness if required from the ARB. The ARB deals with such matters as
materials, colors, lighting and the like in a manner similar to building review.
Also in 1992, Zoning and Planning undertook wholesale review &the zoning ordinance which
resulted in amendments intended primarily: "to address lingering issues identified by the Commission
and Board; to improve codified language as to interpretation; to update the ordinance to current Code
of Virginia provisions; and to modify or delete outmoded provisions." The Entrance Corridor
provisions and Architectural Review Board had been in existence for about two years and had
established a review history. The Scenic Highways provisions had been identified as ineffective
during original Entrance Corridor consideration. In recommending deletion of Scenic Highway
provisions, staff stated that:
Staff opinion is that the EC, Entrance Corridor district (30.6) provides
superior protection to the Scenic Highways provisions, therefore, the Scenic
Highways provisions are no longer needed (All Scenic Highways have been
designated with EC zoning). The only Scenic Highways requirement which
could not be required under EC regulation is a mandatory 150-foot setback
for single-family detached dwellings [because the EC district does not regulate
single-family dwellings].
The Planning staff prepared an interim ordinance for Entrance Corridor protection which relied
on such measures as increased setback and more vigorous landscaping requirements. During
development of the Entrance Corridor provisions, the Board of Supervisors and Planning
Commission were presented with comment from citizen groups and the development community
alike that measures such as increased setback would not satisfy aesthetic concerns. The interim
ordinance was abandoned in favor of immediate exercise of review by an Architectural Review
Board. While Scenic Highways setbacks were carried over to early ordinance provisions, the
Scenic Highways provisions were repealed as ineffective and having been replaced by superior
provision. A new sign ordinance also replaced special provisions contained in the original EC
ordinance.
RECOMMENDATION OF ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD
The Albemarle County Architectural Review Board met on June 17, 1996 to discuss amending the
zoning ordinance to redesignate Scenic Highways by requiring a separate set of design standards. The
Design Planner had prepared several design standards for discussion. The Design Planner's propsals
and minutes of the ARB meeting are Attachment A.
The ARB preferred to leave the design guidelines in their generic form with a sensitivity in
determining the application of the guidelines that will recognize the contextual nature of the
properties under review (For example, the rural area might be considered differently than the
urban areas). The ARB made no recommend~itioa for an increased setback in this area.
REINSTITUTION OF SCENIC HIGHWAYS ORDINANCE
A zoning regulation should be effective as to its stated purpose. The mandatory 150-foot setback of
the Scenic Highways provisions~has been found as ineffective to its purpose. Likewise, as evidenced
by variances, the setback was ineffective in application. Past Planning Commission and Board of
Supervisors took action to repeal the regulations in favor of superior regulations.
Neither the Scenic Highways regulations nor the Entrance Corridor regulations were intended to
disallo~v development otherwise permitted "by right," Both regulations were intended to ensure
development consistent with aesthetic matters and in that regard the Entrance Corridor provisions were
judged as superior the Scenic Highway prowsions.
There has been no demonstrated situation in which the current Entrance Corridor provisions
have not provided superior protection compared to the regulations of the Scenic Highways
provisions. Therefore, staffdoes not recommend amendment of the Entrance Corridor
provisions to re-establish any mandatory setback or other such requirement. Under Section
30.6.4.1 the Architectural Review Board has authority to:
"specify any architectural feature as to appearance, such as, but not
limited to: motif and style, color, texture and materials together with
configuration, orientation and other limitations as to mass. shape, height
and location of buildings and structures, location and configuration of parking
areas and landscaping and buffering requirements to the extent such practices are
authorized under the adopted design guidelines without regard to regulations of the
underiylng zoning district or regulations of section 32.0 [Site Plan] of this ordinance.
These broad powers exceed those of the Planning Commission in site plan review, although the
Commission is held superior in matters of public health and safely. Staff has identified no area
in which ARB powers of review are inadequote for ~ts intended purpose.
SUMMARY OF GRAPHIC PRESENTATION: SCENIC ROADS- U.S. RTE. 250 W
VARIANCES
THE BZA GRANTED 20 OF TIlE 22 BUILDING SETBACK VARIANCES.
FOR THE TWO VARIANCES DENIED, REZONING/SPECIAL USE PERMIT
WERE ALSO DENIED.
· THE BZA GRANTED SIX OF THE SEVEN SIGN VARIANCES.
TWO OF THESE VARIANCES WERE FOR SETBACK.
AFFECT OF SETBACK ON UNDEVELOPED/UNDERDEVELOPED
COMMERCIAL LAND
SEVEN SITES TOTALING 19.45 ACRES WOULD BE AFFECTED.
ADDITIONAL ACREAGE LOSS TO SETBACK FOR FIVE SITES:
ACREAGE SCENIC SETBACK
1.56 acres 0.96 acres
4.06 1.24
2.00 0.41
0.11 0.11 (variance)
0.76 0.50
TWO SITES HAVE ACTIVE PLANS.
IF SETBACK WERE TO APPLY AS BEFORE, TWO OTHER ACTIVE PLANS
wOLrLD BE AFFECTED AS WELL AS SINGLE FAMILY DWELLINGS.
ATTACHMENT B
VIRGINIA BYWAYS
ROUTES ADDITIONAL ACREAGE BUILDINGS MADE
IN SETBACK NONCONFORMING
EXISTING
250 West 340 83
151 20 1
20 North 249 81
20 South 321 87
6 227 53
22/231 246 31
654/601/614 247 128
PR OPOSED *
53 173 78
626 193 12
712/692 259 107
* Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation
ATTACHMENT C
SCENIC HIGHWAYS
Introduction: On May 15, 1996, a group of Crozet citizens appeared before the Board of
Supervisors and requested reinstitution of Scenic Highway zoning regulations to be applied to
U.S, Rte. 250 W. Since that meeting, the matter has been discussed twice by the Board and twice
by the Architectural Review Board, Al last discussion, the Board, by conseusus, agreed that this
item would be subject of a round table discussion by Planning, the County Attorney, the Design
Plarmer and the Arcl~itectural Review Board with recommendations ~o be made to the Board in
the Fall.
The following are various alternatives which could be pursued in various combinations. These
topical items are not intended as exhaustive, but are some of the issues staff must address in
developing a recommendation to the Board. We encourage any thoughts you may have regarding
these items or any other aspect relating to the scenic highway discussion.
What action should the Board of Supervisors take ?
--~ Do nothing- Entrance Corridor (EC) regulations and guidelines are adequate
--- Amend EC guidelines
--- Amend EC regulations
--- Readopt Scenic Highways zoning district
Where should these measures apply ?
-o- U. S. Rte. 250 W only
--- Roadways previously designated under Scenic Highways regulations
--- All Virginia Byways
--- All EC roadways
--- All Virginia B3~vays & all EC roadways
How should setback be determined ?
--- Use 75 foot setback to maintain rural character tSame as RA zone~
--- Use 150 foot setback from prior Scenic Highways zone
Should criteria be provided to allow reduced setback in a particular case
--- Use criteria from prior Scenic Highways zone To allow reduction
--- Allow ARB to reduce setback based on aesthetics of site & design
What buildings should be required to meet the setback ?
--- Farm buildings
--- Single-family detached dwellings
--- Single-family attached dwellings (duplex, townhouse)
-- Multifamily dwellings (apartments)
--- Commercial and office buildings
--- Industrial buildings
--- All of the above
L A R ~ E S T B A S K E ]' D I $ P L A ¥ I N V'
BASKETS - WICKER
FURNITURE - GIFT SHOP
CHAIR CANING - WICKER
REPAIR & RESTORATION
IN THE> HEART OF HISTORIC VIRGINIA
ON U_S, ROUTE 250 MIDWAY BETWEEN
CHARLOTTESVILLE AND SKYLINE DRIVE
u u~.e 3 [996
IRGiNIA
PHONE (80~
Mr-. Wayne C]llmber~
Depart[nan[ of Planning aha Co[Imiu~t~y
County Oftice Building
4ol Mclntire Road
Charlottesville. va, 22902-4596
]3ear Wayne:
Go aLi:ampi £o reinstate the "Scenic Highway" deslgna£1on Lo Route
250 West.
As you know I own properly a].or]q this corridor an(3 an
operanin9 bus]ness. 'fhr.~ property la tn [he Croze[ Growth Area of
[he Col~]prehenslve Pta~ and ~s zoned ior commercial use.
~egardlng [his ma~Lez T. nen [)lease call me and lee me know of a
convenient r_ilne T.O ac than. if possible i wotlld hope that, ah that
same ~ime you would nave a zew minunes Lc Glscuss your knowledge
aI]d reelings about th.Is matt, er.
Than}~ you.
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
DepI. of Planning & Community Development
401 Mclntire Road
Charlottesville. Virginia 22902-4596
(804) 296-5823
MEMORANDUM
To: Larry Davis
Marcia Joseph
Wayne Cilimberg
From: RonKeeler ~
Date: Seplember 27, 1996
Re: RoundTable Discussion of Scenic [lighways
I believe that the responses from the proponents of reinstituting the scenic setback were generally
uniform:
--- Reinstate a 150 foot building setback and 50 foot parking setback
--- applicable to all buildings and structures
--- along all designated Virginia Byways
--- with no prowsion to reduce tile setback in a particular case.
This presents two problems:
I. All designated. Virginia Byways: Fhis may preclude incorporation of the setback requirement
within, he EC overlay district since Rtes, 656/601/614 may not qualify tbr EC designation under
the Code language of section 15.1-503.2. Readopting the Scenic Highways overlay district would
mean that two overlay districts would apply to all other Virginia Byways.
Perhaps the Scenic Highways overlay could he fashioned witb only one regulation (setback) and
include language that the setback regulation applies regardless of the anthority extended to the
ARB trader EC regulations It may also be appropriate to distingui'sh tile statement at'intent of
the Scenic tlighways provisions fi-om that or'the EC district
2. No provision to reduce setback: Under the prior Scenic Highways provisions, the Planning
Commission was authorized to reduce setback from 150 feet to 75 feet if certain criteria were
satisfied. At the RoundTable, discussion was whether the ARB should be authorized to reduce
setback under specific criteria or whether that should be a function of the BZA through variance
granted Under the criteria established by the Code of Va,
The conclusion was that neither the ARB nor the BZA should have authority to reduce setback.
If the setback is in the zoning ordinance and no provision is made for reduction by the ARB (or
other body), I am unaware of any mechanism that would protect the setback requirement from
-¢ariance. Does the County have authority to establish setback along Virginia Byways somewhere
in the County Code other than the zoning ordinance .9
I believe we should report to the Board at the earliest practicable date and your response to this
memo will greatly assist me in drafting a report for your review. In addition to a report on the
RoundTable, I think the Board package should include the minutes of the two ARB
considerations on the topic as well as the original staffreport. One issue which I do not think
came to closure at the RoundTable was whether or not special signage provisions should be
pursued. If that is the desire of the Board, I believe that Zoning is already working on revisions to
the sign regulations and that the Board may wish to address all s~gnage provisions in one
comprehensive amendment package.
ATTACHMENT D
Discussion
Amending the Zoning Ordinance to Designate Scenic Highways
by
Requiring a Separate Set of Ddsign Standards
Prior to 1992, the Route 250W corridor was subject to requirements within the Scenic
Highway Overlay District. The major aspect effecting these properties was a requirement
cfa 150' yard requirement (set back) for the buildLng and 75' set back for the pm'king on
the site.
The setbacks were restrictive to development within this Overlay District. Because of
this, many var/maces for relief from the set back requirements were applied for and
granted within the Overlay District. Many of the variances granted required
specifications applied to the building design, layout and landscaping. These aspects of
site design are currently reviewed by the Architectural Review Board. The Zoning
Ordinance and the State Code require a change to the Ordinance'if there is a request that
is recurring mad that a formulation cfa general regulation should be adopted as an
amendment to the Ordinance. The numerous variances that were granted along the
Scenic Highway led staff to request a change to the Ordinance. The Board of Supervisors
amended the Zoning Ordinance to delete the Scenic Highway provisions in 1992.
Because the Board of Supervisors has requested information from staff concerning the
deletion of this recommendation, staff suggests that the following regulations could be
applied to any Scenic Highway witbin the Overlay Dist~Sct to differentiate the areas that
are more rural in nature:
1)
Require grouping trees and shrubs into a more natural design, instead of requiring
street trees aligning the rural roads.
2) Require major screening for parking areas.
3) Prohibit se~wice areas to be located on the site visible from the con'idor.
4) Prohibit the dumpster to be located on the site visible from the con'idor.
5) Prohibit a satellite dish visible from the corridor.
6) Prohibit communication towers visible fi'om the con'idor.
Sce~zic Highway Designal~on
June 17, t996
pagel
?)
lo)
Require use of trees that are indigenous to the surrounding area.
Continue to require trees measuring 3 ½" caliper adjacent to the con:idor.
Require that the proposed building relate contextually with any surrounding
historic buildings, tfnone exist, then the m'chitecture should reflect historic
structures within a mile radius.
Set a scale or size of the buildings allowed visible from the corridor. This would
keep the buildings small and discourage big box development along the con-idors~
Scenic Highway De*ignation
June 17. ]996
page2
Ron Keeler, Chief of Planning, was present ~o answer any
questions concerning the scenic highway provisions.
Greg Kamptner, Assistant County Attorney, was present.
Larry Davis, County Attorney, was present.
Staff pointed out that the entrance corridor exempts single-
family residence.
Mr. Keeler pointed out that a group of citizens in the Crozet
area had told the Board of Supervisors that they were unaware
that the scenic highway provisions had been repealed. The Board
of Supervisors asked for the history on why the provisions were
repealed and what properties would be affected if reinstituted.
While he did not attend the Board meeting, he believes the
question is whether additional guidelines should be instituted
for these scenic roads. Initially, the ARB reviewed creating
different regulations for each road based on the historic sites
along the road. The ARB adopted general guidelines which would
give more flexibility to detail and design rather than corridor
specific regulations.
Mr. Michel felt a little vague about reinstating the scenic
highway provisions since it would do little except keep the
of Zoning Appeals busy.
Board
Mr. Runkle felt that regulations were more appropriate on a
specific site, non on a certain highway. The generic guidelines
should be viewed In relation To the characner of the area and be
consistently applied.
Staff asked if the ARB would recommend reinstating the 150 foot
setback.
Mr. Kamptner pointed out that on a parcel with less than 150
of depth thaE the varlance request could create some legal
problems.
feet
In consensus, the ARB did not want to tie their hands with more
restrictive regulations
Staff pointed out that currently they could do everything already
except the prohibitions.
Ms. Miller asked what the ultimate goal was in having more
restrictions.
Staff pointed oun that a major requirement was screening for
parking since currently they just tried to soften the effect of
the parking. She pointed out that the scenic highway provision
could mitigate commercial uses in the rural areas.
Mr. Miohel questioned lighting in the rural areas.
Mr. Davis pointed out that some uses on Route 250 are not
nonconforming since the zoning is commercial and'the use is a
conforming use. He pointed out that there were some distinctions
in urban commercial and rural commercial.
Mr. Runkle pointed out that it was not this group's
responsibility to determine whether the scenic provisions were
allowed or not, since the ARB's responsibility is to enforce the
guidelines equally.
In summary, the ARB preferred to leave the design guidelines in
their generic form with a sensitivity in determining the
application of the guidelines that will recognize the contextual
nature of the properties under review. (For example, the rural
area might be considered differently than the urban areas.) The
ARB made no recommendation for an increased setback in this area.
IV. OLD BUSINESS
Approval of Minutes: April 1, 1996 and April 29, 1996
(Note: April 15, 1996 for signature only)
MOTION: Mr. Beverly moved for approval of the minutes of April 1
and April 29, 1996.
SECONDED: Mr. Runkle seconded the motion.
The motion was unanimously (4:0) approved.
V. NEW BUSINESS
V. ADJOURNMENT
The Board meeting was adjourned at 2:22 p.m.
(Recorded and Transcribed by Sharon Taylor, Administrative
Secretary)
Respectfully Submitted,
Diane EdgerEon Miller,
(i:A96Jun17.MIN)
Chairman
DRAFT
MINUTES OF
ALBEMARLE COUNTY ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD
DATE:
July 22, 1996
LOCATION:
Meeting Room #224, Second Floor
County Office Building
401 Mclntire Road
Charlottesville.. Virginia
BOARD MEMBERS:
Diane Miller, Chairman
Rudoiph Beverly, Vice-Chairman -A
Tim Michel
Steve Runkie
Timothy Lindstrom
COUNTY REPRESENTATION:
Marcia Joseph, Design Planner
(An A after a name indicates their absence from the meeting.)
I. CALL TO ORDER
II. ESTABLISH A QUORUM
A quorum was established, the meeting was convened at 1:30 p.rr
III. Discussion Scenic Highways
PRESENT TO SPEAK:
Sally Thomas. a member of the Board of Su3ervisors began the discussion by stating
that the issue.,_was To determine whether the County was protecting the scenic highways
as much as p5ssible. She said that even though the persons ~;resent will focus on
Route 250 west. the issue includes other roaas as well. Elsie Thompson was
introduced and it was indicated that she would speak for the garaen clubs. Scott
Peyton was introduced as a person who has a long standing interest in th~s highway
and knew the history of the scenic regulations. She explained that the other interested
grouo of persons were those who feel that development should take place inside of
Crozet and not along the Route 250 West highway.
DRAFT
Ms. Elsie Thompson stated that she feared that the elimination of the 150 foot setback
would have a long term effect because once the vistas are marred it would be hard to
salvage. She pointed out that she did not know how the ARB functions and how much
authority they have when someone wants to build close to a road, or how much of an
aesthetic input they have in a building project. She voiced concerns about both
commercial and residential construction. She stated that many people who worked to
establish the scenic regulations felt that the scenic highway designation had great
significance and felt that the start of the architectural review for those areas should
have no less regulations than the scenic highway regulations had.
Ms. Miller asked if it was just the 150 foot setback she was concerned with.
Ms. Elsie Thompson stated that primarily it was both the setback and the protection of
the view from signs, etc. that she was concerned with. She stated that as you work in a
group, and if your work is not published and it is done quickly and quietly, even though
it is taken care of well, then no one knows. She said that nobody knows what abstracl
standards are used for this review and whether these standards will carry on with the
future boards, and that future boards down the road could undo much of the good work
that the current board has done. She questioned if the flexibility of this board could
work to the detriment of the County'in the future.
Scott Peyton, ,esident of Greenwood. encouraged expanding the scenic regulations
beyond Route 250. He pointed out that a large group of diverse people had a real
sense of ownersh p of Route 250 West which inctudes a group of people other than
those who live on the road because there is a sense of ~ride in the scenic highways
designation. He stated that the guidelines for the Entrance Corridor don't saecifically
address the unioue individual qualities tiqat Route 250 might have or 20 north or 29
south. He stated that as he understood it, the ARB has a lot of latitude to take into
consideration the nature and the character of the specific highway in certa~r
architecture issues. He was concerned that roads that in the past that had scemc
designation have lost something no[.~us~ in words, but in substance He stated that the
single most significant piece of legislation was the 150 foot setback in the scenic
highway ordinance. He felt ~hat it was used as a tool for review to protect and
~naintain the integmy and the special quality of nature of the scenic highways. He said
that he looks at the content of this board wondering if the integrity of this particular
board can be extended into the future. He pointed out that it could not be done by the
simple institution of guidelines that are subject to discretionary applicatior He stated
that in regard to highways that they feel aeserve "scenic highway designation" there
should be a much more rigid standard an(] the 150 foot setback should be the starbng
point. He stated that he o~)posed taking away the flexibility and discretion that the ARB
currenuy has He felt that the hignways in the County that meet that criteria ShOUld
have the setback as an additional tool. He stated that the bottom line was to not
restrict what the ARB currently has under ordinance preview, but give them something
additional to specifically address the unique qualities and conditions that exist. He
pointed out how quickly something can change. He pointed out that there were about
2 variances issued per year according to the information given by staff, which he did
not feel was abundant.
Mr. K:eeler pointed out that most of the variances were for commercial sites and
required development site plans.
Mr. Michel pointed out that the ARB focused on the building design and feared that if
they separated the road design standards that they would lose their discretion in
review
Sally Thomas stated that she and others just recently found out that the scenic
designation had been dropped from Route 250 West. She pointed out that other
people as wel as herself had shared an emotional attachment to that designation She
stated that her persona goal was to not make people feel like they have something
that they don't, and on the other hand recognizing the value that was symbolic, the
scenic highway designation. She said she opposed putting the designation back on a
highway if it did not have much imoact and could lead to worse situations. She stated
that this issue was brought about due to the current situation with Great Eastern
Management which frustrated people who wanted to have down town Crozet to i~ave
the commercial activity and not out on Route 250 west. She referred to a handout
concernrng the number of commercial s les as 7 that would be affected by the 150 foot
setback.
Ms. Thompson stated that currently there was no starting point for review as there was
n the past with [ne 150 foot setback.
Ron Keeler, Chief of Planning, stated that for a number of years the Planning
Commission was frustrated concerning develooments that had been granted setback
variances. He indicated that it was decided that a Architectural Review Board was
needed since the variances did not solve the issue. He stated that the zoning
ordinance was not effective to its ourpose and the solution was to either repair or adoot
something else. The scenic highway regulations were repealed severa¢ years after the
adoption of the entrance corridor regulations.
Ms. Joseph ,2ointed out that this board worked towards a continuity in areas with the
landscaping and staff makes sure that the setbacks are met. The board is not
concerned with where the structure is placed along the corridor unless t does not
match with the other buildings on the corridor. She aointed out that the ordinance
states that the ~uilding conform to Ihe underlying setback requirements of the zoning
distrioL
DRAFT
Ms. Thomas felt there ought to be a way to address these concerns, constructively.
Ms. Miller stated that she would rather have the building closer to the road than the
' cars in a parkfng lot. She pointed out that even in the highway commercial zone that a
special permit was required for a car dealership.
Mr. Michel stated that he was leery of the 150 foot setback as a blanket regulation,
since he felt it was a zoning issue. He stated that the ARB would be happy to carry out
their mandates, but he was not sure that this would be useful.
Mr. Runkle stated that everything the ARB looks at presumes that the setback is met
since they were not the ones who reviewed variances.
Ms. Joseph stated by placing the 150 foot setback in the design guidelines and not in
the zoning ordinance, then the ARB could review the setback.
Mr. Runkle stated that the 150 foot setback was inappropriate for commercial
development. He felt this runs counter to what the ARB was trying to achieve.
He felt that this was a land use/zoning issue which was an issue that had to be
addressed by the Board of Supervisors.
Ms. Miller stated that it was a zoning issue and that it was not a decision for the ARB To
make. She stated that as a designer she concurred with Steve that it was a arbitrary
designation, but could come up with a lot of conditions that it would not serve. She
opposed the prc.2osal pecause once adopted, then their hands were tied She stated
that the ARB was advisory to the Board of Supervisors and therefore the ARB would
enforce whatever they asked, but felt this would pul s lot of pressure on other sites.
She stated that she was not convinced that the 150 foot setback would solve the
problem being addressed. She statec' that in discussing view shed, there ~vere many
elements involved sucn as the materials, colors.' lights, height of the building, aha the
a~:ticulation of the facade that would completely change the perception of that building.
that is 10 feet from the road She stated that for the same reason that the ARB did not
get that specific in how they wrote the guidelines, it took a lot of thought not to do that.
She encouraged creative solutions and not tying people's hands.
Mr. Runkle stated that ne thought what was actually being asked was how tt~ey could
3rohibit that use. He questioned now the Board of Supervisors would advise them by
saying on commercial sites that are nonconforming relative to tine comprehensive plan.
that they would like for you to impose an 150 foot setback, or by having a designation
of scenic highway.
Ms. Miller stated that since the Board of Suoervisors could overrule the ARB in any
given situation ~[ wou¢c ultimately De that body wno would have the res2onsibilit.¢ [o the
public as elected officers as opposed to an arbitrary group that the Board of
DRAFT
Supervisors appoint.
After discussion, the ARB took no format action.
IV. Old Business
V. New Business
Staff presented copies of the proposed Historic O,'dinance to the ARB for review. A
work session will be scheduled for the first week in September.
VI. Adjournment
The Board meeting was adjourned at 3:50 p.m.
(Recorded and Transcribed b-y Sharon Taylor, Office Associate
Respectfully Submitted.
Diane Miller. Chairman
A96JUL22.MIN
DRAFT
ATTACHMENT E
55%
Curren~ Area
available ~or dwe
35 ~ Setback
250' Road Frontage
87,120 so/ft
RA
I;ng
Scenic Highway
38% avai,oble flor dwel
35 , Sefbock
250' Room Frontage
87,120 sq/ft
lng
Current
69% ova;~able
60.000
Area
for awe I:ng
20' Setback
25' Setback
eeoc FronTage
so/fi
VR
Scenic Highway
ava: ,ab,e for dwe
~O'
~ _
I
I
133' Road Frontage
60,000 so/ft
ng
66%
Current or,os
ova: ~ (iD I e for owe I, i ~g
20' SetoacK
- __/2
I
Setback
120' Road Frontage
45,000 se/et
Scenic Hrghway
41% available dwel
foK
20' Setback
I
I
I
I
I
I
t
120' Road Frontage
45,000 sq/ft
ng
2
Cur'renf areas
60% ovoi .able for- awe ]:ng
20' Setback
25' Setback
80 Roaa FronTage
21,780 sa/fl
Scenic
24% ova[ lable for
20' Setback
H ~ ghway
dwel
80' Road Frontage
21,780 sc,/t:t
R-4
50%
Current areas
available for dwel
20' Setbock
25' Setbdck
60' Road Frontsge
10,890 sq/~t
ng
Scan i c H i ghway
avai,ab,e ~:or dwe,ling
20' Setback
60' Road Fron,age
10,890 sq/{t
O~$T~t~LJT~D 1'O BOAI'~D ,~
COUNTY ALBEMARLF_,
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
FY 1997/98 Prel/xuinary Revenue Projections and Budget
Guidance
SUBJECT/PROPOSAIJREQUEST:
Preliminary FY 1997/98 revenue projections and proposed
distribution of new revenues to general government and the
school division.
STAFF CONTACT(S'~:
Messrs. Tucks, Walters, Mis. Wtfite
AGENDA DATE:
November 6, 1996
ACTION: X
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION:
ATTACHMENTS:
REVIEWED BY:
ITEM NUMBER:
IiXlFOR/VIATION:
INFORMATION:
BACKGROUND:
Preliminary revenue projections from the Deparunem of Finance will form the basis of FY 1997/98 recommended budgets that will
come before the Board of Supervisors in March. The Board of Supervisors has traditionally allocated revenues in November to
committed expenditures, general government and the school division.
DISCUSSION:.
Attached for your review in developing budget guidance for F Y 1997/98 are the preliminary General Fund revenue projections, winch
are projected to increase by a total of $4.7 million or approxknately 5.4 % over FY96/97. Of this total increase, real property Taxes are
anticipated to increase by only $1.3 million (3.5%) based on a 2.5% reassessmenr increase and $65 million/n new construction.
Perscraal property taxes are projected to increase by approximately $2.7 million over FY 96/97 (15%) reflecting increases in both the
value and number of vehicles, making total property taxes increase by $4.1 million or 7%. Other local taxes, which includes a 5%
increase in sales tax revenues_ are projected to increase by approximately $0.75 million or a 4% increase over FY96/97. State and
Federal revenues are projected to decrease by 3% or approximately $200,000.
Page 2 shows by major category, the $4.7 million dollar increase followed by the conun/tted expenditures for FY 97/98, which were
presented previously to the Board in the Five-Year Forecast. Debt ser,Ace has been reduced by $ I 13,500, which reflects the FY96/97
final payment for new voting machines and a level payment for school debt service. The transfer to the capital program shows a
reduction in funding fi.om FY97/98 only because additional funds were added in FY 96/97 that exceeded the 5-year planned annual
increase The jail debt reserve fund, which will reqmre approximately $250~000 to $300,000 in ackFuional per diem costs beginning
in FY98, has been reduced to $100,000 for FY97/98.
Based on the remaining $4.8 million in uncommitted revenues, 60% or $2.9 million is allocated to the School Division and 40% or
$ t.9 million is allocated to general government. This allocation provides an increase of approximately 7°,4 in local revenues to both the
school divid~on and general government to address baseline costs, fixed costs and additional op~rafmg costs associated with capital
projects.
Page 3 shows a breakdown of revenues and expenditures by the General Fund and the School Fund for a combined increase of $5.3
million (4.5%) and an estimated FY 1997/98 county budget of $123 million.
RECOMMENDATION: - - ~-
Staff recommends that the Board approve the proposed FY 1997/98 allocation of new revenues~tha~wi!t hop~ficlly_ address the
operational needs of both general government and the school division.
I ,995
PROJ98.EXE
96.205
FY 1997-98 ALBEMARLE COUNTY GENERAL OPERATING FUND
PRELIMINARY REVENUE PROJECTIONS
FY t996-97 FY 1997-98
Appropriated Projected
Dollar
Increase
Increase Over
FY 1896-97
CHANGE IN REVENUES
Property Taxes
Other Local Taxes
Other Local Revenues
State Revenues
Federal Revenues
PROJECTED REVENUE INCREASE
58,063,980 62.170,506 4,106,526
19.203.200 19,957,270 754,070
3,671,670 3,715,817 44.147
4,361,233 4.324.028 (37,205)
1.939.962 1.773,241 (166,721)
87,240,045 91,940,862 $4,700,817
$4,700,817
COMMITE_D NEW EXPENDITURES
Debt Service
Capita[ Projects/Debt Service Reserve
Transfer to Capital Improvement Program
P, evenue Sharing
Jail Expansion Reserve
Board Reserve Fund
TOTAL COMMITTED EXPENDITURES
TOTAL NET AVAILABLE REVENUE
6,959,380 6,845,880 (113,500)
450.000 400.000 (50,000)
2,686,500 2,500,000 (186,500)
5.170.853 5.486.188 315,335
200,000 100.000 (100,000)
213.252 200,000 (13,252)
$15,679,985 $15,532,068 ($147,917)
$4,848,734
($147,917)
$4,848,734
PROPOSED PRELIMINARY DISTRIBUTION_
AVAILABLE REVENUES TO SCHOOL DIVISION @ 60%
AVAILABLE REVENUES TO GENERAL GOVERNMENT @ 40%
$2,909,240
$1,939,494
FY 1996-97 OPERATIONAL BUDGETS FY 96~97 FY97/98 $ Increase % Increase
General Government $29.449,268 $31.388,762 $1,939,494 6.59%
School Division {Local Transfer) $42,110,792 $45,020,032 $2,909,240 6.91%
PROJ982.WK4 2 10/29/96
Albemarle County Proposed FY97/98 Revenues/Expenditures
by General Fund and School Fund
General Fund
FY96197
FY97198
Dollar Percent
InclDec InclDec
Revenues~
Property Taxes
Real Estate 36.285,000
Public Service 1.617,200
Personal Properly 17.485,980
Mobile Home 67,500
Machinery/Tools 955.000
Miscellaneous 1_,653,300
Subtotal Property Taxes 58,063,980
Other Local Taxes 19.203,200
Other'Loca] Revenues 3,67%670
ISubtotal Local Revenues
State/Federal Revenues
ITotal General Fund Revenues
80~938~850
6.301195
8712401045
E~enditu res
General Governmeni 29.449.268
School Division Transfer 42.110.792
Debt Service 6,959,380
Capital Projects/Debt Service Reserve 450,000
Transfer to Capital Projects 2,686,500
Revenue Sharing 5,170,853
Jail Reserve 200000
Board Reserve 21~3252
ISubtotat General Fund Expenditures 87~240~045
37.576719
1.552.956
20.182.866
60.102
1.025022
! ,772,_841
62,170,506
19957 270
3,715,817
85~843~593
6,097,269
91~940~862
31.388 762
45.026 032
6.845.880
400.000
2.50£ 000
5.486.188
100.000
206,000
9'1~940~862
1.291719 3.56%
(64,244) -3.97%
2,696,886 15.42%
(7,398) -10.96%
7'0.022 7.33%
! 19,541 7~;~ 3°/o
4,106,526 7.07%
754.070 3.93%
44147 1.20%
4,904~7431 6.06%
(203,926) -3.24%
4~70018171 6.39%~
1.939.494 6.59%
2.909240 6.91%
(113,500) -1.63%
(50,000) -11.11%
(186,500) -6.94%
315,335 6.10%
(100,000) -50.00%
lf.13,252) -6.21%
417001817 ~ 5.39%
School Fund
FY96197 FY97198
Dollar Percent
Inc/dec Inc/dec
Revenues
General Fund Transfer
State/Federal
Misc (includes carry-over)
42,110,792 45.022.282
24,451,395 25.051.395
108.500 10_8.500
ITotal School Fund 66~670~687
ISchool Self-sustainin,q Funds 6~337~670
70~182~t77
6~337~670
2.911490 6.91%
600,000 2.45%
3~511~490~ 5.27%I
I I
~Total County Budqet 1t7~902~610 123~203~427
Does not include $501.495 in FY96/97 one-time fund balance transfer to school division
5~300;8t7~ 4.50%I
P ROJ982.WK4 3 10/31/96
NOVEMBER
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 ( ~ ) TO DISCUSS A PERSONNEL MATTER;
UNDER SUBSECTION (3) tO DISCUSS The DISPOSITION Of
COUNTY PROPeRtY~ANO UNDEr SUBSECTION (7) TO CONSULT
WITH LEGAL COUNSEL AND STAFF REGARDING SPECIFIC LEGAL
iVlAi I ERS CONCERNING REVERSION AND TO DISCUSS PENDING
LITIGATION Of A TAX ~4ai I Erj ~ UKi)~£ $u~$~.~1~ ~ (t) 1~) (~] ~a