The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2005-02-09 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS FIN A L FEBRUARY 9, 2005 COUNTY OFFICE BUILDING 3:30 P.M., MEETING ROOM 235 1. Call to Order. 2. Work Session: Business Plan. 3. Recess. 6:00 P.M., MEETING ROOM 242 4. Reconvene. 5. Pledge of Allegiance. 6. Moment of Silence. 7. From the Public: Matters Not Listed on the Agenda. 8. Consent Agenda (on next page). 9. ZMA-2004-00021. Delta Kappa Epsilon at UVA (Sian #92). Request to rezone 0.22 acs, which is currently unzoned, to R-6 to allow expansion of boarding house (fraternity house). TM 76A P C5. Loc at 173 Culbreth Rd behind Campbell Hall at the University of Virginia. (The Comp Plan designates this property as Institutional in Neighborhood 6.) Jack Jouett Dist. 10. CPA-2004-0006. Stormwater Master Plan. Proposal to amend the Natural Resources and Cultural Assets component of the Comp Plan by adding a stormwater master plan that identifies stream resources to be protected & restored as development occurs, regional stormwater facilities, & watershed projects that can be implemented in conjunction with development; provides guidance for land use planning & neighborhood master planning; & promotes public & private storm water solutions based on needs & opportunities at the watershed scale. 11. CPA-2003-006. Rural Areas Comprehensive Plan Amendment. Proposal to amend the Albemarle County Comprehensive Plan by adding Chapter 4, Rural Areas. Chapter 4 would describe the existing rural areas, the history of land use policies for the rural areas, & trends in rural areas land use & development; establish a vision for the rural areas within Albemarle County; identify guiding principles for the rural areas & land uses therein; establish policies, objectives & strategies for achieving desired land use patterns, density & residential development for the rural areas; establish policies, objectives & strategies for infrastructure & providing community services within the rural areas; & establish policies, objectives & strategies towards using & developing fiscal tools that will enable the County & its citizens to fulfill the guiding principles & achieve the policies & objectives of Chapter 4. 12. From the Board: Matters Not Listed on the Agenda. 13. Adjourn. CONSENT AGENDA FOR APPROVAL: 8.1 Approval of Minutes: May 5, October 13 and October 27, 2004. 8.2 Amendment of Personnel Policy Manual - Adoption of resolution establishing Employee Recognition Policy. 8.3 Barry E. and Tracy M. Meade, Deed of Dedication Agreement - Rivanna Greenway. BOARD OF SUPERVISORS TENTATIVE FEBRUARY 9, 2005 COUNTY OFFICE BUILDING 3:30 P.M., MEETING ROOM 235 1. Call to Order. 2. Work Session: Business Plan. 3. Recess. 6:00 P.M., MEETING ROOM 242 4. Reconvene. 5. Pledge of Allegiance. 6. Moment of Silence. 7. From the Public: Matters Not Listed on the Agenda. 8. Consent Agenda (on next page). 9. ZMA-2004-00021. Delta Kappa Epsilon at UVA (Sian #92). Request to rezone 0.44 acs, which is currently unzoned, to R-6 to allow expansion of boarding house (fraternity house). TM 76A P C5. Loc at 173 Culbreth Rd behind Campbell Hall at the University of Virginia. (The Comp Plan designates this property as Institutional in Neighborhood 6.) Jack Jouett Dist. 10. CPA-2004-0006. Stormwater Master Plan. Proposal to amend the Natural Resources and Cultural Assets component of the Comp Plan by adding a stormwater master plan that identifies stream resources to be protected & restored as development occurs, regional stormwater facilities, & watershed projects that can be implemented in conjunction with development; provides guidance for land use planning & neighborhood master planning; & promotes public & private stormwater solutions based on needs & opportunities at the watershed scale. 11. CPA-2003-006. Rural Areas Comprehensive Plan Amendment. Proposal to amend the Albemarle County Comprehensive Plan by adding Chapter 4, Rural Areas. Chapter 4 would describe the existing rural areas, the history of land use policies for the rural areas, & trends in rural areas land use & development; establish a vision for the rural areas within Albemarle County; identify guiding principles for the rural areas & land uses therein; establish policies, objectives & strategies for achieving desired land use patterns, density & residential development for the rural areas; establish policies, objectives & strategies for infrastructure & providing community services within the rural areas; & establish policies, objectives & strategies towards using & developing fiscal tools that will enable the County & its citizens to fulfill the guiding principles & achieve the policies & objectives of Chapter 4. 12. From the Board: Matters Not Listed on the Agenda. 13. Adjourn. CONSENT AGENDA FOR APPROVAL: 8.1 Approval of Minutes: May 5, October 13 and October 27, 2004. 8.2 Amendment of Personnel Policy Manual - Adoption of resolution establishing Employee Recognition Policy. 8.3 Barry E. and Tracy M. Meade, Deed of Dedication Agreement - Rivanna Greenway. ACTIONS Board of Supervisors Meeting of February 9, 2005 February 11, 2005 AGENDA ITEM/ACTION ASSIGNMENT 1. Call to Order. . Meeting was called to order at 3:35 p.m. by the Chairman, Mr. Rooker. All BOS members were present. Also present were Bob Tucker, Larry Davis, Roxanne White, Tom Foley, Melvin Breeden and Debi Moyers. 2. Work Session: Business Plan. . HELD. 3. Recess. . The Board recessed at 5:50 p.m. 4. Reconvene. . The Chairman reconvened the meeting at 6:02 p.m. All BOS members were present. Also present were Bob Tucker, Larry Davis, Wayne Cilimberg and Debi Moyers. 7. From the Public: Matters Not Listed on the Agenda. Brian Wheeler: . Commented on the Rural Areas Plan. Supports phasing of development rights, increased funding for the ACE program, and the setting of goals for number of development rights to be extinguished. Expressed concerns about clustering. Steve Ashbv: . Applauded the recent public funding of Key West Drive culvert replacement. Petitioned the Board to provide the funding for transit needs and extending CTS bus service into the County. Liz Palmer: . Spoke about the South Fork Rivanna Reservoir Clerk: Forward two articles provided to Board and the need to examine the sediment issue. members. Forward comments to Tom John Martin: Frederick. . Concerned about the water supply decision making process and schedule. Clerk: Forward comments to Tom Frederick. John Foster: . Updated the Board on the progress related to Clerk: Prepare resolution and put on March 2nd establishing the Covesville Historic District. consent agenda. The State Review Board and the Historic Resources Board will vote on this nomination March 16, 2005. Asked the Board to pass a resolution in favor of the establishment of the district prior to the State Review Board meeting. Jeff Werner: . Represented the Piedmont Environmental Clerk: Forward comments to Tom Frederick. Council. Responded to the discussion held last week regarding options for the community's public water supply. Jared Lake: . Asked the County to name Phi Phi Island a sister island of Albemarle County and the Charlottesville area. 8.2 Amendment of Personnel Policy Manual - Adoption Clerk: Forward signed resolution to Human of resolution establishing Employee Recognition Resources. Copy to County Attorney. Policy. (Attachment 1) . ADOPTED resolution. 8.3 Barry E. and Tracy M. Meade, Deed of Dedication County Attornev's Office: Provide Clerk with Agreement - Rivanna Greenway. copy of document after signed. . APPROVED the proposed deed of dedication (Attachment 2) and authorized the County Executive to sign the deed on behalf of the County after it has been approved by the County Attorney with any necessary changes. 9. ZMA-2004-00021. Delta Kappa Epsilon at UV A (Attachment 3) (Sign #92). . APPROVED ZMA-2004-00021, by a vote of 6:0, as proffered and signed by the applicant dated February 3, 2005. 10. CPA-2004-0006. Stormwater Master Plan. (Attachment 4) . APPROVED CPA-2004-0006, by a vote of 6:0, to amend the Natural Resources and Cultural Assets component of the Comprehensive Plan to incorporate the Stormwater Master Plan, with the anticipation of eventually adopting a stormwater financing strategy as part of a broader approach to funding urban infrastructure. 11 . CPA-2003-006 Rural Areas Comprehensive Plan Amendment. . HELD. Next work session March 2, 2005. 12. From the Board: Matters Not Listed on the Agenda. David Wyant: . Asked about the status of Pantops and the Northern Area Master Plans. Mr. Cilimberg provided an update. Sallv Thomas: . Distributed materials from the "Building Safe, Healthy and Livable Communities" conference she attended. Ken Bovd: . Suggested he or another Board member contact Butch Davies regarding Route 231/22 truck restriction to reinforce the Board's position. . Asked the status of the proposed Subdivision Ordinance. Mr. Davis responded a work session is scheduled for March 2nd with the public hearing on April 20th. 13. Adjourn. . The meetinQ was adiourned at 8:40 p.m. /djm Attachment 1 - Employee Recognition Resolution Attachment 2 - Barry E. and Tracy M. Meade, Deed of Dedication Agreement - Rivanna Greenway Attachment 3 - Delta Kappa Epsilon at UV A Proffers Attachment 4 - Storm water Master Plan 2 ATTACHMENT 1 RESOLUTION WHEREAS, the County of Albemarle Personnel Policy Manual has been adopted by the Board of Supervisors; and WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors desires to authorize a Total Rewards Program for Albemarle County employees; and WHEREAS, the proposed Section P-65, Employee Recognition Program, sets forth the purposes of the program, recognition criteria and employee eligibility; and WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors finds it appropriate to add Section P-65, Employee Recognition Program, to the Personnel Policy Manual. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, hereby amends the County of Albemarle Personnel Policy Manual by adding Section P-65, Employee Recognition Program. COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE PERSONNEL POLICY Section P-65 EMPLOYEE RECOGNITION PROGRAM A. Purpose The Board of Supervisors encourages its employees to provide the best possible service to our customers and citizens. The purpose of this program is to recognize County employees who distinguish themselves in the performance of their duties and who contribute significantly to the achievement of the goals and objectives of the County. B. Proaram Established There is hereby established an Employee Recognition Program. Each department is authorized to define its own recognition standards to reward employees for the following: 1. Providing exceptional customer service 2. Performing above and beyond normal duties and expectations 3. Identifying and/or implementing a means to reduce the costs of providing services 4. Demonstrating excellence in safe work practices 5. Causing improvement in productivity, process, or quality of services 6. Exemplifying County values of Integrity, Innovation, Stewardship and Learning These departmental standards shall be in writing and approved by Human Resources. Pursuant to Virginia Code section 15.2-1508, the Board of Supervisors authorizes the payment of monetary bonuses and other forms of nonmonetary awards to recognize employees who qualify for recognition under this program. C. Eliaibility All permanent full-time and part-time County classified employees are eligible to participate in this program. Adopted: February 9, 2005 3 ATTACHMENT 2 This deed was prepared by the Albemarle County Attorney. Tax Map 78, Parcel 15C3 This deed is exempt from taxation under Virginia Code SS 58.1-811(A)(3) and 58.1-811(C)(4). DEED OF DEDICATION THIS DEED OF DEDICATION is made this _ day of ,2005 by and between BARRY E. MEADE and TRACY M. MEADE, Grantors, and the COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA, a political subdivision of the Commonwealth of Virginia, Grantee. WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, the Grantors are the owners in fee simple of the real property located in Albemarle County that is described below and hereinafter referred to as the "Property;" WHEREAS, the Grantors offer to grant, convey and dedicate the Property to the County for public use, namely, a public access trail and greenway, including improvements; and WHEREAS, the Grantee is willing to accept the Grantors' offer of dedication. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual premises, the Grantors hereby grant, convey, and dedicate for public use to the Grantee, its successors and assigns, with GENERAL WARRANTY AND ENGLISH COVENANTS OF TITLE, the following real property, to wit: Those certain lands, shown and designated as the 11,268 square foot area of dedication that is shaded on the plat of Robert W. Coleman, Jr., Residential Surveying Services, dated January 6, 2004, and entitled "Plat Showing Greenway Dedication Located On T.M.P. 78-15C3, Albemarle County, Virginia," a copy of which is attached hereto and to be recorded with this deed (the "Plat"). Reference is made to the Plat for a more particular description of the location of the described lands. The property interest conveyed herein is a portion of that certain parcel of land shown on the Plat situated on the northeast side of the Rivanna River, being the same parcel conveyed to the Grantors by deed of record in the office of the Clerk of the Albemarle County Circuit Court at Deed Book 1958, Page 68. This conveyance is made expressly subject to all restrictions, conditions, rights-of-way and easements, if any, contained in duly recorded deeds, plats and other instruments constituting constructive notice in the chain of title to the Property conveyed hereby, insofar as the same affect the Property, which have not expired by a time limitation contained therein or have not otherwise become ineffective. The Grantee, acting by and through its County Executive, duly authorized by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, does hereby accept the offer of dedication made by this deed, as evidenced by the signature below. WITNESS the following signatures. GRANTORS: GRANTOR Barry E. Meade GRANTOR Tracy M. Meade 4 GRANTEE: COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA By: Robert W. Tucker, Jr. County Executive 5 ATTACHMENT 3 Original Proffer YES Amended Proffer (Amendment # ) PROFFER FORM Date: February 9. 2005 ZMA #ZMA-04-021 DKE Expansion Tax Map and Parcel Number(s) TMP 76A-OC5 0.22 Acres to be rezoned from NOT ZONED to R-6 Pursuant to Section 33.3 of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance, the owner, or its duly authorized agent, hereby voluntarily proffers the conditions listed below which shall be applied to the property, if rezoned. These conditions are proffered as a part of the requested rezoning and it is agreed that: (1) the rezoning itself gives rise to the need for the conditions; and (2) such conditions have a reasonable relation to the rezoning request. 1) Permitted uses of the property, and or/uses authorized by special use permit, shall include only the following section(s) of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance in effect on February 9,2005, a copy of the section(s) being attached hereto and will be in conformity with the site plans prepared by McKee Carson and the architectural drawings prepared by Dalgliesh, Eichman, Gilpin & Paxton dated February 1, 2005: 1. Sec. 16.2.1.7. 2) Each outdoor luminaire on the structure containing a lamp that emits three thousand (3,000) or more maximum lumens shall be a full cutoff luminaire as provided in Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance Section 4.17, in effect on February 9, 2005, a copy of the section being attached hereto. Delta Kappa Epsilon Renovation Limited Partnership February 3. 2005 By the DKE Corporation General Partner Vice President R. Paae Henley Jr. 6 - ACTIONS Board of Supervisors Meeting of February 9, 2005 February 11, 2005 AGENDA ITEM/ACTION ASSIGNMENT 1 . Call to Order. . Meeting was called to order at 3:35 p.m. by the Chairman, Mr. Rooker. All BOS members were present. Also present were Bob Tucker, Larry Davis, Roxanne White, Tom Foley, Melvin Breeden and Debi Moyers. 2. Work Session: Business Plan. . HELD. 3. Recess. . The Board recessed at 5:50 p.m. 4. Reconvene. . The Chairman reconvened the meeting at 6:02 p.m. All BOS members were present. Also present were Bob Tucker, Larry Davis, Wayne Cilimberg and Debi Moyers. 7. From the Public: Matters Not Listed on the Agenda. Brian Wheeler: . Commented on the Rural Areas Plan. Supports phasing of development rights, increased funding for the ACE program, and the setting of goals for number of development rights to be extinguished. Expressed concerns about clustering. Steve Ashby: . Applauded the recent public funding of Key West Drive culvert replacement. Petitioned the Board to provide the funding for transit needs and extending CTS bus service into the County. Liz Palmer: . Spoke about the South Fork Rivanna Reservoir Clerk: Forward two articles provided to Board and the need to examine the sediment issue. members. Forward comments to Tom John Martin: Frederick. . Concerned about the water supply decision making process and schedule. Clerk: Forward comments to Tom Frederick. John Foster: . Updated the Board on the progress related to Clerk: Prepare resolution and put on March 2nd establishing the Covesville Historic District. consent agenda. The State Review Board and the Historic Resources Board will vote on this nomination March 16, 2005. Asked the Board to pass a resolution in favor of the establishment of the district prior to the State Review Board meeting. Jeff Werner: . Represented the Piedmont Environmental Clerk: Forward comments to Tom Frederick. Council. Responded to the discussion held last week regarding options for the community's public water supply. Jared Lake: . Asked the County to name Phi Phi Island a sister island of Albemarle County and the Charlottesville area. 8.2 Amendment of Personnel Policy Manual - Adoption Clerk: Forward signed resolution to Human of resolution establishing Employee Recognition Resources. Copy to County Attorney. Policy. (Attachment 1) . ADOPTED resolution. 8.3 Barry E. and Tracy M. Meade, Deed of Dedication County Attorney's Office: Provide Clerk with Agreement - Rivanna Greenway. copy of document after signed. . APPROVED the proposed deed of dedication (Attachment 2) and authorized the County Executive to sign the deed on behalf of the County after it has been approved by the County Attorney with any necessary chanaes. 9. ZMA-2004-00021. Delta Kappa Epsilon at UV A (Attachment 3) (Sign #92). . APPROVED ZMA-2004-00021, by a vote of 6:0, as proffered and signed by the applicant dated February 3, 2005. 10. CPA-2004-0006. Stormwater Master Plan. (Attachment 4) . APPROVED CPA-2004-0006, by a vote of 6:0, to amend the Natural Resources and Cultural Assets component of the Comprehensive Plan to incorporate the Stormwater Master Plan, with the anticipation of eventually adopting a stormwater financing strategy as part of a broader approach to funding urban infrastructure. 11. CPA-2003-006 Rural Areas Comprehensive Plan Amendment. . HELD. Next work session March 2, 2005. 12. From the Board: Matters Not Listed on the Agenda. David Wyant: . Asked about the status of Pantops and the Northern Area Master Plans. Mr. Cilimberg provided an update. Sally Thomas: . Distributed materials from the "Building Safe, Healthy and Livable Communities" conference she attended. Ken Boyd: . Suggested he or another Board member contact Butch Davies regarding Route 231/22 truck restriction to reinforce the Board's position. . Asked the status of the proposed Subdivision Ordinance. Mr. Davis responded a work session is scheduled for March 2nd with the public hearina on April 20th. 13. Adjourn. . The meetina was adiourned at 8:40 p.m. /djm Attachment 1 - Employee Recognition Resolution Attachment 2 - Barry E. and Tracy M. Meade, Deed of Dedication Agreement - Rivanna Greenway Attachment 3 - Delta Kappa Epsilon at UV A Proffers Attachment 4 - Storm water Master Plan 2 ATTACHMENT 1 RESOLUTION WHEREAS, the County of Albemarle Personnel Policy Manual has been adopted by the Board of Supervisors; and WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors desires to authorize a Total Rewards Program for Albemarle County employees; and WHEREAS, the proposed Section P-65, Employee Recognition Program, sets forth the purposes of the program, recognition criteria and employee eligibility; and WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors finds it appropriate to add Section P-65, Employee Recognition Program, to the Personnel Policy Manual. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, hereby amends the County of Albemarle Personnel Policy Manual by adding Section P-65, Employee Recognition Program. COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE PERSONNEL POLICY Section P-65 EMPLOYEE RECOGNITION PROGRAM A. Purpose The Board of Supervisors encourages its employees to provide the best possible service to our customers and citizens. The purpose of this program is to recognize County employees who distinguish themselves in the performance of their duties and who contribute significantly to the achievement of the goals and objectives of the County. B. Proqram Established There is hereby established an Employee Recognition Program. Each department is authorized to define its own recognition standards to reward employees for the following: 1. Providing exceptional customer service 2. Performing above and beyond normal duties and expectations 3. Identifying and/or implementing a means to reduce the costs of providing services 4. Demonstrating excellence in safe work practices 5. Causing improvement in productivity, process, or quality of services 6. Exemplifying County values of Integrity, Innovation, Stewardship and Learning These departmental standards shall be in writing and approved by Human Resources. Pursuant to Virginia Code section 15.2-1508, the Board of Supervisors authorizes the payment of monetary bonuses and other forms of nonmonetary awards to recognize employees who qualify for recognition under this program. C. Eliaibility All permanent full-time and part-time County classified employees are eligible to participate in this program. Adopted: February 9,2005 3 ATTACHMENT 2 This deed was prepared by the Albemarle County Attorney. Tax Map 78, Parcel 15C3 This deed is exempt from taxation under Virginia Code SS 58.1-811(A)(3) and 58.1-811(C)(4). DEED OF DEDICATION THIS DEED OF DEDICATION is made this _ day of ,2005 by and between BARRY E. MEADE and TRACY M. MEADE, Grantors, and the COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA, a political subdivision of the Commonwealth of Virginia, Grantee. WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, the Grantors are the owners in fee simple of the real property located in Albemarle County that is described below and hereinafter referred to as the "Property;" WHEREAS, the Grantors offer to grant, convey and dedicate the Property to the County for public use, namely, a public access trail and greenway, including improvements; and WHEREAS, the Grantee is willing to accept the Grantors' offer of dedication. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual premises, the Grantors hereby grant, convey, and dedicate for public use to the Grantee, its successors and assigns, with GENERAL WARRANTY AND ENGLISH COVENANTS OF TITLE, the following real property, to wit: Those certain lands, shown and designated as the 11,268 square foot area of dedication that is shaded on the plat of Robert W. Coleman, Jr., Residential Surveying Services, dated January 6, 2004, and entitled "Plat Showing Greenway Dedication Located On T.M.P. 78-15C3, Albemarle County, Virginia," a copy of which is attached hereto and to be recorded with this deed (the "Plat"). Reference is made to the Plat for a more particular description of the location of the described lands. The property interest conveyed herein is a portion of that certain parcel of land shown on the Plat situated on the northeast side of the Rivanna River, being the same parcel conveyed to the Grantors by deed of record in the office of the Clerk of the Albemarle County Circuit Court at Deed Book 1958, Page 68. This conveyance is made expressly subject to all restrictions, conditions, rights-of-way and easements, if any, contained in duly recorded deeds, plats and other instruments constituting constructive notice in the chain of title to the Property conveyed hereby, insofar as the same affect the Property, which have not expired by a time limitation contained therein or have not otherwise become ineffective. The Grantee, acting by and through its County Executive, duly authorized by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, does hereby accept the offer of dedication made by this deed, as evidenced by the signature below. WITNESS the following signatures. GRANTORS: GRANTOR Barry E. Meade GRANTOR Tracy M. Meade 4 GRANTEE: COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA By: Robert W. Tucker, Jr. County Executive 5 ATTACHMENT 3 Original Proffer YES Amended Proffer (Amendment # ) PROFFER FORM Date: February 9. 2005 ZMA #ZMA-04-021 DKE Expansion Tax Map and Parcel Number(s) TMP 76A-OC5 0.22 Acres to be rezoned from NOT ZONED to R-6 Pursuant to Section 33.3 of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance, the owner, or its duly authorized agent, hereby voluntarily proffers the conditions listed below which shall be applied to the property, if rezoned. These conditions are proffered as a part of the requested rezoning and it is agreed that: (1) the rezoning itself gives rise to the need for the conditions; and (2) such conditions have a reasonable relation to the rezoning request. 1) Permitted uses of the property, and or/uses authorized by special use permit, shall include only the following section(s) of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance in effect on February 9,2005, a copy of the section(s) being attached hereto and will be in conformity with the site plans prepared by McKee Carson and the architectural drawings prepared by Dalgliesh, Eichman, Gilpin & Paxton dated February 1, 2005: 1. Sec. 16.2.1.7. 2) Each outdoor luminaire on the structure containing a lamp that emits three thousand (3,000) or more maximum lumens shall be a full cutoff luminaire as provided in Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance Section 4.17, in effect on February 9, 2005, a copy of the section being attached hereto. Delta Kappa Epsilon Renovation Limited Partnership February 3. 2005 By the DKE Corporation General Partner Vice President R. PaQe Henley Jr. 6 ATTACHMENT 4 Amendment #1 Paae 1 - Introduction to the Natural Resources and Cultural Assets Component of the Comprehensive Plan. 4tn Full paraaraph This chapter incorporates as part of the Comprehensive Plan the following freestanding documents: the Open Space and Critical Resources Plan adopted in 1992, the Historic Preservation Plan adopted in 2000, and the Stormwater Master Plan adopted in 2005. Included as Appendix A is the detailed Greenways Plan. The Mountain Protection Plan, prepared by the Mountain Protection Committee in 1996, is Appendix B. The Open Space and Critical Resources Plan, the Historic Preservation Plan, and the Stormwater Master Plan are located under separate cover. Amendment #2 Paae 28 - Stormwater Manaaement. 1st Full paraaraph Urban and suburban development changes the nature of streams and drainage ways, and can result in increased flooding, loss of groundwater recharge, and water quality degradation. Pollutants present in urban and suburban runoff include: sediment, fertilizers, pesticides, heavy metals, bacteriological contaminants, and grease and oil, among others. Since 1980, the County has required development in an urban and urbanizing portion of the County known as the "stormwater detention area" to use facilities that detain storm water. The purpose of these measures is to protect downstream properties from excessive drainage, erosion, and flooding. In developing the Water Protection Ordinance, the County has been studied how the storm water program can be enhanced to be more comprehensive, to coordinate stormwater management within entire drainage basins, to incorporate water quality concerns, and to improve the design and maintenance of stormwater facilities. The Design Standards Manual further refines County guidance on these matters. To this end, the County has recently completed a Stormwater Master Plan for the County's Development Areas. The objectives of the Stormwater Master Plan are to (1) provide guidance for land use planning and neighborhood master planning that is based on the assessment and prioritization of water resources and (2) promote public and private stormwater solutions that are based on needs and opportunities at the watershed scale rather than relying solely on a site-by-site approach. In developing the Stormwater Master Plan, assessments were conducted for streams within the Development Areas and information on habitat conditions, community values, and problem areas were gathered. Information from the stream assessments was utilized to identify High-Value Stream Corridors. This information is useful for land use and neighborhood planning, for prioritizing County capital projects for stream improvement, and for guiding the review of development proposals and the implementation of the Water Protection Ordinance. To further assess stream conditions, selected High-Value Stream Corridors were monitored for biological integrity by the StreamWatch citizen monitoring program. Stream Corridor Restoration Projects and Regional Stormwater Control Facilities were then identified. Stream Corridor Restoration projects would improve existing stream corridors by repairing stream erosion, enhancing stream buffers, cleaning up dump sites, and repairing infrastructure problems. Regional Stormwater Facilities are intended to treat areas with high impervious cover, help protect downstream High-Value Stream Corridors, and be integrated functionally and aesthetically with existing and future development patterns. The Stormwater Master Plan aims to coordinate various Stormwater Programmatic Elements and contains Stormwater Actions Lists for each Development Area that includes prioritized stream restoration projects and prioritized regional facilities to be used in planning County capital watershed improvement projects and in coordinating private development activities. Amendment #3 Paae 30 - List of Strateaies Strategy: Implement the Storm water Master Plan programs and improvements in accordance with a funding strategy approved by the Board of Supervisors. Strategy: Amend the Water Protection Ordinance to incorporate stream management objectives based on stream assessment results, including providing stream buffers for pocket natural areas and community and private use trails, as designated in the plan. 7 HECEIVED AT 80S MEETfNG Dato: ~ If /t1/ ~ Agonda /tom ,: Clark's Initials: 1 2 3 4 5 6 ,1 .... 7 8 PLEASE SIGN BELOW IF YOU WISH TO SPEAK ON MATTERS NOT LISTED ON THE AGENDA FROM THE PUBLIC - FEBRUARY 9, 2005 o$/"p~F t:T,if e~'(",4L ~('''''..:J ~ c;"",/",.I/"A/:f,,/e /'{A./ .4'7F# P7~'" ~ v 1 tv--- - I 8 L~Y;~ 10 (Mr. Chairman - Please return to Clerk of the Board at end of meeting). David P. Bowerman Rio Kenneth C. Boyd Rivanna COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Office of Board of Supervisors 401 Mcintire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 (434) 296-5843 FAX (434) 296-5800 Dennis S. Rooker Jack Jouett Sally H. Thomas Samuel Miller Undsay G. Dorrier, Jr. Scottsville David C. Wyant While Hall February 17, 2005 Mr. Jared Lake 1355 Old Garth Heights Charlottesville, VA 22901 Dear Mr. Lake: The Albemarle County Board of Supervisors would like to express its appreciation for your efforts in assisting the residents of Phi Phi Island in Thailand devastated by the tsunami. The Board appreciates your coming forward with the idea of naming Phi Phi Island a sister island of Albemarle County and the Charlottesville area. In establishing "sisterhood" relationships, the Board feels it is important that they are able to form a common link through historic, cultural and human relations that can tie the communities together. Albemarle has established only two such relationships with counties that are based on two-hundred year old connections. For those reasons the Board does not feel it is appropriate at this time to establish a sisterhood relationship with this community. Again, thank you for bringing this situation to the attention of the Board of Supervisors. Your efforts are admirable and the Board applauds all your hard work. Sincerely, d...~'~ Dennis S. Rooker, Chairman DSRlewc cc: Members, Board of Supervisors * Printed on recycled paper Thomas Jefferson Water Resources Advisory Committee A technical advisory committee under the joint sponsorship of the Thomas Jefferson Soil and Water Conservation District and Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission Patrick Calvert (Chair), Charlottesville Bruce Dotson, Albemarle Edgar Imhoff, Albemarle Michael Lawson, Fluvanna William Norris, Charlottesville Andy Wilson, Fluvanna Nick Evans, T JSWCD Nancy O'Brien, T JPDC Alyson Sappington, T JSWCD Nancy Damon, T JPDC >? /fI /-,/ .______~~/.L--.- . ~...-'...:._.Z:: o(/.z /".(l(/?fL 7~ Sediment Sources and Mitigation Strategies, South Fork Rivanna Reservoir Watershed: Analysis and Recommendations '" June 5, 2001 This report was assembled in response to a request for technical assistance from the Albemarle County Engineering Department dated August 10, 2000 (attached). Backaround The South Fork Riyanna Reservoir (SFRR) is an instream reservoir furnishing a substantial portion of the raw water supply to the Charlottesville and Albemarle County, Virginia Urban Service area. The rapid rate of sedimentation of this reservoir is prompting water planners'1o search for ways to secure a reliable future water supply. Present water demand is expected to exceed the safe yield of the water supply system by the year 2002. By the year 2050, th~ forecasted demand of a projected population of 110,000 will be twice what existing facilities could supply during critical periods of drought. A key factor in this mismatch in water supply/demand is the steady loss of capacity in SFRR, which is losing usable storage at the rate of 1.4% per year due to deposition of sediment on the bottom of the reservoir. The declining capacity of the reservoir due to sedimentation has long been recognized. For many years, Albemarle County has restricted residential and industrial development within the reservoir watershed so as to minimize runoff of sediment and other pollutants. At the same time, the County has worked in partnership with the Thomas Jefferson Soil & Water Conservation District and the Virginia Department of Forestry to promote agricultural and forestry practices within the watershed that minimize pollutant runoff. It is not clear to what extent these efforts have reduced the rate at which sediment has accumulated in the reservoir, but all indications are that sedimentation continues to be a significant problem. r Water supply planners (VHB, 2000; 2001) are presently studying a variety of alternatives with which to meet the projected future water demand. Among these are alternatives that would restore SFRR's capacity, by dredging and removing sediment from the reservoir, and/or by installing a 4- or 8-foot bladder on top of the SFRR dam to raise the pool and create new "top storage." Other alternatives such as constructing a new reservoir on Buck Mountain Creek, and pumping recycled wastewater from the i.i'- !t:D AT 80S ~j;c.:.: " ,;): ,\-3 ;~: ~~8m Ii: Moores Creek treatment plant to the upper Mechums River, are contingent upon continued use of existing or expanded intakes and treatment facilities at the SFRR dam. It seems clear that whatever course of action is ultimately chosen in the water supply planning process, SFRR will continue to be an integral component of the supply system for the foreseeable future, and there will be an ongoing need to deal with the sedimentation issue. Previous Work.: What Is Known About Sedimentation of the Reservoir? South Fork. Rivanna Reservoir (SFRR) is an elongate, shallow body of water, completed in 1966 to receiye runoff from a watershed area of 261 square miles. With an area of less than one square mile, the reservoir is very small relative to the size of the watershed that drains into it. Five distinct sub-watersheds are recognized. Ranked by land size and mean streamflow, these are: Mechums Riyer, Moormans River, Buck Mountain Creek, Ivy Creek, and lands riparian to SFRR. In terms of the estimated sediment load each contributes to SFRR, howeyer, the rank of the subwatersheds shifts to the following: Mechums, Moormans, Ivy Creek, and a yirtual tie between riparian lands and Buck Mountain Creek. Over the years since the reservoir was constructed, as concern has mounted about decline in usable capacity, seyeral studies and bathymetric surveys haye been conducted to investigate the origin, transport to, and deposition of sediment within the reservoir (Glasbey, 1981; Black and Veatch, 1994; Sobeck, 1999). Although the results of the yarious studies and surveys differ quantitatiyely, there is general agreement that the rate of sediment yield is higher from pastureland than from forest, and higher from developed areas, for example, Ivy Creek, than from either of these. Glaspey (1981) and Black and Veatch (1994) deriyed similar results for predicted sediment yield, and the predicted yields correlate fairly well with bathymetric measurements of sediment thickness on the bottom of SFRR. Sobeck, (1999) applies a sediment transport model and concludes that common annual peak flows in the Mechums River-and not rare and major storm eyents, scour out and trqnsport sand particles already resident in geologic formations in the bed and banks of riyer, contributing half the oyerall sediment load to the SFRR. While the previous studies proYide a basis for beginning to understand the sedimentation problem, in some respects they raise as many questions as they answer. Further geologic inyestigations are essential, for example, to clarify Sobeck's (1999) conclusions, to the extent that his modeling and analysis did not consider the role of silt- and clay-size sediment. According to Glaspey (1981), clay is the dominant sediment in SFRR. The research of Hjulstrom (1939) demonstrated that erosion of clay requires the kind of energy which great storms generate. Importantly, all inyestigators report a paucity of information on stream flow and sediment transport at exceptionally high flows, e.g., during the several hurricanes which have yisited the area since 1966. This is critical, for lacking actual measurements at the upper end of rating curves, the correlation of watershed sediment yield to sediment deposited in the reservoir has been obtained largely by extrapolation from other watersheds and by drawing rating curves to obtain a "best fit." None of the previous studies have included mineralogical and petrologic analyses that could trace reservoir sediment to geologic sources in the watershed. Further, a search of files, reports and publications reveals no determination of trapping efficiency of the SFRR, and it appears that currently ayailable data are insufficient to enable this to be readily determined. Significance of AdeQuate Information In Water Supplv Planning: The feasibility of reducing the sedimentation of SFRR, through either engineering or nonstructural means, rests on identifying the sources of sediment. What part is deriyed from overland flow? If significant in amount, is the overland contribution attributable to a particular geologic formation, or land use/management practice? What part of the sediment in SFRR derives as wash load or bank cuttings from floodplains? If mineralogical analyses prove, as Sobeck asserts, that sand already resident in the Mechums streambed is the major contributor of sediment to SFRR, planners might focus more on engineering solutions, such as sediment traps in-channel. If the investigation indicates that a high yolume of sand and silt is being scoured from the floodplain, it would be appropriate to focus remediation on land use, land management and soil conservation practices within the floodplain. It is noteworthy that the Mechums River flows through well-deyeloped floodplain scroll along an 8-mile reach extending from near Batesville downstream to just east of Lake Albemarle, and this appears to be the locus of considerable stream bank erosion and sloughing. Confirmation of seyere bank cutting would lend support to bank stabilization measures. If it is found that major~storms mobilize clays, and that clays-not sand and silt, are the major culprits in sedimentation of SFRR, then remediation might focus on reducing erosion in upland areas of the Mechums watershed, which are underlain by clay-rich soils. If clays do playa significant role, it might be appropriate to investigate the feasibility of constructing an outlet in the SFRR dam to enable sluicing of fine- grained suspended sediment through the reservoir during and following major floods. A Model for Further Research: Accepting the conclusions of earlier workers that the bulk of the sediment load in SFRR comes from Mechums River and Ivy Creek drainages, further research should address the following questions: What proportion of the sediment load in the SFRR is deriyed by erosion of the wetted perimeter of the main stem & tributary channels, as opposed to overland sheet erosion & transport across the riparian zone? What proportion of the sediment load is deriyed from main stem as opposed to upper tributary areas of the watershed? Of the sediment load deriyed from within channel erosion, what proportion represents remobilization of alluvial material bordering the stream channels? What is the role of the extensiye floodplain of the Mechums Riyer in contributing sediment to SFRR? The large yolume of sediment contained in the floodplain-if eroded and transported-would seem to offer a continuing supply of material for filling SFRR. Is there a significant contribution of sediment load from erosion of solid bedrock formations in stream channels or elsewhere, as opposed to erosion of unconsolidated surficial geologic deposits? What is the role of extreme weather events in mobilization & transport of sediment in different parts of the basin system? What proportion of the overall sediment load in SFRR is brought in during rare extreme events? Research elements Geologic mapping: · Map the distribution of alluvial and other surficial deposits. · Determine the linear extent of stream channel bordered by alluyial deposits. · Compile existing mapping of bedrock geologic formations. Core drilling: · Obtain representative core samples from soils and saprolite over different bedrock types, outside of the riparian zone · Obtain core samples representative of alluyial deposits throughout the Mechum~ Riv~r basin. · Obtain core samples from SFRR and from the Lickinghole Creek, Beayer Creek and Lake Albemarle impoundments. Erosion susceptibility mapping: · Using a standard testing methodology, measure erodibility of soil/saprolite profiles associated with representative geologic, slope and land cover regimes within the watershed. · Create erosion susceptibility map on the basis of empirical data on erodibility, and soils, geology geologic and land coyer mapping. · Compare deriyed erodibility factors with published indices of erodibility, in order to deyelop correl~tions and allow extrapolation to other areas. Determine the role of major storm events in sediment transport: · Measure turbidity, suspended load, and bed load within the SFRR basin during bank-full weather event(s). · Data points should include stations in the lower, middle & upper main stem Mechums River plus second & third order tributaries. · In addition, measurements should be performed immediately below the SFRR dam. Monitoring: · Establish a network of graduated stakes to be used to directly measure over time, the erosion rates of stream channels, stream banks, riparian zones, alluvial flood plains, and basin uplands. · Monitoring sites should be selected to reflect a representatiYe yariety of geology, slope and land coyer. Analysis: · Use mineralogical data from cores to track provenance of sediment, and, in consideration of erosion susceptibility mapping, delineate areas of the , watershed that are potentially the greatest contributors of mobilized sediment. . Use monitoring data to refine erosion susceptibility mapping, and to evaluate the effectiveness of sediment mitigation strategies. . Evaluate sediment transport data in order to determine the trapping efficiency of reservoir. Use this information in determining the utility of installing a sluice at the SFRR dam to allow flushing of suspended load during and following major wet weather events. Economics of Sediment Containment Strateaies Ultimately, it is going to be necessary to assess sediment containment strategies in terms of relative costs and benefits. Planners will need to examine various approaches (riparian buffers, steam bank'stabilization, flood plain management, forebays, etc) , not only within the context of information produced by the above study, but also in the context of other altematives that have been proposed to address future water supply needs. In order to perform such an evaluation, it will be desirable to attempt cost and benefit analysis of each strategy. Because of the difficulties in measuring downstream environmental benefits, calculation of traditional benefit/cost ratios and intemal rates of retum is not feasible. One approach that could be used would be to rank and compare the altemative sediment mitigation strategies on the basis of cubic yard of contained sediment per dollar expenditure. Cubic y.ards of sediment can then be converted to gallons of reservoir water gained per dollar expenditure. Sediment Another factor that weighs into the downstream benefits that accompany reduced sediment load is the cost of water treatment at the SFRR intake and treatment facility. Foster and others (1987) found that a 10% reduction in annual gross soil erosion resulted in a 4% reduction in annual water treatment costs. Practical Focus of the Proposal: In order to secure funding, it is important that a research proposal to address the sedimentation issue have a practical focus aimed at producing usable information in a timely fashion. . The research outlined above could be carried out in concert with field testing of actual mitigation strategies. For example, sediment contribution rates could be measured for vegetated riparian buffers of various compositions widths, and for different land covers on alluvial flood plains. This would provide information of immediate and practical use to land and water planners and managers. In identifying specific sources of sediment deposited in the SFRR-and evaluating the relative importance of these various sources, the program will enable planners to apply land management and conservation measures the most cost effective manner. The proposed study has the potential to contribute workable tools with which to manage the sedimentation problem, both within the SFRR watershed and beyond. Although the study would focus on a small portion of the Virginia Piedmont, the information developed will have high transfer value to many other local and regional watersheds. Sedimentation is a prime water quality concem for the entire Chesapeake Bay watershed and, more broadly, throughout the Piedmont of the southeastem US. . Framework for carryina out the proposed research: The proposed research involves gathering and analyzing technical data having to do with geology and hydrology, in conjunction with installing and monitoring pilot mitigation practices. There are activities where considerable technical sophistication will be required, and other activities that could be carried out by relatively untrained individuals. While some research elements may produce useful information within a relatively short time period, some activities, such as erosion monitoring and assessing the effectiveness of sediment mitigation practices, will need to be carried out over periods of years. Outside funding sources should be sought, but long term commitment of local resources will be essential in order for the project to succeed. It seems appropriate that an existing local institutional entity, or partnership of local entities, serve as umbrella to orchestrate the project. The umbrella organization(s) would secure funding and mq,nage the project, bringing in technical expertise and manpower as indicated from local, State and Federal govemment agencies, private sector consultants, and citizen groups. Existing institutional entities that could logically provide project oversight include: Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority Albemarle County Engineering Department Thomas Jefferson Soil & Water Conservation District. Biblioaraphy: Black & Veatch (May, 1994), "Bathymetric Survey and Safe Yield of South Rivanna Reservoir," Interim memorandum prepared for Rivanna Water & Sewer Authority, Charlottesville, VA. Chesapeake Bay Riparian Handbook: A guide for Establishing and Maintaining Riparian Forest Buffers. Eds.: Roxane S. Palone and Albert H. Todd. USDA< Forest Service. May, 1997. Clary, W. et al.,~mpilers. 1992 Proceedings--Symposium on Ecology and Management of Riparian Shrub. (or Ecology and Management of Riparian Shrub Communities Symposium Proceedings. USDA Forest Service. Commonwealth of Virginia. 2000. Tributary Strategy: Goals for Nutrient and Sediment Reduction in the James River. Virginia Secretary of Natural Resources. Richmond, Virginia. Foster, D. Lynn, and others, 1987. Soil erosion and water treatment costs: Joumal of Soil and Water Conserva~on, 42(5), p349-352. Glaspey, R.G. (1981), "A Sediment Budget of the South Fork Rivanna River." Unpublished thesis, Dept. of Civil Engineering, University of Virginia. Hjutstrom, F. (1939), "Transportation of detritus by running water," Am. Assoc. Petrol. Geol., Tulsa, Oklahoma. , ~=T""', -..,.'.,,-#" Accumulating River Sludge Threatens Bay Harford Dam Could Become Too Full to confine Muck . ~-,',,:,,-'. o1/F/,/ ;:08 if:__Z_~__< / ~e::'':.q~,4.. ~/ By David A Fahrenthold Washington Post SfaffWriter Monday, February 7, 2005; Page B01 CONOWINGO VILLAGE, Mde -- Just upstream from here, piled up for miles along the Susquehanna River bottom, is 200 million tons of environmental conundrume It's muck, for lack of a better word: dirt, coal dust and particles of manure brought down by the Susquehanna and trapped behind the massive Conowingo Dam The muck has been building up here for more than 75 years, stopped just at the doorstep of the Chesapeake BaYe The Conowingo Dam generates hydroelectric power, but it also catches dirt flowing down the Susq)lehanna Rive? (Matthew S. Gunby -- AP) _Graphic_ . Sediment Buildup: For more than 70 years, a series of three dams has trapped sediment that the Susquehanna River has washed down, keeping significant amounts of pollution from entering the Chesapeake BaYe Now, the gargantuan muck pile has become a hot topic among scientists trying to fix the bay. They worry that in the next two decades, it could fill all the space behind the dam, forcing any new sediment -- and the pollutants it contains -- straight through to the bay. Floods and hurricanes could exacerbate the problem, dumping huge amounts of sludge over the dam in a single stroke. Many scientists have concluded that it would be better for the bay's fragile ecosystem if the muck was gone. But all their efforts keep coming back to the same problem: There's enough crud to fill the MCI Center 219 times. "What do you do with it?" asked Jean Kapusnick, a civil engineer with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, which handles dredging at harbors nationwide. The Conowingo, which generates hydroelectric power, is one of three major dams on the lower Susquehanna. The blockages have their environmental sins -_ they hinder the migration of fi~h, for one -- but they do one thing that has made them some of the bay's best friends. They catch dirt. This happens because the dams cause the river to slow down and pool. As the current slackens, scientists say, much of the dirt in the water settles out. In all, scientists estimate, at least 55 percent of the Susquehanna's sediment is trapped in this way before it can make it to the Chesapeake. But at some point, the buildup becomes a problem. Once the space behind the dam is filled, new material will get pushed through the dam's turbines or floodgates and head downstream. , "What comes down is going to go over, basically," said Mike Langland, a hydrologist with the U.S. Geological Survey. If that happens at the Conowingo Dam, scientists say large increases in two key pollutants would flow down the Susquehanna to the bay. The amount of dirt, which could bury oyster beds and block out sunlight needed by underwater grasses, could double. And the levels of phosphorus, which feeds algae blooms that deplete the bay's oxygen, could go up by perhaps 70 percent, according to scientific estimates. The first Susquehanna dam to hit its capacity was Holtwood, in Pennsylvania. It was built in 1910 and by 1920 could hold no more dirt. The next to fill was the Safe Harbor Dam, also in Pennsylvania, which reached capacity 19 years after it was built in 1931. The two dams still perform their primary function -- producing electricity -- but no longer catch sediment flowing downstream. Now, according to the U.S. Geological Survey, the only barrier left is the Conowingo, which was built in 1928 just about eight miles north of the Chesapeake. The Conowingo Dam gener~tes hydroelectric power, but it also catches dirt flowing down the Susquehanna River. (Matthew S. Gunby -- AP) _Graphic-,-- . Sediment Buildup: For more than 70 years, a series of three dams has trapped sediment that the Susquehanna River has washed down, keeping significant amounts of pollution from entering the Chesapeake Bay. "It's now shifted," Langland said. "Conowingo is taking the hit. " And what a hit: Langland estimates that about 1.6 million tons of sediment are deposited in the Conowingo reservoir every year. That includes manure-laden soil from Lancaster County, Pa., old coal from mines near Scranton, and mud from eroding stream banks as far away as western New York. It's difficult to see this muck from the surface -- especially in winter, when the river is coated in ice. But the scientists who have scooped it up from the bottom say it is not a pretty sight. For one thing, the decay of plant and animal matter turns it black and gives it a sulfur odor. For another, it's so waterlogged and gooey at its topmost layer that it resembles rotten mayonnaise. "It's an organic ooze," said Richard I. McLean, a scientist at the Maryland Department of Natural Resources who has taken samples of the sludge. Farther down, scientists say, the muck becomes darker and more dense. That's where things really get gross. "You go from mayonnaise to pudding," McLean said. "Then you get the hard clays, and then you get about, like, hockey puck material." Some people, tncluding McLean, think that the muck is not such a big deal. He reasons that the Conowingo will never actually be filled, because hurricanes and floods are always scouring big chunks of the stored-up mud and creating new storage room. But many other scientists are worried. By their calculations, the dam could fill with dirt in 20 to 30 years, and any new sediment would flow into the bay. For now, no one is sure how big an environmental problem that would be, because natural currents might keep many problems north of the Chesapeake Bay Bridge. Still, most scientists agree: "More isn't going to be better," said Thomas W. Beauduy of the Susquehanna River Basin Commission, a council of regional governments. , The Conowingo Dam generates hydroelectric power, but it also catches dirt flowing down the Susquehanna River. (Matthew S. Gunby -- AP) _Graphic_ . Sediment Buildup: For more than 70 years, a series of three dams has trapped sediment that Susquehanna River has washed down, keeping significant amounts of pollution from entering Chesapeake Bay. One answer to the worries about the muck would be to dredge the river, creating new storage room behind the dam. But even officials at the Army Corps of Engineers are leery of this task. They ask: How many train cars would be required to haul that much muck away? And, most important, where would they put it? "These are the questions we never got to," said Daniel Bierly, a section chief in the Corps' Baltimore District. That's because the Corps has not been able to find anyone to pay for a feasibility study -- even in the study-laden culture of the Chesapeake 13ay bureaucracy. "The problem is that it takes milIions of dollars just to do the feasibility study," Beauduy said. "And the results of that study may be that it's not feasible." Perhaps the best way to gauge the difficulty of such a project is to look at the dredging behind the Embrey Dam -- a smalIer blockage on the Rappahannock River in Fredericksburg. Before the Virginia dam was blown up last February, the Corps paid to dredge a lot of the accumulated muck. It took six months of near-constant work, and $3.1 milIion dollars, according to the Corps. The Conowingo Dam's muck pile is more than 900 times larger. With the dredging idea on hold, scientists have been forced to turn to a more long-term fix: reducing the amount of polIution that's coming down the Susquehanna in the first place. That would r~quire reducing runoff from hundreds of sewage plants and thousands of farms, across a huge watershed. stretching from Pennsylvania's Amish country to Cooperstown, N. Y. Until that happens, the Conowingo muck wilI be a nagging worry for scientists downstream. "I would say it's at a low boil, but it's constant," said Kim Coble, Maryland executive director of the Chesapeake Bay Foundation. "Every day that the sediment load gets bigger, it's a concern. " Statement to the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors on Wednesday February 9th 2005 Regarding the Covesville Rural Historic District My name is John Foster and I am here as a representative of the Piedmont Environmental Council to give you an update on the progress related to establishing the Covesville Historic District. I would like to begin by giving you a little background on the District and Covesville itself. Covesville is a small rural village in southwestern Albemarle County that initially developed in response to religious settlement, overland transportation routes, and a successful agricultural climate. The combination of these factors spurred one of Virginia's most successful early commercial apple industries. Although not officially established as a village until 1828, agricultural, religious, and residential interests appeared in Covesville as early as the mid-18th century. Initial settlement, which was concentrated along Cove Cr~ek in the Rich Cove area, began in the 1740s by Scotch-Irish and German immigrants from the Shenandoah Valley. Settlement was further spurred by the establishment of the Cove Meeting House, a religious . congregation that provided a center to the fledgling community. By the third quarter of the i8th century the community began to expand slowly into a village due to its location on the Charlottesville to Lynchburg stagecoach road. Although Covesville continued to expand as a rural community throughout the mid-19th century, it did not experience significant growth until the establishment of a commercial apple orchard in 1866, which grew into one of the most successful apple operations in the state. In recog! ition of the importance of this history, in late 2003, a group of residents from Covesville began investigating the idea of establishing the Covesville Historic District. From these early meetings emerged a concentrated effort to establish the District and in March 2004 the State Review Board recommended that the Covesville Historic District was eligible for nomination on the Virginia and National registers. Since that time, the community ofCovesville and the Piedmont Environmental Council have been working with a local consultant to draft a formal nomination for the District. A formal nomination has been completed and submitted to the State Review Board and this very evening a public meeting of residents within the District is being held at the Cove Presbyterian Church. The State Review Board and the Historic Resources Board will vote on this nomination at their upcoming meeting scheduled for March 16th, 2005. While it is not absolutely necessary for the passage of the District, it would be a strong show of support if the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors were to pass a resolution in favor of the establishmt'T}t of the district prior to the State Review Board meeting on March 16th. I hope you will consider passage of such a resolution and thank you for your time and attention. '""~"""'S t.."." }\. i bU iWt:.I:: ------4f//Jd' ;nl #: 7 -~ J,)IJIA/ F~Ea' ."'---~-"-"-- I I I Covesville Historic District Albem~rle County, Virginia I Proposed Boundary I r '-k " ~~~ ~ 9z. l" ~ ....\1" 1. ......~ \ \ - ~---\ \ '-.~ r-!' '~~l 1\ ~ ;; ~ ~ i ., c. .;: a "" I ))1 ( /\I Driveway /\I Road N Railroad /\/ River/Stream c:J Proposed Historic District Boundary Conservation Easement c=J Property Boundary c=J Resource Footprint - Contributing .. Resource Footprint - Non-Contributing .. Lake/Pond ~ataSource: ~eQ~ty Planning Department Produced by Arcadia~ation with assistance from the Piedmont Environmental Council ffbruary 8,20OS . .'----. '\ N W~E T~ Good evening. My name is Jeff Werner. I represent the Piedmont Environmental Council. I want to respond to the discussion held last week regarding options for the community's public water supply. For numerous reasons the PEC is concerned about the proposed James River alternativel Despite the RWSA's presentations, it is clear that there are numerous options available within our own watershedl Whichever option is selected, the decision should only be made after complete and accurate information has been made available. So far, this has simply not been the case. Most of you are aware of my construction background. Problem solving. cost estimating and construction project management are areas I am quite comfortable in discussing. The PEC is not alone in believing the RWSA is determined to present the James River as the preferred altemative{In any construction problem, there is an extremely fine line between explaining how oJ-JEr or+"1\ somethipg <4\N be done and arguing why t:t.N. 'T be done. This maxim is being applied here. ';'\.()~e~ o~~ Of all the components made available to the public, the cost estimates singularly have become a shell game. There has been no consistency in the various cost presented for the various options. For example, from the RWSA's information, the James River option was $66-million in June 2004, then $ I09-million in August 2004 and in January 2005, it suddenly dropped to $49-million. The RWSA's August 2004 item-by-item estimate projects the cost for a I5-mile pipeline to the James River. Th~ distance between S~ottsvil.le and a-Hill ~s a?out 24-m.ile~. T?e potential i~take site;' may be as far as 5-mlles south of ScottsvIlle. ThIS suggests a slgmficaII: omISSIOn In the cost estImate. ./ ~,b()S Regarding dredging, in November the RWSA suggested that the silt would fill Scott Stadium 20 times. I found the dimensions for Scott Stadium and the sediment would only fill it 6 times. Recently, John Martin proposed that some of the silt might simply be pumped into the available dead space near the dam. He was told that silt against the dam's base would be structurally problematic. We have been told the reservoir was designed to silt up. So if silt gets into the reservoir as designed, is that good or bad? If siltation in the reservoir's dead area presents a dangerous situation, shouldn't the RWSA simply dredge so as to prevent any future dam failure? Relative to the astronomical costs associated with the dredging operation, here too I find many unanswered questions. In my construction days, I2-I6-cubic yard dump trucks were pretty standard. Gravel came in 9-cubic yard loads. Site dumpsters were I2-yarders. Last week you were told that the h.auling costs accounted for almost 2/3rds of the cost for the dredging option. One look at the consultant's December 1,2004 estimate offer one clue why. They based the cost on using 6-CY trucks and a 1.5-CY ././ loader. This week I spoke with the crews at two downtown excavation projects. When I asked if they \(,,{-..::. ? would use 6-CY trucks to move several million cubic yards of fill, they said I6-yard trucks would make ~_..."."" more sense. I don't have available the RS Means cost data used by the consultant, but I am working to find it. A local consultant directed me to a on-line estimating page. Using data for Virginia, this cost data suggests the .J AT ..4~-~ '7 ~~ per cubic yard cost for loading and hauling might be cut in half by employing an appropriately sized dump truck and a larger loader for the job. While the numbers I found included a shorter haul, the cost comparison is still apples-to-apples and it is clear that it is significantly cheaper to use larger truck. There is more at stake here than simply finding the cheapest solution for the most water. This is about the quality of our drinking water and the stewardship of our local watershed. It's about maintaining local control of the most critical and basic of human needs-water. Thank you. n Scott Stadium... · The annual dredged material volume would stack up to approximately 26 feet deep. Carl Smith Center, home of David A. Harrison III Field at Scott Stadium Total dredged material removed over 50 years would fill the stadium roughly 20 times. . RECEIVED AT BOS MEE'" - O t . ..;/I'.h ::/ - a e. _ ..:/'" "'~ .e Agenda Item #: 7' - U/cu,",-- Clark's Initials:~ _oW Vanasse 1~/{1tl4.fjell Brusl/fn, inc. From RWSA Public Presentation, November 18,2004 ~] Gannett Fleming -, 2004 Inc. 18, f)rllstJfn, November e Huwsse From RWSA Public Presentation, Illulgen ~ ~ Gannett Fleming Image from internet Image from internet 6-cubic yard dump trucks 6-cubic yard dump truck 12-CY truck at Holsinger project on East Water Street 12-14 CY truck at Holsinger proj ect on East Water Street 16-CY truck. Image from internet 12-16 cubic yard dump trucks . 1- ~-cr---.., ~ _ . ;~ ~- - -- --- --.... 6-cubic yard dump truck internet Image from to 20-CY truck. 18 Water Street on East At Holsinger project 18-20 cubic yard dump trucks ---- Excavation at UVa's new Basketball Arena N ';j '0 E-< 00 ~ ....: c.. 'S 0- ~ 'N 00 0 ... 0 ..Q <-- ~ > u '" (,) M ~ ~,..... \0 II .... "1:l B ~ ~ 0 0 r:a .~ ~ ] Q) rfJ ~ Q) ~ ..e >-- ~ U '" ""'! 0 U ... ~ II 0 : u ... < l::: <l ..... ~ Q) '" .>oi OJ 0 In = u 0 ; ~ 0 N oS N I ... .- '" N -g:3 0 0 ..ell ~ .... lZl ;.. Q) l::: U ;S "5iJ U l::: If) "1:l ~ "1:l Q) ..... -< .... ;::l '0 <-- Q) u '0 ;a ..I( 9 < .D ;::l << r:: ~ ..e ~ ~ '" ... '" o U c:: o ;= u ;::l ... ... '" c:: o U >-. > <-- Q) u al ..9 .... - Q) ~ (,) "1:l l::: Of ... 7:: Q) 't:I .g <-- 't:I U c:: <n Q) ... r-; c:: N 0 os .,!:: .5 ;.. u oo ;::l In ..... I- oo N 0 't:I ~ .fl .5 c:: :3 ;:; os 0 ..e e Q) ..:.: ..e ... OJ "1:l <-- E u ;a ..I( 0 < .D ;::l '" ;::l 'i5 OJ U >l l::: Q) ~~ ~ 00 <n -.:t 0 l- N --- >-- U .>oi U ~ u 00 5 ;S ;S E .~ .~ ::l ..I( ..I( ~ u u 5 5 '" ~ -.:t -.:t -& >< >< \0 \0 :.a ..!:! - - ..!:! - - l::: - ~ ~ 0 M >-- M >-- >-- >-- :9 u :9 u u u '" 0 0 ~ 0 0 g- o - - o. - - ..0 \0 ::!: -.:t -.:t '" '" : gj gj = .;;; .;;; .;;; ::l ::l ::l ..... ..... ..... oo '" '" 0 0 0 u (,) u = = = .~ 0 0 ~ .~ .~ > ~ ~ '" u u (,) >< >< >< Q) Q) Q) "0 "0 "0 "1:l "1:l "1:l -< -< -< Q) Q) Q) .5 s s ~ 'p .~ E s ::l ::l ::l "0 "1:l "1:l "1:l "1:l "1:l l::: .... 1ii .... 1ii .... '" ::l ::l ::l Q) 0 Q) 0 '" Q) 0 ..e ..e ..e > .... '" > .... "1:l ~ .... '" g Q) 't:I '" 8- <. Ual >. ., >. (,) u '" '" u ., ..9 0 ..9 .,- '" '" ~ N 0 ~ N ~ of N 0 ~ ~ l::: :t' r:: :t' In l::: :t' 00 'f Cl.. N "f Cl.. ..Q 'f Cl.. ~ ~ ..... ~ ~ ..... ~ ~ .~ I o~ '" 0 oS oo '" ..I( ..I( 0 ..I( 0 U -.:t U -.:t (,) -.:t :; 5 :3 :; 5 ~ :; 2 :3 <<I <<I <<I ..... .: '" '" .: oo .: '" os ..c ..e ..e ..:.: Q) ..:.: Q) ..:.: Q) "0 ..!:! "0 ..!:! "1:l ..!:! OJ ;::l U ;::l U ;::l ;:; u 's ::l U 's ::l U 's ... ... ... E-< ..= \0 E-< ..= \0 E-< ..= \0 N 0\ 00 ... rf') 0\ ..., Q) .n .-i .-i "1:l <<I 0 ..l ;.. U "1:l In ... I- <<I N ;.. ~ OJ :E ~ ~ ~ ;:; U 00 In ..., ... 0 l- N ~ ... ..Q ..; ..; Q) ... 't:I '" <<I 0 0 U ..l ;.. U In ...; ~ ~ ~ ~ :J ..:.: ..:.: ..:.: '" OJ OJ OJ 0 ;:; ;:; ;:; c; ... ... ... E-< E-< E-< 't:I 't:I "1:l .5 ... ... ... :; < 0 ..Q < o =1 S ::s "1:l ~ ~ Q) E ~b oSiJ 'g a:l E ... E ~ 0 = u o~ i 'a e ::l ;:; S OJ S o 0 ~ u ';j~ OJ Q) '2 S .: ;::l u (,) ., 0 E-<"1:l e~ o 0 c::~~ '" l::: 0 ~ ~ N e .~ -.. ej~ 1'1'.I '":'-; u U g. 13 -< ..e .. ~ ~ ~ Cl::.tCl ~ (.L, ~ .... '0 1: Q) oo Q) ~ '" c:: 1ii > ~ ~ o (.L, ;S ;::l o rfJ Q) ;S OIl c:: "5iJ "1:l ~ Cl I 7:: E 0\ c.."1:l ..9 1ii ~ 00 Q) ~ Cl '" 0. 5 ~ Q)..... 0 u.- ....... c:: oo o ~ 0 U Q) U ~l~ bO 8. Q) .5 00 t:: el S- ~ ...: ~ .g~8-<S B-- ~ B .g 'tj) ti "'0 cd <ii81ii.9 ~ = .... "0 c..t+:: ~ Q) .~ ~ 0 -g "1:l '" "1:l Q) ~r:ali:S ";gV)g '.; U r- ~ o "1:l '" .... 'P a ~ '0 ~ '= ~ 0.. ~~ ~ tl B tl 8 ] ~f CI} .;;; t+::::S OIl ..I( ~ c:: ~ c:: '5 .D Q) ~ ~ 1l ~ D ~ .g ..e Q) t; -= 8 ~ OIl . c:: :g ..9 '" Q) "1:l ;::l U .5 ..... ...... .l!i c:: Q) S :.a Q) oo ...... o <ii oo o ~ :.a "1:l 1ii c:: o 'p ~ o ~ c:: g .... -- ~ \0 >-- U '$ B Q) ..e E-< ci. '.5 "1:l c:: ::s e ..!:! 's o N :E '" .... -- U .... Q) c.. ~ VOl >. ~ E .;( e c.. g. B c.. ::s 1l~ ~ "~ o Q) ~ ~ t;1ij o ..e U U Q) > '" tl .... < Q) '""' Q) > .8 ~ 00 .... Q) .D S ::l l::: ~ '" c:: .~ 0. E ;::l ~ Q) E ~ Q) ;S l::: o "1:l Q) ~ .D .~ .:: -d Q) '" ;::l ~ Q) .D B <ii '1:: Q) ~ E .... . (,) :n ;::l (,) .... Q) c.. N VOl ...... o ..... oo o (,) -< '" . ChI....... Raj'\f Chiang . Mal .l.arnpeng LAOS VIentiane .~ o ~ -:.. '1. . Udon "f' Thani . Sukhothai Oy~ .Mae ~)Sol "t.i. ...... THAILAND A1UItuJuDr &tz .utJon Ratchl Prasat Hin Kha Nakhon eAyulhaya e~~$~~~~a~~~k Path om .0 e Chachoe ngsao Bangkok Ko Si · P8ttaya CAMBODIA Chang t Phnom KG Penh 0 SImet GIllI of" Ho Chi Mtr TIuIlIa_ City (SatgOI Ko .......Npn VlETN Ko Samui NeIchan SI n.... . .. o f2( I5LflN l "Amphoe Plai Phraya .....5.. tile. public. ferry call at PhiPhi'STo...~v1I~ ..........~. ..' v~""andcleanln~crews'~.~;marav'" . .............. v'v..... ............ 'demand. Yetdeanlng crews are on a warfootlngsoth~t~lgn ts c.n i~pect the eastern coast of Phi Phi.'tQday. Thed~ '. e remains off limits. / .... y\~ HcJ l~fI "Amphoe Khao ,..t$\1Vereev.-:uated "'ber, ~ ~ay after . 's. breakers struck es of the narrow een Tonsaland Loh · SPONSORED UNK :: Action D... .>ij~Jit!!~tlng ~ f"their path. P ople . lAg from wall down on the Hammered by . .. r8't>.wave coming the opposite way. It swept them awcIY~ ken coral, shattered boats, air conditioning units a"d ,large Ie~. Jagged, pieces inflicted horrific Injuries - more thatt"',~ . for fractures and deep wounds. About 10 per tent Of.the putation. iPLANET UlNKS:: THAILAND ~ ,.., KRA8I · SPONSORED UNK :: DiWl VIP R..wt IKrabi T_ ,J "Amphoe "ua I( · COlliN De.STlMnONS :: TllIII"~ · CY8ERDIVER~ ~:::'J'J!'I!I(". . SCUBALINX:: l'IIIIi'-nd ~pho The c.c)l"p5eswere cleared away weeks ago, but workers are still clearing rubi>"outof crumbling buildings and spraying disinfectant on plies of rubbISh.' Paths have been bulldozed through the rubble, which will gradually be sorted and heaped onto barges to be disposed off. Reconstruction is not going to happen any time soon; they are still digging out. <>0. ~Yemment order:s, our ferry, with only 12 tourists on board, stays in ,~water and webO~rd a VfO~ long-tailed boat. When it rounds into t4ayil8aY on KohPhl'Phllay,t,he smaller of Phi Phi's two main islands there ISiit coll~e gasp. ~"'de green water sparkles, surrounded by soaring dlffS, and the beach Is like talcum. 1Jl~bC)it heads for three tihd,unaged hotels at Laem Tong Beach, on the ,~~tnslde of Koh Phi Phi Don. The cement pier has been smashed away by ttl~,~~1 wave and brolten boats litter the rocks. But a new wooden dock is alreiKIy In place, leading across the headland to a sea gypsy's snack shack. Tbereareno customers and the owner stares at the vacant beach and desatbes a solemn rite with rice and joss sticks. "We fed the sea to satisfy Its.,.unger. And to ,show our respect," he says. Nlpon Pongsuwant:he, from the Phuk.et Marine Biological Centre, heads a group of 100 scuba v()lunteers w,ho tend the broken coral. The reef west of ~Oolsland,flve kI'n,S away, took a direct hit and blunted the tsunami's power before It struck these eastern beaches. "It Is a mess," he says. "Uprooted trees and housing material are strewn on it. "At Loh Dalam bay, the seabed is very shallow. There was no slope to slow the wave, soa huge amount of water was powered by the earthquake onto the shore. Backwash sucked from two sides at once and generated the force to rip everything apart. II , R~YeJ)'aQdsalvage.workers dearing up after the tsunami have had to a>ntend\N1t;fta series of secondary plagues: in the aftermath of the wave came a plague of files; US Navy Seals, searching the mangroves and slr,khol-'for remains were forced to round up an infestation of stray cats. Now offiCials warn about the rats. Smoke pillars from burning rubbish streak'the cloudless sky, but the ~rquolse water stretches like silk to the horizon. Up on the scrubby hill behind the resort, where the tsunami survivors huddled on higher ground, Mathias Neilsen; a Danish hotel receptionist, is checking to see which of the bungalows on stilts is repairable. He cannot shake the memory of Boxing Day. At least 50 of his companions perished on Koh Phi PhI. "Afterwards, It was so quiett" he says. "No electricity, no music, nothing. When the water thundered In, there were horrible screams and chaos. But people drowned within minutes. No one screamed after that." Gary Stearman, 40, a diver from Brighton, sorts equipment for his Thai employer. Mr Stearman hopes day trips will recommence at Long Beach. The sediment has settled, he says, and underwater visibility is a crystalline 27 metres. i11e provincial governor has offered to buy back damaged property and transfOrm Tonsal Village Into a national park and memorial for the tsunami victims. "Phuket Is big enough and strong enough to be back on the map already," says Phil Russell, a Phuket-based travel agent. "Phi Phi still needs some time to heal." MEC;' . .' .....<;(./-~./ - .:__, ! ~ "rtu'('/ ,!'#Kt tY"."" /.-----. - /...~~-4' www.TsurlamiAidB I I ~ by,Jared Lake com ......'" .1jj,1" "':""'.., ~: \ .{' ~ i ~ ~ ) ':' ''''''. :\. "'. -,,-~~- ~',.,~"-.._...,..~ ~ 1 J"'~~' f, f J .. ~ J .....""t'~ r ~ t ~"'~,J--' , , '\ - IL t)/)l,,",\ J) \ !. .~ f J ~ ,"~""..,., "'l"",-,,,r ~ r~ t-... J ;: \ I , \ I J 't"r... J f .~~- f '\."........J \t \ ., I t-/ );; ~ ~ t .' rr. Pi ~1~~ ,; ~: Ii ,. .... / ; ~. .:~?... '." ... ... ~: <S-..o ~.....-...i . ~..:. ~.. - - - It ... Phi Phi Island Bracele1s IVIonk making bracelet Bangkok Post :' PhiPhi Isb:md December 26, 2004 I A PARADISE jTURNS ItflO A GRAVEYARD It:'. 600 Dead 700 II'1~ured '. ~_ ~.': ~~.. 1000 IMissing r' .~ -. 9:50AM, Before Tsu~i 4:00PM, AflerTsunami The braceIe1s are made by the ITlOI1ks ofWAT ARUM, Thailand for anyone who has ctpna.oo anywhere. While each bracelet is made, a prayer for health and gcKXIluck for the vuearer is chanted. The funds shall be used for those who are in need and to I cons1rucI: a memorial to the deac:l and missing. I you have donated, anywhere, please tak~ one. Anyfur1her donation here would provide additional heI~. I I VCOPS I.U.P.A. LOCAL 111 A.L.E.A. P.O. Box 6953 Charlottesville VA 22906 February 2,2005 Board of Supervisors - County of Albemarle The Albemarle County Law Enforcement Association (ALE A) is in full support of the retired law enforcement officers and deputies from Albemarle County. Each of us is in this profession not because it is a job, but rather because it is a calling. We accept the countless days and nights of being away from our families when we are sworn in to serve the community. We know that we will not be the wealthiest citizens in the county. We come to work on a daily basis and ask little more than to be paid well enough to provide a nice life for ourselves and our families. As each one of us continue through our careers we establish Albemarle County as our home and the place that we not only want to raise our family, but where we want to retire and live out our lives after serving our community. Unfortunately, as the younger generation of law enforcement we are seeing the struggles that our fore fathers are enduring. While their income remains relatively similar to what they retired at, their medical expenses continue to grow. The ALEA feels very strongly that the medical benefits that are afforded to the retiring officers should not be discontinued after several years. These retired officers supported our community for at least twenty years, and sometimes longer. The very least that Albemarle County can do in appreciation is continue the health insurance benefits until the retired officers no longer need them. This is similar to the type of benefit that the Charlottesville Police Department provides to their retired officers. As the younger generation becomes more educated on their future and the types of benefits that will be awaiting them upon their retirement, I fear that they may seek employment elsewhere. Somewhere that the cost of living is lower, the salaries are higher and the retirement benefits will allow them to enjoy their golden years without financial burden brought on by having to pay medical insurance. I encourage you to work with the retired officers in anyway possible so as they may continue to be proud of the career path that they chose. To: Members, Board of Supervisors From: Ella Washington Carey, CMC, Clerk Subject: Reading List for February 2, 2005 Date: January 26, 2005 May 5, 2004 pages 1-23 (end #12) pages 23 (beginning #12) - end October 13, 2004 pages 1-17(end #14) pages 17 (beginning #14) - end October 27,2004 - Mr. Boyd MEMORANDUM Mr. Wyant Mr. Bowerman Mr. Rooker Mr. Dorrier NOTE: PLEASE REMEMBER TO PULL YOUR MINUTES IF YOU HAVE NOT READ THEM. /ewc o COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AGENDA TITLE: Amendment of Personnel Policy Manual AGENDA DATE: February 9, 2005 SU BJ ECT/PROPOSALlREQUEST: Adoption of Resolution establishing Employee Recognition Policy ACTION: INFORMATION: CONSENT AGENDA: ACTION: X INFORMATION: STAFF CONTACTlS): Tucker, White, Davis, Trank, Suyes, Gerome ATTACHMENTS: Yes ~ LEGAL REVIEW: Yes REVIEWED BY: BACKGROUND: At the September 1 meeting, the Board of Supervisors approved the following recommendations for the Total Rewards strategy for Albemarle County employees: · Approved implementing an Employee Recognition Program in January, 2005 at a cost of $20,000 for the current fiscal year and an anticipated cost of $50,000 for FY06. · Approved a revised Merit Plan for FY06, which will provide a base market increase for employees who meet expectations, a market increase, plus an additional amount to employees who exceed expectations and less than a market salary increase for employees who do not meet expectations. The revised plan continues to provide an accelerator increase for those employees below mid-point. · Approved development of skill and competency differentials for a skill-based pay system, which will reward specific job- related skills, such as licensing, certifications or completion of formalized training. · Approved continued evaluation of Broad banding, a compensation and classification system that provides greater career and skill development by grouping jobs into wide pay bands. The Employee Recognition Program is proposed to be incorporated into the County's personnel policies. One aspect of the Employee Recognition Program provides for the payment of cash bonuses to employees. Virginia State Code Section 15.2- 1508 requires that any payment of bonuses be approved by ordinance. The approval of the addition of this Program in the County's personnel policy by resolution satisfies the state code requirement. STRATEGIC PLAN: Goal 4.1 Provide effective, responsive and courteous service to our customers Goal 4.1.3 By June 2005, the County will be recognized as a quality place of employment with a workforce of employees who continuously provide high quality, customer-focused service to its citizens. RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends the Board adopt the attached Resolution to approve the Employee Recognition Program as part of the County personnel policy. ATTACHMENTS Attachment A - Resolution incorporating proposed personnel policy 05.015 Attachment A RESOLUTION WHEREAS, the County of Albemarle Personnel Policy Manual has been adopted by the Board of Supervisors; and WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors desires to authorize a Total Rewards Program for Albemarle County employees; and WHEREAS, the proposed Section P-65, Employee Recognition Program, sets forth the purposes of the program, recognition criteria and employee eligibility; and WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors finds it appropriate to add Section P-65, Employee Recognition Program, to the Personnel Policy Manual. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, hereby amends the County of Albemarle Personnel Policy Manual by adding Section P-65, Employee Recognition Program. COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE PERSONNEL POLICY Section P-65 EMPLOYEE RECOGNITION PROGRAM A. Purpose The Board of Supervisors encourages its employees to provide the best possible service to our customers and citizens. The purpose of this program is to recognize County employees who distinguish themselves in the performance of their duties and who contribute significantly to the achievement of the goals and objectives of the County. B. Program Established There is hereby established an Employee Recognition Program. Each department is authorized to define its own recognition standards to reward employees for the following: 1. Providing exceptional customer service 2. Performing above and beyond normal duties and expectations 3. Identifying and/or implementing a means to reduce the costs of providing services 4. Demonstrating excellence in safe work practices 5. Causing improvement in productivity, process, or quality of services 6. Exemplifying County values of Integrity, Innovation, Stewardship and Learning These departmental standards shall be in writing and approved by Human Resources. Pursuant to Virginia Code section 15.2-1508, the Board of Supervisors authorizes the payment of monetary bonuses and other forms of nonmonetary awards to recognize employees who qualify for recognition under this program. 1 Attachment A C. Eligibility All permanent full-time and part-time County classified employees are eligible to participate in this program. Adopted: February 9,2005 I, Ella W. Carey, do hereby certify that the foregoing writing is a true, correct copy of a Resolution duly adopted by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County by vote of_to _ on ,2005. Clerk, Board of County Supervisors Aye Nay Mr. Bowerman Mr. Domer Mr. Wyant Mr. Boyd Mr. Rooker Ms. Thomas 2 Albemarle County, VA Shelby Marshall Clerk Circuit Court 501 E. Jefferson St. Charlottesville, VA 22902 Phone Number: (434)972-4083 DEEDS Receipt Official Receipt: 2005-00003174 Printed on 02/17/2005 at 03:25:55 PM _ RECEIVED OF COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA Date Recorded: 02/17/2005 Albemarle County, VA Shelby Marshall Clerk Circuit Court 501 E. Jefferson St. Charlottesville, VA 22902 Phone Number: (434)972-4083 DEEDS Receipt Official Receipt: 2005-00003173 Printed on 02/17/2005 at 03:24:38 PM RECEIVED OF COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA Date Recorded: 02/17/2005 Instrument 10 Recorded Time Bk 2922 Pg 494 03:25:32 PM Instrument:200500003265 000- DEED OF DEDICATION GRANTOR:MEADE, BARRY E. AND TRACY M. EX:N GRANTEE:COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA EX: N Addressl :401 MCINTIRE ROAD Address2: City/State/Zip:CHARLOTTESVILLE VA 22902 Description: 11,268 SQ. FT. OF 1.259 ACRE PARCEL ALONG SOUTH PANTOPS DRIVE Consideration:$O.OO Assumption:$O.OO Locality:CO Pages:4 Accounts 035 - OPEN SPACE PRESERVATION 106- TECHNOLOGY TRUST FUND FEE 145- VSLF 301- DEEDS Amount $32.00 Instrument 10 Recorded Time Bk 2922 Pg 489 03:23:55 PM Instrument:200500003264 DPR- DEED OF PARTIAL RELEASE GRANTOR:SANTOS, VICTOR M. TRUSTEE EX: N GRANTEE:MEADE, BARRY E. AND TRACY M. EX:N Address1:401 MCINTIRE ROAD Address2: City/State/Zip:CHARLOTTESVILLE VA 22902 Description: 11,268 SQ. FT. OF 1.259 ACRE PARCEL ALONG SOUTH PANTOPS DRIVE Consideration:$O.OO Assumption:$O.OO Loca 1 ity: CO Pages:4 Accounts 035 - OPEN SPACE PRESERVATION 106- TECHNOLOGY TRUST FUND FEE 145- VSLF 301- DEEDS Amount $20.50 Pe rcent : 100.00% Names:O Amount $1.00 $0.00 $1,50 $29.50 Pe rcent : 100.00% Names:O Amount $1,00 $5.00 $0.00 $14.50 Itemized Check Listing Check # 47186 Total Due: Paid By Check: Change Tendered: $32.00 $32.00 $32.00 $0.00 Itemized Check Listing Check # 47186 $20,50 $20,50 $20.50 $0.00 Total Due: Paid 6y Check: Change Tendered: Cashier:PATSY MINAHAN Reg:FEE02 Cashier:PATSY MINAHAN Reg:FEE02 Instrument Control Number I 002555 Commonwealth of Virginia land Record Instruments Cover Sheet - Form A Number of Parcels 1 ] 3] 11"1"1111'1' III "III "III "II' 1'1'1 '11'1 11'1' '1111 'I'll "III "III "II' 'III 1"1 . 000951640006 Type: DEE ~~~o~~ed: 02/17/2005 at 03:27:23 PM Fee Amt: $32.00 paR: 1 of 6 Albemarle chounltlvc'lVerk Circuit Court Shelby Mars a File# 2005-00002655 BK2922 PG500-505 [ILS VLR Cover Sheet Agent 1.0.66] T C A 0 X R P Date of Instrument: Instrument Type: [2/16/2005 [DE E X E M ~ I [Smith OO[ Number of Pages City D County W Last Name [Albemarle County ] First and Second Grantors First Name I Middle Name or Initial ] [ ][ First and Second Grantees First Name I Middle Name or Initial ][ ][ (Box for Deed Stamp Only) I ] [Anne S. ][ I ][ ][ I ][ ][ Suffix Suffix I Last Name I CXJ 0 [County of Albemarle, Vir] [ DO [ ][ Grantee Address (Name) [County of Albemarle, Virginia (Address 1) [401 Mcintire Road (Address 2) [ (City, State, Zip) [Charlottesville ] [VA] [22902 Consideration [0.00 ] Existing Debt [0.00 Assumption Balance [0.00 Prior Instr. Recorded at: City 0 County GJ [Albemarle County Percent. in this Juris. 100] Book [1900] Page [50] Instr. No [ ] Parcel Identification No (PIN) [062A 1-00-0E-00200 ] Tax Map Num. (if different than PIN) [62A 1-E-2 ] Short Property Description [Lot 2, Block E, Section Two of Northfield Subdivision ] [ ] Current Property Address (Address 1) [2500 Northfield Road ] (Address 2) [ ] (City, State, Zip) [Charlottesville ] [VA ] [22901 ] Instrument Prepared by Recording Paid for by Return Recording to (Name) (Address 1) (Address 2) (City, State, Zip) [Mark A. Trank [County of Albemarle, Virginia [Albemarle County Attorney's Office [401 Mcintire Road [ [Charlottesville [ ] [ ] [VA] [22902 ][ Customer Case 10 Cover Sheet Page # 1 of 1 DEED OF EASEMENT THIS DEED OF EASEMENT made this II day of ~f b. 002655 , 2005 by and between ANNE S. SMITH, Grantor, and the COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE~ VIRGINIA, Grantee. WITNESSETH: That for and in consideration ofTEN DOLLARS ($10.00), cash in hand paid, and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt of which is hereby aclmowledged, Grantor does hereby GRANT, CONVEY, and DEDICATE to public use with GENERAL WARRANTY and ENGLISH COVENANTS OF TITLE unto the Grantee, its successors and assigns, a perpetual exclusive easement over certain property described as follows: All that certain parcel ofland lying in Albemarle County, Virginia, shown and designated as "New Sight Distance Easement Across Lot 2 Block E Section One Northfields" on plat of Thomas B. Lincoln Land Surveyor, Inc. dated March 4,2004, revised June 30,2004, a copy of which is attached hereto to be recorded with this deed (the "Plat"). Reference is made to the Plat for a more particular description of the land conveyed herein. The interest in property conveyed herein is a portion of that certain lot or parcel of land situated in Albemarle County, Virginia, shown and described as Lot 2, Block E, Section Two of Northfields Subdivision on a plat by B. Aubrey Huffman dated April 1964 and recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of Albemarle County, Virginia in Deed Book 508, page 245, being the same property conveyed to Grantor by deed of gift from Edward A. Smith, Jr. and i\nne S. Smith dated February 17,2000, recorded March 9,2000 in the said Clerk's Office in Deed Book 1900, page 50. The easement provided for herein shall include the right of the Grantee, its successors and assigns, to cut any trees, brush and shrubbery, remove obstructions, and take other similar action reasonably necessary to maintain the sight distance requirements. The Grantee, its successors and Prepared by Albemarle Counry Attorney's Office Tax Map Parcel 62AI-E-2 assigns, shall have the right and easement of ingress and egress over any lands of the Grantor adjacent to the easement described herein between any public or private roads and the described easement. The Grantee specifically reserves the right to assign this easement as its interests may reqUIre. The Grantee, acting by and through its County Executive, duly authorized by resolution of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, does hereby accept the conveyance of the interest in real estate made by this deed. WITNESS the following signatures. GRANTOR: ~f} ANNE S. SMITH ..... ~ . GRA1'ITEE: ~fb: County Ana COMMONWEALTH OF?;1;GL.'HA CITY/COUNTY OF . hi ((7f.i tI (L The foregoing feb instrument was acknowledged before me this , 2005 by Anne S. Smith, G antor. / y1/, ~ Notary Pub' \ I day of My Commission Expires: 'J.} ;}..oc'i;' 2 C0M110NWEAL TH OF VIRGINIA ~/COUNTYOF t2tk/n1IVJj~.J ~The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this /7+A day of ~~ ,2005 by Robert W. Tucker, Jr., on behalf of the County of Albemarle, V' . . a, Grante' . dttuv/ 1.. ~~ Notary Public My Commission Expires: ~301~OOS 3 )>-irmUl)>O;>l;lJ- ~ Z -iUlCOO 'ii!!! r :Den >D>"UZCJ)>Z"U I)>Z-iZOZrI -< 0 O-iZOO m mo omzc;))>o~o)>m -i )>OZZ " "Tl c;) ~> 'OZDomom, ~lJIgz;;1Ul;!1:E--i~ 0 )> -i-imUl< -" m (II ZODOD:E> 0 :n Im:nmm :nlJl Z en- mOm"U-t-tO -t :noom -i-r-ilJl m~Ulz-< 9 m[!l mC)>:ulJl)>:ll~o-< ~ lJI~i5-i)> om I:mCJ)m:tOCJ)~CJ) ~ Zz 0 ZZ"UUlOZ c;) iii :ll-i~)>~ TI-i .. ...... ~-t. ~:!!ZCJ)G>:t -iOm- )>o:Em-iO . )> r:n)> Im Ul -iUlOZm 0- c... :!!:U)>)>o:n=i)>m:n (5 )> 0 c:n coo ,~CJ)-<~o':!iO ~-<:uz OIZlJI::! Z 0"Tl0_0 zO Zw oUlQO~Ul-iOm~ "Tl"Tl:EZ"Tl OZ mo mOl: OzO :E I=iUl mIlJIUl ~X~)>-i TI w o-t::;JRCJ)m-toz UlOmc)>Ulmm-i-i -<~:og~ 0 !=l~ O:J:, NmG> ~:Eo:u:n-i~!:OI c <Z-i<O)>-m"Tl)> ~-i"UOm z C 0 -t m Ulm;!;lJI~"Tl -i 0 N> Z Z m>> -<I' -<-i!:~' ~ OO:U~~ 0:D . m-OmUlc--<-i :E-i~)>m 00 -t G> r-Z :n :nOI~Ul ;!; rI:nZ~ .:z: -< - 00 mj!:Ul-im OlJUl miiiffiOm . Z Om Oul UlOlJO:nm o -imz .. G> ~ ZO)>- lJI:n:nO)> c;)"U0 --i < ZlJ 0 "Tl !",r:n~Ul :n -t m iiioo:u-<o~m~ N lJImOO-imO~~ )>Ul-iI 0 0 m> )>:nm"TlIO-i_m -i IO 0 G> CJ) Ul-i:nmmc Oz )>)>-i:E . Z m m'ii-iUl :n)>Z-i :nZIZ > ~ o-<_~:smz)> 'Q' mOm :!!O:uUlor -i-ioiii m O-imzc;) "\ 2!2!m:E Z ZIO)>Z -t )> r- mUl~- -i )> -i:n-i )>mmI ~:ll0-i . "Tl I o m 0)>-i"Tl :urI:n :nrmm m m 0 -i en :z: m m -1 o TI ~ ~ -i ~ 0 0 .... (') ah~ m r :=~= CIl ~>ttlO m ]J =z:t i( < ....t"'tzj> m 'O=z:t ]J .... ~fn .... ~~L(ttI 0 ~~ . )> tzj>t"' -i fn=z:t_ )> < <0 -OZ / t"'-(') .... t"'=z:tO 0 tzj(')t"' 0 / . t"'Z .... ~tzjt"' 0 0 =z:t > 0 0 Z 0 I\J - t::l ~ Z 0 - fn .... > 'tl c:: ]J N =z:t 0 N < ...... 8 0 t:o;J 0 .... 0.< . 0 0 0 =z:t I\) . - I Z 0 ...... f) o mo rlJl -i. ~~~;4?"~ (.1~~~O~ oll:":c..o J.:q -Olq Olo UI · om . !!! A~.:JJ TI..- ---.; '-"6'. (\s ~ '" ~Q\~ ~ -,,-" ~v ~ Q~O~ \ oCJ\ ~~ 000)> . . . Z !D!D!Dz W(.1I-40m molDUl ooog. ul :U"U"U~ ~I'J ...... _...UtI <'>...0 lJ", r... ~1JI lJ r )> -i r- enO m-t -1 ON ~ -t "U Om ~ z,... > 00 .. zO r;n m '" I\) m ~""TI~ ~;~! ~ lD-<m- !:ozCi) Om-tJ: cO -t eno 0 m> - -1 cn m -t o > Z o m - 01 o go r-lJI ;!ZO--i~;P II (.,,)U II _GI -,~~~:.g ~~:...g...o ~uit.!."!q olD o . aom . 1- ~"S'<> G"~d'.;> ~Gl Ul,% Oc:;. :';'1-0 ~'P.... 01<1- \<' RECORDED IN CLERKS OFFICE OF ALBEMARLE ON February 17,2005 AT 3:27:23 PM $0.00 GRANTOR TAX PD AS REQUIRED BY VA CODE gS8.1-802 . STATE: $0.00 LOCAL: $0.00 ALBEMARLE COUN . VA SH~M ALL CLER CUlT COURT ~ DC Instrument Control Number I ,002654 Commonwealth of Virginia land Record Instruments Cover Sheet - Form A T C A 0 X R P Date of Instrument: Instrument Type: [2/16/2005 [DOD 1 ] 4] 11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 Doc ID: 000951630006 Type: DEE Recorded: 02/17/2005 at 03:25:32 PM Fee Amt: $32.00 Pa~e 1 of 6 Albemarle County. VA Shelby Marshall Clerk Circuit Court File# 2005-00002654 BK2922 PG494-499 [ILS VLR Cover Sheet Agent 1.0.66] Number of Parcels E X E M ~ I [Meade OO[ Number of Pages City D County GJ Last Name [Albemarle County ] First and Second Grantors I First Name I Middle Name or Initial ] [Barry E. and Tracy M. ] [ ][ ][ First and Second Grantees First Name I Middle Name or Initial ][ ][ (Box for Deed Stamp Only) I Last Name I GJ 0 [County of Albemarle, Vir] [ 00 [ ][ I ][ ][ I ][ ] [ Suffix I ] ] ] ] ] ] ] Suffix Grantee Address (Name) [County of Albemarle, Virginia (Address 1) [401 Mcintire Road (Address 2) [ (City, State, Zip) [Charlottesville ] [VA] [22902 Consideration [0.00 ] Existing Debt [0.00 Assumption Balance [0.00 Prior Instr. Recorded at: City D County D [ Percent. in this Juris. 100] Book [1958] Page [68] Instr. No [ ] Parcel Identification No (PIN) [07800-00-00-015C3 ] Tax Map Num. (if differentthan PIN) [78-15C3 ] Short Property Description [11,268 sq. ft. of 1.259 acre parcel along South Pantops Drive ] [ ] Current Property Address (Address 1) [140 S. Pantops Drive, #200 ] (Address 2) [ ] (City, State, Zip) [Charlottesville ] [VA ] [22911 ] Instrument Prepared by Recording Paid for by Return Recording to (Name) (Address 1) (Address 2) (City, State, Zip) [Mark A. Trank [County of Albemarle, Virginia [Albemarle County Attorney's Office [401 Mcintire Road [ [Charlottesville, [ ] [ ] [VA] [22902 ] [ Customer Case 10 Cover Sheet Page # 1 of 1 This deed was prepared by the Albemarle County Attorney. 002654 Tax Map 78, Parcel 15C3 This deed is exempt from taxation under Virginia Code ~~ 58.1-8 I I(A)(3) and 58.1-811(C)(4). DEED OF DEDICATION THIS DEED OF DEDICATION is made this~"'day of ~ ,2005 by and between BARRY E. MEADE and TRACY M. MEADE, Grantors, and the COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA, a political subdivision of the Commonwealth of Virginia, Grantee. WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, the Grantors are the owners in fee simple of the real property located in Albemarle County that is described below and hereinafter referred to as the "Property;" WHEREAS, the Grantors offer to grant, convey and dedicate the Property to the County for public use, namely, a public access trail and greenway, induding improvements; and WHEREAS, the Grantee is willing to accept the Grantors' offer of dedication. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual premises, the Grantors hereby grant, convey, and dedicate for public use to the Grantee, its successors and assigns, with GENERAL WARRANTY AND ENGLISH COVENANTS OF TITLE, the following real property, to wit: Those certain lands, shown and designated as the 11268 square foot area of dedication that is shaded on the plat of Robert W. Coleman, Jr., Residential Surveying Services, dated January 6, 2004, and entitled "Plat Showing Greenway Dedication Located On T.M.P. 78-15C3, Albemarle County, Virginia," a copy of which is attached hereto and to be recorded with this deed (the "Plat''). Reference is made to the Plat for a more particular description of the location of the described lands. The property interest conveyed herein is a portion of that certain parcel of land shown on the Plat situated on the northeast side of the Rivanna River. being the same parcel conveyed to the Grantors by deed of record in the office of the Clerk of the Albemarle County Circuit Court at Deed Book 1958. Page 68. This conveyance is made expressly subject to all restrictions, conditions, rights-of-way and easements, if any, contained in duly recorded deeds, plats and other instruments constituting constructive notice in the chain of title to the Property conveyed hereby, insofar as the same affect the Property, which have not expired by a time limitation contained therein or have not otherwise become ineffective. The Grantee, acting by and through its County Executive, duly authorized by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, does hereby accept the offer of dedication made by this deed, as evidenced by the signature below. WITNESS the following signatures. GRANTORS: GRANTOR ~ t. ?J;~~ _ ~eade GRANTOR 1~4~ Tracy . Meade GRANTEE: COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA COMMONWEAL TH OF VIRGINIA CITY/COUNTY OF f\\be.v~..\e. The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this~1 day of j LA.. '" ,-'-A.v- '-f 2005 by 6,.::.:~;,:.~e-Grantor. . c ~-- 0v '~ ~..~~~ ~otarv Public My Commission Expires: 08 (3 \ ( ~cc e, '- . .., COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA CITY/COUNTY OF ~,~~....- \e.... The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this d( day of .JlAVllA..Q......i, 2005 by '-I <O-<:..~ fV'\. rJ"~\e.- , Grantor. ~.~ ~~~ / Notary PublIc My Commission Expires: OB J?>l !..;;(p'c)5 COMMONWEAL TH OF VIRGINIA ~/COUNTY OF (ijjvm adA/ : rr. The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this /5 day of ~ Ji~.{A./~, 2005 by Robert W. Tucker, Jr., County Executive, on behalf ofthe County of Albr~arle, Virginia, Grantee. My Commission Expires: 4;;/111/ t3 ~.A Notary Public . .., .) OWNERS APPROVAL THE DEDICATED AREA DESCRIBED HEREON IS WITH THE FREE CONSENT AND IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE DESIRE OF THE UNDERSIGNED OWNERS. PROPRIETORS AND/ OR TRUSTEES. ALL STATEMENTS AFFIXED TO THIS PLAT ARE TRUE AND CORRECT TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE. T~B~ E'. ~~A~~ ' TRACY M. MEADE ~~~f /p <:Z- f/ZI/Zoo'-i- DATE ~O 290 SCALE IN FEET LEGAL REFERENCES: D.B.195B Pg.68 IF = IRON FOUND N/F = NOW OR FORMERLY TO = TOTAL DISTANCE THE SHADED AREA SHOWN HEREON WILL BE THE AREA OF DEDICATION. (CREATED FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE), UPON RECORDA TIOf\l OF THIS PLAT. UTILITIES AND EASEMENTS OTHER THAN THOSE SHOWN MAY EXIST. TITLE REPORT WAS NOT FURNISHED FOR THIS SURVEY. NOTARY PUBLIC THE FOREGOING INSTRUMENT W~?~GEQ BEFORE ME THIS~DAY OF ~ MY COMMISSION EXPIRES '1$ ~(t) 1 LINE l1 L2 L3 BEARING S69 '24 '47"E S39 '55 '23 "E S22 '19 '58"E DISTANCE 50.30' 44.99' 71.74 . APPROVED FOR RECORDATION If}. ~. tJ4 DATE ,/ o~ '&~ . o,^ "'"o'b ~~ ~ .o~~ ~ 0<" .s:.-<f-t- ~ ,/ ,/ /' ./ ,/ ./ ,/ ,./ ./ . EDGE OFmVER- "'_ "'_ ..._ ..' ~ /"'./ .,/' N46 .00' 00 "1'1 /'" T. N. P. 78 - 15C1 - - ----!3.08' RlVANNA /'././ Aftofflrt'fEtvgc _ FL9.!:J.. - -. ../ D.8. 2001 Pg. 46 ED ~{~\~}~, - - APPROXIMATE-GMITS OF ...- .~.~IVER ~@i("l\,.. \,00 YEAR FlOOO Z<H' /' T.NP7B-~E-=;'t,,~~2~' //// "~, N/F PA TRICIA FERRICK ~~".J. .('"<9.. / " [; RICHARD STEELE 2 + '\. T. N. P. 78 - 1761 D.8. 2628 Pg. 361 ~ v,s" '\. N{!;!f1~ ~f~L V ~SSi'..9" 0.8. 1958 Pg. J T.M.P. 78 - 15C3 -.5'0'?' " _______ ("~. '\, ~ " " ,/ / ~ lD lCl OJ ~ " (T) U) W 338.48' S52.30'00"E SOUTH PANTOPS DRIVE --------------------- 250'+/- TO RIVERBEf\(J DR. AREA TABULATION PARCEL 15C3 (TOTAL) = 54.851 Sq.Ft. - AREA OF DEDICA nON = 11,268 Sq.Ft. RESIDUE = 43,583 Sq.Ft. (1.0005 ACRES) RESIDENTIAL SURVEYING SERVICES (434) 245 - 8744 117 4TH STREET N.E. CHARLOTTESVILLE. VIRGINIA 22902 DL/RGL PLAT SHOWING GREBNW AY DEDICATION LOCATED ON T.M.P. 78 - 15C3 ALBEMARLE COUNTY. VIRGINIA JANUARY 6. 2004 03-376 RECORDED IN CLERKS OFFICE OF ALBEMARLE ON February 17,2005 AT 3:25:32 PM $0.00 GRANTOR TAX PO AS REQUIRED BY VA CODE 958.1-802 STATE: $0.00 LOCAL: $0.00 ALBEMARLE COUN ,VA ALL CLER RCUIT COURT DC --. Instrument Control Number I 002653 Commonwealth of Virginia land Record Instruments Cover Sheet - Form A [2/16/2005 [DPR 111111111111111111111\ 11111111111111111111 \\11111111111111111111\\1111111111 111\ Doc 10: 000951620005 Type: DEE Recorded: 02/17/2005 at 03:23:55 PM Fee Amt: $20.50 paae 1 of 5 Albemarle County. VA Shelby Marshall Clerk Circuit Court File# 2005-00002653 BK2922 PG489-493 [ILS VLR Cover Sheet Agent 1.0.66] T C Date of Instrument: A 0 Instrument Type: X R P E X E M P T Number of Parcels Number of Pages City 0 County W I Last Name [Santos o 0 [Summers I [X] 0 [Meade o 0 [Community Bank Grantee Address Last Name Consideration [0.00 1 ] 4] (Box for Deed Stamp Only) [Albemarle County ] First and Second Grantors I First Name I Middle Name or Initial ] [Victor M. ] [ ] [Frank L. ] [ First and Second Grantees I First Name I Middle Name or Initial ] [Barry E. and Tracy M. ] [ ][ ][ I Suffix ] [Trustee ] [Trustee I ][ ] [Beneficiary Suffix (Name) [County of Albemarle, Virginia (Address 1) [401 Mcintire Road (Address 2) [ (City, State, Zip) [Charlottesville ] Existing Debt [0.00 ] [VA] [22902 Assumption Balance [0.00 Prior Instr. Recorded at: City 0 County 0 [ Percent. in this Juris. 100] Book [2582] Page [704] Instr. No [ ] Parcel Identification No (PIN) [07800-00-00-015C3 ] Tax Map Num. (if differentthan PIN) [78-15C3 ] Short Property Description [11,268 sq. ft. of 1.259 acre parcel along South Pantops Drive ] [ ] Current Property Address (Address 1) [140 S. Pantops Drive, #200 ] (Address 2) [ ] (City, State, Zip) [Charlottesville ] [VA ] [22911 ] Instrument Prepared by Recording Paid for by Return Recording to (Name) (Address 1) (Address 2) (City, State, Zip) Customer Case ID Cover Sheet Page # 1 of 1 [Greg Kamptner [County of Albemarle, Virginia [Albemarle County Attorney's Office [401 Mcintire Road [ [Charlottesville, [ ] [ ] [VA] [22902 ][ This deed was prepared by Tax Map 78, Parcel 15C3 002653 DEED OF PARTIAL RELEASE THIS DEED OF PARTIAL RELEASE is made and entered into this ~ ~ day of Daee1W.bW' , 20d: by and between VICTOR M. SANTOS, TRUSTEE, and FRANK L. SUMMERS, TRUSTEE, Grantors, BARRY E. MEADE and TRACY M. MEADE, Grantees, and COMMUNITY BANK, Beneficiary. WITNESSETH: 'WHEREAS, by deed of trust dated November 15,2001, recorded in the Office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of the County of Albemarle, Virginia, in Deed Book 2110, page 133 (hereinafter, the "Deed of Trust"), the Grantees granted and conveyed unto Victor M. Santos, Tmstee, and Frank L. Summers, Trustee, certain lands more particularly described in the Deed of Tmst, which Deed of Trust is hereby made reference to for a more particular description of the real property conveyed therein, to secure the payment of a loan in the original principal sum of three hundred sixty thousand dollars ($360,000.00), plus interest, payable to the order of Community Bank, Beneficiary; WHEREAS, the Deed of Trust was modified in a modification recorded in the aforesaid Clerk's Office in Deed Book 2582, page 704; and \VHEREAS, the Beneficiary has directed the Trustees to execute this release and hereby assents thereto, all of which is evidenced by the Beneficiary executing this deed of partial release. NOW, THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the premises and the sum ofTen Dollars ($ 10.00) cash in hand paid, and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt of which is hereby acknowledged by the Tmstees, the said Tmstees, and each of them, do hereby grant, release, quitclaim, relinquish, and convey unto the Grantees all rights, title, and interest vested in said Trustees by virtue ofthe Deed of Trust, free and clear from the lien ofthe said Deed of Trust recorded in the aforesaid Clerk's Office in Deed Book 2110, page 133, the following described tract or parcel of land, to-wit: Those certain lands, shown and designated as the 11,268 square foot area of dedication that is shaded on the plat of Robert W. Coleman, Jr., Residential Surveying Services, dated January 6,2004, and entitled "Plat Showing Greenway Dedication Located On T.M.P. 78-15C3, Albemarle County, Virginia," a copy of which is attached hereto and to be recorded with this deed of partial release (the "Plat"). Reference is made to the Plat for a more particular description of the location of the described lands. The property interest conveyed herein is a portion of that certain parcel ofland shown on the Plat situated on the northeast side of the Rivanna River, being the same parcel conveyed to the Grantees by deed of record in the aforesaid Clerk's Office in Deed Book 1958, page 68. HOWEVER, this release of the above described tract or parcel ofland shall in no way affect the lien ofthe Deed of Trust upon the remainder of the original tract ofland containing 1.2593 acres, described in Schedule A, Property Description, of the Deed ofTmst recorded in the aforesaid Clerk's Office in Deed Book 2110, page 13 3. WITNESS the following signatures. G~TOR/ lJALf~ I Victor M. Santos, Tmstee GRANTOR !i~uL j. lNUNttutJ. 'f-~f Frank L. Summers, Tmstee { 2 GRANTEE c12 M!de1Jlu/ - GRANTEE T~ ~e:.n~ BENEFICIARY By: .~ 'it50~+ Title: ,~ re S. ,'- '-'* Community Bank COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA CITY/COUNTY OF fl \ b.: """^'" \e-kCU-L,~ The foregoing instrum,ent was ac ~ C6'm~ ,200L\-by ULctut. M . t~) ,JooS- j~ owl edged before me this ~ day of Grantor. a~ !Yl. @!.-J~ Notary Public /I -- My Commission Expires: "-I - ~ 0 - 0 ~ COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA CITY/CDYNTY OF ~~O\.t; The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this ;C/~av of //1/rLiA ~ ' 20asDy J~.t: ~ ,Grantor. -. CM:-/h. ~r Notary Public My Commission Expires: 4 - ~Q- 0 3 3 COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AGENDA TITLE: Barry E. and Tracy M. Meade, Deed of Dedication Agreement - Rivanna Greenway AGENDA DATE: February 9, 2005 ACTION: INFORMATION: SUBJ ECT/PROPOSALlREQUEST: Request to approve deed of dedication from Barry E. Meade and Tracy M. Meade allowing a public greenway trail. CONSENT AGENDA: ACTION: X INFORMATION: STAFF CONTACT(S): Tucker, White, Kamptner, Mullaney, Mahon ATTACHMENTS: Yes REVIEWED BY: ~ LEGAL REVIEW: Yes BACKGROUND: The subject property, a portion of TMP 78-15C3, is owned by Barry and Tracy Meade and is located along the route of the County's proposed Rivanna greenway trail which runs from Darden Towe Park at Free Bridge downstream to the Fluvanna County line. (See Plat, Attachment B) This property abuts a 22.7 acre parcel in the Pantops area which was dedicated to the County in 2002 and is currently managed as a greenway within the County's park system. Park staff approached the owners and made a request for the portion of the property necessary for the continuation of the proposed route. The total area of the dedication is 11,268 square feet. STRATEGIC PLAN: Goal 2.2: Protect and/or preserve the County's natural resources. Goal 3.3: Develop and implement policies that address the County's growth and urbanization while continuing to enhance factors that contribute to the quality of life in the County. Goal 4.2: Fund County services in a fair, efficient manner and improve needed public facilities and infrastructure. DISCUSSION: The Albemarle County Comprehensive Plan identifies the Rivanna River from the South Fork Rivanna Reservoir to the Fluvanna County line as a main component of the overall recommended greenway system. Currently the County has 2.4 miles of this section complete with a Class B trail running from the northern end of Darden Towe Park to the Meade property line which is approximately 1 mile downstream of Free Bridge. It should be noted that the Meade property is not under development review. This small but critical dedication is being offered simply as a gift in support of the Albemarle County greenway plan. The deed of dedication prepared by the County Attorney's Office is attached (Attachment A). RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends that the Board approve the proposed deed of dedication and authorize the County Executive to sign the deed on behalf of the County after it has been approved by the County Attorney with any necessary changes. ATTACHMENTS Attachment A -Deed of Dedication Attachment B-1 0/5/04 Plat 05.016 Attachment A This deed was prepared by the Albemarle County Attorney. Tax Map 78, Parcel 15C3 This deed is exempt from taxation under Virginia Code ~~ 58.1-811(A)(3) and 58.1-811(C)(4). DEED OF DEDICATION THIS DEED OF DEDICATION is made this _ day of , 2005 by and between BARRY E. MEADE and TRACY M. MEADE, Grantors, and the COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA, a political subdivision of the Commonwealth of Virginia, Grantee. WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, the Grantors are the owners in fee simple of the real property located in Albemarle County that is described below and hereinafter referred to as the "Property;" WHEREAS, the Grantors offer to grant, convey and dedicate the Property to the County for public use, namely, a public access trail and greenway, including improvements; and WHEREAS, the Grantee is willing to accept the Grantors' offer of dedication. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual premises, the Grantors hereby grant, convey, and dedicate for public use to the Grantee, its successors and assigns, with GENERAL WARRANTY AND ENGLISH COVENANTS OF TITLE, the following real property, to wit: Those certain lands, shown and designated as the 11,268 square foot area of dedication that is shaded on the plat of Robert W. Coleman, Jr., Residential Surveying Services, dated January 6, 2004, and entitled "Plat Showing Greenway Dedication Located On T.M.P. 78-15C3, Albemarle County, Virginia," a copy of which is attached hereto and to be recorded with this deed (the "Plat"). Reference is made to the Plat for a more particular description of the location of the described lands. The property interest conveyed herein is a portion of that certain parcel of land shown on the Plat situated on the northeast side of the Rivanna River, being the same parcel conveyed to the Grantors by deed of record in the office of the Clerk of the Albemarle County Circuit Court at Deed Book 1958, Page 68. 1 Attachment A This conveyance is made expressly subject to all restrictions, conditions, rights-of-way and easements, if any, contained in duly recorded deeds, plats and other instruments constituting constructive notice in the chain of title to the Property conveyed hereby, insofar as the same affect the Property, which have not expired by a time limitation contained therein or have not othetwise become ineffective. The Grantee, acting by and through its County Executive, duly authorized by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, does hereby accept the offer of dedication made by this deed, as evidenced by the signature below. WITNESS the following signatures. GRANTORS: GRANTOR Barry E. Meade GRANTOR Tracy M. Meade GRANTEE: COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA By: Robert W. Tucker, Jr. County Executive COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA CITY ICOUNTY OF The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this _ day of 2005 by Grantor. Notary Public My Commission Expires: 2 Attachment A COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA CITY/COUNTY OF The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this _ day of 2005 by , Grantor. Notary Public My Commission Expires: COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA CITY/COUNTY OF The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this _ day of 2005 by Robert W. Tucker, Jr., County Executive, on behalf of the County of Albemarle, Virginia, Grantee. Notary Public My Commission Expires: Approved as to form: County Attorney 3 P 50 190 2~0 SCALE IN FEET LEGAL REFERENCES: D.B.1958 Pg.68 IF - IRON FOUND N/F - NOW OR FORMERLY TO - TOTAL DISTANCE THE SHADED AREA SHOWN HEREON WILL BE TI-E AREA OF. DEDICATION. (CREATED FOR TI-E BEIlEFIT OF TI-E COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE). UPON RECORDATION OF THIS PLAT. UTILITIES AND EASEMENTS OTHER THAN THOSE SHOWN MAY EXIST. TITLE FEPORT WAS I'IlT FLflNISI-EO FOR THIS SURVEY. LIJIE L1 L2 L3 BEAROO S69 "24 '47''E S39 "55 '23 "E S22 '19'58"E OWNERS APPROVAL THE DEDICATED AREA DESCRIBED HEREON IS WITH THE FREE CONSENT AND IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE DESIRE OF THE UNDERSIGNED OWNERS, PROPRIETORS AND/ OR TRUSTEES. ALL STATEMENTS AFFIXED TO THIS PLAT ARE TRUE AND CORRECT TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE. T. 7B - 15C3 l~~f~9- '1/Z1 / Zoot/- DATE DISTANCE 50.30 . 44.99' 71.74 . NOTARY PUBLIC 1lE FllAEGOOO INSTIUENT w~ A~ BEFrnE IE THIS~DAY IF ~ MY COIot4ISSII)Ij EXPIFES <"zt~ 'fJt . ~- I ~ 1,1)( I'IlTARY Ie APPROVED FOR RECORDATION (J.~~ L/}o7d4 DIFECT IF P\..ANIlOO DATE 0-2 .~~ .....o~ ~1:. ~ .()~ ~o.(' .st."" \l> /' /' /' ./ " /' " - "'- ./'./ ,,/ .,/ ErGEN:S ~~:"w"'- "'- ...- ..' A.141:- / "r.N.p. 78 "":-j5~1 - - ---!3. 08' RlVANNA ~'"';". 1/[ofB'ftff.E"flc - FL9.J!. - - ~ 0.8. 2001 Pg. 46 -- /' ~APf'R) XIMATE" LIMITS IF ~ YEAR FLOOO zaoE /' ..- .. , _./ //, 1-061 ~ / "" 1. N. P. 78 - 15C2 N/F PA TRICIA FERRICK G RICHARD STEELE 0.8. 2628 Pg. 361 "" ..._~ RIVER '''- "'- a c , T.N.P. 78 - 1781 ' N/F NNti REAL ESTATE LLC 0.8. 1958 Pg. 1 3l: . lD ICI 01 5'1 ,... l'I en ~ 338.48' S52'30'OO"E SOUTH PANTOPS DRIVE T.M.P. 78 -1SC3 250 '+/- TO RIVEFI3EJI(J DR. AREA TABULATION PARCEL 15C3 (TOTAL) - 54.851 SqFt. - AREA IF CEllCATIGl - 11.268 SqFt. AESIrU: - 43.583 SQFt. (1.0005 ACFEs) PLAT SHOWING GREENWAY DEDICATION LOCATED ON T.M.P. 78 - 15C3 RESIDENTIAL SURVEYING SERVICES AI DCUAnlC ,-.n'II"TV \/TD~T"'T^ Attachment B ,- Original Proffer YES Amended Proffer (Amendment # ----.J PROFFER FORM Date: February 9,2005 ZMA # ZMA-04-02l DKE Expansion Tax Map and Parcel Number(s) TM}> 76A-OC5 0.22 Acres to be rezoned from NOT ZONED to R-6 Pursuant to Section 33.3 of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance, the owner, or its duly authorized agent, hereby voluntarily proffers the conditions listed below which shall be applied to the property, if rezoned. These conditions are proffered as a part of the requested rezoning and it is agreed that: (1) the rezoning itself gives rise to the need for the conditions; and (2) such conditions have a reasonable relation to the rezoning request. 1) Permitted uses of the property, and/or uses authorized by special use permit, shall include only the following section(s) of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance in effect on February 9,2005, a copy of the section(s) being attached hereto and will be in conformity with the site plans prepared by McKee Carson and the architectural drawings prepared by Dalgliesh, Eichman, Gilpin & Paxton dated February 1,2005: 1. Sec. 16.2.1.7. 2) Each outdoor luminaire on the structure containing a lamp that emits three thousand (3,000) or more maximum lumens shall be a full cutofflurninaire as provided in Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance Section 4.17, in effect on February 9, 2005, a copy of the section being attached hereto. Delta Kappa Epsilon Renovation Limited Partnershi{J February 3,2005 by the DKE Corporation General Partner Vice President R. Page Henley II. ~ All Owne" } -' W-~ Printed Names of All Owners ~0 \ \ \-<.. I QlJ\ 'to V\ ~"'f\ {..\I\ -::Jt" , --r--- Date =:{13/os i J OR Signature of Attorney-in-Fact (Attach Proper Power of Attorney) Printed Name of Attorney-in-Fact Sections: 16.1 16.2 16.2.1 16.2.2 16.3 16.-1 16.-1.1 16.4.2 16.4.3 16.5 16.6 16.7 16.8 ALBE/vIARLE COUNTY CODE CHAPTER 18 ZONING SECTION 16 RESIDENTIAL - R-6 INTENT, WHERE PERMITTED PERMITTED USES BY RIGHT BY SPECIAL USE PERMIT AREA AND BULK REGULA nONS BONUS FACTORS (REFERENCE 2.4) ENVIRONMENT AL STANDARDS DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS LOW AND MODERATE COST HOUSING CLUSTER DEVELOPMENT OPTION REGULATIONS (Amended 8-1..t-85) BUILDING SEPARATION RECREA TIONAL AREA REQUIREMENTS HEIGHT REGULA nONS 16.1 INTENT, WHERE PERMITTED R-6 districts are hereby created and may hereafter be established by amendment to the zoning map to provide a plan implementation zone that: -Provides for compact, mediLU11-density residential development (Amended 9-9-92) -Pennits a variety of housing types; and -Provides incentives for clustering of development and provision of locational, environmental and developmental amenities. R-6 districts may be pennitted within community and urban area locations recommended for medium-density residential use in the comprehensive plan. (Amended 9-9-92) 16.2 PERMITTED USES 16.2.1 BY RIGHT The following uses shall be pennitted subject to the requirements and limitations of this ordinance: I. Detached single-family' dwellings. 2. Semi-detached and attached single-family dwellings such as duplexes, triplexes, quadraplexes, townhouses, atrium houses and patio houses provided that densitv is maintained, and pnwided fmther that buildings are locnted so that each unit could he provided with a lot meeting all other requirements for detached single-fmnily dwellings except for side vards ot the common \\'011 I S-l (,-1 !iJning Supplemcnl <~I). 11)-] .-;-04 AUJE/vlARLE COUNTY CODE :; Multiple-famih Ll\\(~lIings slIch as g[lrden apartments. 4. Cluster clevelopment of pennitteu resiuential lIses. 5. Rental of penl1itteu resiuential uses ancl guest cottages: prlwidecl that YaTU, area amI other requirements of this oruinance shall be met for each such use whether or not such use IS on an inuiviclual lot 6. Homes for clevelopmentallv disablecl persons (reference 5. I.Tl 7 Boarding houses. 8 . Tourist loclgings (reference 5. I .1 7). 9. (Repealed 9-2-81) 10. (Repealed 9-2-81) II. Electric, gas, oil and communication facilities, exc1ucling tower structures and including poles, lines, transfonners, pipes, meters and relatecl t:1cilities for distribution of local service and owned and operated bv n public utility. Water distribution and sewerage collection lines, pumping stations and appurtenances O\\lled and operated by the Albemarle County Service Authority. Except ns othef\\'ise expressly provided, central water supplies and central sewerage systems in confonnance with Chapter 16 of the Code of Albemarle and all other npplicable law. (Amended 5-12-93) 12. Public uses and buildings including temporary or mobile facilities such ns schools, offices, parks, playgrounds and roads funded, owned or operated by local, state or federal agencies (reference 31.2.5): public water and sewer transmission, main or trunk lines, treatment facilities, pumping stations and the like, owned anclJor operated by the Rivmma Water and Sewer Authority (reference 31.2.5: 5.1.] 2). (Amended 11-] -89) 13. Temporary construction uses (reference 5.1. I 8). 14. Accessory uses and buildings including home occupation, Class A (reference 5.2) and storage buildings. 15. Stonnwater management facilities shO\\11 on an approved final site plan or subdivision plat. (Added 10-9-(2) 16. Tier I and TierII personal wireless sen'ice facilities (reference 5 I AO). (Added 10-13-04) (~ 20-16.21, 12-10-80; 9-2-81, 11-1-89: 5-12-93: Ord. 02-18(6), 10-9-02: Ord. 04-18(2), 10-13-04) 16.2.2 BY SPECIAL USE PERMIT The following uses shall be pennitted only bv special use pennit appfll\'ed by' the board of supef\'isors pursuant to section 31.2.4: 1. Community center (reference 5. ] ,(4), 2. Clubs, lodges, ci\'ic, fratemaL patriotic (reference 5. ](2) 3. Fire and rescue squ8d stations (reference 5.1.09), -L S\\-j111~ gulf tennis or sin111tlf athletic facilities (reference). .lo"). 1:)-) (,-2 7PJJin~ ~;lIppkmcl1l --;.~(). 11l-1.~-1)-J. Sections: 4.0 4.1 4.2 4.2.1 4.2.2 4.2.3 4.2.4 4.2.5 4.2.6 4.3 4.3.1 4.4 4.5 4.6 4.6.1 4.6.2 4.6.3 4.6.4 4.6.5 4.6.6 4.6.7 4.7 4.7.1 4.7.2 4.7.3 4.7.4 4.8 4.8.1 4.8.2 4.8.3 4.8.4 4.8.5 4.9 4.10 4.10.1 4.10.2 4.10.2.1 4.10.2.2 4.10.3 4.10.3.1 4.10.3.2 4.10.3.3 4.10.3.4 4.11 ALBE1HARLE COUNTY CODE CHAPTER 18 ZONING SECTION 4 GENERAL REGULATIONS GENERAL REGULATIONS AREA AND HEALTH REGULATiONS RELATED TO UTiLiTiES (Amelided 6- 3-81) CRITICAL SLOPES BUILDING SITE REQUIRED BUILDING SITE AREA AND DIMENSIONS (Amended 10-17-01) LOCATION OF STRUCTURES AND IMPROVEMENTS (Amended 11-15-89; 10- 17-01) LOCATION OF SEPTIC SYSTEMS (Amended 11-11-87) MODIFICATION OR WAIVER EXEMPTIONS (Amended 10-17-01) TREE CUTTING FILL AREAS, WASTE AREAS VISIBILITY CLEARANCE AT INTERSECTIONS REQUIREMENTS FOR CONDOMINIUMS LOT REGULATIONS FRONTAGE AND LOT WIDTH MEASUREMENTS (Amended 7-20-88) LOTS, DETERMINATION OF LOT FRONT (Amended 10-3-01) LOTS AND YARDS ADJACENT TO STREETS, ALLEYS AND SHARED DRIVEWAYS REAR YARDS ON INTERIOR LOTS SIDE YARDS ON LOTS LOT ACCESS REQUIREMENTS LOT COVERAGE BY BUILDINGS REGULATIONS GOVERNING OPEN SPACE OPEN SPACE, INTENT USES PERMITTED IN OPEN SPACE OPEN SPACE, DESIGN REQUIREMENTS (Amended 11-15-89) OWNERSHIP OF OPEN SPACE USES--GENERALL Y DETERMINA TlONS CONCERNING UNSPECIFIED USES TEMPORARY INDUSTRIALIZED BUILDINGS (Amended 10-3-01) HOUSES DISPLAYED FOR ADVERTISING PURPOSES (Repealed 3-18-81) (Repealed 3-18-81) HANDICAPPED ACCESS (Amended 10-3-01) HEIGHT OF BUILDING AND OTHER STRUCTURES INTENT FIRE AND SAFETY REQUIREMENTS FIRE PROTECTION AERIAL NAVIGATION HEIGHT LIMITATlON--EXCEPTlONS EXCEPTIONS--EXCLUDED FROM APPLICATION EXCEPTIONS--LIMITED PARAPET WALLS, CORNICES, ETC. ACCESSORY BUILDINGS IN RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS USES AND STRUCTURES PERMITTED IN REQUIRED YARDS 18-4-1 Zoning Supplement # 19, 2-6-02 4.11.1 4.11.2 4.11.2.1 4.11.2.2 4.11.2.3 4.11.3 4.12 4.12.1 4.12.2 4.12.3 4.12.4 4.12.5 4.12.6 4.12.6.1 4.12.6.2 4.12.6.3 4.12.6.4 4.12.6.5 4.12.6.6 4.12.6.6.1 4.12.6.6.2 4.12.7 4.13 4.13.1 4.13.2 4.13.3 4.14 4.14.1 4.14.1.1 4.14.1.2 4.14.2 4.14.2.1 4.14.2.2 4.14.3 4.14.4 4.14.5 4.14.6 4.14.7 4.14.8 4.15 4.15.1 4.15.2 4.15.3 4.15.4 4.15.5 4.15.6 4.15.7 4.15.7.1 4.15.7.2 ALBEMARLE COUNTY CODE COVERED PORCHES, BALCONIES, CHfiVINEYS AND LIKE FEATURES STRUCTURES IN REQUIRED YARDS ACCESSORY STRUCTURES PUBLIC TELEPHONE BOOTHS FENCES, MAILBOXES, AND SIMILAR STRUCTURES REDUCTION OF BUILDING SEPARATION AND SIDE YARDS (Added 1-1-83) OFF-STREET PARKING AND LOADING REQUIREMENTS PURPOSE APPLICATION LOCATION OF PARKING COOPERATIVE PARKING AVAILABILITY PARKING AREA DESIGN SAFE AND CONVENIENT ACCESS INTERNAL CIRCULATION MINIMUM IMPROVEMENTS LIGHTING 'PARKING SPACE SIZE (Amended 10-3-01) REQUIRED NUMBER OF OFF-STREET PARKING SPACES DETERMINATION OF NUMBER OF PARKING SPACES REQUIRED FOR UNSPECIFIED USES (Amended 10-3-01) SCHEDULE OF SPECIFIC REQUIREMENTS FOR NUMBER OF OFF-STREET PARKING SPACES REQUIRED OFF-STREET LOADING SPACE PARKING AND STORAGE OF CERTAIN VEHICLES PARKING, STORAGE, OR USE OF MAJOR RECREATIONAL EQUIPMENT IN RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS LIMITATION ON PARKING/STORAGE OF INOPERATIVE MOTOR VEHICLES (Amended 6-10-87) LIMITATIONS ON PARKING OF TRUCKS AND CERTAIN RECREATIONAL VEHICLES IN RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS PERFORMANCE STANDARDS NOISE (Amended 6-14-00) (Repealed 6-14-00) (Repealed 6-14-00) VIBRA TION METHOD OF MEASUREMENT MEANING OF TERMS GLARE AIR POLLUTION WATER POLLUTION RADIOACTIVITY ELECTRICAL INTERFERENCE CERTIFIED ENGINEER REPORT SUBMITTAL SIGNS (New ordinances adopted 7-8-92 and 5-9-01; old ordinances repealed at the same time) PURPOSE AND INTENT (Amended 5-9-01) DEFINITIONS (Amended 5-9-01) SIGN CONTENT (Amended 5-9-01) SIGNS AUTHORIZED BY SIGN PERMIT (Amended 5-9-01) SIGNS AUTHORIZED BY SPECIAL USE PERMIT (Amended 5-9-01) SIGNS EXEMPT FROM THE SIGN PERMIT REQUIREMENT (Amended 5-9- 01) PROHIBITED SIGNS AND SIGN CHARACTERlSTICS (Amended 5-9-01) (Repealed 5-9-01) (Repealed 5-9-01) 1 8-4-2 Zoning Supplel11e11l # J 9,2-6-02 4.15.7.3 4.15.7.4 4.15.7.5 4.15.7.6 4.15.8 4.15.9 4.15.9.1 4.15.9.2 4.15.9.3 4.15.9.4 4.15.9.5 4.15.10 4.15.11 4.15.12 4.15.12.1 4.15.12.2 4.15.12.3 4.15.12.4 4.15.12.5 4.15.12.6 4.15.12.7 4.15.12.8 4.15.13 4.15.13.1 4.15.13.2 4.15.14 4.15.14.1 4.15.14.2 4.15.15 4.15.16 4.15.17 4.15.18 4.15.19 4.15.20 4.15.21 4.15.22 4.15.23 4.15.24 4.16 4.16.1 4.16.2 4.16.3 4.17 4.17.1 4.17.2 4.17.3 4.17.4 ALBEMARLE COUNTY CODE (Repealed 5-9-01) (Repealed 5-9-01) (Repealed 5-9-01) (Repealed 5-9-01) REGULATIONS APPLICABLE IN THE RA, VR, R-l AND R-2 ZONING DISTRICTS (Amended 5-9-01) REGULA TIONS APPLICABLE IN THE R-4 AND R-6 ZONING DISTRICTS (Amended 5-9-01) (Repealed 5-9-01) (Repealed 5-9-01) (Repealed 5-9-01) (Repealed 5-9-01) (Repealed 5-9-01) REGULATIONS APPLICABLE IN THE R-lO, R-15 AND PRD ZONING DISTRICTS (Amended 5-9-01) REGULATIONS APPLICABLE IN THE PUD ZONING DISTRICT (Amended 5- 9-01) REGULATIONS APPLICABLE IN THE C-l AND CO ZONING DISTRICTS (Amended 5-9-01) (Repealed 5-9-01) (Repealed 5-9-01) (Repealed 5-9-01) (Repealed 5-9-01) (Repealed 5-9-01) (Repealed 5-9-01) (Repealed 5-9-01) (Repealed 5-9-01) REGULATIONS APPLICABLE IN THE HC, PD-SC AND PD-MC ZONING DISTRICTS (Amended 5-9-01) (Repealed 5-9-01) (Repealed 5-9-01) REGULATIONS APPLICABLE IN THE HI, LI AND PD-IP ZONING DISTRICTS (Amended 5-9-01) (Repealed 5-9-01) (Repealed 5-9-01) REGULATIONS APPLICABLE IN THE ENTRANCE CORRIDOR OVERLAY DISTRICT (Added 5-9-01) REGULA TIONS APPLICABLE TO CERTAIN SIGN TYPES (Added 5-9-01) DETERMINING SIGN AREA (Added 5-9-01) DETERMINING SIGN HEIGHT (Added 5-9-01) DETERMINING SIGHT DISTANCE TRIANGLE (Added 5-9-01) DETERMINING STRUCTURE FRONTAGE (Added 5-9-01) DETERMINING SIGN SETBACK (Added 5-9-01) SIGN MAINTENANCE (Added 5-9-01) SIGN ALTERATION, REPAIR OR REMOVAL; WHEN REQUIRED (Added 5-9- 01) NONCONFORMING SIGNS (Added 5-9-01) RECREATION REGULATIONS MINIMUM AREA MINIMUM FACILITIES ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS OUTDOOR LIGHTING PURPOSE APPLICABILITY (Amended 10-17-01) DEFINITIONS (Amended 10-17-01) STANDARDS (Amended 10-17-01) J 8-4-3 Zoning Supplement # J 9,2-6-02 ALBEMARLE COUNTY CODE -U6.3 ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS 4.163.1 Equipment specifications shall be approved by the director of planning and community development on advice of the director of parks and recreation. 4.16.3.2 Recreational equipment and facilities shall be maintained in a safe condition and replaced as necessary. Maintenance shall be the responsibility of the property O\\Tler if rental tmits or a homeowners' association if sale units. 4.16.3.3 Recreational facilities shall be completed when fifty (50) percent of the units have received certificates of occupancy. 4.17 OUTDOOR LIGHTING Outdoor lighting regulations are set forth in sections 4.17.1, 4.17.2, 4.17.3, 4.17.4, 4.17.5 and 4.17.6. These regulations are in addition to the perfoTI11ance standard pertaining to glare set forth in section 4.14.3 of this chapter. (Ord. 98- I 8( I), 8- 12-98) 4.17.1 PURPOSE The purposes of these outdoor lighting regulations are to protect dark skies, to protect the general welfare by controlling the spillover of light onto adjacent properties, and to protect the public safety by preventing glare from outdoor luminaires. To effectuate these purposes, these regulations regulate the direction of light emitted from certain luminaires, and limit the intensity of light on certain adjacent properties, as provided herein. (Ord. 98- I 8(1), 8- 12-98) 4.17.2 APPLICABILITY Except as provided in sections 4. 17.4.b and 4.17.6, these outdoor lighting regulations shall apply to each outdoor luminaire installed or replaced after the date of adoption of these regulations which is: (Amended 10-17-01) a. Located on property within a commercial or industrial zoning district, or is associated with a use for which a site plan is required by section 32.0, and is equipped with a lamp which emits three thousand (3,000) or more maximum Itm1ens; or (Amended 10-17-01) b. Located on property within a residential or the rural areas zoning district and is associated with a use for which a site plan is not required by section 32.0, and is equipped with a high intensity discharge lamp, regardless of its maximum lumens. (Amended 10-17-01) (Ord. 98-18(1),8- 12-98; Ord. 01-18(8), 10-17-01) 4.17.3 DEFINITIONS The following definitions shall apply in the implementation and enforcement of these outdoor lighting regulations: Decorative luminaire lFithfidl clItoff op tics. (Repealed 10-17-01) Full clItoff luminaire. The tenn "full cutoff luminaire" means an outdoor light fixture shielded in such a mmmer that all light emitted by the fixture, either directly from the lamp or indirectly from the fixture, is projected below the horizontal plane. 18-4-52 ZOnUlg Supplement ."17. to-17-01 ALBEMARLE COUNTY CODE High intensit).' discharge lamp. The teIl11 "high intensity discharge lamp" means a mercury vapor, metal halide, or high pressure sodium lamp, and for purposes of this section 4.17, a low pressure sodium lamp. Initiallllmens. (Repealed 10-17-(1) Lamp. The tenn "lamp" means the component of a luminaire that produces light. A lamp is also commonly referred to as a bulb. LlImen. The term "lumen" means a standard unit of measurement ofluminous tlux. Lllminaire. The tenn "Iuminaire" means a complete lighting unit consisting of a lamp or lamps together with the components designed to distribute the light, to position and protect the lamps, and to connect the lamps to the power supply. A lmninaire is also commonly referred to as a fixture. Olltdoor lllminaire. The tenn "outdoor lumina ire" means a Imninaire which is pennanently installed outdoors including, but not limited to, devices used to illuminate any site, structure, or sign, except that it does not include an internally illuminated sign. (Ord. 98-18(1), 8-12-98; Ord. 01-18(8), 10-17-01)) 4.17.4 STANDARDS The following standards shall apply to each outdoor lumina ire: a. Except as provided in section 4.17.6, each outdoor luminaire subject to these outdoor lighting regulations shall be a full cutofflmninaire. (Amended 10-17-01') I. For each outdoor luminaire subject to these outdoor lighting regulations pursuant to section 4.17.2.a, whether a lamp emits three thousand (3,000) or more maximum lumens shall be detern1ined from the infonnation provided by the manufacturer of the lamp including, but not limited to, infol1nation on the lamp or on the lamp's packaging materials. (Amended 10-17-01) 2. For each outdoor luminaire subject to these outdoor lighting regulations pursuant to section 4.17.2.a, the following rated lamp wattages shall be deemed to emit three thousand (3,000) or more maximum lumens unless the zoning administrator detennines, based upon infol1nation provided by a lamp manufacturer, that the rated wattage of a lamp emits either more or less than the three thousand (3,000) maxinmm lumens: (Amended 10-17-01) a. Incandescent lamp: one hundred sixty (160) or more watts. b. Quartz halogen lamp: one hundred sixty (160) or more watts. c. Fluorescent lamp: thirty-five (35) or more watts. d. Mercury vapor lamp: seventy-five (75) or more watts. e. Metal halide lamp: forty (40) or more watts. 1'. High pressure sodium lamp: forty-five (45) or more watts. g. Low pressure sodiLU11 lamp: twenty-five (25) or more watts. 3 If a luminaire is equipped with more than one lamp, the lumens of the lamp with the highest maximum lumens shall detennine the lumens emitted. (Amended 10-17-0 I) 18-4-53 Zoning Supplement ~17. 10-17-01 . . . COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road, Room 227 Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 Fax (434) 972-4126 Phone (434) 296-5823 February 3, 2005 McKee Carson c/o Sri Ravali Komaragiri 301 E. High Street Charlottesville, VA 22901 RE: ZMA 2004-021 Delta Kappa Epsilon at UVA; Tax Map 76A Parcel C5 Dear Mr. Komaragiri: The Albemarle County Planning Commission, at its meeting on February 1, 2005, unanimously recommended approval of the above-noted petition to the Board of Supervisors. Please note that this approval is subject to the following: The addition of a lighting proffer offered by the applicant, stating that all of the buildings on both the existing and proposed extension will be brought into compliance with the current County lighting ordinance. Please be advised that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors will review this petition and receive public comment at their meeting on February 9, 2005. Any new or additional information regarding your application must be submitted to the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors at least seven days prior to your scheduled hearing date. If you should have any questions or comments regarding the above noted action, please do not hesitate to contact me (434) 296-5823. Sincerely, o~~ David Benish Chief of Planning Planning Division Cc: Ella Carey Amelia McCulley Jack Kelsey Steve Allshouse COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AGENDA TITLE: ZMA 2004-021, Delta Kappa Epsilon at U. Va. AGENDA DATE: February 9, 2005 ACTION: X INFORMATION: SUBJECT/PROPOSAUREQUEST: Request to rezone .22 acres of unzoned land to R-6, Residential to permit an expansion of the DKE fraternity house. CONSENT AGENDA: ACTION: INFORMATION: ATTACHMENTS: Yes STAFF CONTACT(S): Messrs: Graham, Cilimberg, Benish REVIEWED BY: LEGAL REVIEW: No BACKGROUND: The Planning Commission recommended approval of this request at their meeting on February 1, 2005. At the request of the Planning Commission, the applicant agreed to make an additional proffer that the building will be subject to the requirements of the County's lighting regulations. The attached proffers reflect this change (Attachment 2). .STRATEGIC PLAN: . "Enhance the Quality of Life for all Albemarle County Citizens." DISCUSSION: No further discussion RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends approval of this request with the attached proffers. ATTACHMENTS Attachment 1 - Planning Commission Staff Report February 1, 2005 Attachment 2 - Revised Proffers, signed 2/2/05 . Attachment 1 . STAFF PERSON: PLANNING COMMISSION: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS DAVID BENISH FEBRUARY 1,2004 FEBRUARY 9, 2004 ZMA 04-21 DELTA KAPPA EPSILON BUILDING EXPANSION: Applicant's Proposal: Delta Kappa Epsilon fraternity (DKE) plans to expand its existing fraternity house on the University of Virginia Campus. The land under which the existing house and the addition is currently unzoned. In order for the fraternity to make the building addition, the property must be zoned. The applicant has requested R-6 zoning for a boarding house use, which is by-right in the R-6 residential zone. Proffers have been included to limit the use to the boarding house use in conformity with the concept plan submitted. (See Attachments A & B.) Petition: The petition is a request to rezone 0.22 acres, which is currently unzoned, to R-6 Residential to allow expansion of a boarding house (fraternity house). The property, described as Tax Map 76A Parcel C5 is located in the Jack Jouett Magisterial District at 173 Culbreth Road behind Campbell Hall at the University of Virginia. The Comprehensive Plan designates this property as Institutional in Neighborhood 7. Attachment C contains the Tax Map showing the parcel number for the fraternity house. Character of the Area: The fraternity house is located on Carr's Hill Road which has other fraternity and sorority houses. The surrounding property is the University of Virginia. . RECOMMENDATION: Staffhas reviewed the proposal and associated proffers for conformity with the Comprehensive Plan and the Zoning Ordinance and recommends approval. Plannim?: and Zonin2: History: The parcel upon which the DKE house sits is currently not zoned because of a unique lease situation. DKE owns the house but leases the property from UV A. The DKE building has a separate County tax parcel which corresponds directly with the exterior walls of the building. Typically, land under ownership by the university and used for university-related purposes are exempt from local land use regulations. Because the building is privately owned, it falls under the jurisdiction of Albemarle County. Specifics on the Proposal: The building addition is approximately 3700 square feet in two levels. It consists of five new bedrooms on the second story and a "commons" (large meeting/social function room) and restrooms on the first story. Attachment A shows the building addition plans. Bv-ri2:ht Use of the Property: The property is unzoned; however the existing building is grandfathered. Additions to the building are not possible without the rezoning. University of Virginia uses, however, are permitted. . Comprehensive Plan and The Nei2:hborhood Model: Requests for rezonings in the Development Areas are assessed for conformity with the Neighborhood Model and the Land Use Plan. The Land Use Plan shows this property for Institutional Use. Institutional uses are described as "public and private schools, universities and colleges, and ancillary facilities 1 . . . Anticipated impact on natural. cultural. and historic resources - The County's Historic Preservation Planner has said that the subject parcel is located within the boundary of the Rugby Road and University Corner Historic District (DHR #104-133) and that the Virginia Department of Historic Resources' Historic Resource Data Sharing System has identified the Delta Kappa Epsilon House (1914) as historic and contributing to the Rugby Road and University Corner Historic District. She has further said that, due to the historic significance of the Delta Kappa Epsilon House and its location within the Rugby Road and University Corner Historic District, modifications to the building should not detract from the historic structure or conflict with the character of the historic district. The Historic Preservation Planner has recommended that the plan be reviewed and approved by DHR to ensure an appropriate design. The applicant has provided a letter indicating it's the proposed plans will be submitted to the Department of Historic Resources (DHR) for review. Initial contact with DHR has already been made by the applicant. No other impacts on natural or cultural resources are anticipated. Proffers The applicant has proffered that the use of the building will be limited to Bordering House (fraternity) and that the use will be limited to the improvements as shown proposed concept plan (titled "Delta kappa Epsilon House at the University of Virginia, by McKee Carson, dated 12/20/04). (See Attachment B.) The proffer has not yet been reviewed by the County Attorney's office, but does ensure that the use will be limited to the fraternity use shown on the concept plans. SUMMARY Staff has identified the following factors, which are favorable to this rezoning request: . The existing use and the proposed expansion are consistent with the Land Use recommendations of the Comprehensive Plan. . The applicant has proffered to limit the use to the existing boarding house/fraternity use. Staff has not identified any unfavorable factors with this request. RECOMMENDED ACTION Staff recommends approval of the ZMA 04-021, with the attached proffers. ATTACHMENTS: Attachment A - Delta Kappa Epsilon House at the University of Virginia Proposed Layout Plan dated 12120/04 Attachment B - Proffers dated January 25,2005 (unsigned) Attachment C - Tax Map showing property 3 /YIC McKEE C'AR.9JN CON8UL TINO fNG..EEA& LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS LAND ~LANNEA& ~01h'IHtoll'''''' c........, VA 11101 .....71-7122 ._.....II._,Ufl.COIII ~cu....,............""""'*'Ucl _.._...~...- ...................>>--. .............................. """"'"...C-...,..""" c.r.,..ut ,............. ..........---........"... .._____._..w.r.... ............,........... ............,.,....."...-- ............r-..AIIll.,. -... I I ~~ en~ 80 ~ ::I::~ 5~i tl.. f-o ~o;; 5 en ~ i- >< A......... g j ~~ 0 <~~ 0 A..~'t: ~ A.. E1 CJl ~5~ 0 tl.. 0 ;S~ ~ tl.. ,...J::I:: ~E-< ClE-< < ATTACHMENT A Legend - IWd ~ fBllflliEll. BEHCH MARK -~- PROPERTY.RoW UNI SETBACK lINE CONTOUR ------- INDEX CONTOUR ----10----. -10- BUl-DiNG FENCE --->:-- GUARD RA.ll -a----a---v-- - - PA'WEMENl -------------- ..... TREE litE ..... ..., .., GAS lINE -~---.---.-- WATER MAIN -.---.---.-- WATER VAL YE """,~~;::;::;,~;,;,: STORN SEWER SArtI ARY SEWEA ;;':;;'3:~~[f:--- -- -S-S- INLET NAAHOlE _,- UTILITY POLE U TELEPHONE PEDES T 0 OYERtEAD HECTRI' -- ------- UNDERGROUND ELECTRIC -------- OVERtEAO TEll --------- EASEIENT ------------ ...............--.. SWAlE/DlTCH -...-...- RP RAP r_".,......_"'''''"''_~u WATER METER Y PEO€.STRIAN PA DITCH MATTING , ", '- "':;:;:- -- -- --------- --- ---- -- -- -----~, ~~ , ' -"';-:'- " -' '~~~0 /~y _,_/8><- ('- './:'." ,~,,(:-)~~~y //'" / ' ,/,,,, " / ' , , / ' .... /",t" ,/ - .-- - ~~:~wn- _.' -,,, A>>, (:' --R'''-' ,,;...,, 'c (~'). /'-'-, /('B--' '1('0'",:\- . '. 0-- _t'_-,J,"'""---~:..r -"""~~r:~ ,"?)". 9:..;lcj".." >"'cn~~~~~~~~_.>~,W~;"'-l,!;: G~",. ".>///-::;;;>~'~~"~ 2J:~ . / " ""'. . ~" " " ,r/ ,/";: "q.. =- <~,', -",,-~~ , . /'" ""1 . ,'" -~ ' '1/ ......., '~:, "'- 1 '" / ii""'" Co"' I.'> f IJ ' """, ..f-'" --<c--- f " . c,'" -- 1 '<'" ,J/ // ..lin I '-. ~' /' (Jillll_ I ' -':--"- , .. ....II . mT--~' ' . ..., . ..u.d . --,,-...._,""''', -"" , . Y'..;;7 '''. ~'<:" . . .- '"'~' " ; :';;;~~ . ~'RAVEL PARV.ING /.t~.,:;:'::,.... , "" "" -- ~ --- ~ - ?>. /"/ .....;...~~.,...:~:~ -, , . , , --- , , , , "" '-"" ^-:.;-9. 1:\, " r i I ~ri L PAVED PARi<II,C o~c __~_____.......-.._._l........._,...,~~y.>o"'.-~~,-r--rrrrr' , e.::; " " J , J ~.2 c, ,..r............'Y'".........:l...f'.rv-rvY",-.,-..-r~~~~"'?r.-.-'.-.,7(..' .I"7"-c r,'1 ~ +/5 i ~y 40 t< , I J i I / , / ~.. .............--- / ~~ /" ; ; , ./~,'IC 0" / / ~/ 2S~ s:-;:..o-'/"/ / / / 5<aJe, 1'''10' lloIoo 12/20/04 "'*" No, 007 Dl.ignodo SRI:;MJK o..cbd, RBM - - - ~No.: 02 0<02 - c:; _0 '" ,.r;r" ",,,,,:JyJ;j-~ ,r .J, , , , , '-.:, ", "', 4/6 /$ :' 4'.{,~ ,1' c':'-'., "," f.~(~ ....'...c../ ,,') 4- c;;" ,.if? I f ' ,~ . ',....,+ './ .,: ,,/..."" ,J.' - y p''''' ,>~,:;~~??~~<{/ /~ , , //// ,/ t;:> //. -<' '" ,y'" "'/00'<.- .... ,'1-" ;///' v" \'lial(;1r \.'~l..~ HOUSE -' .., 1:; ..~". ~~'}i ",,~;~~,~(J.'~ kly,la!ll<~k.~G\'IfI'_,-,,,__ ;0'1"'" rc.-,............,-.....-rr...,.....-:.-~~^'.,:~~I.~~ '. ,~-' / .-' ~.... ' '- - "..' '. ,x,:.r"' - , . . '. . .' . "._.:;.,r<~~::1._~/i ." .,' EXISTING DKE ::j;::.4!::~/,:'h'N / PROPOSED EXTENSIOt:J_ FFE ~;l9:31. ~ - -------::'-.., '" / ',,/ I/~ NU r ' Li~ .)\ :' '-;.~-~, /~l l < ' - f . , 'j' )(9" "'" f '\~; ''<::' ,/ . "'i,., ~\ ,> ,//\ / SIGt. <''', ,'/.' \ /' I-:OUi1...q ,1.,-.....: ~--' \..../ St IVU /' "\:;/ /~. SIGMA / /X" ~ __ ' " ,/ HOUSE // // '-,', / / .,,,\ /' ,/" '\..,' "'- .~ ---.-- 8IGM.., LEASE /"''''-''', , " ,.'...., " " (b ContOUf Inlen'II.2' I , " rl , 10 ,:<-:. , ..,,~ Dalgliesh Eichman Gilpin P a x to n IArchitectsl 206 Sth S_t N.E. P.O. Box 2SSS CbatlotlesviUe Virginia. 22902 tel: 434-977-4480 fax: 434-296'8720 degp@de1lP""'hi......com -< UJ - VlZ ::;)- O~ :I:>~ Zu..G Vl 00'" ....J :;: Z ,i, Vi~5 0 ~ 0.._== 1= UJVl~ ~ -< ~~~ I UJ Z Q.., 0 ....J 52Zc2 UJ 0 ::;)~ """ E-; ~UJU U ~:I: ~ UJ!- Ol- E-; <: rI'1 Z 0 U ~ Job # Date 0 ~ 3982 U1201ll4 ~ Drawn Checked 0 Z EWA WDG I ~ CONTIlACTOR TO VBIUFY AU r;;'l DIMENSIONS AT SITE AND SHALL rI'1 NOTIFY ARanTECT Of ANY DISCREPANCIBS BEFORE PIlOCEEDING Z - 0 - ""'" Revisions E-; - < # Date B U 1 """ - ..::l 2 - ~ 3 ~ - - -< 4 - ~ 5 - Z 6 - ""'" 7 Z - 8 0 - N - E Sheet - A2 & 'jll I IT !~ , , , r-"-- ~/:<~:::~::/~~~--H----~, H"'--~/ nj /-, , 1- f"i .1 ---rlr~ -------f~.-- '! (-------l' , 'I' : i ...._...-=-....:::',] _r'''m-J !'-- jD~ DO I _--- ,___ DO __ Ii I I G:::' ~c.1!?~ @ KITCHEN WING TO LEFT . ! , , , , , ---\--------- , , I '~'~~ ,.'--........... I ~__...... . ''-l.. b;;;,---=- ~ n ~"':~;:>"." " ~ ,- -_. ,~- ..~ ~.~ ......, / /// ~"','" __ ~v "~ : , , , , , , , , , , , , --..,. -.-...-- --} -.-----.-.- ,- ~-' ;:-::.: ", ,.. ~ -...;:::~ ....... ,-- f' ""'" ", r-' "", ,',"// ~'"t, _'1.::'--------' f" ~ " -- ~! , , , , "7------------ , , , , , , , , , .-t---- . (I; ~~!~ BACK ELEVATION ~ 11-----' y/ ,/ . ATTACHMENT A ~ LJ E-- ... E-- Z 0 Dalgliesh ~ ~ Eichman E-- -< Gilpin U ... P a x to n ~ ~ .1 Arc hit e c t s I ~ ....;l -< 206 5th Street N.E. U P.O. Box 2555 CI:J Charlottesville Virginia. 22902 ~ lei: 434.977-4480 fax, 434.296.8720 N I degp@degpan:bilccls.com ... CI:J r.. ~ ~ -< CI:J LU - ~ VlZ :J- Z O~ ""'" ~ :c-::; >Z ~ Zu..i3 Vl 00"" \.-' -oJ > ~ V)~~ Z ....;l 0._::: Q2 ~ LUVl> LU 0:::'" 0 ~LU~ Z I 0.>0 LU Z ~Z02 0::: 0 :J:ii i-< E-- <CLUU U !:i:c ~ LUf- ~ Of- E-- <:: CI:J Z 0 U Cl::: Job # Date 0 r.. 3982 12110104 E-- Drawn Checked 0 Z EWA WDG I E-- CONl'RAcroR TO VBRIFY AlL ~ DIMENSIONS AT SITE AND SHAll NOTIFY ARCHIlECI' OF ANY CI:J DISCREPANCIES BEFORE PROCEEDING Z - 0 - ""'" Revisions E-- - - < # Date .!!; U I ""'" - ~ 2 - ~ 3 ~ - 4 < - ~ 5 - Z 6 - ... 7 ~ - 8 - N - Sheet of - A3 3 - I . . . . . . ATTACHMENT B Original Proffer _ Amended Proffer (Amendment # ~ PROFFER FORM Date: 25 Januarv 2005 ZMA # ZMA-04-02l DKE Expansion Tax Map and Parcel Number(s) TMP 76A-OC5 0.2 Acres to be rezoned from NOT ZONED to R-6 Pursuant to Section 33.3 of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance, the owner, or its duly authorized agent, hereby voluntarily proffers the conditions listed below which shall be applied to the property, if rezoned. These conditions are proffered as a part of the requested rezoning and it is agreed that: (l) the rezoning itself gives rise to the need for the conditions; and (2) such conditions have a reasonable relation to the rezoning request. (1) Pennitted uses of the property, and/or uses authorized by special use pennit, shall include only the following section(s) ofthe Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance in effect on 25 January 2005, a copy of the section(s) being attached hereto and will be in confonnity with the site plans prepared by McKee Carson and the architectural drawings prepared by Dalgliesh, Eichman, Gilpin & Paxton which are submitted on 20 December 2004: 1. Sec 16.2.1.7. Signatures of All Owners Printed Names of All Owners Date OR Signature of Attorney-in-Fact (Attach Proper Power of Attorney) Printed Name of Attorney-in-Fact 8 Sections: 16.1 16.2 16.2.1 16.2.2 16.3 16.4 16.4.1 16.4.2 16.4.3 16.5 16.6 16.7 16.8 ATTACHMENT B ALBE~RLECOUNTYCODE CHAPTER 18 ZONING SECTION 16 RESIDENTIAL - R-6 INTENT, WHERE PERM.UTED PERMITfED USES BY RIGHT BY SPECIAL USE PERMIT AREA AND BULK REGULATIONS BONUS FACTORS (REFERENCE 2.4) ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARDS DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS LOW AND MODERATE COST HOUSING CLUSTER DEVELOPMENT OPTION REGULATIONS (Amended 8-14-85) BUILDING SEPARATION RECREATIONAL AREA REQUIREMENTS HEIGHT REGULATIONS 16.1 INTENT, WHERE PERMITTED R-6 districts are hereby created and may hereafter be established by amendment to the zoning map to provide a plan implementation zone that: -Provides for compact, medium-density residential development; (Amended 9-9-92) -pennits a variety of housing types; and -Provides incentives for clustering of development and provision of locational, environmental and developmental amenities. R-6 districts may be pennitted within cOlmnunity and urban area locations recommended for medium-density residential use in the comprehensive plan. (Amended 9-9-92) 16.2 PERMITTED USES 16.2.1 BY RIGHT The following uses shall be pennitted subject to the requirements and limitations of this ordinance: 1. Detached single-family dwellings. 2. Semi-detached and attached single-family dwellings such as duplexes, triplexes, quadraplexes, townhouses, atrium houses and patio houses provided that density is maintained, and provided further that buildings are located so that each unit could be provided with a lot meeting all other requirements for detached single-family dwellings except for side yards at the common wall. 18-16-1 Zoning Supplement #30, 10-13-04 q ATTACHMENT B ALBE~RLECOUNTYCODE . 3. Multiple-family dwellings such as garden apartments. 4. Cluster development of pennitted residential uses. 5. Rental of pennitted residential uses and guest cottages; provided that yard, area and other requirements of this ordinance shall be met for each such use whether or not such use is on an individual lot. 6. Homes for developmentally disabled persons (reference 5.1.7). 7. Boarding houses. 8. Tourist lodgings (reference 5.1.17). 9. (Repealed 9-2-81) 10. (Repealed 9-2-81) 11. Electric, gas, oil and communication facilities, excluding tower structures and including poles, lines, transfornlers, pipes, meters and related facilities for distribution of local service and owned and operated by a public utility. Water distribution and sewerage collection lines, pumping stations and appurtenances owned and operated by the Albemarle Connty Service Authority. Except as otherwise expressly provided, central water supplies and central sewerage systems in confonnance with Chapter 16 of the Code of Albemarle and all other applicable law. (Amended 5-12-93) . 12. Public uses and buildings including temporary or mobile facilities such as schools, offices, parks, playgronnds and roads funded, owned or operated by local, state or federal agencies (reference 31.2.5); public water and sewer transmission, main or trunk lines, treatment facilities, pumping stations and the like, owned and/or operated by the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority (reference 31.2.5; 5.1.12). (Amended 11-1-89) 13. Temporary construction uses (reference 5.1.18). 14. Accessory uses and buildings including home occupation, Class A (reference 5.2) and storage buildings. 15. Stormwater management facilities shown on an approved [mal site plan or subdivision plat. (Added 10-9-02) 16. Tier I and Tier II personal wireless service facilities (reference 5.1.40). (Added 10-13-04) (~20-16.2.1, 12-10-80; 9-2-81; 11-1-89; 5-12-93; Ord. 02-18(6),10-9-02; Ord. 04-18(2),10-13-04) 16.2.2 BY SPECIAL USE PERMIT The following uses shall be pennitted only by special use pennit approved by the board of supervisors pursuant to section 31.2.4: 1. Community center (reference 5.1.04). 2. Clubs, lodges, civic, fraternal, patriotic (reference 5.1.02). 3. Fire and rescue squad stations (reference 5.1.09). . 4. Swim, golf, tennis or similar atWetic facilities (reference 5.1.16). 18-16-2 Zoning Supplement #30, 10-13-04 Iv ,~~~~v .2==-~~ ~'~:::::~,..'.~-,',..>',.:,:~..~~~~ J/ ~ " -- "w. -")i. :\::-.~ ~..' "'0 " ~ 8~' ro~" -..' .' ---' ~." j-' . 60-57 ~5 .~ ~_______1 .~ m .../--// .._'\ 60-57 al'57~ ~6: "'-ie-'.'~O ~~ -':rt=----~ . /. 0/ '==".. . .../1 '.. --.-../. \ \. (/' nl>(;'),/-~'- Jj'iaACJ'1 ': .. ... If. 0' . \. , i rv" .- . / j" / :' [ .J~l ~.,. f.. "';'-" '... ..~.. ..,'. ~f .~. ~! .~', · i ' !i;" >,~\..~, b \, ~',:" f ,,~~ .' I ""', \7';~~\1X~ \"''''' € ~ ~~~ - ; ~ ~"~ ,._,-..~ \Q~ & ..."~' "~'-(/I/ V^.J~' ~ ---"-'<.,..- ~. j ,.... . '. '. -"'::;; t ~W ~ / ~.r '.' "'" W ..,.... r-- ::/ ~~ .: I%, t; . . :/<,'},,< ! ,+..':: ,,-%c"'.. ~ ~aOe '36 glli I: 6a.., "'r;,;.OL"'nJ.{)A,-OJ3 ~H~ '~>"~'~R 4'. 32 Oli:l. ';t~i 6a.., Or:'Z-::J~ z.M.. . O't- 01.1 ;...;---, .7'....;.-i-..:.~~~'~:< ...' .~ ::; """; I ~$ I ~.. t, ~ "!"'\ If,' ~C r ;...... ,.... ~ ,"N: <:. :: _, ... :j....l ~_ r )t'f;1(;izC1S;ar} .... ..""l '~ ,'., A- Ii ~ .., 60-4 ~ - J . 2. .........' ie., ~....:- C-:<C//> V a/ "" l ~ ..... "'.' .~, ".."'" ~ ~.. """-:') ':-"'7 tl:;t< 7'J; A - 0 C5"" 1(;.' "'Il! '&:" -- .....,,,'; >A ) \!) )U ~~'f~' '- <I/:~~ (;( 60-30 60-30A '" 76-~ ~ ~ W,V/, ~. ",",-",' 'oJ h::o.,.,;,; ~ rg,~'" '{)-~~ ~ II!!!~-'-' i 76A;,o I ~" i [ 76.5 a .. '. ;.;; } j 76-8 :;;"";"~;:.,>~ ! : "":,;:.,',11 '\.; ~ 60-24 0-240 ~ :::~! 1.7'-'" .... .. ~ ...... I- Attachment C \{C \-~. ;.' If.... Q, 60-30 --.. il "~, -;6_~;' --\ 'ia '.L,) \ ~.~ #;;: <J;: ',' ,.., _c_;':!.;;",-.......... ." .76~:9D ":;'';-'.. _0.. ( ~P'_"'--~ ~ 76-4 ....., ~); ~ '" - --"'''''''11 "" :.:. r=::. :( ~ ~ ;....- "" -..'.0..... 1 ".'. -""':~,, .',,""~::.O'. -,' . . .. · it~'\Of:-~k,tt;;sville~ :t(~~jh!t?:~i}J:t. .. .~~ ;,. -- '-~ .(:: - "Yrwr;,~ ~-;.;..- ',,'" "~;":" n, ".w ;:':,' IVI .,.. ". :;:; :/:' '. ',' .0' ....:.: ,;, ...>,c..' ... -- Scale Albemarle County Tax Map: 076A .""')1- .'/' "'-';/> ,,'. \\\r:..,.I. {,. ,.;~ 575 1,150 /'H' 1.725 II p ~'. Note: This map is for display purposes only and shows parcels 8S of 12/3112003. See Map Book Introduction for additional delai/s. University of Virginia ....,.~ -.., ~ . "" l'/~l- . . . Attachment 2 Original Proffer YES Amended Proffer (Amendment # ----1 PROFFER FORM Date: 25 January 2005 ZMA # ZMA-04-02l DKE Expansion Tax Map and Parcel Number(s) TMP 76A-OC5 0.22 Acres to be rezoned from NOT ZONED to R-6 Pursuant to Section 33.3 of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance, the owner, or its duly authorized agent, hereby voluntarily proffers the conditions listed below which shall be applied to the property, if rezoned. These conditions are proffered as a part of the requested rezoning and it is agreed that: (1) the rezoning itself gives rise to the need for the conditions; and (2) such conditions have a reasonable relation to the rezoning request. 1) Permitted uses of the property, and/or uses authorized by special use permit, shall include only the following section(s) of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance in effect on February 9, 2005, a copy of the section(s) being attached hereto and will be in conformity with the site plans prepared by McKee Carson and the architectural drawings prepared by Dalgliesh, Eichman, Gilpin & Paxton dated February 1, 2005: 1. Sec. 16.2.1.7. 2. Each outdoor luminaire on the structure containing a lamp that emits three thousand (3,000) or more maximum lumens shall be a full cutoff luminaire as provided in Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance Section 4.17, in effect on February 9, 2005, a copy of the section being attached hereto. Delta Kappa Epsilon Renovation Limited Partnership February 2. 2005 by the DKE Corporation General Partner Vice President Page Henley ~:17\ ( .j Printed Names of All Owners Date ~'0 - " j....HI?"""....,.".... ~ I ~/ 105 I J OR Signature of Attorney-in-Fact (Attach Proper Power of Attorney) Printed Name of Attorney-in-Fact 12- If you intend to proffer to limit the uses of your property to some of the uses permitted within the property's proposed zoning district, the County suggests that your proffer contain the standardized introductory language set forth below. For Proffers that will restrict the uses of the property to certain specified permitted uses and/or those uses authorized by a special use permit the following language is suggested: Permitted uses of the property, and/or uses authorized by special use permit, shall include only the following section(s) of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance in effect on (insert date of proffer), a copy of the section(s) being attached hereto: 1. (State section number and the use associated with that section) For proffers that will allow most of the uses permitted in the zoning district, but will exclude some, the following language is suggested: Permitted uses of the property, and/or uses authorized by special use permit, shall include only those uses allowed in section(s) (insert section number(s)) of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance in effect on (insert date of the proffer), a copy of the section(s) being attached hereto, except the following: 1. (State section number and the use associated with that section) The date of the proffer should be the date that your application will be considered by the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors. By including the use associate with a section number the County will be able to verify what is being proffered so that there is no dispute (e.g., as a result of a typographical error) whether the proffered use was intended to be included or excluded. t'3 . Sections: 16.i 16.2 16.2.1 16.2.2 16.3 16.4 16.4.1 16.4.2 16.4.3 16.5 16.6 16.7 16.8 ALBEMARLE COUNTY CODE CHAPTER 18 ZONING SECTION 16 RESIDENTIAL - R-6 L~~TEr~T, '"VHEPJ: PERl'.1ITTED PERMITTED USES BY RIGHT BY SPECIAL USE PERMIT AREA AND BULK REGULATIONS BONUS FACTORS (REFERENCE 2.4) ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARDS DEVELOPMffiNTSTANDARDS LOW AND MODERATE COST HOUSING CLUSTER DEVELOPMENT OPTION REGULA TIONS (Amended 8-14-85) BUILDING SEPARATION RECREATIONAL AREA REQUIREMENTS HEIGHT REGULATIONS 16.1 INTENT, WHERE PERMITTED . R-6 districts are hereby created and may hereafter be established by amendment to the zoning map to provide a plan implementation zone that: -Provides for compact, medium-density residential development; (Amended 9-9-92) -Permits a variety of housing types; and -Provides incentives for clustering of development and provision of locational, environmental and developmental amenities. R-6 districts may be permitted \vithin community and urban area locations reconuuended for medium-density residential use in the comprehensive plan. (Amended 9-9-92) 16.2 PERMITTED USES 16.2.1 BY RIGHT . The following uses shall be pennitted subject to the requirements and limitations of this ordinance: 1. Detached single-family dwellings. 2. Semi-detached and attached single-family dwellings such as duplexes, triplexes, quadraplexes, townhouses, atrium houses and patio houses provided that density is maintained, and provided further that buildings are located so that each unit could be provided with a lot meeting all other requirements for detached single-family dwellings except for side yards at the common wall. 18-16-1 Zoning Supplement #30, 10-J3-()~ 14- ALBEMARLE COUNTY CODE 3. Multiple-family dwellings such as garden apartments. 4. Cluster development of pennitted residential uses. 5. Rental of pennitted residential uses and guest cottages: provided that yard, area and other requirements of this ordinance shall be met for each such use whether or not such use is on an individual lot. 6. Homes for developmentally disabled persons (reference 5.1.7). 7. Boarding houses. 8. Tourist lodgings (reference 5.1.17). 9. (Repealed 9-2-81) 10. (Repealed 9-2-81) 11. Electric, gas, oil and communication facilities, excluding tower structures and including poles, lines, transformers, pipes, meters and related facilities for distribution of local service and owned and operated by a public utility. Water distribution and sewerage collection lines, pumping stations and appurtenances owned and operated by the Albemarle County SeIVice Authority. Except as otherwise expressly provided, central water supplies and central sewerage systems in confonnance with Chapter 16 of the Code of Albemarle and all other applicable law. (Amended 5-12-93) 12. Public uses and buildings including temporary or mobile facilities such as schools, offices, parks, playgrounds and roads funded, o\\l1ed or operated by local, state or federal agencies (reference 31.2.5); public water and sewer transmission, main or trunk lines, treatment facilities, pumping stations and the like, O\\11ed and/or operated by the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority (reference 31.2.5; 5.1.12). (Amended 11-1-89) 13. Temporary construction uses (reference 5.1.18). 14. Accessory uses and buildings including home occupation, Class A (reference 5.2) and storage buildings. 15. Stomlwater management facilities shovm on an approved final site plan or subdivision plat. (Added 10-9-02) 16. Tier I and Tier II personal wireless service facilities (reference 5.lAO). (Added 1 0-13-04) (~20-16.2.l, 12-10-80; 9-2-81; ll-I-89;5-12-93;Ord. 02-18(6), 10-9-02;Ord. 04-18(2), 10-13-04) 16.2.2 BY SPECIAL USE PERMIT The following uses shall be pemlitted only by special use pennit approved by the board of supervisors pursuant to section 31 .2.4: 1. Community center (reference 5.1.04). 2. Clubs, lodges, civic, fratemal, patriotic {reference 5.1.02). 3. Fire and rescue squad stations {reference 5.1.09). 4. Swim, golf, tem-us or similar athletic facilities (reference 5.1.16). 18-16-2 Zoning Supplement #30. 10-13-04 Ie; . Sections: 4.0 4.1 4.2 4.2.1 4.2.2 4.2.3 . 4.2.4 4.2.5 4.2.6 4.3 4.3.1 4.4 4.5 4.6 4.6.1 4.6.2 4.6.3 . 4.6.4 4.6.5 4.6.6 4.6.7 4.7 4.7.1 4.7.2 4.7.3 4.7.4 4.8 4.8.1 4.8.2 4.8.3 4.8.4 4.8.5 4.9 4.10 4.10.1 4.10.2 4.10.2.1 4.10.2.2 4.10.3 4.10.3.1 4.10.3.2 4.10.3.3 4.10.3.4 4.11 ALBEMARLE COUNTY CODE CHAPTER 18 ZONING SECTION 4 GENERAL REGULATIONS GENERAL REGULATIONS AREA AND HEALTH REGULATIONS RELATED TO UTILITIES (Amended 6- 3-ln) CRITICAL SLOPES BUILDING SITE REQUIRED BUILDING SITE AREA AND DIMENSIONS (Amended 10-17-01) LOCATION OF STRUCTURES AND IMPROVEMENTS (Amended 11-15-89; 10- 17-01) LOCATION OF SEPTIC SYSTEMS (Amended 11-11-87) MODIFICATION OR WAIVER EXEMPTIONS (Amended 10-17-01) TREE CUTTING FILL AREAS, WASTE AREAS VISIBILITY CLEARANCE AT INTERSECTIONS REQUIREMENTS FOR CONDOMINIUMS LOT REGULATIONS FRONTAGE AND LOT WIDTH MEASUREMENTS (Amended 7-20-88) LOTS, DETERMINATION OF LOT FRONT (Amended 10-3-01) LOTS AND YARDS ADJACENT TO STREETS, ALLEYS AND SHARED DRIVEWAYS REAR YARDS ON INTERIOR LOTS SIDE YARDS ON LOTS LOT ACCESS REQUIREMENTS LOT COVERAGE BY BUILDINGS REGULATIONS GOVERNING OPEN SPACE OPEN SPACE, INTENT USES PERMITTED IN OPEN SPACE OPEN SPACE, DESIGN REQUIREMENTS (Amended 11-15-89) OWNERSHIP OF OPEN SPACE USES-GENERALLY DETERMINA TIONS CONCERNING UNSPECIFIED USES TEMPORARY INDUSTRIALIZED BUILDINGS (Amended 10-3-01) HOUSES DISPLAYED FOR ADVERTISING PURPOSES (Repealed 3-18-81) (Repealed 3-18-81) HANDICAPPED ACCESS (Amended 10-3-01) HEIGHT OF BUILDING AND OTHER STRUCTURES INTENT FIRE AND SAFETY REQUIREMENTS FIRE PROTECTION AERIAL NA VIGA TION HEIGHT LIMIT A TION--EXCEPTIONS EXCEPTIONS--EXCLUDED FROM APPLICATION EXCEPTIONS--LIMITED PARAPET WALLS, CORNICES, ETC. ACCESSORY BUILDINGS IN RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS USES AND STRUCTURES PERMITTED IN REQUIRED YARDS 18-4-1 Zoning Supplement #19, 2-6-02 /0 4.11.1 4.11.2 4.11.2.1 4.11.2.2 4.11.2.3 4.11.3 4.12 4.12.1 4.12.2 4.12.3 4.12.4 4.12.5 4.12.6 4.12.6.1 4.12.6.2 4.12.6.3 4.12.6.4 4.12.6.5 4.12.6.6 4.12.6.6.1 4.12.6.6.2 4.12.7 4.13 4.13.1 4.13.2 4.13.3 4.14 4.14.1 4.14.1.1 4.14.1.2 4.14.2 4.14.2.1 4.14.2.2 4.14.3 4.14.4 4.14.5 4.14.6 4.14.7 4.14.8 4.15 4.15.1 4.15.2 4.15.3 4.15.4 4.15.5 4.15.6 4.15.7 4.15.7.1 4.15.7.2 ALBEMARLE COUNTY CODE COVERED PORCHES, BALCONIES, CHIMNEYS AND LIKE FEATURES STRUCTURES IN REQUIRED YARDS ACCESSORY STRUCTURES PUBLIC TELEPHONE BOOTHS FENCES, MAILBOXES, AND SIMILAR STRUCTURES REDUCTION OF BUILDING SEPARATION AND SIDE YARDS (Added 1-1-83) OFF-STREET PARKING AND LOADING REQUIREMENTS PURPOSE APPLICATION LOCATION OF PARKING COOPERATIVE PARKING A V AILABILITY PARKING AREA DESIGN SAFE AND CONVENIENT ACCESS INTERNAL CIRCULATION MINIMUM IMPROVEMENTS LIGHTING PARKING SPACE SIZE (Amended 10-3-01) REQUIRED NUMBER OF OFF-STREET PARKING SPACES DETERMINATION OF NUMBER OF PARKING SPACES REQUIRED FOR UNSPECIFIED USES (Amended 10-3-01) SCHEDULE OF SPECIFIC REQUIREMENTS FOR NUMBER OF OFF-STREET P ARKlNG SPACES REQUIRED OFF-STREET LOADING SPACE PARKING AND STORAGE OF CERTAIN VEHICLES PARKING, STORAGE, OR USE OF MAJOR RECREATIONAL EQUIPMENT IN RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS LIMITATION ON pARKING/STORAGE OF INOPERATIVE MOTOR VEHICLES (Amended 6-10-87) LIMITATIONS ON pARKING OF TRUCKS AND CERTAIN RECREATIONAL VEHICLES IN RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS PERFORMANCE STANDARDS NOISE (Amended 6-14-00) (Repealed 6-14-00) (Repealed 6-14-00) VIBRATION METHOD OF MEASUREMENT MEANING OF TERMS GLARE AIR POLLUTION WATER POLLUTION RADIOACTIVITY ELECTRICAL INTERFERENCE CERTIFIED ENGINEER REPORT SUBMITTAL SIGNS (New ordinances adopted 7-8-92 and 5-9-01; old ordinances repealed at the same time) PURPOSE AND INTENT (Amended 5-9-01) DEFINITIONS (Amended 5-9-01) SIGN CONTENT (Amended 5-9-01) SIGNS AUTHORIZED BY SIGN PERMIT (Amended 5-9-01) SIGNS AUTHORIZED BY SPECIAL USE PERMIT (Amended 5-9-01) SIGNS EXEMPT FROM THE SIGN PERMIT REQUIREMENT (Amended 5-9- 01) PROHIBITED SIGNS AND SIGN CHARACTERISTICS (Amended 5-9-01) (Repealed 5-9-01) (Repealed 5-9-01) 18-4- 2 Zoning Supplement #19, 2-6-02 1'1 . 4.15.7.3 4.15.7.4 4.15.7.5 4.15.7.6 4.15.8 4.15.9 4.15.9.1 4.15.9.2 4.15.9.3 4.15.9.4 4.15.9.5 4.15.10 4.15.11 4.15.12 . 4.15.12.1 4.15.12.2 4.15.12.3 4.15.12.4 4.15.12.5 4.15.12.6 4.15.12.7 4.15.12.8 4.15.13 4.15.13.1 4.15.13.2 4.15.14 4.15.14.1 4.15.14.2 4.15.15 4.15.16 4.15.17 4.15.18 4.15.19 4.15.20 4.15.21 4.15.22 4.15.23 . 4.15.24 4.16 4.16.1 4.16.2 4.16.3 4.17 4.17.1 4.17.2 4.17.3 4.17.4 ALBEMARLE COUNTY CODE (Repealed 5-9-01) (Repealed 5-9-01) (Repealed 5-9-01) (Repealed 5-9-01) REGULATIONS APPLICABLE IN THE RA, VR, R-l AND R-2 ZONING DISTRICTS (Amended 5-9-01) REGULA TIONS APPLICABLE IN THE R-4 AND R-6 ZONING DISTRICTS (Amended 5-9-01) (Repealed 5-9-01) (Repealed 5-9-01) (Repealed 5-9-01) (Repealed 5-9-01) (Repealed 5-9-01) REGULATIONS APPLICABLE IN THE R-I0, R-15 AND PRD ZONING DISTRICTS (Amended 5-9-01) REGULATIONS APPLICABLE IN THE PUD ZONING DISTRICT (Amended 5- 9-01) REGULATIONS APPLICABLE IN THE C-l AND CO ZONING DISTRICTS (Amended 5-9-01) (Repealed 5-9-01) (Repealed 5-9-01) (Repealed 5-9-01) (Repealed 5-9-01) (Repealed 5-9-01) (Repealed 5-9-01) (Repealed 5-9-01) (Repealed 5-9-01) REGULATIONS APPLICABLE IN THE HC, PD-SC AND PD-MC ZONING DISTRICTS (Amended 5-9-01) (Repealed 5-9-01) (Repealed 5-9-01) REGULATIONS APPLICABLE IN THE HI, LI AND PD-IP ZONING DISTRICTS (Amended 5-9-01) (Repealed 5-9-01) (Repealed 5-9-01) REGULATIONS APPLICABLE IN THE ENTRANCE CORRIDOR OVERLAY DISTRICT (Added 5-9-01) REGULATIONS APPLICABLE TO CERTAIN SIGN TYPES (Added 5-9-01) DETERMINING SIGN AREA (Added 5-9-01) DETERMINING SIGN HEIGHT (Added 5-9-01) DETERMINING SIGHT DISTANCE TRIANGLE (Added 5-9-01) DETERMINING STRUCTURE FRONTAGE (Added 5-9-01) DETERMINING SIGN SETBACK (Added 5-9-01) SIGN MAINTENANCE (Added 5-9-01) SIGN AL TERA TION, REPAIR OR REMOVAL; WHEN REQUIRED (Added 5-9- 01) NONCONFORMING SIGNS (Added 5-9-01) RECREATION REGULATIONS MINIMUM AREA MINIMUM FACILITIES ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS OUTDOOR LIGHTING PURPOSE APPLICABILITY (Amended 10-17-01) DEFINITIONS (Amended 10-17-01) STANDARDS (Amended 10-17-01) 18-4-3 Zoning Supplement #19, 2-6-02 IS ALBEMARLE COUNTY CODE 4.16.3 ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS 4.16.3.1 Equipment specifications shall be approved by the director of planning and cOllmlUnity development on advice of the director of parks and recreation. 4.16.3.2 Recreational equipment and facilities shall be maintained in a safe condition and replaced as necessary. Maintenance shall be the responsibility of the property owner if rental units or a homeowners' association if sale units. 4.16.3.3 Recreational facilities shall be completed when fifty (50) percent of the units have received certificates of occupancy. 4.17 OUTDOOR LIGHTING Outdoor lighting regulations are set forth in sections 4.17.1, 4.17.2, 4.17.3, 4.17.4,4.17.5 and 4.17.6. These regulations are in addition to the perfomlance standard pertaining to glare set forth in section 4.14.3 of this chapter. (Ord. 98-18(1), 8-12-98) 4.17.1 PURPOSE The purposes of these outdoor lighting regulations are to protect dark skies, to protect the general welfare by controlling the spillover of light onto adjacent properties, and to protect the public safety by preventing glare from outdoor luminaires. To effectuate these purposes, these regulations regulate the direction of light emitted from certain luminaires, and limit the intensity of light on certain adjacent properties, as provided herein. (Ord. 98-18(1), 8-12-98) 4.17.2 APPLICABILITY Except as provided in sections 4.17.4.b and 4.17 .6, these outdoor lighting regulations shall apply to each outdoor luminaire installed or replaced after the date of adoption of these regulations which is: (Amended 10-17-01) a. Located on property within a conunercial or industrial zoning district, or is associated with a use for which a site plan is required by section 32.0, and is equipped with a lamp which emits three thousand (3,000) or more maximum lumens; or (Amended 10-17-01) b. Located on property within a residential or the rural areas zoning district and is associated with a use for which a site plan is not required by section 32.0, and is equipped with a high intensity discharge lamp, regardless of its maximum lumens. (Amended 10-17-01) (Ord. 98-18(1),8-12-98; Ord. 01-18(8), 10-17-01) 4.17.3 DEFINITIONS The following defirlltions shall apply in the implementation and enforcement of these outdoor lighting regulations: Decorative luminaire withfull cutofJoptics. (Repealed 10-17-01) Full cutofJ luminaire. The tenn "full cutoff luminaire" means an outdoor light fixture shielded in such a mamler that all light emitted by the fixture, either directly from the lamp or indirectly from the fi),,'ture, is projected below the horizontal plane. 18-4-52 Zoning Supplement #17,10-17-01 I~ ALBEMARLE COUNTY CODE . High intensity discharge lamp. The tenn "high intensity discharge lamp" means a mercury vapor, metal halide, or high pressure sodiunl lamp, and for purposes of this section 4.17, a low pressure sodiunllamp. Initial lumens. (Repealed 10-17-01) Lamp. The tenn "lamp" means the component of a luminaire that produces light. A lamp is also commonly referred to as a bulb. Lumen. The term "lumen" means a standard unit of measurement of luminous flux. Luminaire. The term "iuminaire" means a complde lighiillg unit consisting of a lamp or lamps together with the components designed to distribute the light, to position and protect the lamps, and to connect the lamps to the power supply. A lunlinaire is also commonly referred to as a fixture. Outdoor luminaire. The tenn "outdoor luminaire" means a lU11linaire which is pernlanently installed outdoors including, but not linlited to, devices used to illuminate any site, structure, or sign, except that it does not include an internally illuminated sign. (Ord. 98-18(1), 8-12-98; Ord. 01-18(8), 10-17-01)) 4.17.4 STANDARDS The following standards shall apply to each outdoor lU11linaire: . a. Except as provided in section 4.17.6, each outdoor lU11linaire subject to these outdoor lighting regulations shall be a full cutofflU11linaire. (Amended 10-17-01) 1. For each outdoor lU11linaire subject to these outdoor lighting regulations pursuant to section 4.l7.2.a, whether a lamp emits three thousand (3,000) or more maximum lumens shall be determined from the information provided by the manufacturer of the lamp including, but not limited to, information on the lamp or on the lamp's packaging materials. (Amended 10-17-01) 2. For each outdoor lU11linaire subject to these outdoor lighting regulations pursuant to section 4.l7.2.a, the following rated lamp wattages shall be deemed to emit three thousand (3,000) or more maximum IU11lens unless the zoning administrator determines, based upon information provided by a lamp manufacturer, that the rated wattage of a lamp emits either more or less than the three thousand (3,000) maxinlum lumens: (Amended 10-17-01) a. Incandescent lamp: one hundred sixty (160) or more watts. b. Quartz halogen lamp: one hundred SL"Xty (160) or more watts. c. Fluorescent lanlp: thirty-five (35) or more watts. d. Mercury vapor lamp: seventy-five (75) or more watts. e. Metal halide lamp: forty (40) or more watts. f. High pressure sodium lamp: forty-five (45) or more watts. g. Low pressure sodiU11llamp: twenty-five (25) or more watts. . 3. If a luminaire is equipped with more than one lamp, the lumens of the lamp with the highest maximum lumens shall detennine the lumens emitted. (Amended 10-17-0 I) 18-4-53 Zoning Supplement #17,10-17-01 2D . . . - TO: FROM: DATE: RE: COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Community Development Planning 401 McIntire Road, Room 218 Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 (434) 296 - 5823 Fax (434) 972 - 4012 MEMORANDUM Robert W. Tucker, Jr., County Executive Of/; David Benish, Chief of Planning January 27,2005 CPA-04-06 Stormwater Master Plan The Albemarle County Planning Commission, at its meeting on January 11, 2005, by a vote of 5:0, recommended approval of the above-noted Comprehensive Plan Amendment to the Board of Supervisors. The Board is scheduled to hold a public hearing on this item at its February4"d meeting. An updated staff report will be provided in the near future. DBB/aer COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE . EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AGENDA TITLE: Stormwater Master Plan - Comprehensive Plan Amendment AGENDA DATE: February 9, 2005 ACTION: X INFORMATION: SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Amend the Comprehensive Plan to incorporate the Stormwater Master Plan as a freestanding document CONSENT AGENDA: ACTION: INFORMATION: ATTACHMENTS: Yes STAFF CONTACT(S): Messrs. Foley, Graham, Cilimberg, Benish, Harper REVIEWED BY: BACKGROUND: At the September 1, 2004 meeting the Board of Supervisors adopted a resolution of intent to amend the Comprehensive Plan to incorporate the Stormwater Master Plan. This action was the culmination of three prior work sessions held by the Board on April 7, May 5, and July 14, 2004. The Board subsequently directed the Planning Commission to prepare an amendment and hold a public hearing on the proposed amendment. The Planning Commission did this at their January 11, 2005 meeting and unanimously passed a recommendation that the Board incorporate the Stormwater Master Plan. . STRATEGIC PLAN: Goal 2.2: Protect and/or preserve the County's natural resources. Goal 2.3: Provide for environmentally sensitive government operations at the local and regional level. Goal 3.1: Make the County a Safe and Healthy Community in which citizens feel secure to live, work and play Goal 3.3: Develop and implement policies that address the County's growth and urbanization while continuing to enhance the factors that contribute to the quality of life in the County DISCUSSION: The Planning Commission suggested several non-substantive changes to the proposed text amendments. These changes have been integrated into the proposed amendment (Attachment A). A thorough historical summary is provided in the attached Executive Summaries of three past Board work sessions (Attachment B). RECOMMENDATIONS: Amend the Natural Resources and Cultural Assets component of the Comprehensive Plan to incorporate the Stormwater Master Plan, with the anticipation of eventually adopting a stormwater financing strategy as part of a broader approach to funding urban infrastructure. ATTACHMENTS Attachment A - Proposed text amendment to the Natural Resources and Cultural Assets component of the Comprehensive Plan. .ttachment B - Executive Summaries of the April 7, May 5, and July 12, 2004 Board of Supervisors work sessions. Attachment I Proposed text amendment to the Natural Resources and Cultural Assets Component of the Comprehensive Plan Amendment # 1 Page 1 - Introduction to the Natural Resources and Cultural Assets Component of the Comprehensive Plan 4th Full paragraph This chapter incorporates as a freestanding dOCl-lment the Open Space ami Critical Reseur-ecs Pkll'l originally adopted in 1992 as part ofthe Comprehensive Plan. [It is aFlticipated that it will also incorporate the Histeric Prescrvatiel'l Plan being prepared by the Historic Preservation Committee.] This chapter incorporates as part of the Comprehensive Plan the following t}'eestanding documents: the Open Space and Critical Resources Plan adopted in 1992. the Historic Preservation Plan adopted in :2000. and the SlOl'Il1water Master Plan adopted in 2005. Included m-as Appendix A is the detailed Greenways Plan. The Mountain Protection Plan, prepared by the Mountain Protection Committee in 1996, and is Appendix B. Tthe Open Space and Critical Resources Plan, the Historic Preservation Plan, and the Storm water [\4aster Plan are located under separate cover. Amendment #2 Page 28 - Stormwater Management 151 Full paragraph Urban and suburban development changes the nature of streams and drainage ways, and can result in increased flooding, loss of groundwater recharge, and water quality degradation. Pollutants present in urban and suburban runoff include: sediment, fertilizers, pesticides, heavy metals, bacteriological contaminants, and grease and oil, among others. Since 1980, the County has required development in an urban and urbanizing portion of the County known as the "stormwater detention area" to use facilities that detain storm water. The purpose of these measures is to protect downstream properties from excessive drainage, erosion, and flooding. .A.s part oftfle process of In developing the Water Protection Ordinance, the County has been studyffig-ied how the storm water program can be enhanced to be more comprehensive, to coordinate stormwater management within entire drainage basins, to incorporate water quality concerns, and to improve the design and maintenance of stormwater facilities. The Design Standards Manual earrently I:-lnder development v:ill further refines County guidance on these matters. To this end, the County has recently completed a Stormwater Master Plan for the County's Development Areas. The objectives of the Stormwater Master Plan arc to (1) provide guidance for land llse planning and neighborhood master planning that is based on the assessment and prioritization of water resources and (2) promote public and private stormwater solutions that are based on needs and opportunities at the watershed scale rather than relying solely on a site-by-site approach. In developing the Stormwater Master Plan, assessments were conducted for streams within the Development Areas and information on habitat conditions, community values, and problem areas were gathered. Information from the stream assessments was utilized to identify High-Value Stream Corridors. This information is useful for land use and neighborhood planning, for prioritizing County capital projects for stream improvement, and for guiding the review of development proposals and the implementation of the Water Protection Ordinance. To further assess stream conditions, selected High- Value Stream Corridors were monitored for biological integrity by the Stream Watch citizen monitoring program. Stream Corridor Restoration Projects and Regional Stormwater Control Facilities were then identified. Stream Corridor Restoration projects would improve existing stream corridors by repairing stream erosion, enhancing stream buffers, cleaning up dump sites, and repairing infrastructure problems. Regional Storm water Facilities are intended to treat areas with high impervious cover. help protect downstream High- Value Stream Corridors. and be integrated functionally and aesthetically with existing and future development patterns. The Storm water Master Plan aims to coordinate various Stonnwater Programmatic Elements and contains Stormwater Actions Lists for each Development Area that includes prioritized stream restoration projects and prioritized regional facilities to be used in planning County capital watershed improvement projects and in coordinating private development activities. Amendment #3 Page 30 - List of Strategies Strategy: Implement the StomlwaterMaster Plan programs and improvements in accordance with a funding strategy approved by the Board of Supervisors. Strategy: Amend the Water Protection Ordinance to incorporate stream management objectives based on stream assessment results, including providing stream buffers for pocket natural areas and community and private use trails, as designated in the plan. . . . Exec summary Page 1 of 4 ~ TT ACHMENT B COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AGENDA TITLE: Stormwater Master Planning and Program Development AGENDA DATE: April 7, 2004 ACTION: INFORMATION: SUBJECT/PROPOSAUREQUEST: Work session on the stormwater master plan and options to develop the stormwater program CONSENT AGENDA: ACTION: INFORMATION: x ATTACHMENTS: Yes STAFF CONTACT(S): Messrs. Tucker, Foley, Graham, Hirschman REVIEWED BY: BACKGROUND: In the past year, there has been much activity in the field of stormwater management, including: . Completion of a Stormwater Master Plan for the Development Areas, and . County coverage under a federally-mandated stormwater permit program for municipal storm sewer systems. The Stormwater Master Plan is the product of previous work sessions with the Board during the Spring of 2000. At that time, the Board directed staff pursue regional drainage area plans. Prioritized watershed studies are also listed as a Strategy in Chapter 2 of the Comprehensive Plan, adopted in 1999. The stormwater permit program (NPDES Phase II) went into effect in 2003. The program, in essence, considers discharges from a municipal storm sewer system to be regulated, similar to those from factories or wastewater plants. Under this permit, the County must develop a stormwater management program that meets standards administered by the Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ). We have arrived at a point in our program development where policy decisions must be made in terms of implementing the stormwater master plan and funding our growing stormwater demands for existing, mandatory, and expected programs. The April 7, 2004 work session will focus on the Stormwater Master Plan, with subsequent work sessions aimed at establishing policy guidance for the stormwater program. This executive summary outlines the Stormwater Master Plan, stormwater program elements, and steps for future decision-making, including program funding. Stormwater Master Plan for Development Areas The County's Neighborhood Model for the Development Areas encourages in-fill development, which will create a relatively high intensity of impervious areas and increase in stormwater runoff. This land use pattern provides a challenge to protect water resources. Streams within the Development Areas have already been impacted by existing and former land uses, and future development will also impact streams. Proactive stormwater planning can help mitigate these impacts and promote the restoration of water resources for their ecological, recreational, and cultural values. 3 11 _ __..1_ _.._L___l_.......1I:.__-._......../T]......__.... 0"'_..""_/no_n-t-........"o_+C"['Q'"'~....r1 r'\'f C'lI''I'"\O",",T~C''^''' 1 /A /')()(), Exec summary Page 2 of 4 By its nature, water resources management within the Development Areas requires trade offs: protecting some high-value stream corridors while acknowledging that others may be impacted by development, allowing the development designated in the Land Use Plan while protecting downstream property and natural resources, and seeking design solutions through the Neighborhood Model that turn water resources into neighborhood and environmental assets rather than liabilities. These trade offs are made with the understanding that higher- density development is being concentrated within the 35 square miles of the Development Areas in order to afford a much higher level of protection for streams within the remaining 692 square miles of the County's rural areas. With this framework in mind, the objectives of the Stormwater Master Plan for the Development Areas are to (1) provide guidance for land use planning and neighborhood master planning that is based on the assessment and prioritization of water resources, (2) promote public and private stormwater solutions that are based on needs and opportunities at the watershed scale rather than relying solely on a site-by-site approach, and (3) recommend a financing strategy to implement the Stormwater Master Plan, a County-wide stormwater management program, and attendant programs under the County's municipal storm sewer permit (VPDES Phase II). The components of the Stormwater Master Plan include: . Stream assessment and prioritization, . Identification of regional stormwater control facilities to address existing and future development, . Identification of watershed projects that can be implemented concurrent with development, including repair of major stream erosion and restoration of stream buffer zones, and . A recommended stormwater financing plan. Stormwater Program Elements The County's stormwater program is and will continue to be a fusion of programs that are: (1) existing and established efforts, (2) mandates from federal and/or state regulations, and (3) expected program elements based on Board direction and citizen expectations. . Existing Programs include plan review for erosion control, stormwater management, and stream buffer protection, site inspections, inspections and maintenance for existing stormwater facilities, limited drainage repairs and improvements, flood plain management, and soil & water conservation district programs. . Mandated Programs include six minimum program elements specified in the County's municipal storm sewer permit, administered by the Department of Environmental Quality. Several important program elements are public education, outreach and involvement in water resources protection, elimination of unpermitted discharges to the storm system, and pollution prevention at municipal facilities. Another required program may be the mapping and designation of perennial streams to remain compliant with new regulations associated with the Chesapeake Bay Preservation Act (adopted as part of the County's Water Protection Ordinance). . Expected Programs include expanding our stormwater maintenance obligations, responding to citizen complaints, construction of new regional facilities in the Development Areas, watershed restoration and sediment reduction programs, watershed monitoring and studies, and a greenway program associated with stream corridors. Program Funding The method by which the County funds the stormwater program depends on a deliberate policy decision: What "level of service" are we choosing to provide in terms of water protection? Decisions about level of service must be made in the context of the existing, mandated, and expected program elements discussed above. The activities and programs listed above represent, in the staff's opinion, the minimum program elements necessary to meet mandatory commitments, the Comprehensive Plan, and community expectations. Of course, a more vigorous program is possible depending on the availability of funding and other support. Stormwater services range from those geared to protect property, public safety, and quality of life (e.g., flood control) to those that emphasize natural resources, water supplies, and the integrity of our natural systems (e.g., stream restoration, sediment reduction). However, most of these services accomplish multiple objectives across all of these areas (for instance, stream buffers offer natural flood control while protecting the ecology of stream corridors). Funding mechanisms evaluated in the Stormwater Master Plan include: pro-rata share fees, plan review fees, 4 1 _ _ _1/~___ _ __ _IT:-____ _ r'....._+....._IT"\....._~-+~o-+,., fD."''''.....,t I'"'\f' ~l''t''''IoC....,T~CI^..... 1/11/')(\(\, . . . Exec summary Page 3 of 4 grants, the general fund, and a dedicated funding source known as a stormwater utility. Stormwater utilities are enabled by State Code and can provide funding for a wide range of program elements based on an assessment of each property's contribution to runoff. In this regard, a stormwater utility establishes a service fee to fund required and expected stormwater services. The concept of a stormwater service fee was previously discussed by the Board in March and April of 2000 (3/1/00 and 4/5/00 meeting dates). For the current work session, we do not anticipate going into detail about a potential stormwater utility, although this topic will be discussed at length at subsequent work sessions. STRATEGIC PLAN: Goal 3.1: Make the County a Safe and Healthy Community in which citizens feel secure to live, work and play Goal 2.2: Protect and/or preserve the County's natural resources. Goal 2.3: Provide for environmentally sensitive government operations at the local and regional level. DISCUSSION: Past Board information sessions and actions on this and related topics are summarized below: . March 1. 2000: The Board was presented with a list of options for the Stormwater Control Program. The Board authorized the prioritization of CIP funds to complete "regional drainage area studies" (the Stormwater Master Plan), and requested further information on other topics. . April 5. 2000: Additional information was presented to the Board. The Board authorized that all future subdivision and site drainage easements be dedicated to Public Use. This decision means that the County's "owned and operated" municipal storm sewer system, subject to state and federal regulations, is steadily increasing. Since April, 2000, approximately 50 projects have dedicated easements to Public Use. At this meeting, the Board also elected to keep stormwater program administration within the Department of Engineering rather than transferring it to the Albemarle County Service Authority. . February 6. 2002: The Board authorized the signing of a grant agreement with the Department of Conservation & Recreation. The County was awarded a $100,000 grant through the Water Quality Improvement Fund to help fund the Stormwater Master Plan. . February 5. 2003: The Board authorized County staff to proceed with a "Registration Statement" so that the County could be covered under DEQ's general permit for municipal separate storm sewer systems (MS4s). This is a mandatory program under the Federal Clean Water Act. The County's permit coverage became effective on May 13, 2003. . February 4. 2004: The Board endorsed County staff's involvement in the Rivanna Regional Stormwater Education Partnership, a collaborative effort with the Charlottesville, UVA, VDOT, RWSA, and TJSWCD to help comply with some of the program elements in the aforementioned storm system permit. The Board's cumulative decisions to date have provided guidance, program directions, and several necessary authorizations for mandatory programs. At this point in time, we need to view the stormwater program as an integrated whole with program elements, defined levels of service, and an appropriate funding strategy to meet program needs. The April 7, 2004 work session is envisioned to be one of several that can ultimately lead to the policy direction needed to establish a defined and stable program. This work session will focus on the results and recommendations in the Stormwater Master Plan. If the Board endorses the Plan (and recommends its adoption into the Comprehensive Plan), then subsequent work sessions will address specific funding mechanisms. RECOMMENDATION: This work session is for information purposes. If the Board endorses the Stormwater Master Plan, subsequent work sessions will be scheduled to address funding options and recommendations for inclusion 6 ,-, _ .l__ /1'"""'\___ __-4..___ _~_4._/n....,..,_....:I __~ c...._..... 1/11/'"l(\(\1:, Exec summary Page 4 of4 of the plan in the Comprehensive Plan. View Attachment Return to regular agenda {; _ 1_ _ __1 _ _ ..1,-..___ _ __ _ f'T"7'_..._....... r"'...._+...._In__,,-+_______+,., fD "n'9'"~ n+ ~''l.......O~1; C'n..... , IA I')()()r:; Exec summary Page 1 of2 ATTACHMENT B . COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AGENDA TITLE: Stormwater Master Planning, Financing Options AGENDA DATE: May 5, 2004 ACTION: INFORMA TION: SUBJECT/PROPOSAUREQUEST: Work session on options for funding the stormwater program as a follow-up to the April 7,2004 work session CONSENT AGENDA: ACTION: INFORMATION: x ATTACHMENTS: Yes STAFF CONTACT(S}: Messrs. Tucker, Foley, Graham, Hirschman REVIEWED BY: . BACKGROUND: Wednesday's scheduled work session is a follow-up to the April 7, 2004 work session with the Board on the Stormwater Master Plan and will focus on stormwater funding options. The County's consultant, CH2M Hill, has produced a report on this topic that outlines several funding scenarios available to the County and will review these options with the Board at the meeting. The degree to which various funding alternatives are utilized will depend on the "level of service" the County decides to provide to address stormwater management needs (see the April 7 executive summary for a more detailed discussion of the various stormwater program elements). STRATEGIC PLAN: Goal 2.2: Protect and/or preserve the County's natural resources. Goal 2.3: Provide for environmentally sensitive government operations at the local and regional level. Goal 3.1: Make the County a Safe and Healthy Community in which citizens feel secure to live, work and play Goal: 3.3 Develop and implement policies that address the County's growth and urbanization while continuing to enhance the factors that contribute to the quality of life in the County. . DISCUSSION: Funding mechanisms evaluated in the Stormwater Master Plan include: pro-rata share fees, plan review fees, grants, the use of general fund revenues, and the establishment of a dedicated funding source known as a stormwater utility. Stormwater utilities are enabled by State Code and can provide funding for a wide range of program elements. Utility fees would be based on an assessment of each property's contribution to runoff. In this regard, a stormwater utility can be used to establish a service fee to fund the desired level of stormwater services. CH2M HILL worked with County staff to identify various levels of service based on the existing, mandated, and expected programs and presented this information to the Board at its April 7 meeting. After Board review of 1 11 . ___1_ __._I__4.1__..J/:..____........tT7'......___.... ,..,,....-+.........tr\,...._,.,...+..........~....,,+,...rn"',.u..rI n+ Qn't""\o""",,;C1I"'\T" 1/11 /')ooc;, Exec summary Page 2 of2 potential funding alternatives, staff will present options to the Board at its day meeting in June for proceeding with the establishment of a clearly defined stormwater program. This will involve a decision by the Board regarding the funding alternatives the Board supports in achieving the desired level of service. Due to new mandates and existing services, additional funds will be required beyond the current general fund allocation. RECOMMENDATION: The purpose of the work session is to review potential funding alternatives with the Board and to receive input regarding the scope of the County's future program. Based on this input, staff will prepare alternatives for the Board's consideration at it final work session planned for June. View Attachment Return to regular agenda 8 1...L...L._.II_______ _lL_.___~.l_ _.__/~~_l.........J/;~_....._....,..m....._.... r"1....._+....._fr'\__,.....-4---,-.._+,..,ID".........,1 -+ c,,_.........?~...._... 1 'II ''1 f\f\1:; Exec summary Page 1 of 4 . COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE ATTACHMENT B EXECUTIVE SUMMARY SUBJECT/PROPOSAUREQUEST: Consider various options for financing the stormwater program at different levels of service AGENDA DATE: July 14, 2004 ACTION: X CONSENT AGENDA: ACTION: INFORMATION: AGENDA TITLE: Stormwater Financing Work Session INFORMATION: STAFF CONTACT(st Tucker, Foley, Davis, Kamptner, Graham, Hirschman ATTACHMENTS: No REVIEWED BY: lEGAL REVIEW: Yes . BACKGROUND: The Board held work sessions on April 7, 2004 and May 5, 2004 concerning the Stormwater Master Plan and funding options for the stormwater program. Two important concepts from these work sessions were: 1. The stormwater program consists of existing programs (e.g., plan review, inspections, and maintenance), newly mandated programs (e.g., storm sewer permit), and expected programs (e.g., responding to citizen complaints, new regional facilities). 2. Current decision-making about the stormwater program involves deciding on a level of service for stormwater management. For instance, how frequently should the County inspect stormwater facilities and conduct preventative maintenance? How responsive should the County be to citizen complaints? The executive summaries from April 7 and May 5 provide more details on the master plan, funding options, and level of service issues. STRATEGIC PLAN: Goal 2.2: Protect and/or preserve the County's natural resources Goal 2.3: Provide for environmentally sensitive government operations at the local and regional level. Goal 3.3: Develop and implement policies that address the County's growth and urbanization while continuing to enhance the factors that contribute to the quality of life in the County. DISCUSSION: Based on feedback from the Board at the previous work sessions, staff has outlined a "baseline" program as well as two additional options for expanded levels of service. This report also contains an analysis of funding alternatives and important issues to be considered for each alternative. . Baseline level of Service: Existing & Newly Mandated Programs This "base" level of service includes programs that the County currently maintains plus new mandates that the County must comply with. The base program has the following level of service characteristics: o The County would continue to review erosion control and stormwater plans for development and provide site inspections based on current staffing. o Staff would strive for scheduled inspections for all public and private stormwater facilities on an annual basis, but limited resources will likely result in inspections largely being driven by complaints or known problems. o Routine maintenance would be performed on County-owned facilities. Funding for repairs and new facilities would be based on availability of funds in the CIP. o Citizen complaints would be handled on a case-by-case basis based on the availability of staff. Some complaints would receive an initial site visit, but adequate resources may not be available to address the problem. ~ I 1_ _ ~1/~_______1T'!'______ n___+......_/n......_.....-+.---.~_+,..,/D_............:I ,.....f:" Cl"__n.,...,T~("l'"'..... 1 fA /'")()()t:;. Exec summary Page 2 of 4 . Some problems that are left unattended due to a skeleton inspection and maintenance program will not be addressed until they become a more serious problem, which may result in more costly drainage system repairs in the future. . Staff would put the main emphasis on compliance with mandated programs. In most cases, we would identify and pursue the minimum actions necessary to achieve compliance, perhaps through contract with others. Funding Considerations for the Baseline Program The current funding level for the stormwater program is approximately $750,000 (approximately $500,000 for administrative expenses and $250,000 in the CIP). Some revenues are brought in through plan review fees ($140,000) and pro-rata share contributions to reimburse for past expenditures (this amount is variable on an annual basis based on the amount of development that occurs within particular drainage basins). An increase in funding would be needed to fund the newly mandated programs. The annual cost increase would likely range from $100,000 to $240,000. QRtion A: Base Program Plus Exp-anded Customer Service in Develop-ment Areas Focusing on Stormwater/Drainage Services Option A would provide services for existing and mandated programs as well as most expected programs, with a strong focus of providing "urban-type" services to the Development Areas with regard to inspecting, maintaining, and improving the drainage system. Level of service characteristics would be as follows: . The County would provide the plan review and inspection services listed above for the base program. Inspections of stormwater facilities would be conducted at least annually within the Development Areas. . The County would fund projects listed in the Stormwater Master Plan, including construction of regional facilities in the Development Areas, drainage repairs, and stream restorations at a rate of two to three projects per year in the Development Areas. . Additional staff and resources would be available to focus more attention on citizen complaints and follow- up to address problems in the drainage system in the Development Areas. . Staff would comply with our storm sewer permit mandates in accordance with the approved 5-year plan, and move beyond minimum compliance where opportunities arise to make the program more effective. One such opportunity would be to enhance our regional partnership for public education and outreach on stormwater issues. Funding Consideration for Option A Total program costs would be approximately $1.2 million in Year 2 of the program and $1.5 million in Year 5 (based on the assumption of taking on more projects through time), or $450,000 to $750,000 above current funding. Funding for projects and programs outside the Development Areas would be in addition to these figures, and would be funded on a case-by-case basis at the Board's discretion using general fund or capital revenues. Based on our consultant's analysis, the Development Area program could be funded by a stormwater utility with a rate of $24/year/ERU (equivalent residential unit = 2,000 square feet of impervious cover) in combination with plan review fees and pro-rata share contributions. This fee includes offsetting the current General Fund cost of stormwater management. Alternately, revenues for the program could be generated from the General Fund through a dedicated stormwater service district at a rate of approximately $0.01/$100 of assessed value (see discussion below). The chief difference between the stormwater utility and the service district is that the utility assesses fees based on relative impacts to stormwater (using impervious cover as the measure) while the district would use property values. The last section of this report contains a fuller treatment of these funding options. Option B: Base Program Plus Exp-anded Customer Service County-wide for Stormwater/Drainage Services AND Natural Resources Protection Option B would provide services for existing and mandated programs as well as most expected programs, with a County-wide approach. This County-wide coverage would allow the program to address "urban-type" services noted with Option A in addition to natural resources protection programs, such as sediment reduction, stream protection, and an expanded easement program. Level of service characteristics would be as follows: . The services described under Option B would be pursued. Maintenance inspections would be conducted at least annually throughout the County. . Projects in the Stormwater Master Plan as well as Rural Area projects would be funded at a rate of three to five per year. Rural Area projects may include stream habitat, sediment reduction, and riparian restoration efforts, as well as public education on water resources protection. \0 l/t1/')()()t:; II ____ _11-_.____.1_ _~._I...._l.............1/:.__....._........../t:'______.... (""""Clto_+o....mo"""~......h.,...u:Il'l""\+"fQl"'\~....r1 n.f ~"T'\A1'"'lT;('In.... Exec summary Page 3 of 4 . . Citizen complaint response and drainage repairs would have more of a County-wide focus. . Stream assessment and watershed studies could be extended beyond the Development Areas. Fundinq Consideration for ORtion B Total program costs would be approximately $1.5 million in Year 2 of the program and $2 million in Year 5, or $750,000 to $1.25 million above current funding. The County-wide program could be funded by a stormwater utility with a rate of $18 to $19/year/ERU in combination with plan review fees and pro-rata share contributions. This fee includes offsetting the current General Fund cost of stormwater management. For the stormwater utility option, an agricultural property with one dwelling unit would likely be billed as one ERU (in other words, the agricultural part would be exempt). As with Option A, revenues could also be generated from the General Fund through a dedicated stormwater service district at a rate of approximately $0.015 to $0.02/$100 of assessed value (see discussion below). Funding Alternatives & Issues Regardless of which program level of service is adopted by the Board, including the baseline level of service, additional revenue will be required. The funding alternatives presented by staff maintain some existing funding elements and provide options for other elements. Under each of the program level of service options, permit fees and pro-rata share are proposed to remain as currently used. However, it is recommended that if a stormwater utility or district is created, that the current general fund cost of stormwater management be shifted to that newly created funding mechanism. Staff believes three funding options are worth considering. These are: . 1. General fund: The advantage of expanding the use of the general fund is that it minimiZeS the administrative burden. As such, if the Board was interested in pursuing the base level of service, the additional cost above what has been previously funded would be a fraction of a penny on the property tax rate. That does not appear to justify the administrative cost of the other options. Conversely, if the Board preferred one of the expanded levels of service options, the additional cost would be a penny or more on the property tax rate and could present a funding challenge. If an expanded level of service is preferred by the Board, staff recommends considering the two funding options listed below. 2. Stormwater utility: A stormwater utility has been the most common means of providing a dedicated funding source for stormwater management in Virginia. The advantage of the stormwater utility is that it provides a dedicated funding source and attempts to relate the stormwater impact to the utility fee for each property. As such, it is most appropriately used when large sustained expenditures are anticipated. As proposed by staff, this utility would also shift most of the stormwater management costs that are currently funded with the general fund to the stormwater utility. This would reduce the general fund demand for stormwater management by approximately $500,000 per year. There are several issues with a stormwater utility worth discussing. First, this is a complex program to administer and requires considerable time and money to establish. For example, to set the initial fees for commercial property, we would need to measure the impact of each property by calculating an equivalent number of ERUs (equivalent residential units). As such, the administrative cost for this utility would outweigh the benefit for the base level of service. Second, single family dwellings are typically charged the same rate - one ERU - regardless of size. This assumes all houses have roughly the same stormwater impact. That simplifies the administrative burden, but could be viewed as a regressive fee, as it charges the property owner with a large house the same as the owner with a small house (although the rates are relatively low at $18 to $24 per year). The utility can create a different fee based on house size, but that significantly increases the administrative burden in managing the utility. Third, the utility structure would require the Board to annually set the appropriate utility rate. This is similar to what the ACSA currently does for water and sewer in balancing costs and revenue needs. Finally, the stormwater utility would likely be billed as a separate line item on the property tax. This could be a public perception issue somewhat similar to how some view the line items on a phone bill. . 3. Stormwater Service District: Basically, this program creates a separate dedicated charge for stormwater using the property assessment. Like the stormwater utility, this creates a dedicated funding source and could allow current program funding to be shifted within the general fund to this stormwater district. This differs from the utility in that the property charges are based on assessed property value rather than attempting to measure the property's stormwater impact. The advantages of this option are that it is much simpler to \\ . r_.~l_ _ ..1'"..___ _ ___IT":'___.... r",..._+....._IT'\__n-+..--.o_+t'"'I(Qn"3,...,1 rt..f" ~l1n,p.,..,.r~('IJ""\.... 1 /11 /') nn" Exec summary Page 4 of 4 administer and, by Board policy, could have an automatic adjuster for inflation. For example, if a stormwater rate of $0.02/$100 assessed was established as a dedicated funding source, as property values increased, the funding level of this program would also increase. This allows the program to have an automatic adjustment for inflation and housing growth that avoids the need for the Board to perform an annual rate change. There are several issues worth considering. First, it must be recognized that the district method does not attempt to relate costs to stormwater impacts, but rather uses property values. That said, this is really no different than what is done with the General Fund. Second, while the administrative burden would be smaller than the stormwater utility, it would have a larger administrative burden than use of the general fund. Finally, like the utility, this would likely be billed as a separate line item on the property tax bill and have that same concern with public perception. RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff would like to receive input from the Board regarding the level of service you feel is most appropriate for the County's changing stormwater program. Staff is preparing an overview of a number of urban area ,needs, including stormwater, to discuss with the Board in a more comprehensive way at a Board work session in September. Prioritizing and funding urban infrastructure is also planned for discussion at October's Strategic Planning retreat. It is recommended that a final decision on funding the stormwater program be made as a part of this more comprehensive discussion. Return to reoular aoenda 11 1 _ u_.'-___l__.J/;__....___..../~......._... r"......_+o...../no_".....t-.........g.....,+C'fQ.r\t;l,...r1 nf' ~11nprl1;Cnr \2- 1 {.1/"")(\(\~ PLEASE SIGN BELOW IF YOU WISH TO SPEAK ON CPA-2003-006. RURAL AREAS COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT. The fOllowing guidelines will be used for this public hearing: EACH SPEAKER IS ALLOTTED 3 MJNUTES. INDIVIDUALS CANNOT RELINQUISH THEIR 3 MINUTES TO ANOTHER SPEAKER. INDIVIDUALS CAN ONLY SIGN UP ONE PERSON TO.SPEAK. PLEASE GIVE ANY WRITTEN STATEMENTS TO THE CLERK. (<-/JY L.. '-( - c? ~~-- ..j - / Lj => 9- 8" t~ N(JcIL-WA- f2 Kc:~ Lo 14 Q n.A\c\<;5.> ~~~ \~ 17 18 19 20 21 22 PLEASE SIGN BELOW IF YOU WISH TO SPEAK ON CPA-2003-006. RURAL AREAS COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT. 22. It.-I- (Mr. Chairman - Please return to Clerk of the Board at end of meeting). Comments from Brian Wheeler to Albemarle County Board of Supervisors on Rural Areas Plan February 9, 2005 My name is Brian Wheeler and I am speaking tonight as a citizen offering my support for the County's revised Rural Areas Plan, but not without some concerns. I have been a resident of this area for 20 years and my current home in Ivy is in the Langford Farms sub-division. It was built in 1978 before the general rezoning. We moved to Langford Farms in 1997 as a young family from the urban ring seeking a larger house and more land. Surrounded by mountain views and rural countryside. Close to Charlottesville and 1-64. Our neighborhood was then and is now a great place to live. However, the landscape around us has changed rapidly since our arrival with new homes popping up like dandelions. Some are on small lots filling out the rest of our older neighborhood. Others are on sizeable new lots in Blue Springs, The Rocks, on Bloomfield Rd, and Rosemont. Those homeowners want to be in rural Albemarle for the same reasons I do, and while I welcome them as neighbors and parents in our schools, I am also increasingly alarmed at the pace of rural development. .' '.. ":c. ' J/9ft~__ // 7'~ Brian Wheeler. (434) 984-2233 . bwheeler@albemarlematters.com . www.wheeleronboard.com I found it interesting that the only place in the 47 page plan that the text switches to BOLD type is on page 30 where it states in part: ". . . the County's land development policies must be changed to stop the ongoing trend toward fragmentation and loss of rural character. New policies should focus on. .. reducing the potential overall level of residential development and loss of rural character. Implementation of these policies... should be the County's highest priority." Clearly you have the public support to do just that as 73% of the community's vision for the Rural Areas, is a rural character with "little residential development." The reality is we ARE currently zoned for SPRA WL and you have an immense challenge before you to draft and approve the ordinances that will make these goals a reality. I observed our community at a redistricting public hearing last night. Many speakers from Murray Elementary asked questions about why they were being slated to attend schools outside the Western feeder pattern when they were in a "no growth" part of the County. They spoke passionately about the preservation of their small neighborhood school communities. Yet, growth is happening in the rural areas and it has a real impact on families and schools. Murray had under 250 students in 1999 and current projections are that we will have over 300 by 2009, if there is no redistricting. While the school system only projects the addition of 20 students in all County schools between now and 2009, the reality is our schools have existing capacity issues and the continuing rural area growth is hard to predict. We also have a new PLEASE SIGN BELOW IF YOU WISH TO SPEAK ON CPA-2003-006. RURAL AREAS COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT. The following guidelines will be used for this public hearing: EACH SPEAKER IS ALLOTTED 3 MINUTES. INDIVIDUALS CANNOT RELINQUISH THEIR 3 MINUTES TO ANOTHER SPEAKER. INDIVIDUALS CAN ONLY SIGN UP ONE PERSON TO SPEAK. PLEASE GIVE ANY WRITTEN STATEMENTS TO THE CLERK. ~'-(- o~-.j-J 1:>c;- ~ PLEASE SIGN BELOW IF YOU WISH TO SPEAK ON CPA-2003-006. RURAL AREAS COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT. 22. /1-i- (Mr. Chairman - Please return to Clerk of the Board at end of meeting). Comments from Brian Wheeler to Albemarle County Board of Supervisors on Rural Areas Plan February 9,2005 My name is Brian Wheeler and I am speaking tonight as a citizen offering my support for the County's revised Rural Areas Plan, but not without some concerns. I have been a resident of this area for 20 years and my current home in Ivy is in the Langford Farms sub-division. It was built in 1978 before the general rezoning. We moved to Langford Farms in 1997 as a young family from the urban ring seeking a larger house and more land. Surrounded by mountain views and rural countryside. Close to Charlottesville and 1-64. Our neighborhood was then and is now a great place to live. However, the landscape around us has changed rapidly since our arrival with new homes popping up like dandelions. Some are on small lots filling out the rest of our older neighborhood. Others are on sizeable new lots in Blue Springs, The Rocks, on Bloomfield Rd, and Rosemont. Those homeowners want to be in rural Albemarle for the same reasons I do, and while I welcome them as neighbors and parents in our schools, I am also increasingly alarmed at the pace of rural development. ;'" ;~::c 1 ~.. . ~/9ft~ // 7"~ Brian Wheeler. (434) 984-2233. bwheeler@albemarlematters.com . www.wheeleronboard.com \L1Z~ 1/. Statement for the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors on Comprehensive Plan, Chapter Four: Rural Areas G. Carleton Ray, President for the Board of Citizens for Albemarle 9 February 2005 Tpe current Rural Areas Plan reviews a decades-long undertaking of plans, proposals, voluntary actions, and incentives designed to reverse "central trends" towards "the division and fragmentation of the rural landscape and the increasing suburbanization of the Rural Areas" (PA). As the Plan points out, current building-permit trends are not only inconsistent with growth management policies, but also contrary to the public's preference, by a wide margin of 3 to 1, to keep rural areas rural. Consequently, the Plan concludes: "...the County should ensure that regulatory and program changes protect or restore the resources they affect. This will require an orientation to resource protection that pervades the County's planning process, rather than a separate resource protection program" (p.7). If this shift is not accomplished, the County will continue to be plagued by a "tyranny of small decisions" whereby the inevitable long-term outcome is a situation no one could have predicted from numerous short-term, small decisions. The Plan also addresses growth. Public acceptance of the fundamental fact that growth comes with substantial costs may be difficult to achieve. The myth that population and economic growth necessarily promotes the welfare of our citizens has already been exploded theoretically and in practice, but persists like some form of irrepressible tumor. CfA believes that the Rural Areas Plan is a major advance over past efforts to maintain the rural character of Albemarle. We wish to make the following major points (expanded below for clarification): · The Plan's Guiding Principles require broadening. "Land conservation" is considered principally in terms of "open space." "Forestry resources" (i.e., commercial forest products) seem to take precedence over forest health itself. And biodiversity conservation is narrowly confined to wildlife protection. · Biodiversity, especially of healthy natural landscapes, is particularly important if not essential for Albemarle because of close connections to ecosystem "free services", and therefore to the economy and public wellbeing. · The Standing Biodiversity Committee must be appointed and funded as soon as possible to faciliate rural-area conservation and coordination of public-interest sectors so that work on the natural resource inventory may better proceed. · Water provides a relevant example of the close connection between a diverse and healthy landscape and ecological services. The Rivanna Water and &-ew<<"~A1111fbtity (RWSA) is J/0' / 1 .!y,~ , , The Biodiversity Work Group has identified many objectives that deserve implementation, listed here in approximate order of the range of human activity or active management involved: · wilderness · endangered species · wildlife and scenic values · visitors, tourists, and recreation · education and cultural importance · species and ecosystem research · monitoring · restoration and rehabilitation · resource extraction Ecological Services. Environmental economists have identified a long list of "free services" that a healthy natural environment provides, including: · Replenishment and purification of water · Purification of air · Mitigation of floods and droughts · Detoxification and decomposition of wastes · Generation and renewal of soil and fertility · Pollination of crops and natural vegetation · Control of agricultural pests · Provision of aesthetic beauty and intellectual stimulation Losses of any of these can, and usually do, require large cash subsidies for restoration. The amelioration of these costs is critical for a healthy economy. However, restoration is not always possible, resulting in permanent loss of value and very high costs to the public, which must be supported by taxes. Ecological services must be understood as a form of "natural capital" that emerges from a structurally intact and biodiverse environment. Furthermore, these "services" are not only for ourselves, but also include other forms of life that live side-by-side with us. Thus, also at stake are ethical and esthetic values that give substance to personal wellbeing. To realize these values we need to improve our land use practices - everything from lawn care to agricultural and forestry practices. Making these improvements requires an intensive public awareness and education effort by the County, in cooperation with our schools and universities. The Case of Water. Water provides a highly relevant example for Albemarle of the loss of ecological services. Riparian areas are the surface expression of the water supply. So it is fair to ask; how much of Albemarle's space is required to protect and maintain these areas, and thus our water supply? Albemarle County contains 1,792 miles of rivers and streams. A County ordinance requires 100-foot buffers to protect riparian areas and to guard against erosion, sedimentation, and pollution. This buffer zone encompasses 43,443 acres, . fully 9% of Albemarle's 726 square miles. But this is only the beginning. Ecologists agree that 100-foot buffers are insufficient to prevent water loss, erosion, soil- nutrient depletion, and threats to species. So, we also need to ask: how much additional 3 r -#/.en // Statement Regarding the Draft Rural Areas Chapter Of the Albemarle County Comprehensive Plan by Tom Olivier, February 9,2005 My name is Tom Olivier. I am a biologist by training and my wife, Wren, and I raise sheep on our farm in the Scottsville District. I am very pleased to see that protection of natural resources is regarded in the draft as one of the primary goals of rural land use planning and that areas dedicated to conservation of water and biological resources are now recognized as desired rural land uses. The proposed clustering of residences in rural areas is a necessary step away from large-lot sprawl that can consume our rural areas. In many important ways, this draft is a very forward thinking document and I commend you for bringing it before us tonight. I do recommend a small change to the goal statement of the 'CONSERVATION USES' section. This goal was added after the bulk of the section was written and I think does not fully capture the section aims. I propose that the following clause be appended to the existing goal: " ;protect sufficient natural conservation areas to assure persistence of our biological and water resources." Some will tell you we should go back to the thinking in the 1989 comprehensive plan, where it was hoped the economic benefits of rural industries would preserve farms, forests and other open space resources. In retrospect, we can see now how the assumptions underlying that attractive strategy were flawed. Having been tried for fifteen years, we now know that approach doesn't work. Food producing agriculture remains essential to our continued existence. In recent decades local commodity production agriculture has suffered economic hard times and decline. Our best path to a viable agricultural sector lies in development of local branded products and direct marketing of them to the increasingly sophisticated consumers in our area. The chapter calls for hiring of agricultural and forestal support staff I hope you will do this and I hope this person includes promotion of direct marketing as a focus of his or her efforts. There is one great omission in this chapter, namely a proposal to reduce rural residential development rights. If we do not reduce development rights all of our other efforts to protect rural areas will fail. I urge you keep the door open to efforts to accomplish such a reduction. v._~;' $ \.1 -",-,,/'~' .,,/~/ // "_........ o...~,..,~_......_~~_~__..._~~.o>._~__.,.. :Y~ - \#~~ II. elM:ii II .. . . PIEDMONT ENVIRONMENTAL COUNCIL Promoting and protecting the Piedmont's rural economy, natural resources, history and beauty Proposed Revisions to the Rural Areas Section of the Comprehensive Plan Statement to the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors February 9, 2005 My name is Jeff Werner. I represent the Piedmont Environmental Council (PEe). The PEC was created in 1972 to promote and protect the rural landscape of Virginia's northern piedmont. In 1976, the first conservation easement in Albemarle County was recorded. Since then, in partnership with landowners, the Virginia Outdoors Foundation, the Nature Conservancy and others, over 49,000- acres of Albemarle's countryside has been protected with voluntary conservation easements. In the PEC's nine-county region almost 215,000-acres are under conservation easement. In 30-years roughly 11 % of Albemarle's countryside has been protected with voluntary easements. Unfortunately, since 1979 almost 20%, over 85,000-acres, ofthat countryside has been subdivided. Annually, over 300 new rural homes are built. Most, if not all, on small lots and having little to do with any "bona fide ag/for activity." This community is losing farms, forests and wildlife habitats faster than they can be preserved. After tonight, you will decide how-or if-the County will take additional steps towards protecting the Rural Area. While the proposed Plan has its limitations, the PEC urges its adoption. The key objective in the current and proposed Plan is to preserve the Rural Area by limiting development and land fragmentation. Both plans explicitly acknowledge the failure of existing regulations to meet tb\. objective. If you adopt this Plan, you acknowledge that Albemarle must also adopt effective regulatory and compensatory measures to reduce the rate of Rural Area development. This Plan relies heavily on clustering as a solution. Unfortunately, clustering rearranges the development-it does not reduce it. In any event, it appears the County's course has been set. The PEC must go on record in stating that clustering alone will not stem the tide of rural development; clustering will not preserve the Rural Area. If the regulations are not carefully crafted, clustering may even accelerate development. No ~tter how pretty clustering may make the package, suburban-scale development is still counter to~ounty's rural policy. Whether development is clustered or scattered, the results are the same: 20 new lots equals 20 new lots. With clustering there are no fewer wells, no fewer septic systems, no less traffic on rural roads, and long school bus rides do not become shorter. The costs of a suburbanized Rural Area go beyond just public infrastructure and services. There is also increased sediment into streams and reservoirs, increased demand on groundwater, increased conflict between residential and agricultural uses, ..nd the loss of fragile environmental resources. Exurban sprawl has an enormous impact on our natural resources and comes at a high fiscal cost to taxpayers. The PEC encourages that you include in this Plan the following: . Prohibit centralized well and septic plants in the Rural Area. These system are not used for family subdivisions, they are used to create large-scale rural subdivisions. Albemarle 410 East Water Clarke 30 East Main Street Berryville, VA 22611 000 Loudoun 802 Children's Center Rd. S.W. Leesburg, VA 20175 703-669-4990 Fax 703-669-2213 i'. I tA.J;:> .._.____ $ /fft-/ ';,; ;,Ofi, :f:__!!_nd_~ Orange ~ 130 W. Main St., Ste. 206 P.O. Box 266 Orange, VA 22960 540-672-0141 Fax 540-672-6265 Rappahannock 12717 Lee Highway Washington, VA 22747 540-987 -9441 Fax 540-987-9443 0; .~./ z::. c,.-/ c/!" . "/' ' ./ ...... ",p / C,? Comments on the Rural Areas Plan February 9, 2005 John A. Cruickshank - Piedmont Group of the Sierra Club Good evening. My name is John Cruickshank. I am a resident of Earlysville and this evening I am representing the Piedmont Group of the Sierra Club. The Piedmont Group has 1160 members in Central Virginia, about 400 of them living in Albemarle County. I want to thank the Supervisors for including a Rural Areas Chapter in the revised Comprehensive Plan. This certainly demonstrates foresight and a commitment to the preservation of our natural environment for future generations. Conservation of open space and protection of natural resources must be the top priorities of this plan. Large contiguous areas must be left in their natural state so native plants and animals can flourish. On a personal note, the Ivy Creek Natural Area opened just as my family moved to this area. For 25 years our lives have been enriched by hours spent walking the trails of Ivy Creek and more recently the Ragged Mountain Natural Area. I have also seen the thrill experienced by schoolchildren as they discover the wonders of nature on guided tours at Ivy Creek. Our community must continue to conserve natural areas for those that follow us. I urge the Board of Supervisors to create a standing biodiversity committee that will help you protect these areas and the plants and animals that inhabit them. As the supervisors plan for the future, I ask that you do everything possible to manage growth by reducing development rights in our county. Please put a reasonable limit on the number of new residences that can be built in the future. A large increase in our population will put a great deal of pressure on our transportation system, our schools, and our natural resources. It is also important to effectively manage the expansion of commercial development. We really do not need any more shopping centers or big box stores in Albemarle. Our citizens want clean air to breath and pure water to drink. These are far more important than having multitude of "shopping options." The Environmental Protection Agency already ranks Albemarle among the dirtiest 30% of counties in the United States for air pollutants. Ninety-three percent of this pollution is caused by cars, buses, and airplanes. More development will bring more traffic and more pollution. I suspect that there will be some who oppose the conservation of extensive natural areas in our county. A great American president once wrote that "shortsighted men... in their greed and selfishness will, if permitted, rob our country of half its charm by their reckless extermination of all useful and beautiful things." If Theodore Roosevelt were here today, I believe he would agree that we should protect the natural areas we hold in trust for our children and grandchildren. Thank you! PLEASE SIGN BELOW IF YOU WISH TO SPEAK ON CPA-2003-006. RURAL AREAS COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT. The fallowing guidelines will be used for this public hearing: EACH SPEAKER IS ALLOTTED 3 MINUTES. INDIVIDUALS CANNOT RELINQUISH THEIR 3 MINUTES TO ANOTHER SPEAKER. INDIVIDUALS CAN ONLY SIGN UP ONE PERSON TO SPEAK. PLEASE GIVE ANY WRITTEN STATEMENTS TO THE CLERK. (<{JY "G'(- c9~-..j-J 1~iJ- B" 19 20 21 22 PLEASE SIGN BELOW IF YOU WISH TO SPEAK ON CPA-2003-006. RURAL AREAS COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT. 22 /(,- (Mf. Chairman - Please return to Clerk of the Board at end of meeting). Comments from Brian Wheeler to Albemarle County Board of Supervisors on Rural Areas Plan February 9,2005 My name is Brian Wheeler and I am speaking tonight as a citizen offering my support for the County's revised Rural Areas Plan, but not without some concerns. I have been a resident of this area for 20 years and my current home in Ivy is in the Langford Farms sub-division. It was built in 1978 before the general rezoning. We moved to Langford Farms in 1997 as a young family from the urban ring seeking a larger house and more land. Surrounded by mountain views and rural countryside. Close to Charlottesville and 1-64. Our neighborhood was then and is now a great place to live. However, the landscape around us has changed rapidly since our arrival with new homes popping up like dandelions. Some are on small lots filling out the rest of our older neighborhood. Others are on sizeable new lots in Blue Springs, The Rocks, on Bloomfield Rd, and Rosemont. Those homeowners want to be in rural Albemarle for the same reasons I do, and while I welcome them as neighbors and parents in our schools, I am also increasingly alarmed at the pace of rural development. .,t'/~~.__ // ~~ Brian Wheeler. (434) 984-2233. bwheeler@albemarlematters.com . www.wheeleronboard.com I found it interesting that the only place in the 47 page plan that the text switches to BOLD type is on page 30 where it states in part: ". . . the County's land development policies must be changed to stop the ongoing trend toward fragmentation and loss of rural character. New policies should focus on. .. reducing the potential overall level of residential development and loss of rural character. Implementation of these policies. .. should be the County's highest priority." Clearly you have the public support to do just that as 73% of the community's vision for the Rural Areas, is a rural character with "little residential development." The reality is we ARE currently zoned for SPRAWL and you have an immense challenge before you to draft and approve the ordinances that will make these goals a reality. I observed our community at a redistricting public hearing last night. Many speakers from Murray Elementary asked questions about why they were being slated to attend schools outside the Western feeder pattern when they were in a "no growth" part of the County. They spoke passionately about the preservation of their small neighborhood school communities. Yet, growth is happening in the rural areas and it has a real impact on families and schools. Murray had under 250 students in 1999 and current projections are that we will have over 300 by 2009, if there is no redistricting. While the school system only projects the addition of 20 students in all County schools between now and 2009, the reality is our schools have existing capacity issues and the continuing rural area growth is hard to predict. We also have a new #1 ranking as the best place to live. We also continue to have families like mine that move within the County, or from the City, to desirable neighborhoods and different schools. So when it comes to clustering, I am concerned that any large cluster of homes could easily throw one rural school's enrollment over capacity. In some places it may ultimately require new schools or expanded schools outside the designated growth areas. I have doubts that clustering homes will accomplish much to slow development. I do, however, support the phasing of development rights which I think will give us better control on the rural area growth that impacts our small neighborhood schools. I also wholeheartedly support increased funding for the Acquisition of Conservation Easements (ACE), a program that should be a recurring and growing part of the budget. I support the setting of goals for the number of development rights to be extinguished. Give us something on which we can measure our performance. Thank you. './'L7 //. D BOS Ml::,:': <Y,/~ /. /I t,~ Ann Mallek from Currituck Fann A conserved property in the Jacob's Run Ag Forestal District P. O. Box 207 Earlysville VA 22936 February 9,2005 Good Evening, This is a landmark occasion. While it is not perfect, I hope you will accept this chapter of the comp plan. In my opinion, the plan needs more teeth to achieve its goal. In 2003,28% of the new dwelling units were still located in the rural area. What can be done to truly protect the rural area from development? Here are 9 ideas. 1. Agriculture and forestry should keep their top rank in the uses of the rural area. Since the Rural Area zone makes up 95% of the land in the County, the effect of residential building there is the driving force for all county issues, traffic, schools, water, fire, etc. 2. Decide we really want to protect the rural area rather than just accommodate development there. Changing the pennissive use of private roads is one step. The plan should limit those private roads to family divisions with a required ownership of at least 10 years, and subdivisions of 3-5 units, where lengthy steep grades over 10% are not an issue. 3. Support the economics of agriculture and the connections of producers and buyers. Direct the land use incentive program to bonafide preservation, forestry or agriculture through required management plans and / or annual production amounts. The penalty for removing a large block of open space from land use should not be minimal. 4. Continue to actively and generously support the ACE program. It provides value to the landowner and reduces building. 5. Require phasing of development right use, where only a certain number of development rights could be used in any several year period. This provision would benefit a farmer or landowner who wanted to sell a small parcel for income and protect his or her residue, and it would stop the wholesale development of fanns into hundreds of houses. . 6. Create strict standards for cluster construction and provisions for wells and septic systems. Runoff control is essential. A cluster may take up less land, but it is still housing in the rural area, and every house unit sends out an average of 10 car trips per day. 7. Package sewage disposal plants should be prohibited. The density of housing must be limited to what can be safely sustained under the new groundwater ordinance. 8. Find a way to include affordably priced houses in all sizeable construction projects around the County. If recent construction in Earlysville is any example, unbridled free enterprise is not building affordable housing now. I doubt I could buy my own house today. Requirements or incentives are needed. 9. The County has tried to offer incentives, or carrots, to encourage building in the growth areas. However, what is lacking is the penalty, or stick, part of the equation, which would require extra costs to build in the rural area. I am told that it is cheaper to bulldoze flat a pasture than to work in more confined spaces. Building in the country where there are no services nearby and long commutes to work, school, and hospitals should not be the cheaper option. Thank you. \.61 ZMod / / . Statement for the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors on Comprehensive Plan, Chapter Four: Rural Areas G. Carleton Ray, President for the Board of Citizens for Albemarle 9 February 2005 The current Rural Areas Plan reviews a decades-long undertaking of plans, proposals, voluntary actions, and incentives designed to reverse "central trends" towards "the division and fragmentation of the rural landscape and the increasing suburbanization of the Rural Areas" (PA). As the Plan points out, current building-permit trends are not only inconsistent with growth management policies, but also contrary to the public's preference, by a wide margin of 3 to 1, to keep rural areas rural. Consequently, the Plan concludes: "...the County should ensure that regulatory and program changes protect or restore the resources they affect. This will require an orientation to resource protection that pervades the County's planning process, rather than a separate resource protection program" (p.7). If this shift is not accomplished, the County will continue to be plagued by a "tyranny of small decisions" whereby the inevitable long-term outcome is a situation no one could have predicted from numerous short-term, small decisions. The Plan also addresses growth. Public acceptance of the fundamental fact that growth comes with substantial costs may be difficult to achieve. The myth that population and economic growth necessarily promotes the welfare of our citizens has already been exploded theoretically and in practice, but persists like some form of irrepressible tumor. CfA believes that the Rural Areas Plan is a major advance over past efforts to maintain the rural character of Albemarle. We wish to make the following major points (expanded below for clarification): · The Plan's Guiding Principles require broadening. "Land conservation" is considered principally in terms of "open space." "Forestry resources" (i.e., commercial forest products) seem to take precedence over forest health itself. And biodiversity conservation is narrowly confined to wildlife protection. · Biodiversity, especially of healthy natural landscapes, is particularly important if not essential for Albemarle because of close connections to ecosystem "free services", and therefore to the economy and public wellbeing. · The Standing Biodiversity Committee must be appointed and funded as soon as possible to faciliate rural-area conservation and coordination of public-interest sectors so that work on the natural resource inventory may better proceed. · Water provides a relevant example of the close connection between a diverse and healthy landscape and ecological services. The Rivanna Water andS:ew<<'-AUUfbfify (RWSA) is J'/p/ .. "..... !.~~- ..~.._......... 1 .fY'~ currently considering exceedingly costly alternatives, amounting to hundreds of millions of dollars, to maintain Albemarle's water supply. These alternatives will not suffice absent coordination with land-use planning as suggested by the Rural Areas Plan. · Land-use easements, for example ACE and other such mechanisms, should be aggressively pursued and funded. Application criteria should be brought up to date with the Rural Areas Plan, particularly with respect to biodiversity and water supply. · Performance standards for improved environmental management should be expressed as regulations and ordinances. Regulations are needed in place of voluntary measures because, as Alexander Hamilton observed: "Why has government been instituted at all? Because the passions of men will not conform to the dictates of reason and justice, without constraint." We believe that implementing regulations can be drafted to achieve these performance standards that are reasonable and appropriately tailored to varying circumstances. Obviously, the Rural Areas Plan is not perfect. But it is an excellent beginning for a sustainable future. Citizens for Albemarle supports its many innovative, long-overdue policy changes and urges that they be immediately adopted, implemented, and enforced, while also being reminded that this Plan is only the first significant step in a long-term process. Coordination of Uses. The Rural Areas Plan rightly concludes that: "Conservation, agriculture, and forestry have a dynamic and mutually supportive relationship" (p.18). This requires, among other things, integration of these three major land uses. CfA agrees that Agriculture is highly desirable for Albemarle's future. We strongly endorse the Plan's call for "more sustainable management techniques on farms" (p. 13) to correct practices that affect water, sedimentation, land fragmentation, and biodiversity. Forestry is similarly desirable, but forestry and the maintenance of healthy forests are not the same in practice. Forestry can and does affect water quality, produce massive erosion and sedimentation, exacerbate fragmentation, and has strong influences on forest health and biotic communities. Virginia's Forestry Best Management Practices are not, for the most part, enforceable and the policy of "ecosystem management" is only at an initial stage of application. Conservation is a new and innovative inclusion as a rural-areas "use". The implications are very broad, as conservation is County-wide. For example, among the Plan's "Strategy Statements" is one - biodiversity - that is a major concern of CfA, requiring that the County: "Amend codes and programs affecting the Rural Areas and the County as a whole to protect biodiversity, reflect the recommendations of the Biodiversity Work Group and the Standing Committee once adopted, and incorporate policy responses to issues raised by the ongoing biological resources inventory" (p. 8). Conservation incorporates a wide range of objectives1. 1 ConseIVation professionals, after decades of debate (most notably within the International Union for the ConseIVation of Nature, aka The World ConseIVation Union) have determined that conservation should be driven by objectives. This is not to be confused by semantics: e.g., by what constitutes "conseIVation", "preseIVation", "reseIVation", and "protection". 2 The Biodiversity Work Group has identified many objectives that deserve implementation, listed here in approximate order of the range of human activity or active management involved: · wilderness · endangered species · wildlife and scenic values · visitors, tourists, and recreation · education and cultural importance · species and ecosystem research · monitoring · restoration and rehabilitation · resource extraction Ecological Services. Environmental economists have identified a long list of "free services" that a healthy natural environment provides, including: · Replenishment and purification of water · Purification of air · Mitigation of floods and droughts · Detoxification and decomposition of wastes · Generation and renewal of soil and fertility · Pollination of crops and natural vegetation · Control of agricultural pests · Provision of aesthetic beauty and intellectual stimulation Losses of any of these can, and usually do, require large cash subsidies for restoration. The amelioration of these costs is critical for a healthy economy. However, restoration is not always possible, resulting in permanent loss of value and very high costs to the public, which must be supported by taxes. Ecological services must be understood as a form of "natural capital" that emerges from a structurally intact and biodiverse environment. Furthermore, these "services" are not only for ourselves, but also include other forms of life that live side-by-side with us. Thus, also at stake are ethical and esthetic values that give substance to personal wellbeing. To realize these values we need to improve our land use practices - everything from lawn care to agricultural and forestry practices. Making these improvements requires an intensive public awareness and education effort by the County, in cooperation with our schools and universities. The Case of Water. Water provides a highly relevant example for Albemarle of the loss of ecological services. Riparian areas are the surface expression of the water supply. So it is fair to ask; how much of Albemarle's space is required to protect and maintain these areas, and thus our water supply? Albemarle County contains 1,792 miles of rivers and streams. A County ordinance requires 100-foot buffers to protect riparian areas and to guard against erosion, sedimentation, and pollution. This buffer zone encompasses 43,443 acres, fully 9% of Albemarle's 726 square miles. But this is only the beginning. Ecologists agree that 100-foot buffers are insufficient to prevent water loss, erosion, soil- nutrient depletion, and threats to species. So, we also need to ask: how much additional 3 forest and other natural areas should be left intact to recharge Albemarle's aquifers and to slow sedimentation and nutrient loss? Precise answers are not yet available, but one answer seems obvious; that RWSA's activities become intimately connected to new land- use practices suggested by the Rural Areas Plan. Only until that connection is made can responses to other critical question become evident, for example: · Can an integrative County Watershed and Water Supply Plan be made compatible to meet the goals ofthe Comprehensive Plan? · Will future drinking water in reservoirs and in the county be safe? At what cost? · Will there be sufficient in-stream flow and ground water storage to sustain reservoir capacity, meet user needs, and protect environmental values? · Can land and environmental protection be sufficient to sustain water quality and maintain future water supply needs? · Can our water appetite and human management systems be sustained under conditions of environmental/climate change? If the answer to even one of the questions is in doubt, the result will be a future fraught with complex water resource problems, limited institutional ability to respond, and escalating public costs. The County has taken measures over the years to safeguard Albemarle's water: i.e., expert studies, management planning, downzoning, and ordinances for stormwater, erosion control, stream buffers, and mandatory or voluntary water-conservation measures during the 2001-2002 drought. Despite these measures, the quality and quantity of water for humans and wildlife are increasingly compromised. Furthermore, uncertainty prevails over water supply and quality, usage, impacts of climate change, sediment origin, and instream flow dynamics. The obvious goal is to incorporate ecological values into water resource planning; i.e., to institute integrated resource planning and watershed management, as has already been repeatedly recommended by County engineers and others. Sustain ability. What the Rural Areas Plan is really about is "sustainability" of resources, ecosystems, and citizens' wellbeing. The suggested integration of multiple goals among different agencies with different viewpoints represents a "sea change" for government and the people. An impediment to this process that is recognized in the Plan is that presently most actions affecting rural area environments are voluntary. Experience with the Chesapeake Bay shows that voluntary actions designed to maintain or improve environmental quality simply do not work; if they did, we would not be witnessing the downward spiral of so many Bay resources. The Rural Areas Plan states that "performance standards" need to be developed (p. 13) and that: "Uses that cannot be sufficiently mitigated or that conflict with the Guiding Principles should not be permitted" (p.13). The good news is that Albemarle is on course, with development of ordinances for water, mountains, hopefully soon for biodiversity as well. 4 #/:en // Statement Regarding the Draft Rural Areas Chapter Of the Albemarle County Comprehensive Plan by Tom Olivier, February 9, 2005 My name is Tom Olivier. I am a biologist by training and my wife, Wren, and I raise sheep on our farm in the Scottsville District. I am very pleased to see that protection of natural resources is regarded in the draft as one of the primary goals of rural land use planning and that areas dedicated to conservation of water and biological resources are now recognized as desired rural land uses. The proposed clustering of residences in rural areas is a necessary step away from large-lot sprawl that can consume our rural areas. In many important ways, this draft is a very forward thinking document and I commend you for bringing it before us tonight. I do recommend a small change to the goal statement ofthe 'CONSERVATION USES' section. This goal was added after the bulk of the section was written and I think does not fully capture the section aims. I propose that the following clause be appended to the existing goal: " ;protect sufficient natural conservation areas to assure persistence of our biological and water resources." Some will tell you we should go back to the thinking in the 1989 comprehensive plan, where it was hoped the economic benefits of rural industries would preserve farms, forests and other open space resources. In retrospect, we can see now how the assumptions underlying that attractive strategy were flawed. Having been tried for fifteen years, we now know that approach doesn't work. Food producing agriculture remains essential to our continued existence. In recent decades local commodity production agriculture has suffered economic hard times and decline. Our best path to a viable agricultural sector lies in development of local branded products and direct marketing of them to the increasingly sophisticated consumers in our area. The chapter calls for hiring of agricultural and forestal support staff I hope you will do this and I hope this person includes promotion of direct marketing as a focus of his or her efforts. There is one great omission in this chapter, namely a proposal to reduce rural residential development rights. If we do not reduce development rights all of our other efforts to protect rural areas will fail. I urge you keep the door open to efforts to accomplish such a reduction. i ;".t .........~~..... ,.~ . .,J"/~/ // J ......_ _ _.,' ~,~~~".__n-.~~_."...~'_~'_'__""C~.",,~' !Y~ - ~4 //. ell!!!!ltill .. . . PIEDMONT ENVIRONMENTAL COUNCIL Promoting and protecting the Piedmont's rural economy, natural resources, history and beauty Proposed Revisions to the Rural Areas Section of the Comprehensive Plan Statement to the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors February 9, 2005 My name is Jeff Werner. I represent the Piedmont Environmental Council (PEe). The PEC was created in 1972 to promote and protect the rural landscape of Virginia's northern piedmont. In 1976, the first conservation easement in Albemarle County was recorded. Since then, in partnership with landowners, the Virginia Outdoors Foundation, the Nature Conservancy and others, over 49,000- acres of Albemarle's countryside has been protected with voluntary conservation easements. In the PEC's nine-county region almost 215,000-acres are under conservation easement. In 30-years roughly 11 % of Albemarle's countryside has been protected with voluntary easements. Unfortunately, since 1979 almost 20%, over 85,000-acres, of that countryside has been subdivided. Annually, over 300 new rural homes are built. Most, if not all, on small lots and having little to do with any "bona fide ag/for activity." This community is losing farms, forests and wildlife habitats faster than they can be preserved. After tonight, you will decide how-or if-the County will take additional steps towards protecting the Rural Area. While the proposed Plan has its limitations, the PEC urges its adoption. The key objective in the current and proposed Plan is to preserve the Rural Area by limiting development and land fragmentation. Both plans explicitly acknowledge the failure of existing regulations to meet tb (, objective. If you adopt this Plan, you acknowledge that Albemarle must also adopt effective regulatory and compensatory measures to reduce the rate of Rural Area development. This Plan relies heavily on clustering as a solution. Unfortunately, clustering rearranges the development-it does not reduce it. In any event, it appears the County's course has been set. The PEC must go on record in stating that clustering alone will not stem the tide of rural development; clustering will not preserve the Rural Area. If the regulations are not carefully crafted, clustering may even accelerate development. No ~tter how pretty clustering may make the package, suburban-scale development is still counter to~ounty's rural policy. Whether development is clustered or scattered, the results are the same: 20 new lots equals 20 new lots. With clustering there are no fewer wells, no fewer septic systems, no less traffic on rural roads, and long school bus rides do not become shorter. The costs of a suburbanized Rural Area go beyond just public infrastructure and services. There is also increased sediment into streams and reservoirs, increased demand on groundwater, increased conflict between residential and agricultural uses, "nd the loss of fragile environmental resources. Exurban sprawl has an enormous impact on our natural resources and comes at a high fiscal cost to taxpayers. The PEC encourages that you include in this Plan the following: . Prohibit centralized well and septic plants in the Rural Area. These system are not used for family subdivisions, they are used to create large-scale rural subdivisions. ;",1 bUS ~/f0..:./ Albemarle 410 East Water Street Clarke 30 East Main Street Berryville, VA 22611 - 000 Loudoun 802 Children's Center Rd. S.W. Leesburg, VA 20175 703-669-4990 Fax 703-669-2213 ;t"iY, #:__~!_H' H~ Orange '7" 130 W. Main St., Ste. 206 P.O. Box 266 Orange, VA 22960 540-672-0141 Fax 540-672-6265 Rappahannock 12717 Lee Highway Washington, VA 22747 540-987 -9441 Fax 540-987-9443 . Require that 85% or more of a cluster's parent tract be placed in a permanent Preservation Tract. . Limit the scale of cluster development. The regulations must not facilitate large, suburban-scale developments. . Require the phasing for all rural subdivisions--even when clustering. . Complete a thorough assessment of the public costs associated with development in the Rural Area. The County should be up front with taxpayers on the public investment necessary to support a suburbanized countryside. As rural residents increase they will demand increased spending in the Rural Area-not in the growth Area. As these pressures mount, it is difficult to believe there will remain the political will to continue the County's policy of limited public investment in the Rural Areas. Property rights are an important part of the American fabric. S::is fiscal responsibility. The suburbanization of our countryside will not be free nor will it be cheap. With this Plan and any later revised regulations, the decision is yours as to whether we invest in the paving of the Rural Area or in the saving of the Rural Area. ./ A/ ~;;1, cc-...r [' + . (' -~ ~"..,,- ../.~ /" ' "/ ' /' ... , e' / C'." Comments on the Rural Areas Plan February 9, 2005 John A. Cruickshank - Piedmont Group of the Sierra Club Good evening. My name is John Cruickshank. I am a resident of Earlysville and this evening I am representing the Piedmont Group of the Sierra Club. The Piedmont Group has 1160 members in Central Virginia, about 400 of them living in Albemarle County. I want to thank the Supervisors for including a Rural Areas Chapter in the revised Comprehensive Plan. This certainly demonstrates foresight and a commitment to the preservation of our natural environment for future generations. Conservation of open space and protection of natural resources must be the top priorities of this plan. Large contiguous areas must be left in their natural state so native plants and animals can flourish. On a personal note, the Ivy Creek Natural Area opened just as my family moved to this area. For 25 years our lives have been enriched by hours spent walking the trails of Ivy Creek and more recently the Ragged Mountain Natural Area. I have also seen the thrill experienced by schoolchildren as they discover the wonders of nature on guided tours at Ivy Creek. Our community must continue to conserve natural areas for those that follow us. I urge the Board of Supervisors to create a standing biodiversity committee that will help you protect these areas and the plants and animals that inhabit them. As the supervisors plan for the future, I ask that you do everything possible to manage growth by reducing development rights in our county. Please put a reasonable limit on the number of new residences that can be built in the future. A large increase in our population will put a great deal of pressure on our transportation system, our schools, and our natural resources. It is also important to effectively manage the expansion of commercial development. We really do not need any more shopping centers or big box stores in Albemarle. Our citizens want clean air to breath and pure water to drink. These are far more important than having multitude of "shopping options." The Environmental Protection Agency already ranks Albemarle among the dirtiest 30% of counties in the United States for air pollutants. Ninety-three percent of this pollution is caused by cars, buses, and airplanes. More development will bring more traffic and more pollution. I suspect that there will be some who oppose the conservation of extensive natural areas in our county. A great American president once wrote that "shortsighted men... in their greed and selfishness will, if permitted, rob our country of half its charm by their reckless extermination of all useful and beautiful things." If Theodore Roosevelt were here today, I believe he would agree that we should protect the natural areas we hold in trust for our children and grandchildren. Thank you! vJ /.-? /1. SAP Statement to the Albemarle Board of Supervisors - February 9. 2005 Rural Area Section of the Comprehensive Plan I'm Jack Marshall, speaking as President of ASAP -- Advocates for a Sustainable Albemarle Population. I have the good fortune to live in the Rural Area of White Hall district. ASAP members believe this version of the revised Rural Area section of the Comprehensive Plan defines the situation well, and proposes strategies that, if translated into regulations, will move our community in the right direction. We urge you to approve this section - but also immediately to take additional steps to reach the vision it describes. Most of what you ordinarily do - in conjunction with our Planning Commissioners and County staff -- is focused on immediate needs and crises. Preparing a Comprehensive Plan gives our community a chance to step back and look at the big picture over the long haul. A completed Plan represents our best effort to define the future we want and the most effective strategies for reaching it. It offers a unique opportunity to articulate our shared vision for our place, and to display imagination and courage as we translate this vision into a sustainable reality. Jack Marshall PresitJeJr AJ 'Need l-fre PresIdent EHzabeI:h Elu"dash SecreriNy Geoffrey Mattocks Tre3SU1'er Diana Abbott Gib Akin Richard CJyde COllins WhItman Cross, II Nick Evil'lS Francis Rfe John Hermsmeier Harry Levins Tom l.oach Am Mallek Marvin Moss Carleton Ray Dianne Ritter Peggy Thome In this context we in ASAP believe that actions proposed in this section of the Comp Plan should be supplemented with bold and creative steps. We feel there's a gap between, on the one hand, the appropriately lofty goals for our rural areas, and, on the other, the specific strategies for ensuring that we reach those goals over the long haul. And this gap suggests the directions for further work as soon as this section of the Comp Plan is approved. 3570 BrinninglDn Road Charlottesville, VA 22901 Phone: (434) 974-6390 Fax: (434) 974-4924 asap@stopgrowth.org www.st:DpgOwthASAP.org Six years ago Albemarle County supervisors unanimously adopted the 1998 Sustainability Accords that emerged from years of work by the Thomas Jefferson Sustainability Council. In doing so, our supervisors affirmed the belief that we must pass on our resources undiminished to future generations. The accords have been incorporated into our Comprehensive Plan. One of the first of these accords states that we will "Strive for a size and distribution of human population which will preserve vital resources of the Region for future generations," and flows from a statement in the "Principles" section of the 1998 report: "In a sustainable ._.:!I!~./ // 'n:!;,; Itam #:/ ...9.. community, the members understand that there are limits to growth." In September 2003 you added "addressing growth and urbanization" to the county's strategic planning goals, and Bob Tucker just wrote that "this remains one of our most important future challenges." The April 2004 survey confirmed that citizens are increasingly concerned with the impacts of growth and development. The Comp Plan draft before us, in defining the present situation, repeatedly notes that the rapid population growth in our Rural Areas is a major problem. The Plan points to the fragmentation of rural land, and explains how this results in the "loss of rural character" and the loss of biodiversity. The Plan clearly acknowledges the inadequacy of current regulations to protect our Rural Areas. Impressively, this Plan recognizes a subtle but critical distinction in growth control strategies in the Rural Areas. It states: Regulations that control the form of residential development may reduce fragmentation to a small degree, but will not significantly reduce its impacts, nor affect density-related impacts at all if overall density is not reduced. (emphasis added; from "Density and Development" section of "Land Use Pattern, Density, and Residential Development" in the Rural Areas draft) Unfortunately the proposed strategies for dealing with the impacts of growth address primarily the form of residential development, and neglect the issue of overall density. Overall density - the thing that causes most of the negative impacts - is simply the number of people on a finite piece of land. Yet this Comp Plan can barely bring itself to speak directly about managing the actual numbers of people, about controlling the unsustainably expanding population size in the coming years. Instead it limits its attention to the form of residential development, such as clustering (RPDs or Rural Preservation Developments), phasing (permitting a limited number of lots to be created in a fixed period of time), seeking enabling legislation in Richmond for TDRs (Transfer of Development Rights), establishing more effective overlay districts, etc.! These tools to manage growth, ASAP believes, are valuable and should be incorporated into our Comprehensive Plan. But they focus only on where growth should occur in the county, and how Quicklv - NOT on how much growth should occur in the Rural Areas. As such, the strategies in this section seem designed merely to accommodate whatever population growth will flow into the county's rural areas in the coming decades, not to seriously influence it. Oddly, there seems to be a reluctance to acknowledge that ultimately it is the size of the population that will determine whether or not our Rural Areas remain rural. lWe're pleased that this section does NOT include support for community wells and septic systems for RPDs, for such sources of water and sewage disposal encourage growth in the Rural Areas. And here's the crux of our problem with this revised version of the Rural Areas section of the Comp Plan: The document does not reflect our understanding that there are, indeed, limits to population growth in an area that we claim we want to remain rural. No effort has been made to examine what such a limit should be, nor to effectively reduce the development potential if our current path is taking us - as many of us fear - to a population size in the Rural Areas that is far beyond what we believe is optimum. Indeed, this Comp Plan provides no estimate - not even a rough range -- of the projected population size in our Rural Areas at buildout if these recommended strategies are implemented. Will adoption of these actions result in a population twice the present size? Four times? What assurance do we have that a population of a quarter of a million residents in the Rural Areas -- rather than the 45,000 or so we now have -- is not the resulting buildout if we adopt the strategies in this document? When added to the future population in the county's Growth Areas, how big will be? Do we care? Well, yes, many of us care a great deal, and we hope that following the speedy approval of this document you will proceed to the next step of more effectively dealing with the elephant in the room: population growth. It is this elephant that causes or exacerbates virtually all of the problems that this Comp Plan so accurately details. Conspicuously, this Plan avoids even the mention of one obvious tool to cope with runaway growth: reducing development rights through judicial downzoing. Ignoring this option is like a physician treating a patient who's becoming dangerously obese, yet told that to keep him healthy he can do anything except reduce the quantity of food. Monkeying with the food intake, the doctor is warned, would anger the grocery stores and restaurants who have food on their shelves to sell. Albemarle County Rural Areas are getting fat and increasingly unhealthy. It's time to go beyond platitudes about accommodating to growth. We need: (a) to understand the population size that will result at buildout from our present zoning and other land use tools, as well as the buildout population if the recommended strategies in this Comp Plan were adopted; (b) to define specifically what population size we believe would be optimal for our Rural Areas and our Growth Areas; (c) to adopt less timid new mechanisms if our present tools are inadequate to reach and maintain the population size we define as optimal. We should free the Planning Department staff from the shackles put on them two years ago when, in directing them to proceed with revising the RA section, this Board said, "Do not consider reducing development rights; explore other methods that would reduce development potentiaL" (d) to articulate a comprehensive and coherent County Population Policy, by pulling together the many references to population size and growth scattered in this Comprehensive Plan and other county document, and adding new elements where appropriate. By making explicit what is now vague or implicit, citizens can better understand ASAP believes our population size need not be an accident of fate, nor dictated by a minority who profit from growth, any more than our school system and water supply and publiC safety are matters beyond our control. Controlling our county's demographic fate, just as we manage these other elements of a community's infrastructure, demands courage and imagination and hard work. We hope you will approve this draft of the Rural Areas section, and quickly move on to the next steps. '\ G...._~lk Albemarle .. LWV Leaf:ue of Women V oters@ of Charlottesville and Albemarle County 1936 Arlington Boulevard Room 116, Charlottesville VA 22903-1559 phone: 434-970-1707 http:lavenue.org/lwv Iwv@avenue.org fax: 434-970-1708 BOS ~JH:.:L-* ~ j: ...?/Ifi/ ""7 February 9, 2005 To: From: Re: Albemarle County Board of Supervisors League of Women Voters Comprehensive Plan Rural Areas Amendment ~!B;n #: ':: >:::.;::::;:_-_.......~.:~ The League commends the staff, citizens and appointed and elected officials whose work over several years has produced this guide for stewardship and management of our rural areas. For those who cherish our rural areas, this document should be a "best-seller." The Vision it expresses eloquently reflects the community's views, values and desires. It also reflects the complexity of interactions among the many rural components and the need to constantly re-evaluate human impacts on the land. The expansion and strengthening of the Guiding Principles is a big step in the right direction. It is clear that to retain the "significant environmental, economic and quality of life benefits" that we derive from our Rural Areas, we must continue to support agriculture and forestry, and increasingly focus on land preservation, conservation, and resource protection. As our growth management policies have created designated development areas, we also need designated undeveloped areas. And, for the development that does occur, stricter standards must be put in place to help mitigate the impacts. Indeed, the proof of our resolve to retain our Rural Areas will be in the policies and decisions that follow the approval of this updated chapter and its full integration into Comprehensive Plan. We would like to address a few specifics. - Land Conservation, Preservation, Resource Protection: The revised Rural Areas chapter recognizes conservation as a prime use of rural land, on a par with agriculture and forestry. This properly acknowledges the role of conservation in protecting critical natural resources such as water, forests, and soils, and in preserving the biodiversity of healthy ecosystems. We must increase our public commitment to supporting conservation through permanent easements and more incentives for preservation and restoration activities. The Critical Resources Inventory and biodiversity study will enable ongoing identification and mapping of our most vital resources. This information should be used to extend overlay districts where development is disallowed or severely restricted. - Land Use Patterns, Density and Residential Development: It is clear that continuing current rates and patterns of subdivision could alter forever the forests, farms, open spaces and natural habitats that define rural lands. To counter this trend, we support the direction of residential and commercial growth to the Development Areas and maintenance of the current policy of not extending public water and sewer to the Rural .... , Areas. Regarding Rural Preservation Developments (RPDs), although requiring clustering in rural subdivisions may not significantly decrease the amount of residential growth, it is important for mitigating some of the effects of that growth. We support the development of high standards for these RPDs that would maximize the size of the preservation parcel, minimize the lot sizes and cluster them in such a way as to protect important resources. The phasing of development will spread the impacts over a longer time span and, perhaps, deter some development; so we urge the County to move forward immediately with phasing. Regarding community wells and septic systems for RPDs, we agree that they should not be included in the Rural Areas section partly because of their tendency to stimulate residential development (contrary to the RA goals), but, mainly, because of their history of trouble and failure. Such community systems, if they must be used, are addressed in the Land Use, Utilities section of the Comprehensive Plan. - Water Conservation and Water Protection: The League has long been concerned with the effects of rural development on rivers, streams and groundwater. The potential for 54,000 more housing units in the RA threatens to continue the fragmentation of land and the loss of large tracts of forest. We know that forested lands produce "the cleanest and most reliable flow of water possible," and thus serve as an extensive natural water reservoir and filtration system. What we don't know is the cumulative impact of deforestation and development, as well as the drilling of many new wells, the faltering of old wells, the installation of new septic systems and the inevitable failures of old septic systems. We are pleased that the new Groundwater Ordinance went into effect yesterday (February 8), and we look forward to better management of and data collection on groundwater use. We also support the recent addition to the Rural Areas revision that would tighten standards for maintenance of individual septic systems. In the area of public water supply planning, we suggest overtly stating in the Rural Areas chapter that: 1) Such planning must not increase pressure for further suburbanization in the Rural Areas (for example, building the James River pipeline which is a 20-mile pipeline along a rural road to serve public needs during drought. This could create public pressure to tap into the line in non-drought times to better use expensive infrastructure and justify its cost.) And 2) Water supply projects must be designed to adhere to the goals of resource protection and preservation. In our December, 2003 comments to the Planning Commission, we noted that, while the Rural Areas chapter revisions had spoken thoroughly about the wide range of important rural issues, one question was not fully addressed. That question is still out there. It is the basic question of how many people our Rural Areas can sustain at present levels of development and still remain viable? Fiscal impact analysis and the proposed Ecological Footprint Analysis will help shape our policies and warn us when resources are stressed. But, at some point, we may have to collectively decide, How many? For the present, we urge you to adopt this amended Rural Areas Chapter of the Comprehensive Plan and to proceed with establishment of the ordinances and standards that will implement the Plan. Thank you ,. .,.~- "--, (.....\,~- . J', -'~i"" .:' !:.f {1' _._ .____.. .. _'", ~_.__ _...:L:~~ \ i:..t)l'l"ll~:___~_.".__u_---_. J My name is Neil Williamson with The Free EnterpriseFortffi:JA.nfif6~se(rDelleve the Board has heard this before but the best protection for the Rural Areas is making it easier to develop in the development areas. With that being said, The Free Enterprise Forum is asking that seven words be added to the guiding objectives for the comprehensive plan chapter: Ensure that property owner rights are protected. Seven words that can make a significant difference in the document. The Free Enterprise Forum firmly supports the Farm Bureau position that agriculture and forestry are the two primary uses for the rural areas. Further we commend the stewardship of the rural property owners to date it is because of this good stewardship, we implore the board not to punish these property owners. The Free Enterprise Forum has been involved in the rural areas plan since its inception. We served on the rural area focus group that pushed for clustering over the objections of some groups. Clustering by right is a practical option. Unfortunately, the current process for a Rural Preservation District (RPD) is far too subjective. In one recent case, long after staff had generally supported the RPD, the planning commission turned the RPD on its head and wanted to change what land was in the preservation district and what land was being used for the development. This seems wrong to me. One member of the rural areas focus group said it succinctly, he said, "you are looking at it all wrong, I do not look at a parcel and give the best land to the house and put the balance in the preservation tract. I pick the best farmland for the preservation tract then put the houses on what is left." In addition, The Free Enterprise Forum is very concerned that the rural areas plan includes the phrase "The County should aggressively pursue implementation mechanisms that include phasing of development, changing the formula for calculating the number and size of lots within Rural Preservation Developments" The Free Enterprise Forum believes that the phasing of by right development is a diminishment of land owner rights. By focusing energy on cluster development that is environmental sensitive you accomplish the goal without punishing the very landowners who have to date provided good stewardship of the land. Cluster developments, which were opposed by many of the so called environmental groups because they preserved land owner development rights, balance the need for large unfragmented open space while preserving landowner value. Therefore based on all of the above, The Free Enterprise Forum requests the board act to add the seven words to page 6 of my copy of the rural areas chapter. Ensure that property owner rights are protected. Further, I request the board state a position regarding the importance of fairness to rural property owners as these policies are being translated into regulations. <JJ/.a: 1/, BOS Public Hearing 9 February 2005 I have only a couple of small suggestions for the Conservation Uses section. Because our email is temporarily out of service, I sent copies of my suggestions by U. S. Mail to each of you, so I won't take time tonight to repeat them, except to say that --one concerned the Goal statement on page 18 [change to something like: Goal: Because Albemarle County's rural land is an essential and finite resource, protect it through planned management to prevent exploitation, destruction, or neglect, and permanently preserve areas that are fundamental to a healthy and diverse biological community.] --the other concerned the first paragraph on page 19 [perhaps something like: "The relationship among forestry, agriculture and conservation is also [may sometimes be] mutually supportive in that some land whose primary purpose is conservation may have secondary uses for agriculture or forestry (e.g., limited hay cutting and/ or small selective harvesting of trees). The relationship is dynamic OOC:illSQ tJ.:\QSQ uses may change among the tlY-ee over time (e.g., agricultural land may becom.e f-orest). This is in [In] stark contrast [,]..to.residential or commercial uses wmcR almost never revert to agriculture, conservation or forestry."] I would just like to mention that a few months ago I was in Atlanta and by chance happened to talk with a person in the DeKalb County office of Parks and Recreation. As you probably know DeKalb County includes the eastern side of Atlanta, and rural land in the county has virtually disappeared. I told this person about our revised Comprehensive Plan and its concern with conservation in rural areas and she said, "Oh, I wish we had something like that here. You are so lucky to live in a county that values these things." I agree with her. I am lucky to live in Albemarle County, and I applaud your efforts to protect the county's natural resources, wildlife habitat and rural character. Jean B. Kolb 6855 Heards Mountain Road Covesville V A 22931 - ~-\, ,- (~-: '~ ,.,. "'~... . ",.;.,u ;\1 BOS ~f,~~:: ',. li ~:..:,;1.... .~ ., 01'/!~~'/ -.,"-, ---~~.' ";:JlTi;li; // I....;"." ~--_...y. ',j""''';i_L';,. . ---"-~''''--''--''-''-'''''~'-. "-=J i\'r a?/f'/,t;/ , // , ~..~G''t0:~f::. -r=,.__~ n .. : ... f-.~ COMPREHENSIVE PLAN CHAPTER ON RURAL"AREAS':-- _...._-_._._~.<_.."~~ Comments for Public Hearing 9 February 2005 Sherry Buttrick A farmer in White Hall said to me a few years ago, "Sherry, they say at the County they want to" protect open space": we ARE the open space. " Farming and forestry-the land use and the activity-are the reason we have scenic views, rural character, wildlife habitat, and historic settings that attract tourism. This plan has forgotten that. On pages II and 13, this Plan suggests that Agriculture is important for the 'related benefits they contribute benefits toward rural character, scenic quality, natural environment..." They don't "contribute benefits toward" these things, they are essential for creating and maintaining these qualities. This plan drives a wedge between agriculture and forestry, and between the conservation of rural lands and the farms and forests the conserve. It makes a division between farmland and natural areas, between scenic and environmental qualities and forests and farms. The dichotomy and distinction between "conservation" and agriculture and forestry makes no sense. "open space land", says the Plan, " ranks with agricultural and forestall uses of land as one of the most prevalent and important uses of larid in RA." No. It does not "rank with" those uses-as the farmer said, it IS those uses. When we do easements on land to "conserve" it, the land in the Piedmont of V A is predominantly in agricultural or forest use. We are conserving land that is predominantly in agricultural and forest use. And in so doing, we are assuring wildlife habitat that hedgerows and fallow and wet lands provide; we are protecting the historic landscapes of the Jefferson and Monroe and Madison and scenic views. This is not Kansas: the land uses here are mixed and intermingled. These are not different things: they are the same thing. Divide and conquer. If you insist on these artificial divisions, you will clinch the loss of them all. This plan suggests two good things: I. Time release zoning 2. Lengthening of the holding time for family division. It fails to do two things that the 1989 plan did: I. It waffles on the land use tax. This county must support the land use tax. 2. It abdicates responsibility for protecting the rural areas: it suggests that voluntary methods, important though they be, are the primary tools for preserving the rural areas. It forgets its own zoning ordinance. There are simply too many development rights in the Rural Areas for them to remain in tact. It is irresponsible to assume that voluntary methods alone will fix the problem. When we presented the idea of a PDR program, we said repeatedly, easements and .. especially the purchase of easements, is "one arrow in the quiver" of land protection tools. It is not and was never intended to be the only one. The Plan makes repeated reference to the Biodiversity Committee: there should be a standing committee on Agriculture and Forestry. The Plan hails "clustering" as a land preservation tool: clustering may protect the veneer of the Rural Area, but creating de facto growth areas in the corner of every former farm will make farming, viable wildlife habit, and rural pursuits such as hunting impossible. It will look like the country, but it won't be the country. The Plan should be readable. It should be clear. It should be short. This plan defies reading, even by those who are most interested. It is vague and beats around the bush. It is so obtuse as to be a breach of trust with the public, in that it refuses to tell the public what the Plan is. This Plan is important. It is too long in coming and it does too little. In another 15 years, under this Plan, the Rural Areas may be gone. Albemarle County Board of Supervisor Meeting February 9, 2005, 6:00 PM Public Hearing Topics: 1. Rural Areas Comprehensive Plan Amendment . Septic tanks in rural areas will be considered for pumping every 5 years. Although the key word is considered, most things inserted in ordinances will eventually become the rule. . Pumping septic tanks is not a solution to save the Chesapeake Bay. Very few drain lines are close to the ground surface and seep to the surface that in turn runoff into a drainage swale. One engineer said he has seen this occur once in 30 + years. . Septic tanks are one of the most efficient and effective ways to manage household waste and protect the environment. . And if the bay is suffering from "processed sewage, why do the Board of Supervisors propose adding to the flow? . Does it make sense, environmentally or economically, to increase the sewage flow into the Chesapeake? . Also, has anyone proposing this "consideration" investigated the impact to the RWSA? · Finally, how many additional county staff will be necessary to administer this pumping consideration. · Recently the Streamwatch Program leader said his data indicates that urban areas are the biQQest polluters of the local streams, not county residents. · This consideration should be deleted from the amendment! 2. Storm Water Master Plan · This plan will affect every household in the county. It is being called a fee, but it is another form of tax. . . Every household would be assessed a fee of $24 to help with our county- wide storm water management systems (SWM). nCCEIVED AT BOS MEETING Date: ~/~A6" // Agenda Item #: Clulk's Initials: t4J(/ . Regional basins would be constructed from these funds and maintained from these funds. . Where does most of the runoff from impervious areas come from? Paving and roof tops in the urbanized areas produces the runoff, it is nominal in the county. . A 3,000 sq. ft. impervious area on a rural 21-acre plot (house and paving) will generate probably no runoff into a SWM basin near Charlottesville. . We do not contribute and they want us to pay for their contribution to the Chesapeake Bay. . 3,000 sq. ft. in a rural area is 0.3% of the 21 acres and many miles from a regional SWM basin that serves the Charlottesville urban area. . 3,000 sq. ft. in an urban area is 27.5% of a 1/4-acre lot and much, much shorter distance to the basin. . Both of these factors determine how much an impervious area contributes to a SWM measure. . Slope from the point where rainfall hits to the entry point of the basin and surface that runoff travels across (grass, paved areas, gravel, woods, etc.) are two other factors. · This plan needs to be rejected! These changes affect: . Long-term maintenance cost . Additional county staff . Higher cost of homeownership . No improvement in county services Jim Lansing 2001 Davis Shop Road Earlysville, VA. 22936 Additional Information Rescue Effort For Bay Sinking Lengthy Planning Slows Changes By David A. Fahrenthold Washington Post Staff Writer Monday, January 24, 2005; Page BOl Halfway through a 10-year program to save the Chesapeake Bay, political leaders are acknowledging that the vaunted cleanup is faltering and are calling for major changes midstream. Once touted as a national model, the cleanup effort has unraveled into what some environmentalists call a bureaucratic farce. Five years of planning, they say, have left the bay no cleaner than it was when the "Chesapeake 2000" pact was signed. An Eastern Shore congressman is contemplating legislation that would replace the voluntary cleanup strategy with strict regulatory requirements. Governors are pledging to walk the halls of Congress lobbying for $12 billion in needed support. And scientists are exploring the mass introduction of a Chinese oyster to replace the vanishing native breed. "Business as usual won't work," said former Virginia governor Gerald L. Baliles, who led a committee that studied the bay cleanup last year. "More of the same is asking for trouble. " The agreement to clean the bay in 10 years promised twice as much underwater grass, 10 times as many oysters and water as pristine as in the 1950s. It was touted as "America's premier watershed restoration partnership," supported by the Environmental Protection Agency and representatives from Pennsylvania, Maryland, Virginia and the District. Thirteen years before, the same entities had pledged to reduce the pollutants nitrogen and phosphorus in the bay by 40 percent. When the deadline came in 2000, they had fallen short. The new agreement, an attempt to jump-start the effort, made more sweeping promises. The idea was, "if we can do this. . . nobody else in the world has an excuse," said William Matuszeski, who was overseeing the bay cleanup for the EP A at the time. It was a daunting task: to reduce pollution .\pewingfrom a multitude ofdt)' sewers, farms and factories across a 64,000-square-mile watershed. And the tools were unwieldy, including several federal agencies and an array of state governments that eventually expanded to include Delaware, West Virginia and New York. But even so, cleanup officials say, they expected to accomplish more in the first half- decade than they have. "We've made only modest progress," Rebecca W. Hanmer, the current head of the EPA bay program, conceded in a recent interview. Consider: · The 2000 agreement promised to attack the bay's problem of low dissolved oxygen, a condition in which fish and crabs can't breathe. To do this, officials would need to reduce nitrogen and phosphorus, which are found in suburban lawn fertilizer, proce5ised sewage and animal manure. When they are washed downstream to the hay, these pollutants feed algae blooms, which suck oxygen out of the water. ~ 6855 Heards Mountain Road. Covesville, VA 22931-1506 Mr. Scott Clark 3 February 2005 Albemarle County Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road ", ....~ <I Charlottesville, V A 22902 Subj: Conservation Uses Section of the Rural Areas Chapter Dear Mr. Clark: First, let me say that I'm very pleased with the new emphasis on protecting natural systems and their component species in the revised Comp Plan. The two changes I suggest for the Conservation Uses section in the Rural Areas Chapter are: 1. On page 18, revise the current uGoal" statement from: "Goal: Protect Albemarle County's rural land through planned management to prevent exploitation, destruction, or neglect, and permanently preserve rural land as an essential and finite resource." to something like: Goal: Because Albemarle County's rural land is an essential and finite resource, protect it through planned management to prevent exploitation, destruction, or neglect, and permanently preserve areas that are fundamental to a healthy and diverse biological community. A healthy and diverse biological community, of course, includes us. 2. On page 19, I suggest omitting the first paragraph or revising it as follows: "The relationship among forestry, agriculture and conservation is also [may sometimes be] mutually supportive in that some land whose primary purpose is conservation may have secondary uses for agriculture or forestry (e.g., limited hay cutting and/ or small selective harvesting of trees). The relationship is dynam.ic because these uses may change among the three over time (e.g., agricultural land may become forest). This is in [In] stark contrast [,]-te-residential or commercial uses which almost never revert to agriculture, conservation or forestry." ~:rr:f~ f~'! /..,rf'i" ..sf<'. "~...-. .~~~ 0f~~~ ::1 ",,,,,,~ .. ;,.; ~ ", " ~I, 11.!lIf!S" fi if . ,,:1,1', CO.""~~n' ", -,... ".,' ~" "",'"'' "'-'1 ,....'_...,-~~ " ,;: ;",. ~J l~"" ,. ~ lMo,~;ry.~~!-i~ 7'"~,,- T .'.' e,"i- ,,",,;,r....-...>Vqt!JiJ~1 I suggest the second change because my observations over 65 years have convinced me that forestry, agriculture and conservation on the same land are not interchangeable except over hundreds of years; the Comp Plan is written for human life spans. -- Once a wet area is drained, dried, and turned into a hay meadow, its dead species won't spring back to life even if the meadow is converted to woods. -- If a forest's canopy is opened through timbering and its floor is exposed to direct sun, plant and animal species that need a moist, shady environment (Dutchman's Breeches, salamanders, and some types of soil organisms) probably won't survive. --A few vears ae-o, a tract of forest with lare-e trees near the airoort was cleared oJ '"" . V .1. and turned into pasture. Its forest-adapted plant species can't compete in direct sun with grass while being grazed by cattle. Even if that pasture is allowed to revert to trees, it would, for nearly a century, only be a "wood lot," not a forest. A "forest" consists of thousands of species besides trees (soil bacteria, fungi, lichens, herbaceous plants, insects, shrews, woodpeckers, tree frogs, squirrels, and so on). The whole thing works as a system. Part of our own property that was last farmed more than 50 years ago again has some trees, but, according to a Natural Heritage ecologist who walked over it with me, it has yet to recover its pre-farm forest component of herbaceous species. They just aren't there. My husband and I think that "conservation use" can include leaving land undisturbed. To most people "use" implies something active or visible. Some think that land left in its natural state is not being used, but Nature, usually unnoticed, actively "uses" forests, wetlands and all kinds of ecosystems in a vast manufacturing enterprise that goes on underground, on the surface, in the water, and overhead in the trees (leaves make sugar; mycorrhizal fungi extract nitrogen from springtails in the soil and pass it to tree roots; amino acids in aquatic insects are converted to fish protein; oaks produce acorns; bobcats produce kittens). All this and more we could call "natural use" and is, we believe, essential to life on this part of the planet and worthy of protection, whether or not we humans receive direct benefits such as oxygen and clean water. Natural uses (nature's uses) are valid conservation uses in rural areas, although they may not be as immediately visible to the public as cutting timber or raising Black Angus cattle. The many hours of labor that you and -ether BaS members have put into revising the Rural Areas Chapter may seem to go unnoticed or receive little public thanks, but this is important stuff. We thank you for your dedication and hard work. Sincerely, ~~b.t~ JeJB. Kolb ~ 1-D Bo5 ~ .' CJ.- Y\.JU..U etJ,A.. e~~'V3 ~ ~ ~LlL-' u.A:tj ~~ ~ ~ FEB-09-2005 10:33 PM P.01 Currituck Farm A conserved property in the Jacob's Run Ag Forestal District P. O. Box 207 Earlysville VA 22936 February 9, 2005 Dear Members of the Board of Supervisors, Happy and Healthy New Year to you all. I hope to address you tonight, but this is calving season One of my "new mommas" may need me tonight so [ must plan ahead. As I see it, some handy benefits to protection of the rural area afe: Prime farmland is preserved on which can be grown local, fresh, high quality foods. Watershed can be protected frOJn contamination and erosion to preserve our water supply. A rural quality oflife can be a reality. where there truly is time to "smell the roses," I hope you will accept this chapter of the oomp plan. after its long period of study. While many improvements have been made. I think the following issues will need further modification to meet the stated goal: to protect the resources in the rural area for agriculture, forestry. open space, water protection. and IlIcldentally to the abovey tesidential usn. Since the Rural Area zone makes up 9S% of the land in the County. the effect of residential building there is the driving force for all county issues, traffic, schools. water. fire, etc, Even after the establishment oCthe adoption of the DISC plan, in 2003, 298 or 28% of the new dwelling units were still located in the rural area. 72% or 781 units were built in the growth area. Is our current plan is doing its stated job? The plan does not yet have enough teeth to achieve its goal. In my personal dream of the future, there will not be 3 times as many residents in the county as there are now, driving on the roads. watching their kids getting on the school bus. If that dream is to come true, how can it be achieved? What can be done to truly protect the rural area from development? 1. Decide we really waDt to pro~t tbe rural area rather than accommodate developmeDt in the rural area. For example, today private roads with up 16% grades are permitted which open otherwise inaccessible land to development. State roads cannot have grades higher than 10%. The plan should limit those private roads to family divisions with a required ownership of at least 10 years, and subdivisions of 3.5 units. where lengthy steep grades are not an issue. 2. I would encourage the County to support tbe economics of agriculture and support the connections of producers and buyers. Direct the land use incentive program to landowners for preservation and agriculture through required management plans and / or annual production amounts. rather than to benefit speculators who can afford to hold land for 15 years then cut it up. The penalty for removinl a larle block of opeD .pace (rom Ia.d UJe Ihoald Dot be minimal. Producers of farm and forestry goods and services might qualify for a different tax incentive than holders of open space land. Just a thought. and I do have a conflict of interest here. 3. Continue to actively and generously support the ACE program. This mechanism is by far the best one to provide value to the landowner and reduce building. Support is needed for a County budget but also willing landowners are needed to apply to the program. 4. Require phasiDI 01 development right Ule, where only a certain number of development rights could be used in any several year period. This provision would benefit a fanner or landowner who wanted to sell a FEB-09-2005 10:34 PM P.02 small parcel for income and thus protect the residue, and it would stop the wholesale development of farms into hundreds of houses. 5. I recognize that the County must now allow clustered developments without special permit. It is essential that strict standards for cluster coDstruction and provisions for wells and septic aY8teml be created so that adequate and evenhanded staff supervision can take place. At Hollymead Town Center recently, we saw what can happen when untended and un seeded earth meets rain. Construction causes erosion, and only the highest standards of runoff control should be allowed. A cluster may take up less land, but it is still housing in the rural area, and every house unit sends out an average of 10 car trips per day. 4. PackaKe sewage disposal plants should be prohibited. Their use will offer no septic option should the plant fail. The county will become liable for extending sewer services to protect the watershed from failing systems. The density of housing must be limited to what can be sustained safely and under the new groundwater ordinance, S. The County must find a way to include atTordably priced houses in all sizeable construction projects around the County. If recent construction in Earlysville is any example, there is no affordable housing being built in the County. I doubt I could buy my own house now. The argument from builders that any restriction on building in the rural area will cause a loss of affordable housing is just not supportable. Free enterprise is not building any now. That mu..~t change through requirements or incentives. 6. The County has tried to offer incentives, or carrots. to encourage building in the growth areas. However, what i. lacking is the penalty, or stick, part of the equation, which would require extra costs or fees to build in the rural area. I am told that it is cheaper to bulldoze flat a pasture than to work in more confined spaces. Building in tbe country where there are no services nearby and long commutes to work, school, and hospitals should not be cheaper. Those or us who farm or live in the country we know we are "on our own" as far as services go. We support our local volunteer fire company. provide our own trash. clean up our roadsides, maintain our wells and sewer systems, clean up our own fallen trees and stonn debris, etc. Part of doing aU that is not having 100 houses next door in an open field but looking out to see a red fox looking for snoozing birds WIder the forsythia bushes or hearing the bobcat howl at night. Thank you. Sincerely, Ann H. Mallek: COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AGENDA TITLE: CPA 03-06 Rural Areas Comprehensive Plan Public Hearing AGENDA DATE: February 9, 2005 ACTION: INFORMATION: X SU BJ ECT/PROPOSALlREQUEST: Receive public input on the draft element of the Rural Areas Comprehensive Plan CONSENT AGENDA: ACTION: INFORMATION: LEGAL REVIEW: YES REVIEWED BY: STAFF CONTACTCS): Tucker, Foley, Davis, Graham, Cilimberg, Benish, McDowell ATTACHMENTS: Yes BACKGROUND: On March 5, 2003, the Board of Supervisors and Planning Commission provided staff direction regarding potential topics and major issues to be addressed when drafting the Rural Areas element of the Comprehensive Plan. A summary of the direction to staff is as follows: 1 . Transportation - the intention of the County is not to increase road capacity in rural areas; the roads should be well- maintained and safe to serve rural area residents; evaluate the Rural Rustic Roads program; 2. Water and Sewer - Explore the use of central systems; 3. Crossroads Communities - establish the concept of crossroads and identify existing rural crossroad areas, with an emphasis on historic crossroads communities; identify the types of uses that should be permitted in these crossroad communities; the scale, scope, and geographic boundaries of crossroad communities will be considerations in identification of crossroads communities and the determination of appropriate uses; 4. Alternative Uses - explore strategies that could provide alternative uses to help landowners preserve their land intact rather than subdivide, with the goal to eliminate and/or reduce subdivisions; 5. Agriculture and Forestry - consider establishing a dedicated staff position to provide support for agricultural and forestal support; 6. Density and Development - do not consider reducing development rights; explore other methods that would reduce development potential; explore incentives that would result in a reduction of land used for residential acreage; 7. Rural Preservation Developments - attempt to make RPDs the standard form of rural development as opposed to an option; explore the use of central systems; include residential design standards. The development of the draft Rural Areas Plan included Planning Commission work sessions over the course of three years, four public meetings in the Rural Areas, and two public hearings. Many individual citizens and citizen organizations contributed to the development of the draft Plan. In August 2004, the Planning Commission recommended for approval a draft Rural Areas element of the Comprehensive Plan. The Board began the first of its five work sessions on September 1, 2004. Although most of the Plan recommended by the Commission has remained unchanged, the Board requested several changes to the Plan during these work sessions. One of the major changes was to eliminate much of the section pertaining to central water and septic systems. The impacts of this change are discussed below. All of the Board's revisions have been incorporated into the draft Plan included in this report as Attachment A. STRATEGIC PLAN: Goal 2.1: Protect and/or preserve the County's rural character. DISCUSSION: The following is an overview of the major issues/areas which were considered in this proposed Rural Areas element of the Comprehensive Plan. It notes, where appropriate, some of the more significant modifications made by the Board of Supervisors to the Planning Commission recommended draft of the Plan. AGENDA TITLE: CPA 03-06 Rural Areas Comprehensive Plan Public Hearing February 9, 2005 Page 2 Guiding Principles: (Pages 11-12) The Guiding Principles serve as a set of standards that guided the drafting of the Rural Areas element of the Comprehensive Plan. They identify the major goals, principles, and considerations that will continue to guide rural area policies. The most significant change found in the Guiding Principles from current policy is that equal value would be placed on all the elements making up the Rural Areas (Guiding Principle 1.i-viii). The current growth management policy places greater weight on agricultural and forestal resources by identifying them as "the most critical County resources and the desired primary land use in the Rural Area" and states that of all the elements, "the protection of agricultural and forestry resources is the highest priority." The equal priority of these components means that land use decisions and resource allocation would include equal consideration of all elements. The sharing of equal priority recognizes other important elements in the Rural Areas without diminishing the importance of agricultural and forestal land uses. Agriculture and Forestry: (Pages 13-18) Protection of agriculture and forestry has long been a major goal for the County. Until now, however, the County has taken an indirect role in protecting these land uses, largely through attempting to limit the amount of land taken out of production by residential development. The proposed plan would lead the County to take a more active role in supporting agriculture and forestry. This would be achieved through creation of a staff position to provide support to farm and forest owners; education programs; increased funding for purchase of conservation easements; simpler processes for sales of farm products, both on-farm and in farmers' markets; and protection of important farm and forest land through mandating a clustered form for subdivisions. Commercial Uses & Land-use Flexibility: (Pages 23-27) Commercial uses are currently quite restricted in the Rural Areas. While this prevents undesirable impacts, certain low-impact uses that would be useful to rural residents are not permitted under current regulations. The plan proposes allowing commercial uses in specified historic crossroads communities, at scales small enough to provide benefits without encouraging further residential development. These uses should also provide owners of historic buildings with opportunities to make use of the buildings and help the community maintain its historic resources. The Board determined that the commercial opportunities and rehabilitation of historic structures should not be restricted to the seven sites listed in the Survey of Crossroads Communities and recommended by the Planning Commission; therefore, they requested removal of references to certain specific historic Crossroads Communities in the draft Plan and requested that identification of crossroads communities would follow with the implementation of the Plan. Conservation: (Pages18-23) This plan recognizes environmental conservation as a priority for the Rural Areas, and focuses on the need to protect large areas of forest, connect natural areas, protect stream habitats with forested buffers, and protect key areas identified in the ongoing Critical Resources Inventory. In response to citizens expressing the importance to them of conservation of rural area lands, the Planning Commission added this section to the draft Plan. The Board amended the language to clarify the definition of conservation, its importance to the County, and to recognize that conservation uses are qualified for land use taxation. The plan recommends a range of tools intended to protect important resources at various scales. Although the overall level of land conversion to residential use (which directly impacts natural resources) is not addressed, the design standards for clustered subdivisions are intended to ensure that a portion of each subdivision is potentially available for conservation. Other tools include increased numbers of purchased and donated conservation easements; assistance and education for County landowners interested in conservation on their land; and a stream-corridor overlay zoning district that would protect water quality and provide habitat connections for wildlife. Central Water and Sewer Systems: (Pages 44-45) The support of central water and sewer systems as a tool to further reduce residential lot sizes in the Rural Areas, as recommended by the Planning Commission, was removed by the Board of Supervisors. The Board believed that a proliferation of central systems could become a long term maintenance concern and could have an unintended consequence by permitting residential development that would not otherwise be feasible. Although some Planning Commissioners had reservations, the majority of the Commission supported central systems as a way to reduce lot sizes in Rural Preservation Developments to 1 - 1 V2 acres. In removing this recommendation of the Commission, the Board acknowledged that such systems should only be considered on a case-by-case basis. This would be consistent with current policies and regulations which discourage such systems but include a process for approving them where the Board feels it is appropriate. AGENDA TITLE: CPA 03-06 Rural Areas Comprehensive Plan Public Hearing February 9, 2005 Page 3 The Board did agree that the County should consider the Chesapeake Bay Act's provision regarding maintenance of septic tank systems in order to reduce the potential for groundwater contamination because of increased residential development in the Rural Areas. If this provision requiring the pumping of septic tanks every five years were to be ultimately implemented, it would have widespread application in the Rural Areas. Residential Development: (Pages 33-40) Since the 1989 Comprehensive Plan, the County has recognized residential development as a major threat to the Rural Areas and to the area's water supplies. It is estimated that over 50,000 more homes may be built in the Rural Areas under the current Zoning Ordinance. The conversion of that amount of land to residential uses, and the infrastructure and resources needed to serve those homes (roads, community services, groundwater supply, etc.) would lead to widespread suburbanization of the Rural Areas and significant impacts on the viability of agriculture and forestry, on water quality and natural habitats, and on the character of rural communities. This Plan does not address the total amount of residential development that is possible in the Rural Areas. During the Planning Commission work sessions, changing the current 21-acre minimum residual lot sizes to 50 or 100 acres was discussed. Ultimately, the Commission, and later the Board, determined that changes to the current 21-acre minimum lot sizes would not be considered. The proposed policies would only control the design of that development, in hopes of reducing some of the impacts. This reduction would be achieved through requiring most development to be clustered, with small development lots grouped together and a single large parcel placed under a permanent conservation easement. On page 35, the draft Plan observes that until now Rural Preservation Developments have divided rural land into large lot residential developments. The Plan further states that it is important to "minimize the amount of land used for residential development in order to maximize the amount of land that is available for agricultural, forestry, open space, natural, scenic and historic resources. In order to accomplish this goal, consideration of fewer residential lots may be considered." Other growth management tools mentioned include limiting the size of development lots. Page 29-30 emphasizes that," New policies should focus on protecting existing large parcels from fragmentation, preserving a general pattern characterized by farms, forests, and habitat corridors, and reducing the potential overall level of residential development and loss of rural character. Implementation of these policies to address residential density and pattern of development should be the County's highest priority." Phasing of development, which limits the number of development rights that can be used in a given time period, is also proposed to moderate the rate of subdivision in the Rural Area. Roads & Transportation: (Pages 42-44) The Plan focuses on improving the safety of rural roads through in-place improvements, rather than through increasing speeds and road capacity with wider, paved roads. However, the Board changes to the draft Plan recognize that the unaddressed development potential of the Rural Areas will make it more difficult to achieve safe roads. Long-term Planning: The Plan recommends the development of tracking and monitoring tools that would help the County better understand trends in the Rural Areas and the effects of new and proposed regulations and programs. It also calls for a detailed visioning process in which citizens can help to identify future states for the Rural Areas in which the Plan's multiple goals can be achieved. RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends that the Board receive public comments on the draft Plan and schedule a follow-up work session to discuss any final revisions and to review implementation steps before adopting the Plan. ATTACHMENTS A Draft Rural Areas Comprehensive Plan Table of Contents B Draft Rural Areas Comprehensive Plan 05.014 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Topic 1 1 3 5 6 7 9 11 13 13 13 16 18 23 23 25 28 28 30 31 32 33 34 35 35 36 37 37 38 40 42 42 44 46 INTRODUCTION The Rural Landscape Rural Policy History Trends in Rural Areas Land Use and Development Public Input Consistency with Other Sections of the Comprehensive Plan A VISION FOR RURAL ALBEMARLE COUNTY GUIDING PRINCIPLES FOR THE RURAL AREAS RURAL AREAS LAND USES Introduction Agricultural Uses Forestal Uses Conservation Uses Rural Commercial Crossroads Communities Alternative Uses Land Use Patterns, Density, and Residential Development Introduction Water ConseIVation and Water Protection Measures Critical Resources and Residential Development Impacts Mountains Density and Development Rural PreseIVation Developments Other Rural Areas Issues Development-right Lot Sizes Phasing of Subdivisions (Time-release) Family Divisions Rural Divisions Transfer of Development Rights Land Use Patterns and Comprehensive Planning INFRASTRUCTURE/COMMUNITY SERVICES Transportation Water and Sewage Disposal FISCAL AND TAX TOOLS MAPS A 2000 Population B Small Rural Parcels C Large Rural Parcels D Hazards and Limiting Factors E Conservation Easements F Important Farmland Soils G Important Forestal Soils H Albemarle County Land Use Taxation I Rural Areas Comprehensive Plan Areas J Fatal Traffic Accidents in Albemarle County, 1997-2004 CHAPTER FOUR THE RURAL AREAS INTRODUCTION The Rural Landscape Albemarle County occupies 726 square miles in the Virginia Piedmont and Blue Ridge Mountains. The designated Rural Areas, about 690 square miles, make up the majority (approximately 95 percent) of the County and surround the designated Development Areas and the City of Charlottesville. They border on Greene and Orange counties to the north, Louisa and Fluvanna counties to the east, Buckingham County to the south, and Nelson, Augusta, and Rockingham counties to the west. The County's topography varies from Piedmont hills in the east and south to the Blue Ridge and its foothills in the west. Altitudes range from 235 feet, where the Rivanna River crosses the County's eastern border, to 3,389 feet on Big Flat Mountain in Shenandoah National Park. There are large areas of steep slopes primarily in the central and western part of the County. The majority of the Rural Areas is in the watershed of the James River, mostly draining through the Rivanna and Hardware rivers. The two largest Rivanna River tributaries in the County are the North Fork and South Fork Rivanna rivers. The South Fork is dammed to form the area's largest drinking water reservoir. The land cover of the Rural Areas is a complex mosaic. It has been estimated that, as of the early 1990s (when data was last collected), nearly 47 percent of the Rural Areas was in deciduous forest, 18 percent was in mixed forest, and 8 percent was in conifer forest. Open areas (including pasture, row crops, barren areas, mowed areas and yards, etc.) occupied about 24 percent of the Rural Areas. However, these numbers may not be exact, because the data is collected at coarse resolution by satellite making it difficult to distinguish between pasture and residential yards, or between unfragmented forest and wooded subdivisions. In 2002, the Rural Areas population was estimated at 42,731 people (compared to approximately 44,017 in the designated Development Areas), occupying 16,994 dwelling units. However, density is not distributed evenly throughout the four Rural Areas. Some areas remain quite rural, with large parcels of farm and forestland, while others (including areas such as Earlysville and Ivy, which were formerly designated as Villages) are largely characterized by suburban residential development. Commercial zoning districts within the Rural Areas included 274 acres in existing commercial or industrial uses and another 729 acres as yet undeveloped. The last Federal Census of Agriculture (1997) found 747 farms (counting only those with at least $1,000 in gross income) in the County, totaling 172,251 acres, or 37 percent ofthe County. In 1997, the most common farm products were hay, beef cattle, and horses. The largest crops were 1 Draft Rurai i\rl'as Comprehcnsiv<' Plan Public Hearing 2/9/05 hay, horticultural products, and fruits. The majority of livestock raised were cattle. The average farm size was 231 acres, although the majority (493) was less than 176 acres. The number and area of farms has been declining since the 1920 Census of Agriculture, which counted 3,765 farms over 388,941 acres, or 83.6 percent of the County. In the period since World War II, smaller farms have experienced the most extensive declines, but farms of every size have declined in number: Farm Size Farms 1954 Farms Farms Change Change 1992 1997 1992-1997 1954-1997 1 to 9 acres 346 33 41 +8 -305 10 to 49 acres 547 186 186 0 -361 50 to 179 acres 568 269 266 -3 -302 180 to 499 acres 328 177 176 -1 -152 500 to 999 acres 102 62 50 -12 -52 1,000 acres or 35 34 28 -6 -7 more Total Acreage 320,619 188,567 172,251 -16,316 -148,368 The total acreage in farms has also declined: Acreage In Farms, 1950-1997 450,000 400,000 350,000 300,000 UJ f 250,000 ~ 200,000 150,000 100,000 50,000 o 1950 1954 1959 19641969 1974 1978 1982 1987 1992 1997 In addition to the County's most well known historic property, Monticello, many of the County's known historic resources and areas are located in the Rural Areas. The villages of Advance Mills, Batesville, and Proffit are listed as historic districts on the National Register of Historic Places. White Hall and Yancey's Mill are also potentially eligible for listing as historic districts. Approximately 31,000 acres of the County are included in the Southwest Mountains Rural 2 Draft Rura! An:us Comprchcnsive Plan Pllb!:c Hearing 2i9i05 Historic District, the environs of Greenwood, and portions of the southeastern section of the County have potential to be listed as another such district. The County also has a rich archaeological heritage, having been occupied by Native Americans for approximately 12,000 years before the arrival of European settlers, who themselves left significant artifacts and sites. For more information on historic resources and related policies, see Chapter Two (Natural Resources and Cultural Assets Plan) and the Historic Preservation Plan. The majority of the County's parks and natural areas, which provide recreational opportunities to the entire community, are located in the Rural Areas. Over 14,000 acres of the northwestern edge of the County (approximately 3% of the Rural Areas) are included in the Shenandoah National Park. Rural Policy History The County's approach to rural area planning has changed over the years. The first Zoning Ordinance, adopted without a Comprehensive Plan in 1969, was largely intended to address concerns over land development and potential annexations by the City of Charlottesville; rural planning was not a major focus. The first Comprehensive Plan, adopted in 1971, laid out large areas of development to accommodate a projected 185,000 people by 1995. The 1977 Plan reflected more concern with growth management, and designated less of the Rural Areas for conversion to urban or suburban development. It also projected a lower rate of growth, with the County population expected to reach 100,000 by the year 2000. (In reality, the County population reached approximately 84,000 by the year 2000.) The 1969 Zoning Ordinance permitted unlimited residential development on lots as small as 2 acres in the Agricultural zoning district, as well as planned developments of at least 100 acres. The 1977 Ordinance maintained the 2-acre minimum, and introduced a "Conservation" district, which was short-lived and included very little land outside Shenandoah National Park. By 1980, water quality degradation in the South Fork Rivanna Reservoir (the main drinking water supply for the County's urban areas and the City of Charlottesville) created concern about the level and location of development. As a result, Development Areas within the watershed were restored to rural designation in the Comprehensive Plan. The exception was the Crozet development area, which was only reduced in size. Its boundaries were contained within a single watershed, where water quality management measures were to be put in place to address drinking water protection. In December 1980, the County was comprehensively rezoned. In the Rural Areas, a single zoning district was created that focused on preferred uses (agriculture, forestry) but also accommodated development by assigning each rural parcel up to five "development right" lots (lots with a minimum of 2 acres). Outside those "development right" lots, a minimum parcel size of 21 acres was established in hopes of preserving larger parcels for agriculture, open space, and rural character. Several more intensive land uses and land development options that had been permitted under the 1977 Zoning Ordinance were removed from the list of permitted uses. 3 Draft Rural Are'us Comprehensive' Plan Public Hearing 2;9iOS Plan revisions in 1982, 1989, and 1996 focused on an evolving commitment to growth management. (In the 1980s, more than 50 percent of the County's residential growth was in the Rural Areas - peaking at 65 percent in 1987.) The 1989 Comprehensive Plan focused rural area policy on resource protection, with an emphasis on promoting and protecting agricultural and forestal uses and limiting the scale and character of rural residential development. The policies of this plan also led to the inclusion of cluster development provisions (the "Rural Preservation Development" option) in the Zoning Ordinance. In 1992, the County adopted the Open Space and Critical Resources Plan, which identifies important resources, discourages the piecemeal loss of important open space, and encourages the evaluation of a resource as part of a larger system of open space that serves several functions. In 1996, the County adopted the Land Use Plan, which focuses largely on the development areas, but it also contains a commitment to protect the key elements of rural character and establishes policies intended to direct growth into the Development Areas. As part of this growth management plan, the County has adopted a policy of not extending public water or sewer service into the Rural Areas, where it might drive more rapid residential and commercial development. The Neighborhood Model for the County's Development Areas, adopted in May 2001, calls for protecting the Rural Areas by increasing development capacity in the Development Areas and forming clear edges with the Rural Areas. The Historic Preservation Plan, adopted in September 2000, recommends measures to protect the County's historic and prehistoric resources, many of which are located in the Rural Areas. Several tools for protecting the Rural Areas are in place. Albemarle County offers a use-value taxation program that reduces tax rates for lands in agricultural, forestal, horticultural and open space uses. As of spring 2003, the County's voluntary agricultural and forestal districts program helped prevent intensification of use on nearly 65,000 acres ofland. Another tool is the County's voluntary Acquisition of Conservation Easements (ACE) program, under which the County purchases conservation easements (which limit uses and development) on qualifying properties. One of the goals of the ACE program is to ensure that owners can afford to keep their land, while benefiting the community through long-term protection of agricultural, forestal, and open space lands. While policies have advanced, rural residential development and changes in the character of the Rural Areas continue from 1985 to 2002, the number of development right lots (lots under 21 acres) created per year ranged from 171 to 340. In sum total, over 3,000 development right lots were created, converting over 15,000 acres of the Rural Areas to potential residential use. Another 704 parcels between 21 and 50 acres in size were created, continuing over 19,000 acres of rural land. In the decade from 1987 to 1997, 14,235 acres went out of farming according to the Census of Agriculture, continuing a long standing trend toward fewer and smaller farms. These are the central trends-the division and fragmentation of the rural landscape, and the increasing suburbanization ofthe Rural Areas-that Albemarle County's rural area policies must address. 4 Draft Rural !\rV'(lS Comprchcnsive Plan Public Hearing 2/9!()S Trends in Rural Areas Land Use and Development The following data summarize trends in land use and development in the County's Rural Areas: · From 1985 to 2000, 3,662 new parcels were created through subdivisions in the Rural Areas. Of these, nearly 42% were at least 2 but less than 5 acres in size, and another 30% were 5 to just under 21 acres. (At present, 21 acres is the minimum size for lots other than development right lots in the County.) In other words, 76% of new parcels in this period were below the 21-acre minimum. · During this period, the division of new parcels in the Rural Areas has continued at a relatively steady rate, ranging from 171 to 340 parcels per year. · In 1996, the Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission estimated that the Rural Areas could accommodate 54,867 more housing units, bringing a population increase of 143,751. They estimated that, at buildout: Lots in the "Open Space" categories (1 housing unit per 50 acres or more) would decrease from 57.6% of the Rural Areas to 1.4% of the Rural Areas. "Large Lot" parcels (1 housing unit per 5 to 20.9 acres) would in increase from 16.8% of the Rural Areas to 72.3% of the Rural Areas. "Suburban" parcels (1 housing unit per 1 to 4.9 acres) would increase from 2.1 % to 24.1 % of the Rural Areas. From 1991 to 2002, over 2,500 new subdivision lots were approved in the Rural Areas (data for 1995 are not available). This would leave approximately 52,000 more dwelling units in the Rural Areas. For comparison, the entire County had 36,469 dwelling units in 2002 (19,475 in the Development Areas and 16,994 in the Rural Areas). TJPDC estimated that total Rural Areas population could increase to 189,636, as compared to an estimated 42,731 in 2002--nearly four and a half times the current rural population. · Development right lots have been created at higher densities within the designated Water Supply Protection areas than outside those areas. · Rural Preservation Developments (RPDs), which are clustered subdivisions that are intended to reduce the impact of rural residential development, have only rarely occurred in the County. Since 1989, when RPDs were first allowed under the Zoning Ordinance, only 13 RPDs have been approved, with preservation tracts under conservation easement ranging from 40 to 385.6 acres. Between 1990 and 1998, there were six years with no clustered subdivisions approved. In 69 percent of the developments, 50 percent or more of the land was protected; 53 percent preserved 60 percent or more). · In 2002, the rural area population was estimated at 42,731 people (compared to approximately 44,017 in the Development Areas), occupying 16,994 dwelling units. However, density and population growth are not distributed evenly through the Rural Areas. 5 [)rafl Rurai !\rcas Comprchcnsivc Pian PubilcHcaring 2i9i05 Comprehensive Plan Area Annual Growth Rate, 1993-2000 1.65% 0.78% 1.27% 2.19% 1.94% Rural Areas 1 Rural Areas 2 Rural Areas 3 Rural Areas 4 All Develo ment Areas · From 1993 to 2000, Rural Areas population growth (1.49% annually) was only slightly slower than the rate for the Development Areas (1.94% annually). · In the 1989 Comprehensive Plan, it was reported that, on average, over 50 percent of the County's residential development was occurring in the Rural Areas. From 1998 to 2002, this percentage ranged from 18 to 44 percent oftotal development. However, it is important to note that this is not due to a significant decrease in the number of dwellings created in the Rural Areas, but to a large increase in the number created in the Development Areas. Rural residential development has continued at a relatively steady rate. This building permit activity reflects development on both existing and newly created parcels. Building Permits for Dwelling Units, 1998 - 2002 COMP PLAN 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 AREA Urban Areas 367 42% 218 28% 189 29% 414 47% 1,131 66% Communities 158 18% 167 22% 130 20% 186 21% 246 14% Villages 63 7% 49 6% 50 8% 22 3% 27 2% Rural Areas 286 33% 336 44% 281 43% 253 29% 316 18% TOTAL 874 100% 770 100% 650 100% 875 100% 1,720 100% These trends are inconsistent with the County's growth management policy. Public Input In the winter 2002-03 public input meetings, 70.1 % of respondents agreed with the County's policy of directing residential growth into the Development Areas, and another 24.3% agreed 6 Draft Rural Arras ComprcheIlSivt~ Plan Public Hearing 2/9/05 "somewhat." Many of those who qualified their answers agreed with the policy, but felt that it was not being effectively implemented. These answers correspond with those in the 2002 Citizen Survey, in which the protection of water, natural resources, and farm and forest land were all high priorities--all of these resources are impacted by residential development. Asked to characterize their vision for the Rural Areas, 73.1 % favored a rural character with "little residential development" (1 on scale of 1 to 4, with 4 representing "extensive suburban development"). Another 24.1 % selected "2" on this scale. On another scale from 1 ("large-lot subdivisions") to 4 ("clustered subdivisions with protected areas"), 75.4% chose 3 or 4. A majority felt that farms (62.7%) natural areas (64.9%), and stream buffer and habitat corridors (76.7%) should be common features of the Rural Areas. Ranking visual character on a continuum of values from 1 ("suburbs") to 4 ("farms, forests, and natural areas"), most chose a rank of 4 (76.2%) or 3 (21.1 %). CONSISTENCY WITH OTHER SECTIONS OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN This chapter ofthe Comprehensive Plan is intended to work in concert with the other elements of the Plan. Strategies for implementing the growth management policy and the public facilities policy established in the Land Use Plan and the policies set in the Natural Resources and Cultural Assets Plan are found throughout this chapter. This chapter also takes advantage of new information regarding resource protection and provides for further policy adoption based on the expected products of the Critical Resource Inventory. In order to ensure consistency throughout the Plan, the other elements of the Plan will require amendment upon adoption of this Chapter. Land Use Plan The Guiding Principles echo and build on the Growth Management Goal of the Land Use Plan. As that plan states, "[t]he County's primary growth management goal directs development into designated areas and conserves the balance of the County for rural areas and resource protection. . . .Planning efforts aim to channel growth into designated areas to facilitate economical service delivery in those areas, and to conserve the Rural Areas.. . .Planning efforts also focus on means to discourage development in the Rural Areas and support activities consistent with the character of the Rural Areas... .Loss of [rural] resources is irreversible...." (Land Use Plan, p.3.; amended July 2002.). Natural Resources and Cultural Assets Plan Rural Areas regulations and programs should be reviewed for their natural and cultural resource impacts, and the County should ensure that regulatory and program changes protect or restore the resources they affect. This will require an orientation to resource protection that pervades the County's planning process, rather than a separate resource protection program. This approach would implement the Guiding Principles by furthering land preservation and conservation; protecting water supply, natural, scenic, and cultural resources; retaining rural quality oflife for current and future residents; implementing the objectives of the Natural 7 Draft Rurai Areas Comprehensive Pian Public Hearing 219/05 Resources and Cultural Assets Plan; and encouraging and implementing protection of genetic, species, and ecosystem diversity for native plants and wildlife. However, committee work and research regarding resource protection policies and the Critical Resource Inventory are ongoing. The following general strategies are intended to ensure that Rural Areas policies adopt the recommendations that result from that work: GUIDING OBJECTIVES FOR FURTHER POLICY DEVELOPMENT: · Ensure that Rural Areas policies are developed in accord with the Guiding Principles (see below) and the Facilities Planning goal of the Land Use Plan ("[s]trongly support and effectively implement the County's growth management priorities in the planning and provision of transportation infrastructure, public facilities, and public utilities"-p.5, Land Use Plan), and that policy changes are designed to avoid any increased demand for public infrastructure in the Rural Areas. · Ensure that Rural Areas policies are developed in accord with the Natural Resources and Cultural Assets Plan, and protect resources identified as important in the Critical Resources Inventory. STRATEGIES: The County should: 1. Continue and increase current efforts at agricultural, forestal, open-space and natural- resource protection in existing and new codes and programs. 2. Amend codes and programs affecting the Rural Areas and the County as a whole to protect biodiversity, reflect the recommendations of the Biodiversity Work Group and the standing Biodiversity Committee once adopted, and incorporate policy responses to issues raised by the ongoing biological resources inventory. 3. Amend codes and programs affecting the Rural Areas to protect historic resources and reflect the recommendations of the Historic Preservation Plan. 4. Protect potential trail areas as recommended in the Greenways Plan. 5. Locate trails to provide public access to natural and cultural resources without negatively impacting those resources. 6. Protect scenic resources for residents and visitors. Approach protection of scenic resources by fostering viable rural economies, healthy ecosystems, and protected cultural resources 8 [)raft Rural Arcus Comprchcnsive Plan Public Hcaring 2/9/05 A VISION FOR RURAL ALBEMARLE COUNTY County land use decisions regarding the Rural Areas should be based on a set of consistent policies adopted by the Board of Supervisors. Decision making should always include a consideration of a proposal's cumulative effects on the Rural Areas and the County as a whole. It is, therefore, very important for the County to have a coherent idea of the desired future of its rural lands. The following vision statement is intended to clarify the overall goals of this section of the Comprehensive Plan: Albemarle County envisions its Rural Areas as multifaceted places that will, over centuries, provide and protect the key elements that give the area its character. This vision is not a list of actions to be avoided, but a positive design to be achieved, maintained, and improved over the very long term, with the intention that the Rural Areas remain rural. The elements of this vision include . A pattern of land uses defined by farms, forests and other natural elements, and traditional crossroads communities, rather than by suburban or ex-urban - outside the suburbs - development that typically uses land faster than population Increases. . A strong agricultural and forestal economy, with large unfragmented parcels of land on which to produce their goods, opportunities to gain value from processing their own produce, and access to local markets · Diverse, interconnected areas of viable habitat for native wildlife, extensive enough and sufficiently protected and restored to allow ecological processes to endure for the long term · Healthy streams and sustainable supplies of unpolluted groundwater · Protected historic structures, archaeological sites, and other cultural resources · Rural citizens supported by community meeting places, a basic level of services, and rural organizations and other cultural institutions at traditional rural scales, with opportunities to take part in community life and decisions · A clearly visible rural character achieved by supporting lively rural industries and activities and discouraging suburbanization of the Rural Areas · A significant tourist economy in which rural and historic landscapes augment the visitors' experience and give historic sites as authentic a setting as possible. · Well informed citizens, both rural area and development area residents, who understand the cultural, economic, and ecological aspects of the Rural Areas and appreciate their importance to the community, region, and state · Plans, policies, and decision making that consider and protect rural economies and ecological processes · Boundaries that show a clear distinction between rural and urban areas, without low-density transition areas 9 [)raft guru! I\n:as Comprchcnsive Plan Public Hearing 29/05 Several aspects of this vision were reflected in the input received from citizens during four public meetings held in the winter of 2002-2003. The strong majority of attendees (over 70 percent in each case) felt that: . The visual character of the Rural Areas should be made up of farms, forests, and natural areas. . Stream buffers and habitat corridors should be common throughout the Rural Areas. . Growth should be limited and well managed to maintain the rural character of the County. . Residential development should be directed into the designated Development Areas. . Agricultural and forestal lands are critical County resources, and that agriculture and forestry are the desired primary land uses in the Rural Areas. The County's 2002 Citizen Survey reflected similar views. Items rated "very important" for the County by a majority of respondents included "protecting water quality in reservoirs, streams, and wells" (85.2%), "preserving natural resources and open space" (65.1 %), and "preserving farmland and forested land" (63.8%). Planning approaches favored by a majority included permitting localized services (stores, post offices, etc.) in traditionally rural communities (96%), the Acquisition of Conservation Easements (ACE) program (74%), use-value taxation of agricultural and forestal land (79%), and restricting the number of lots into which a rural parcel can be subdivided (76.1 %). 10 Dran Rural Arcas Comprehel1siH~ Plan Public Hearing 219105 GUIDING PRINCIPLES FOR THE RURAL AREAS The following principles are intended to guide comprehensive planning of the Rural Areas and to set general guidelines for future policy decisions. They reflect the County's growth management policy and its vision for the Rural Areas. Albemarle County will: 1. Recognize in policy development that all of the following defining principles are equal and important components of the Rural Areas: i) Agriculture - - Protect Albemarle County's agricultural lands as a resource base for its agricultural industries and for related benefits they contribute towards the County's rural character, scenic quality, natural environment, and fiscal health. ii) Forestry resources - Protect Albemarle County's forests as a resource base for its forestry industries and watershed protection. iii) Land Preservation - Permanently preserve and protect Albemarle County's rural land as an essential and finite resource through public ownership or through conservation easements. iv) Land Conservation - Protect Albemarle County's rural land through planned management of open spaces to prevent exploitation, destruction, or neglect. v) Water supply resources - Protect the quality and supply of surface water and groundwater resources. vi) Natural resources - Preserve and manage the Rural Areas' natural resources in order to protect the environment and conserve resources for future use. vii) Scenic resources - Preserve the County's rural scenic resources as being essential to the County's character, economic vitality, and quality of life. viii) Historical. archeological and cultural resources - Protect the Rural Areas' historic, archeological and cultural resources. 2. Protect and enhance rural quality of life for present and future Rural Areas residents. 3. Provide support to local agricultural and forestal economies and connect local producers and consumers of rural products. 4. Address the needs of existing rural residents without fostering growth and further suburbanization of the Rural Areas. 5. Develop tools to direct residential development into designated Development Areas, where services and utilities are available, and where such development will have minimum impact on rural resources and agriculturaVforesta1 activities. 6. Establish development standards that are consistent with rural area characteristics and 11 Draft Rum! Areas Comprehensive Plan PubliC 2/9/05 expectations. 7. Provide levels of service delivery in accord with the Facilities Planning goals of the Land Use Plan. 8. Provide support for long standing rural crossroads communities and villages without creating de facto growth areas. 9. Consider financial and fiscal tools to support implementation of Rural Areas policies. 10. Include the goals of the Thomas Jefferson Sustainability Council in rural area policy and code development. (These guidelines have been adopted as part ofthe Natural Resources and Cultural Assets Plan, where they are reproduced.) 11. Strive for better understanding and coordination of rural area land use planning with neighboring counties. 12. Foster tools that offer alternatives to fragmentation of parcels into pieces too small for economic viability. 13. Implement the applicable objectives of the Natural Resources and Cultural Assets Plan. 14. Encourage creative and diverse forms of rural production and support rural land uses that provide rural landowners with economic viability. 15. Encourage and implement the protection and enhancement of genetic, species, and ecosystem diversity for wildlife in the County. 12 Draft Rural !\n'us Comprehensive Plan Public 2i9i05 RURAL AREAS LAND USES INTRODUCTION Albemarle County has a long tradition of protecting its rural land through its land use policies, resource protection policies, and growth management policies in the Comprehensive Plan. Also, the County has demonstrated its support of and in its efforts to maintain the character of the Rural Areas through the Acquisition of Conservation Easement (ACE) program, Agricultural and Forestal Districts, the Use Value Assessment (land use tax) program, conservation easements, and Rural Preservation Developments. The Natural Resources and Cultural Assets Component of the Plan states, "In the Rural Areas, agricultural and forestry uses are the preferred land use, over residential uses." In accord with the Guiding Principles, this section builds on that policy by recognizing that agriculture and forestry are the preferred income-generating activities, but also that land and water conservation activities are equally important aspects of the Rural Areas. According to the United States Department of Agriculture, between 1992 and 1997 the County's agricultural land decreased nine percent. Response to the continued decrease in agricultural lands cannot be to turn aside from our determination to preserve and protect farmland. The conversion of land in the Rural Areas for residential development is the County's biggest threat. The decline of agricultural lands calls for proactive support of agricultural uses, illustrating the need to seek creative solutions that would prevent or reduce land divisions without compromising the land, the character, or the resources of the Rural Areas. All Rural Areas land uses should be measured against their support of and their impact on the Guiding Principles, so that the preservation of the Rural Areas is assured. Scale and the intensity of land uses should be carefully considered. Where necessary, performance standards should be used to ensure that scale and intensity are appropriate to the rural landscape. Uses that cannot be sufficiently mitigated or that conflict with the Guiding Principles should not be permitted. AGRICULTURAL USES GOAL: Protect Albemarle County's agricultural lands as a resource base for its agricultural industries and for related benefits they contribute towards the County's rural character, scenic quality, natural environment, and fiscal health. The Guiding Principles for the Rural Areas recognizes the importance of our agricultural lands as a resource base for agricultural industries and for the contributions they make toward the County's rural character, scenic quality, natural environment, and fiscal health. The Growth Management Plan corroborates the significance for the preservation of agricultural resources as they provide "an opportunity to conserve and efficiently use other resources such as: 1. water resources (with use of property conservation techniques); 2. natural, scenic, and historic resources with the maintenance of pasture land, farmland, 13 Draft Rura! An:as Comprehensih' Plan Public Hearing 2:9/05 and forested areas; and 3. fiscal resources by limiting development and lessening the need to provide public services to wide areas of the County. In the interest of this growth management strategy, residential development is considered a secondary use in the Rural Areas. The importance of agricultural uses to the economy, environment and heritage of the County is also articulated in other sections of the Comprehensive Plan, including the Natural Resources and Cultural Assets Plan and the Growth Management Plan. Citizens attending the Rural Areas public meetings held during the winter of 2002-2003 confirmed the validity of the County's policies to protect agriculture. In response to a survey given at the meetings, over 62% desired farms to be common and widespread. A visioning question revealed that citizens wanted to see support for working farms, but with the realization of the need for economic alternatives to traditional farming. They also wished to see support for more sustainable management techniques on farms. Over 69% of the public meeting participants ranked agriculture as number 1 when asked how they would rank the land uses they would like to have within the County. Over 76% of the participants agreed that agricultural and forestal resources should be the primary land uses in the Rural Areas. Protecting agricultural land has become more urgent despite all past efforts and resolve; Albemarle's agricultural lands continue to disappear. Much of the land that has been farmed for generations has been subdivided for residential use. In 1994, the Agricultural and Forestal Industries Support Committee presented a report to the Board of Supervisors. Representatives from a variety of farm types participating on the Committee provided recommendations based on their valuable, first-hand experiences. Among those recommendations, the Committee asked that measures be taken that discourage farmland fragmentation, they favored clustered development and the protection of prime soils (Map F, Important Farmland Soils) believing that the 21-acre lots size wastes land and that growth should be concentrated. They asked that the number of development rights be maintained, in order to maintain stability. Further, they recommended that marketing strategies for agricultural products, niche agriculture, and direct marketing operations be encouraged and promoted. They also requested that County policies support farmers regarding nuisance conflicts in Rural Areas. One of the County's challenges will be to maintain and increase agricultural uses on smaller parcels, as acreages devoted to farming decrease. Viticulture, the cultivation or culture of grapes especially for wine making, is an emerging leader in agriculture. Virginia ranks ninth in commercial grape production and Albemarle County ranks first among the ten leading Virginia counties (2001 acreage figures) with over 367 acres planted in vines. In Virginia, a 20-acre vineyard is considered large and a 5-acre vineyard is more common. The Virginia Cooperative Extension Service recently published a report titled, Virginia Farmers Have Opportunity to Fill Organic Crops Market Niche. Organic farming provides opportunities for small and mid-size farming, according to the Extension Service. These are only two examples of alternative farming 14 Draft Rural Ar\;'us Comprchcnsivc Plan Public Hearing 2/9/05 opportunities that should be explored in order to reverse the decline in farming. The 1994 report ofthe Agricultural and Forestal Industries Support Committee, as well as subsequent discussions with many farmers in the County, has provided a clearer understanding of the needs of the agricultural community. It is unmistakable that the agricultural community values Albemarle's rural character and its natural resources and that they are resolute in their determination to retain the integrity of the Rural Areas. Many of their recommendations are included as strategies in this section. The County recognizes that there can be conflicts between residential uses and agricultural uses. Both smaller parcels and increased development exacerbate these inherent, inevitable conflicts. Using multi-media communication methods, including a requirement of a note on a subdivision plat, the County should advise residents of the predictable conflicts of traveling and living in the proximity of our agricultural industries, such as noise, odors, slow moving farm equipment on roadways, and chemical spraying. Conflicts can arise from different agricultural uses as well. As agricultural uses are encouraged in our Rural Areas, conflict resolution can be more difficult in these cases. Education, communication, and sensitivity toward neighbors will be key components in seeking resolution. Additional setbacks, minimum area requirements and any other necessary requirements should be considered for agricultural uses that may have greater impact on their neighbors, such as the potential to create demands on services, produce off-site negative environmental impacts, and significant traffic impacts. F or the purposes of this document, the term agriculture encompasses all forms of food, ornamental plant, beverage, equine and other animal operations. OBJECTIVE: To support agricultural land uses and to create additional markets for agricultural products through creative economic and land use strategies. STRATEGIES: The County should: 1. hritiate a multi-media communication program that educates citizens of the benefits and the conflicts of living in the proximity of agricultural industries, promotes the appreciation of the Rural Areas and the importance of agricultural resources. 2. Encourage the protection of prime agricultural soils and working farms from non- agricultural development through Rural Preservation Developments, conservation easements, Agricultural and Forestal Districts, the Land Use Taxation program, and the Acquisition of Conservation Easement program. 3. Allow appropriately scaled low-impact uses on working farms that provide supplemental economic benefit to farmers. 4. Increase and establish consistent funding for the Acquisition of Conservation Easement program and actively seek supplementary public and private funding sources. 5. Establish proactive support of agricultural land uses through the creation of an 15 Draft Rural Ari.'as Comprchensivi.' Plan Public Hearing 2/9i05 Agricultural/Forestal Support Program position that provides agricultural assistance that includes community education, marketing strategies, the exploration of agricultural support businesses and alternative agricultural uses. 6. Revise the Zoning Ordinance to include performance standards for agricultural operations, such as confined animal feeding operations (CAFOs) that may cause serious negative impacts the environment. 7. Continue to support the Farm Tour as an educational tool. 8. Support agricultural education in the classroom. Implement a farm day for children. 9. Encourage and promote agricultural related vocational education programs from middle school onward. 10. Encourage the integration of conservation land uses with agricultural and forestal uses, especially if the conservation use would provide connectivity to other conservation land and/or would provide a buffer between potential conflicting uses, such as residential and other types of agricultural or forestal uses. 11. Recognize increasing interest in wine production and consider how regulations and the use of agricultural education and support staff can foster appropriately located vineyards. 12. Support the marketing of farm products in the creation and operation of farmers's markets. FORESTAL USES GOAL: Protect Albemarle County's forests as a resource base for its forestry industries and watershed protection. The Guiding Principles for the Rural Areas recognize the importance of forestal resources to the County. Forestal resources in the County serve as a base for its forestry industry, adds to the economic vitality of the region, contributes to the biodiversity of the region, and benefits the scenic, natural and historic resources. Although this section addresses forestal uses, the importance of forested land as an essential component for the continued protection of the County's water resources cannot be overstated. "The most important and obvious source of resilience in the South Fork Rivanna Reservoir Watershed ecosystem is the natural forest. Forests produce the cleanest and most reliable flow of water possible," according to The South Fork Rivanna Reservoir and Watershed report prepared in 2002 for the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority. The report explains resilience as, "Ecosystems, including watersheds, have natural characteristics that confer a degree of protection to the ecosystem and those who rely on it. These protective characteristics sometimes are referred to as 'resilience.'" According to the Virginia Department of Forestry, an ecosystem approach is based on whole ecosystem function, rather than on single elements or species in isolation. Management objectives blend long-term needs of people and environmental values so the land will support diverse, productive ecosystems and sustainable ecosystem processes. While the popularity of wood products has increased, the Agricultural and Forestal Industries Support Committee 1994 report identified continued forest fragmentation as the biggest threat to the future vitality of the forestry industry in Albemarle County. The Report stated that tract sizes 16 Draft Rural Afl'a3 Comprchc113ivc Plan Public Hearing 2/9/05 below 40 acres are difficult to manage economically and the proximity to houses and other structures further escalates the problem. Continued decreases in forested land, and further fragmentation of the remaining land reduces the sustainability of both the ecological services and the forest products provided by the forests of Albemarle County. The erosion of larger blocks of forest decreases the habitat for forest-interior bird species, favors edges species (such as white- tailed deer) and increases the risk of forest fires and the loss to fire of woodland homes. The latest estimate (2002) of forestland area for Albemarle is 272,000 acres. The previous estimate (1992) was 293,400 acres. Therefore, the estimated total net loss over the last 10 years has been approximately 21,400 acres. County-level estimates of conversions ofland between agriculture and forestland uses are not available. However, statewide data indicates that for approximately every 3 acres of forestland converted to urban and agricultural uses, 2 acres of agricultural land reverts to forestland use. Map G, Important Forestal Soils, documents that most of the County contains soils conducive to the potential for growing of both hardwoods and softwoods. The Virginia Department of Forestry recognizes that urbanization is the main source of fragmentation and predicts that an annual net loss of about 18,000 acres of Virginia forestland per year is likely to continue due in part to the trend toward large lots and woodland homes. Urbanization is cited as the biggest threat to forestal land. OBJECTIVES: . Strive to maintain and/or restore sufficient forestlands in the County, with the spatial arrangement - connected parcels or a sufficient size that permits harvesting, ownership, and management needed to provide sustainable ecological services and forest products; adhere to the principles of ecosystem management, while working to achieve the primary goals of conserving and promoting biodiversity and reducing the risk of wildfire to forest and human communities. . Continue to support the forestry industry, in recognition of its contribution to the economy, environment, and heritage of the County of Albemarle. STRATEGIES: The County should: 1. Encourage protection of prime forestal soils from non-forestal development through Rural Preservation Developments, conservation easements, Agricultural and Forestal Districts, the Land Use Taxation program, and the Acquisition of Conservation Easement program and implementation of the Mountains section of the Natural Resources and Cultural Assets Component of the Plan, as discussed below (page 34), as mountains in Albemarle are heavily forested. 2. Encourage educational programs that teach conservation of the forest land base. 3. Continue to actively promote conservation easements. 4. Consider the impact on forest fragmentation in the evaluation of land use decisions. 5. Encourage cooperative management of small parcels of forestland to provide economies 17 Draft Rural Areus Comprehensive Pian Public Hearing ::;9!05 of scale and better management. 6. Actively promote Agricultural and Forestal Districts. 7. Establish proactive support through the creation of an Agricultural/Forestal Support Program that provides forestal assistance that includes community education, marketing strategies and the exploration of forestal support businesses. 8. Encourage the integration of conservation land uses with forestal uses, especially if the conservation use would provide connectivity to other conserved land and/or would provide a buffer between potential conflicting uses, such as residential uses. CONSERVATION USES GOAL: Protect Albemarle County's rural land through planned management to prevent exploitation, destruction, or neglect, and permanently preserve rural land as an essential and finite resource. The Guiding Principles for the Rural Areas recognize the importance of conservation use of land to the County. For the purposes of this section, conservation may be defined simply as "the protection, preservation, management, or restoration of wildlife and of natural resources such as forests, soil, and water." The American Heritage@ Dictionary of the English Language. Fourth Edition Recognition of "conservation" as a use of land is crucial to protection of essential natural resources, such as water and biodiversity, in Albemarle County. In 1992, the County adopted a Open Space and Critical Resources Plan. In the 1999 Natural Resources and Cultural Assets chapter of the Comprehensive Plan, the importance of such resources is recognized. In the Natural Resources chapter, the County also makes a commitment to development of a long-term biodiversity protection plan. This biodiversity commitment supplements the County's long engagement in protecting local water resources. Citizens have indicated a strong wish to see such protections accomplished. Open Space land used for conservation ranks with agricultural and forestal uses ofland as one of the most prevalent and important use of land in the Rural Areas, and as noted in the Guiding Principles, ranks equally in importance with them. Conservation uses are recognized in the State Land Evaluation Advisory Council (SLEAC) provisions as qualified for land use that may be covered by the use-value taxation program (commonly called "land use tax". Conservation, agriculture and forestry have a dynamic and mutually supportive relationship in our Rural Areas. Albemarle's Rural Areas are a mosaic of land used for agriculture, for forestry, as well as for land whose greatest value is its contribution to the protection of natural resources. This mosaic has great value to the residents of Albemarle's rural communities, for whom it provides a traditional rural environment; but its value extends to the community at large, including the City of Charlottesville and the County's Development Areas, which benefits from the proximity to rural land and its salutary contributions to clean and abundant water supply, clean air, and preservation of wildlife habitat that are fundamental to a healthy and diverse biological community. 18 [Jraft Rural i\rcas Comprehensive Plan Public Hearing ::>9!OS The relationship among forestry, agriculture and conservation is also mutually supportive in that some land whose primary use is conservation may have secondary uses for agriculture or forestry (e.g., limited hay cutting and/or small selective harvesting of trees). The relationship is dynamic because these uses may change among the three over time (e.g., agricultural land may become forest). This is in stark contrast to residential or commercial uses which almost never revert to agriculture, conservation or forestry. Like agriculture and commercial forestal land use, effective protection of natural resources generally requires substantial blocks ofland dedicated to conservation. Fragmentation ofland by suburban type development is no more compatible with conservation use of land than it is for land dedicated to agriculture or to forestry. Land in long-term conservation use can buffer agricultural and commercial forestry operations from less intensive use of land or particularly sensitive ones; can provide recreational opportunities; and may provide a greater level of protection for natural resources than land dedicated to either agriculture or forestry alone. The economic benefits of conservation use ofland are also important. For the community at large and for the individual property owner to a lesser extent, retail sales for activities associated with conservation use of land such as hunting, fishing, hiking, camping, and horse-back riding equipment (also uses found on agricultural and forestry lands) are substantial and growing. As with agricultural and forested lands, there are also other potential property owner benefits such as tax benefits, including use value taxation, protection from more intensive development through easement donation or participation in agricultural and forestal districts, and the possibility of increased property value as conserved land. Land in conservation use of land can also enhance the value of near-by property. And tourism, one of the most important components of this area's local economy, is inextricably linked to conserved land that preserves natural resources. In the larger sense, perhaps the primary long term economic value of conservation use ofland can be the ecological services they provide, such as moderation of temperature extremes, facilitation of rainfall absorption, purification of water and air, erosion control, pollination of crops and supply of many active ingredients in drugs used to treat human diseases. As an example, all human enterprise in the community depends on the abundance and quality of water, which can be enhanced and protected by large tracts of properly conserved land. Conservation can be assisted by providing funding for conservation projects, such as the planting and maintaining of forested stream buffers. Raising public awareness of funding sources and providing assistance with acquiring funding and implementing conservation measures is an effective way for the County to achieve resource conservation on private lands. However, for voluntary programs (especially permanent easements) to be truly effective, use of the protected land must be monitored to ensure that the established conservation standards are being met. The County currently has little or no capacity for monitoring even the relatively small number of easements that it currently holds. An increasing dependence on easements for conservation will require that such a capacity be created. 19 Draft Rural !\reas Comprehensive Plan PubliC Hearing 2i9i05 OBJECTIVES: . Strive to maintain and/or restore sufficient land in conservation use in the County, with the primary goals of conserving and promoting undisturbed land for its benefit to clean and abundant ground and surface water, clean air, and terrestrial and aquatic habitats that are fundamental to a healthy and diverse biological community. . Support rural land owners whose main objective is the conservation of rural land not necessarily in agricultural or commercial forestal production. STRATEGIES: The County should: 1. Protect the County's natural, scenic, and historic resources in the Rural Area, continuing the efforts begun with the "Open Space and Critical Resources Plan" adopted in 1992. 2. Encourage educational programs that teach conservation of natural resources, especially those programs tailored to individual user groups such as land owners, business owners, contractors, developers, and teachers. 3. Identify and protect land areas that should be maintained as natural conservation areas to assure persistence of our water and biological resources. This should consider, among other things, maintenance of large blocks of forest to provide groundwater recharge and forest interior habitat, protection of wetlands, riparian areas and other biologically rich and ecologically important areas, maintenance or creation of wildlife movement corridors, possibly in riparian areas and mountain ridge tops. Utilize the County's biodiversity initiatives to identify areas or species that need conservation protection. 4. Review potential conflicts between conservation areas and other, adjoining rural land uses. Seek to develop planning and management methods that promote coexistence of these different uses. 5. Continue to actively promote conservation easements. 6. Consider the impact on rural land fragmentation in the evaluation of land use decisions. 7. Actively promote Agricultural and Forestal Districts. 8. Establish proactive support through the creation of an Agriculture/Conservation/Forestry Support Program that provides assistance including community education, marketing strategies, and the exploration of rural land use support businesses. 9. Promote the benefits of conservation and preservation of land through education programs, information provided through mixed media resources, and the County web page. Information pertaining to the Land Use Taxation program for Open Space should be included in this outreach initiative. 10. Preserve large areas of forest, protect or create forested stream buffers, and support good soil management in order to protect watershed services. 11. Fund and/or provide grant assistance for voluntary conservation projects that protect agricultural and forestal resources, animal and plant habitats, and ecosystem services. 12. Upon adoption of recommendations from the Groundwater Committee, adopt measures to protect the quality and quantity of groundwater, both as a critical portion of the County's overall water system and as a water supply for rural residents. 13. Recognize land conservation programs as the highest priority for achieving Rural Area goals, and management of development patterns as a tool that can reduce but not prevent development impacts. 20 Draft Rural r\n:us Comprehensive Plan Public Hearing 2/9/05 Land Preservation or Voluntary Land Conservation Albemarle County has demonstrated the importance of voluntary land conservation by its adoption of the Acquisition of Conservation Easements (ACE) program which acquires conservation easements to preserve the land's rural character, whether in agriculture, forest production, or dedicated to conservation. Further, this Comprehensive Plan's description of the benefits of Rural Preservation Developments includes "the permanent preservation oflarge areas of land that can be used for agricultural and forestal production, recreational uses, water supply protection, and the conservation of natural, scenic and historic resources." The community profits from the preservation of scenic and cultural resources, which not only enrich lives, but which are important components of a thriving tourism industry, and as a setting for traditional rural activities such as hunting, fishing, hiking and horseback riding. The economic benefits of preservation or voluntary land conservation of rural lands are also important. With conservation easements come potential property owner benefits such as federal and state gift and estate tax benefits. When neighborhoods participate in agricultural and forestal districts, each property's value and residents' quality f life increases with the protection from intensive residential development. Eased land over time acquires a value as a protected estate, independent of what residential development it holds. Land under easement also enhances the value of near-by property. And tourism, one of the most important components of this areas's local economy, is inextricably linked to the preserved rural countryside. Conservation easements are needed to meet Comprehensive Plan goals as listed in other sections. These include: 1. Protect natural, scenic, and open-space resources (Natural Resources and Cultural Assets p.7) 2. Manage growth to protect the defining elements of the Rural Areas-agricultural and forestry resources; water supply resources; natural resources; scenic resources; historic and cultural resources; and limited service delivery. (Land Use Plan, p. 3) With the prospect of over 50,000 or more dwelling units being added to the Rural Areas, it becomes clear that the County must take advantage of every opportunity to reduce the number of available development rights. Although it may not be practical to change the current development pattern of the Rural Areas solely through the purchase of development rights, the existing Acquisition of Conservation Easements (ACE) program does make conservation easements an option for landowners who cannot afford to donate them. Applicants' incomes are considered in determining the purchase price of ACE easements, and properties that have high development potential or that are under pressure to subdivide are ranked higher for purchase. Assuring or increasing the funding for this program will make protection of more of this threatened land possible. Goal setting (for the number of development rights to be extinguished, and/or the area of land to be protected) would help to determine the level of funding and program promotion necessary to make this approach more effective. Some landowners are willing to donate easements that protect important resources by eliminating 21 [)raft Rural An:us ComprchcnsiH' Plan Public Hearing 2/9/05 development potential. The Virginia Outdoors Foundations and other organizations hold such easements. The County's Public Recreational Facilities Authority is also able to hold easements if the property includes resources identified as important in the Comprehensive Plan. Promotion of easements could lead to a significant increase in the number of easements donated, and provide new opportunities for resource protection through the elimination of development potential. The Thomas Jefferson Soil and Water Conservation District now has a program for accepting riparian conservation easements; the County streams and riparian woodlands could benefit from increased participation in this program. In order to have an accurate picture of the extent of conservation easements in the County and to plan accordingly, it would be useful to have a database and maps that include the easements accepted by all holders. Unfortunately, records on easements are scattered, with some records kept by the County and others by other holders. Also, there is no mechanism in place to notify the County or other holders when new conservation easements are recorded. Working in cooperation with the other easement holders in the community, the County could facilitate the creation of an accurate and freely available easement tracking and mapping system that would assist in land protection efforts. See Map E, Conservation Easements, for presently known conservation easements, including ACE easements. The County's voluntary AgriculturallForestal Districts program helps limit the development potential of a member's land for renewable periods of up to 10 years. Although nearly 70,000 acres are currently emolled in the program, emollment has been slowly decreasing. The reasons for this decline are not clearly understood; surveying past and current members would provide useful information. Increased public awareness of the Districts and an active promotion program would be useful in increasing participation. For voluntary programs easements to be truly effective, use of the protected land must be monitored to ensure that the established conservation stipulations are being met. The County currently has little or no capacity for monitoring even the relatively small number of easements that it currently holds. An increasing dependence on easements for conservation will require that such a capacity be created. OBJECTIVES: . Assist, promote, and fund land easement programs that further the policies and goals of the Comprehensive Plan . Create the technical, legal, and public relations tools and personnel necessary to hold, maintain and increase the amount of land held in easements STRATEGIES: The County should: 1. Encourage protection of environmentally sensitive land from residential or commercial development through Rural Preservation Developments, conservation easements, Agricultural and Forestal Districts, the Land Use Taxation program, and the Acquisition 22 Draft Rural i\r~'as Comprehensive Plan Public Hearing 2/9/05 of Conservation Easement program. 2. Promote voluntary donations of conservation easements that prevent development and protect valued resources, whether those easements are held by the County's Public Recreational Facilities Authority or by other approved bodies. 3. Acquire a stable funding source for the ACE program 4. Acquire independent legal assistance for ACE and the Public Recreational Facilities Authority to avoid any conflict in interest between the County and easement holders 5. Promote and support Agricultural-Forestal Districts, including assisting the Agricultural/Forestal District advisory board in its legal and policy-related duties 6. Increase the County's capacity to monitor the use ofland under easement and ensure adherence to the terms of easements. 7. Coordinate with other easement holders to create a complete and accurate conservation easement tracking system for the County. RURAL COMMERCIAL Crossroads Communities GOAL: Provide support for long standing rural crossroads communities and villages to provide an appropriate level of services for rural residents and to protect historic resources, without creating de facto growth areas. Albemarle County has numerous rural crossroads communities that were once thriving. In fact, crossroads communities were the heart and soul for the outlying areas as they were the commercial and social centers of their surrounding areas. Many of these areas still function as centers of activity and there is a desire from most residents for them to maintain some level of viability. These areas could also contribute to some level of traffic reduction by providing some essential rural-scale services that would otherwise have to be obtained by driving a further distance. The rural crossroads communities are an important part of the County's heritage. There are many buildings located in the crossroads communities that are vacant and could have local historical significance. These buildings could be renovated to maintain the rural character of the crossroads community and provide a valuable service to the immediate local area. There appears to be substantial support for maintaining strong, viable crossroads communities, as the Albemarle County 2002 Citizen Survey reveals 96% of respondents favored allowing localized services in traditionally rural communities. Furthermore, during the Rural Areas public input meetings held during the winter of 2002-2003, citizen comments indicated a high preference for country stores as a permitted land use in the Rural Areas. Country stores were the third preferred land use option out of nine land use categories, ranking only behind agricultural and forestal land uses. Country stores could be a primary use in crossroads communities. This component of the Comprehensive Plan should be closely connected to the Historical 23 Draft Rural Areas Comprchcnsive P!Wl Public Hearing 2i9i05 Resources section in the Natural Resources and Cultural Assets chapter of the Comprehensive Plan, which is considered to be a component of rural conservation, as the older surviving historic buildings typically relate directly or indirectly to agricultural pursuits. Furthermore, the Albemarle County Historic Preservation Plan, adopted by the Board of Supervisors in September 2000, identifies the protection of the County's natural, scenic, and historic resources in the Rural Areas as a primary goal. The Historic Preservation Plan also recommends that the County should be more proactive in allowing the reuse of country stores. In crossroads communities, adaptive reuses of historic structures should be permitted where appropriate to encourage their maintenance and preservation. The boundaries of crossroads communities should be well defined to ensure the rural character of the area is maintained. These boundaries should correspond to parcels that have traditionally served as crossroads communities and would serve the immediate surrounding area. The goal would be to limit the area of the crossroads community to the "crossroads" rather than create "strip" development that would not be in character with the Rural Areas. While crossroads communities would not encourage development of the Rural Areas, development that would be expected in the Rural Areas would be encouraged to provide services to the immediate surrounding area of the crossroads community. Crossroads communities are not to become Development Areas or de facto growth areas. Crossroads communities should provide only essential goods and services for their immediate area. Therefore, they will be limited in area and their permissible uses should be carefully delineate. It is imperative that crossroads communities should be established in a manner that would not encourage further development in the Rural Areas. It is desirable to maintain the historic nature of the crossroads communities in the sense that, traditionally, these communities have a simpler ambiance than urban style development. While structures in crossroads communities are located on smaller lots and closer to the road, as is typical with urban-style development, crossroads communities have not traditionally incorporated other typical urban-style characteristics such as strict parking requirements and landscaping. Issues such as number of required parking spaces, parking surfaces, entrance standards, and landscape requirements should be examined to ensure the character of the Rural Areas is maintained. Urban-style site development standards should not be introduced into the Rural Areas. Site improvements should be limited to those that ensure public safety or determined to be necessary through the application process. OBJECTIVE: Establish crossroad communities that would be viable in meeting the goal of providing limited services to the immediate surrounding area of the crossroads community without creating strip development. STRATEGIES: The County should: 1. Encourage the renovation and use of buildings in crossroads communities to provide appropriately scaled services that would only benefit the immediate surrounding area 24 !)raf't Rural f\rl'as Comprehensive Plall Public Hearing 2/9/05 while preserving the rural character. Examples of such services include country stores, crafts, small-scale offices, day care, and small-scale doctor/dentist offices, and public institutional uses, such as post offices, with particular emphasis given to historic buildings as spaces to support the maintenance of these resources. 2. Assure that crossroads communities remain viable rural community/social centers that retain their individual rural historic characteristics while also supporting the broader Growth Management Goals found in the Land Uses Chapter of the Comprehensive Plan. 3. Ensure that the scale and scope of any new use is consistent with the existing infrastructure and character of the crossroads community and Rural Areas, without any requirement for upgrade or expansion of infrastructure. 4. Identify historical sites or potential historical sites, to guide decisions on the location of uses in crossroads communities. 5. Establish design standards, such as architectural, renovation, and sign guidelines, to ensure that the scale and scope of businesses maintain the character of the crossroads communities and support the County's growth management policies. 6. Encourage the adaptive reuses of historic structures that should promote their maintenance and preservation. 7. Implement policies in the Zoning Ordinance that promote the character of the Rural Areas and not urban style development such as relaxing the required parking standards and requirements for parking lot surfaces, entrance requirements, and landscape requirements. Alternative Uses GOAL: Encourage creative and diverse forms of rural production and support rural land uses that provide rural landowners with economic viability. Increasingly, rural landowners come under financial pressure to subdivide their land. Some of those landowners could offset the pressure to subdivide if the County permitted a range ofland use opportunities that provided secondary sources of income on rural parcels. These secondary activities would be intended to provide support for primary uses (agriculture, forestry, etc.), forestall subdivision, or improve the viability of crossroads communities. The County would benefit from the reduced fragmentation of land and the resulting protection of potential agricultural and forestal production, as well as natural and historic resources. This would implement the Guiding Principles by providing alternatives to land fragmentation; supporting local rural economies; encouraging creative and diverse forms of production that increase economic viability for owners of rural parcels; meeting the needs of rural residents; and protecting agricultural and forestal resources, natural and cultural resources, and rural quality of life from the impacts of suburban development. Respondents at the winter 2002-2003 public input meetings moderately favored such alternative uses as home occupations, commercial recreation, and special events, ranking them below agriculture, forestry, and country stores, but above restaurants and offices. The County should review how it permits such uses as farm product sales, home occupations 25 Draft Rural An:<ls Comprchcnsive Plan Public Bearing 2/9/05 (businesses located in homes or accessory structures), some low impact forms of commercial recreation, temporary special events, and arts and crafts sales and other uses suitable for the Rural Areas. The costs and time required for approval of such uses should be minimized. Uses without significant negative impacts on the Rural Areas could be permitted by right, subject to established performance standards; uses with potentially significant impacts should be permitted only by special use permit, if at all. The increasing frequency of applications for home occupations (class B are permitted by special use permit) has made it clear that the current definitions need clarification to ensure that only appropriate uses are permitted. Restructuring the standards that define which uses are permitted by-right and which require special use permits, based on impacts of individual uses rather than simply location (in a house vs. in a detached structure) and number of employees, could streamline approvals for low impact uses and more effectively manage or prevent high impact uses. These standards could also more clearly define which uses (such as those which approximate contractors' storage yards) would not be permitted as home occupations. The Guiding Principles and the Land Use Plan suggest that these home occupation uses be limited to a scale and intensity that will not diminish the character or quality of life in the Rural Areas, encourage suburban development patterns or density, or significantly impact natural or cultural resources. The list of permitted uses and their associated performance standards could be used to ensure that these uses are: . reversible (so that the land can easily return to farming, forestry, conservation, or other preferred rural uses); . scaled and sited to cause minimal impacts on their rural surroundings; . minimal in the their public health and environmental impacts; and . viable with no increase in public infrastructure or services, either at time of approval or later. To minimize the impacts of these uses, the County could avoid requiring parking lot paving, curb and gutter, commercial entrances, and other site improvement features more typically found in the Development Areas. Hospice facilities that provide services for patients and their families could benefit from a rural setting without creating a need for extended utility services or for frequent response from rescue services, unlike retirement and/or convalescent facilities. Historic sites can also be protected through increased flexibility in rural uses. The Historic Preservation Plan recommends that owners of properties listed on the state or national historic registers, or that are contributing structures in historic districts, be enabled to apply for special use permits to allow public tours. As most of these properties are located in the Rural Areas, amending rural policies to allow these tours would be of the most benefit. The scale of these tours and their impacts on their surroundings would be considered and limited during the special use permit review process. Any impacts unique to these uses could be addressed with performance standards. 26 Draft Rurai Areas Comprehensive Plan Public Hearing :::/9!OS In addition, for uses that are not directly related to the agricultural, forestal, or conservation uses of the land, the County could institute a program through which landowners can reduce or eliminate their ability to subdivide their land for the duration of the permitted use. On smaller parcels in crossroads communities, alternative uses would provide opportunities for landowners and the County to support historic preservation. OBJECTIVE: To permit rural landowners to have income producing land uses that will offset financial pressure to subdivide their land but that are consistent with the Guiding Principles regarding rural character and resource protection. STRATEGIES: The County should: 1. Review the Zoning Ordinance to re-evaluate by-right uses and uses by special permit, such as home occupations and farm sales, to encourage uses that promote the preservation of rural lands and activities (including but not limited to farm sales and agricultural service businesses, low-impact forms of recreation, temporary special events, and arts and crafts sales), garden centers, and discourage uses that are contrary to the County's growth management policies (including but not limited to swim or tennis clubs, new schools, and off-site parking for industrial districts). 2. Change farm sales to a by-right use without site plan requirements. 3. Revise the definitions and standards relating to home occupations to streamline approvals for low-impact uses (preferably by right), require special use permits for uses with higher impacts, and clarify which uses will not be permitted as home occupations. 4. Establish performance standards that minimize impacts on natural and cultural resources, and avoid conflicts with agricultural and forestal uses. 5. Revise the Zoning Ordinance to permit tours of National or State registered historic sites or buildings and of contributing structures in historic districts by special use permit, as recommended in the Historic Preservation Plan, and consider performance standards for these uses to mitigate any impacts on the building, historic district, or Rural Areas. 6. Limit the size and intensity of rural alternative uses so that they do not conflict with the character of the Rural Areas. 7. Maintain the existing policy of not expanding public water and sewer service to the Rural Areas, including rural alternative uses. 8. Ensure that subdivision is not possible for the duration of alternative uses that are not related to agriculture, forestry, or conservation. 9. Require alternative uses located in the Rural Areas to use lighting (if any) that conforms to the design specifications found in the Natural Resources and Cultural Assets Plan. 10. Consider allowing hospice facilities within the Rural Areas. 27 Draft Rural Areas Comprehensive Plan Public Hearing 2/9/05 LAND USE PATTERNS, DENSITY AND RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT INTRODUCTION The Growth Management Policy of the Comprehensive Plan is a fundamental commitment to retaining the Rural Areas as an asset to the County. The rural character of Albemarle provides significant environmental, economic, and quality-of-life benefits to the County and its residents. The character and qualities of the Rural Areas are affected most significantly by patterns of development. As noted in the Introduction, the Rural Areas are being impacted by consistent residential development and land subdivision, and a declining agricultural economy, which drives further land conversion. A major impact of this land conversion is the fragmentation oflarge units ofland. Those units might be individual parcels, or areas of forest or other vegetation that do not correspond to a single parcel. Agriculture, forestry, and resource conservation share an interest in avoiding this fragmentation. Forestry and many forms of agriculture depend on large parcels of land to provide sufficient area for a viable scale of production. Division of rural parcels both takes significant areas out of production and leaves remnant pieces that are no longer large enough to be economically viable for farming or forestry. Beyond the size of individual parcels, a general pattern of larger parcels both ensures contiguous areas of production that make viable support industries possible and minimizes nuisance and other conflicts with nearby suburbanized residential areas. There are, of course, exceptions to this rule. Specialty or niche vegetable growers, for example, can sometimes succeed on smaller lots, as long as incompatible nearby uses does not lead to conflicts. While these uses are not common in the County, they do provide an opportunity for appropriate rural uses where small to moderately sized parcels have already been created. Avoidance of fragmentation is also essential in the conservation of plant and wildlife habitats. The County's rural land is a variable mosaic of uses and land covers. In anyone place, the dominant land characteristic, or "matrix," might be pasture, deciduous forest, lawns and residences, or any of the other common rural land use patterns. Within the matrix are patches of different character residential lots in a matrix of forest, remnant woods within a matrix of pastures. Linear features such as streams and roads act as both corridors and barriers (roads, for example, provide movement for vehicles and the seeds of invasive plants, but can be barriers to mammals and amphibians). See the "Biological Resources and Biodiversity" section of the Natural Resources and Cultural Assets Component of the Plan for more on habitat fragmentation. Many animal species require large areas of habitat for basic life functions (feeding, breeding, etc.), while many plants and animals require specific habitats connected by safe corridors. In 28 Draft Rl[m! Arcas CQmprchl'l1sivl' Plan Public Hearing 2!9i05 some cases, the species need large areas that may not correspond to any single recognized parcel of land, or that connect via corridors that cross many parcels. A general pattern of large parcels and unbroken corridors is as important as the size of any individual parcel. Landscape ecologist Richard Forman (author of Land Mosaics, a work built on a survey oflandscape research studies) notes four essential aspects to be protected in a landscape plan; he states that "no substitute for their benefits is known." These four aspects are (1) "a few large patches of natural vegetation;" (2) "wide vegetation corridors along major water courses;" (3) "connectivity for movement of key species among the large patches;" and (4) "heterogeneous bits of nature throughout human developed areas." The subdivision ofland for the construction of residences is the central factor in the ongoing fragmentation of rural land. It has serious implications for the viability of rural industries and successful resource conservation and protection, and therefore has a significant impact on the character of the Rural Areas that we experience. The scattering of residential development creates unsustainable fiscal impacts on the County. It also leads to "accidental house arrest" for elderly residents caught beyond the reach of public transportation. The Rural Areas are currently zoned to create a pattern of small "development right" lots (as small as 2 acres, but generally ranging from 2 to 10 acres in practice) and moderately sized "estate lots" (21 acres). Neither size is considered sufficient for viable agriculture (except perhaps some specialty or niche farming uses), forestry, or conservation. The continuing spread of this pattern is steadily converting the Rural Areas from a relatively un-fragmented landscape to one that is becoming highly fragmented and characterized largely by small parcel sizes and a suburban character. There currently exist (June 2003) nearly 7,500 undeveloped tax map parcels (parcels without dwelling units) in the Rural Areas zoning district (some of which may consist of multiple legal parcels, each with development rights), and more than 12,500 developed parcels. The 1989 Comprehensive Plan reported "more than 7,500" undeveloped parcels and "more than 9,600" developed parcels. The changes in those numbers seen by 2003 reflect both the ongoing rate of subdivision and the construction of dwelling units on previously unoccupied parcels. In 1996, the Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission estimated that the Rural Areas could accommodate 54,867 more housing units. The large number of existing and potential lots must be considered in determining an acceptable level of new Rural Areas subdivision activity. Furthermore, the tendency to use 21-acre parcels for home sites rather than for agricultural/forestal uses must be recognized in developing strategies to preserve rural land. In addition to fragmentation, rural subdivision creates conflicts between residential uses and rural economic activities, increases service delivery needs, and permanently alters the natural, scenic, and historic landscape. Fragmentation also reduces the economic viability of the agricultural and forestry industry. To be consistent with the Guiding Principles, the County's land development policies must be changed to stop the ongoing trend toward fragmentation and loss of rural character. 29 Draft Rurai Arl'<ls Comprehensive Pian Pubiic Hearing :U9i05 New policies should focus on protecting existing large parcels from fragmentation, preserving a general pattern characterized by farms, forests, and habitat corridors. and reducin2: the potential overall level of residential development and loss of rural character. Implementation of these policies to address residential density and pattern of development should be the County's hi2:hest priority. The County should aggressively pursue implementation mechanisms that include phasing of development, changing the formula for calculating the number and size of lots within Rural Preservation Developments, decreasing the size of residential lots, increasing the size of the preservation parcels in RPDs, and, with few exceptions, requiring that RPDs to be the standard for residential subdivisions. WATER CONSERVATION AND WATER PROTECTION MEASURES GOAL: Protect the quality and supply of surface water and groundwater resources. The County's Rural Areas depend on an adequate supply of safe water for human consumption and other uses, and are the source of the majority of the water used by in the Development Areas and the City of Charlottesville. The quality and quantity of our water supply, and the health of aquatic ecosystems, largely depend on the character of rural land uses and land covers. Healthy watersheds provide four essential ecosystem services to the community: (1) recharge of aquifers that supply both wells and reservoirs; (2) moderation of flood flows, which reduces stream bank erosion and prevents loss of reservoir capacity from sedimentation; (3) clean water, which reduces water treatment needs and provides for healthy aquatic life and safe recreation; and (4) protection of plant and animal habitat in and around streams. The features that generally make healthy watersheds possible are large areas of forest, low amounts of impervious surface, and well protected soils. Forests provide good groundwater recharge and moderated flood flows. Forested stream buffers are particularly important, as they provide flood moderation, water quality protection, habitat and landscape connectivity for plants and animals, and recreational opportunities. Rivers and streams through the County, from intermittent and ephemeral streams to the Rivanna River, should have forested buffers wherever possible. Pervious surfaces slow runoff and reduce erosion. Soils that are protected from compaction and erosion are less likely to erode, and will more efficiently recharge groundwater, which flows to wells, streams, and reservoirs. These features can be more effectively managed in a land use pattern defined by large rural parcels, where land cover characteristics can be more easily protected and improved than in developed areas. Protecting and restoring healthy watersheds should be a goal for Rural Areas policies and programs. For more details on this topic, see The Albemarle County Rural Areas as a Source of Watershed Ecosystem Services, prepared by the Water Resources division of the Department of Engineering and Public Works. Where development is permitted, the County faces patterns of water consumption and contamination influenced by the layout of residential subdivisions. Currently, some impacts are managed through the Water Protection Ordinance, but this approach does not typically address overall subdivision layout. The information currently being obtained regarding recharge areas and other critical aspects of the groundwater system, as well as research into stream health, will 30 Draft Rural Areas Comprehensive Plan Public Hearing :U9!05 allow the County to develop standards for subdivision layouts that protect both groundwater and surface water from contamination. Stream buffers and groundwater infiltration areas can also be incorporated into designs as protected areas, and would be especially effective where forest vegetation is either protected or reestablished. The Groundwater Committee is working to develop appropriate standards for groundwater testing for proposed subdivisions. Once adopted, the recommendations of the committee can be used as appropriate to better manage the groundwater resource. CRITICAL RESOURCES AND RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT IMPACTS GOAL: Protect critical natural resources identified in the Comprehensive Plan from the impacts of residential development. The ongoing Critical Resources Inventory is identifying areas and resources of high importance to the County, in addition to those already identified in the Open Space and Critical Resources Plan. These areas should not be converted to rural residential uses, and the County will need tools to prevent that conversion. One approach is to establish overlay districts that set standards to protect sites and resources of value. For example, the direction set by the current Flood Hazard Overlay District and the Water Protection Ordinance's standards for stream corridors could be combined with goals set by the Biodiversity Committee to establish a riparian buffer overlay district that addresses both water quality concerns and the need for connectivity between wildlife habitats (see Map D, Hazards and Limiting Factors). The Zoning Ordinance currently requires that building sites not include critical slopes or floodplains, but does not consider other resources. The building site definition should also be revised to avoid important resources and hazard areas identified by the Critical Resources Inventory, the County's ongoing groundwater studies, debris flow hazard studies, and other sources of applicable information. In order to protect existing areas of forest and other natural areas that provide habitat, resource protection, and other values in the face of permitted development, it will be necessary to include these resources in the design standards set by the zoning and subdivision Ordinances. Residential development should be directed away from large areas of forest, wildlife corridors, and highly valued habitats. Where development is approved, impacts can be mitigated through creative measures including but not limited to conservation easement donations, riparian buffer plantings and corridor establishments, and habitat restorations. This should be true for both clustered and non-clustered subdivisions. On a smaller scale, individual homes, roads, stormwater management facilities, and other constructed features of residential subdivisions should be directed away from important or sensitive habitat areas. The results of the biodiversity assessment and the recommendations of the Biodiversity Committee should be considered in the development of tools to address these impacts. In 1996, the Mountain Protection Committee recommended standards for driveways that would avoid the erosion impacts of the creation of steep slopes, and ensure safe access to residences for 31 [)raft Rural Areas Comprchcnsive Plan Public Hcaring ::;;<)/05 private vehicles and emergency services. However, erosion on steep slopes and safe access are of concern throughout the Rural Areas. The County can address these concerns through driveway standards for the Rural Areas as a whole, and should adopt those that will reduce the erosion impacts of residential development and ensure safe access. MOUNT AINS GOAL: Incorporate new and anticipated information to update the existing Mountain Protection Plan. The Natural Resources and Cultural Assets Plan was amended to include a section on Mountains in 1998. That section's objective is to "[p]ursue additional protection measures to protect mountain resources and to promote public safety in these areas of exceptional critical slopes and higher elevations." Several aspects of the County's mountains are identified as areas of concern, including critical slopes; soils; water quality and quantity; forest and agricultural resources; debris flows; plant and animal habitat; scenic resources and their economic impact; dark skies; and tourism. Because the majority of the County's mountains are located in the Rural Areas, rural residential development and land use policies will have a significant impact on these aspects of the mountains. Policies established elsewhere in this chapter will also assist in the effort to protect mountain resources. In 1996, The Mountain Protection Committee recommended changing the 2l-acre minimum lot size to 42 acres, largely based on the expected size required for viability of commercial forestry. Recommendations also were offered for improved clustering in RPDs, more detailed requirements for building sites, and reduced or eliminated minimum lot sizes. By addressing these critical issues for the whole area, the County can also achieve many of its mountain protection goals. The ongoing Critical Resources Inventory is expected to provide detailed information that will need to be included in the consideration of mountain protection policies. Plant and animal habitats were included as one aspect of the mountains in need of protection. The outcome of the ongoing biodiversity assessment is expected to provide more information on the mountains' role in providing habitat and landscape connectivity, and to identify unusual habitats and landscape features found in the mountains that are in need of protection. Other elements of the Critical Resources Inventory should also be considered as appropriate. Since the adoption of the Mountains section of the Natural Resources and Cultural Assets Component of the Plan in 1998, the County has received more detailed information and mapping regarding debris flow hazard areas. Residential construction and other development activities in these areas can pose a significant safety risk. These areas are also highly susceptible to groundwater contamination. Codes implementing the County's mountain protection policies should include measures to prevent construction in these areas and to avoid creating hazards. 32 Draft Rural Areas Comprchcnsive Plan Public Hearing 2/9/05 The 1998 Mountain policy should be maintained. However, policies affecting the mountains should be revised or designed to include the new and expected information discussed above. DENSITY AND DEVELOPMENT GOAL: Reduce the level and rate of residential development in the Rural Areas, and minimize the impacts of permitted development. The ongoing conversion of rural land from farms, forests, open spaces, and natural habitats to residential uses is a central issue for the County. Despite the community's established goals for rural area protection, existing regulations are not achieving these goals because they are permitting this conversion to continue with few hindrances (see Map A, 2000 Population Density). Rural residential development has two key impacts: fragmentation impacts on the land, and density related impacts (including but not limited to inefficient public facilities demands, change in rural character, increased traffic on dangerous rural roads, and pollution and erosion impacts). The most effective methods for protecting rural land from these impacts will continue to be those that ensure long term or permanent prevention of development of parcels in the Rural Areas (including but not limited to conservation easements). Regulations that control the form of residential development may reduce fragmentation to a small degree, but will not significantly reduce its impacts, nor affect density-related impacts at all, if overall density is not reduced. Where development cannot be avoided with the use of conservation easements and other land- protection tools, the impacts of rural residential development can be reduced by altering the pattern of permitted development. The current pattern can be improved upon significantly to reduce impacts on an individual site and its surroundings. However, this approach does not alter the overall impact of residential growth in the Rural Areas and should be considered secondary to true conservation efforts. However, as a certain level of residential development will be permitted in the Rural Areas, the County must address the location, character, and extent of this development in order to minimize its impacts. Rural Preservation Developments (see below), have the most potential to reduce the impacts of the currently permitted level of residential land use. Therefore, Rural Preservation Developments (cluster development) is the preferred method for all residential subdivision and should be required for all Rural Areas subdivisions, with exceptions made only in cases where properties are too small for clustering to make a significant difference (where preservation tracts would be too small for effective conservation). Addressing rural residential development (both by limiting its extent and by implementing designs that reduce the impacts of permitted development) would implement the Guiding Principles by protecting agriculture and forestry resources; conserving and preserving land; protecting water quality and quantity; protecting natural and cultural resources; directing development into the Development Areas; creating development standards appropriate to the Rural Areas and implement the Natural Resources and Cultural Assets Plan. 33 Draft Rural Areas Comprehensive Plan Public Hearing 219105 Rural Preservation Developments Rural Preservation Development (RPD) was added to the Zoning Ordinance in 1989 as an alternative to the conventional development subdivision in the Rural Areas zoning district. The RPD subdivision option was intended to encourage more effective land usage, while retaining all development potential available under conventional subdivision. As a tool to address development patterns, RPDs place the same number of residential development as permitted under conventional subdivision regulations on smaller parcels in a more compact neighborhood. However, the RPD subdivision contains standards that provide protection for natural resources, farmland, forestland, historic resources and scenic views. The benefits for the landowner include a reduction in development costs; the creation of smaller, more marketable development lots; obtaining the full economic benefit of development while retaining a substantial portion of the land for agricultural, forestal or rural recreational uses; preservation of important aesthetic aspects of the land which can enhance both the desirability and the marketability of lots; and protection of sensitive environmental aspects of the land. The benefits to citizens include the permanent preservation of large areas of land that can be used for agricultural and forestal production, recreational uses, water supply protection, and the conservation of natural, scenic and historic resources. Rural preservation developments are a tool by which the County can impact the way development occurs in the Rural Areas. As stated above, it is the preferred method of subdivision in the Rural Areas and, with few exceptions, should be made the only way land in the Rural Areas could be subdivided. However, it should be clearly noted that Rural Preservation Developments are not a way to encourage residential development in the Rural Areas. Between 1990 and 2003, 13 Rural Preservation Developments containing 2,886 acres were approved. These RPDs contain 275 development lots, 17 preservation parcels, and have permanently preserved 1,843 acres. The preservation parcels range from 16% of the total RPD acres to 84% ofthe total acres. The average development lot size is 3.72 acres. In some cases, the landowners did not request that the RPD contain the full number of development right lots that would have been permitted under conventional development. Although land has been preserved that may not have been otherwise, Rural Preservation Developments cannot be considered a success when compared with the rate rural land has been subdivided using conventional subdivision methods. For example, in 1993 (the year with the most acreage in RPDs and three RPDs recorded): 1993 RPD ACTIVITY Total Acres 663.61 acres Development Lots 53 acres Average Lot Size 3.6 acres TotalinRPD 470.1 acres Total in Lots 190.8 acres Percent in RPT 70.84 % 1993 CONVENTIONAL ACTIVITY Total Acres 3,205 acres Total Lots 273 lots Average Lot Size 11.74 acres 34 Draft Ruml Areas Comprehensive Plan Public Bearing 219/05 The reasons that RPDs have not reached their full potential are varied, but the most dominant reason given by applicants is the special use permit application process. However, effective July 1,2004, state law will require that localities allow the by-right clustering of single family dwellings (RPDs), if the locality has clustering provisions in place. State law provides that, in establishing standards, conditions, and criteria for clustering, the Board of Supervisors may include any provisions it determines appropriate to ensure quality development, preservation of open space, and compliance with its comprehensive plan and land use ordinances. When considering standards for Rural Preservation Developments, it will be important to ensure that the standards achieve the objectives contained in the Guiding Principles. The development standards should ensure, and have as the highest priority, the protection of the natural environment, scenic and historic resources, water supply resources, agricultural and forestal land, and open space. A maximum lot size, a minimum percentage of the RPD placed in a preservation parcel, and the phasing of development should be considered. A survey of existing Rural Preservation Developments in the County has revealed that although RPDs preserve large areas of land, most of the RPDs have been subdivided into large lot residential developments. Accomplishment of the purpose for RPDs - to provide a more effective land usage, while retaining all development potential available under conventional subdivision - will require the same philosophy as that of all residential development in the Rural Areas: minimize the amount of land used for residential development in order to maximize the amount of land that is available for agriculture, forestry, open space, natural, scenic and historic resources. In order to accomplish this goal, consideration of fewer residential lots may be necessary. RPDs, like any other development in the Rural Areas, should not become a justification for extending public services to the Rural Areas. Other Rural Areas Issues Development Right Lot Sizes The Zoning Ordinance currently permits development right lots as small as two acres, but allows the five development rights on any parcel (including access roads) to occupy up to 31 acres--an average of approximately 6 acres per lot (although anyone lot could theoretically be much larger than 6 acres). Instituting a maximum acreage for individual development right lots could significantly reduce the total area used for residential development. A flat maximum lot size would also prevent the creation of subdivisions that meet the 31-acre total by creating some quite large lots and some smaller ones, with the average being six acres. However, a maximum development right parcel size will result in residues of less than the maximum non-development right parcel size on some parent parcels. In those cases, the residue should be assigned to one of the development right parcels, and that parcel should not be further subdivided. The current minimum lot size of2 acres is significantly larger than the 30,000-square-foot (0.68 35 [)raft Rural I,reus Comprehcnsive Plan Public Hearing 2/9/()5 acre) building site currently required by the Zoning Ordinance. This building site is considered sufficient to provide space for a dwelling and two septic field locations (primary and backup). Although additional space is needed to ensure a safe well location and some flexibility to work with terrain, the minimum parcel size could be reduced. This would potentially reduce the amount of land developed and reduce the price of rural lots. The Village Residential zoning district--largely represented by developed land in rural villages--currently permits lots of approximately 1.5 acres, or 0.92 acres under bonus density provisions. The County could develop standards that would permit similar minimum parcel sizes in the Rural Areas zoning district, ensuring first that well water safety can be sufficiently protected and that each lot has enough space for backup wells to ensure a viable water supply. Phasing of Subdivisions (Time-release) The 1980 Zoning Ordinance granted up to five development rights to all rural parcels of record, and made possible by-right creation of 21-acre lots. Since that time, it has been possible to use all the potential lots from a parent parcel at once to create a rural residential development. Rather than simply providing needed income to rural landowners who intend to keep the majority of their land intact, this approach has led to the Rural Areas being used as a low density development area. Under current regulations, rural subdivisions can be created at least as easily as within the designated Development Areas. A phasing or time-release requirement, permitting only a limited number of lots to be created from a given parcel over a fixed period of years is one approach to this problem. Such a program would permit landowners to use their development potential to meet occasional financial needs, but would not readily permit the creation of entire subdivisions or encourage land speculation for that purpose. Since the total development potential is not reduced by such a program, it will not be effective unless the required time period is long enough to discourage piecemeal approvals that effectively create the same development pattern that is now occurring. The table below shows the numbers of lots approved per Rural Areas subdivision application from 1999 to 2002. Divisions creating one new lot accounted for 33.6% of all new lots. The numbers of applications for more lots are significantly lower. Setting the appropriate time limits would necessitate balancing the needs of landowners for occasional lot sales with the County's goals of avoiding residential development of suburban character and scale in the Rural Areas. 36 Draft Rural Areus Comprehcnsivc Plan Public Bearing 219/()5 Rural Areas Subdivisions, 1999-2002 Lots Created Applications Lots Percentage of per Application Approved Approved Total Lots 1 234 234 33.6% 2 34 68 9.8% 3 12 36 5.2% 4 8 32 4.6% 5 8 40 5.7% 6 7 42 6.0% 7 3 21 3.0% 8 1 8 1.1% 10 1 10 1.4% 11 1 11 1.6% 12 1 12 1.7% 13 2 26 3.7% 16 1 16 2.3% 19 1 19 2.7% 20 3 60 8.6% 25 1 25 3.6% 37 1 37 5.3% Grand Total 319 697 100.0% II Family Divisions In order to support the ability of rural families to transfer land to immediate relatives, the County permits "family divisions." These divisions are subject to a lesser review standard. However, in order to discourage the resale of these lots for non-family related development, the County requires that the owner of the new parcel hold it for a minimum of two years. Increasing this period could dissuade the resale of family division lots without inconveniencing family members who intend to remain on the land. Requiring the family to hold the land for a certain period before family divisions are permitted would help to ensure that relatively easy family divisions do not provide an incentive to purchase and divide large parcels. Rural Divisions The Subdivision Ordinance currently includes reduced review standards for "rural divisions," which are subdivisions that create lots of 5 acres or more with at least 250 feet of public road frontage. On some parent parcels, it is possible to create entire residential developments through this simpler process. (Five development right lots of five acres or more can be created under the 31-acre rule.) In other cases, it is possible to create a residential development without full review 37 [)raft Rural ;\reus Comprehensive Plan Public Hearing 2/9/05 by using a combination of rural division and two-lot subdivision applications, neither of which requires the full review applied to standard subdivisions. The subdivision process should be revised to ensure better designs and consistent reviews. There are some minor exceptions, such as some boundary adjustments, where a reduced level of review is appropriate. Transfer of Development Rights The Transfer of Development Rights provides communities with a potentially powerful tool for redirecting growth from one area of a community to another. Under a TDR program, the County could allow higher density development in the development areas in exchange for lower densities in the Rural Areas. Once a program was established, developers in the development areas would be allowed to build more dwelling units than permitted by the zoning regulations, provided that they purchased development rights from landowners in the Rural Areas. Through these purchases, the development potential in the rural areas would be gradually transferred to the development areas. TDR programs are not expressly enabled by the state legislature and, under the Dillon Rule, the power to establish them cannot be necessarily implied. Therefore, the state must pass enabling legislation for the County to be able to use this valuable planning tool. The legislature, so far, is unwilling to support TDR programs. The County should use every means available to advocate TDRs as a significant growth management tool that would support the goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan. OBJECTIVES: . Achieve the Vision for Rural Albemarle County by limiting the extent of residential development in the Rural Areas and establishing a land use pattern based on protecting large parcels and valuable resources for farming, forestry, natural resource conservation, and other rural activities. . Preserve open space, natural resources, farmland, forest land, and natural, historic and scenic resources, while preserving the economic value of the land for rural uses. . Minimize the amount of land used for residential development in order to maximize the amount of land that is available for agriculture, forestry, open space, natural, scenic and historic resources. STRATEGIES: The County should: 1. Require Rural Preservation Development (clustering) for all Rural Areas subdivisions, with exceptions to be determined with this Chapter's implementation. 2. Maximize to the extent possible the rural preservation parcel in RPDs, in terms of size and benefit to the natural environment, scenic resources, historic resources, agricultural and forestal soils and uses by requiring that the preservation parcel be contiguous and with a minimum percentage of the total acres of the RPD Reduce the impact of the 38 Draft Rural Areas Comprehensin' Plan Public Hearing 2/9/05 development parcels by minimizing to the greatest amount feasible the acreage used for residential parcels within a Rural Preservation Development by establishing a maximum residential lot size. The preservation parcel should not be less than 80% of the total acreage in the RPD. The residential parcel sizes shall be determined with this Chapter's implementation. 3. Require that residential lots should be clustered together, to the extent possible, in order to reduce the impacts of fragmentation and to avoid conflicts with agricultural and/or forestal uses. 4. Require that the primary consideration for the location of residential lots and the preservation tract in RPDs must be the protection and conservation of rural open space and/or natural, historic, or scenic resources, as well as the conservation and protection of critical slopes, stream valleys, floodplains, perennial streams, prime, important or unique agricultural or forestal, non-tidal wetlands, water supply watersheds, groundwater recharge areas,_and mountain protection areas, as described in Chapter Two of the Comprehensive Plan. S. Adopt standards and restrictions for subdivisions that are consistent with the policies of the Comprehensive Plan and of the Rural Areas Guiding Principles. 6. Restrict access for all development lots in RPDs to an internal street in accordance with Chapter 14 of the Code of Albemarle. 7. Restrict the number of RPD lots to no more than the number that could be achieved with a conventional subdivision. 8. Encourage the connectivity of conservation land wherever feasible by locating the RPD conservation easement adjacent to other conservation easement properties. 9. Set a maximum acreage for development right lots in subdivisions that will effect a significant reduction in land consumption through development compared to the current 31-acre total for five development rights, while ensuring reasonable flexibility to make wells and septic fields possible in difficult terrain. 10. Adopt a phasing (time-release) program that would permit a limited number oflot(s) to be created in a fixed period of time. 11. Establish overlay districts (for example, a combined stream buffer and habitat corridor district) and building site definitions that better protect important resources identified in the Comprehensive Plan and Critical Resources Inventory from the impacts of residential development. 12. Address the impacts of residential development on biodiversity by altering zoning and subdivision regulations to include design criteria that direct residential development away from large areas of forest, wildlife corridors, and highly valued habitats, and by implementing the recommendations of the Biodiversity Committee. 13. Adopt programs and regulations to implement the mountain protection goals identified in the Natural Resources and Cultural Assets section of the Comprehensive Plan, in accord with new information on debris flow hazard areas and with the future input of the Critical Resources Inventory. 14. Set standards that limit the slopes and curvature of driveways in the Rural Areas to prevent erosion and provide safe access. 15. Limit or prevent residential development in debris flow hazard areas as needed to protect public safety. 39 [)rafi E ural Art'us Comprehensive Plan PubliC Hearing 2/9/05 16. Require use oflighting that conforms to the design specifications found in the Natural Resources and Cultural Assets Component of the Plan in all residential development approvals. 17. Revise time requirements for family ownership both before and after a family division. 18. Actively support enabling legislation for the Transfer of Development Rights. When TDR programs are enabled, the County should adopt measures for implementation. 19. Consider adopting the Chesapeake Bay Act's provision regarding maintenance of septic- tank systems. LAND USE PATTERNS AND COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING GOAL: Develop tools that help the County envision the interactions and possible outcomes of Rural Area policies and measure the success of policies and programs. The Guiding Principles reflect the complexity of the elements that make up the Rural Areas. Planning for these elements should not occur in isolation but should ensure that the County's policies and programs are integrated and consistent in order to maximize their effectiveness in achieving the Vision for the Rural Areas. Changes to Rural Areas programs and regulations, as well as future revisions of the Comprehensive Plan, should make certain that all of the land elements in the Guiding Principles-including agriculture and forestry, land preservation and biodiversity, open space conservation, water resources, and natural, scenic, and cultural resources--can be accommodated in a finite land area over a long period of time. To implement this approach, it will be necessary for the County to have an understanding of how these land elements relate and interact. However, tracking all of these aspects over the expanse of the Rural Areas is a difficult task, and summary measures are needed to make such an effort practical. An accepted set of indicators can summarize the status of important resources and features. These indicators are referred to as "rural area status indicators." In developing them, the County should consider what data about rural land (for example, degrees of land fragmentation, density of residential uses, water quality indicators, favorability of conditions for agriculture, etc.) can be reasonably collected, and what values for each measure are needed to achieve a positive status. To give this data a link to the on-the-ground reality ofland use and land cover in the County, the County could add a mapping element to the indicators that would show the current status of natural and cultural resources. This plan can help citizens and policy makers visualize the status of the Rural Areas, which can be difficult to do with data and abstract analysis. To be useful, such indicators and maps need to be developed with the input of experts in various fields. Frequent and regular reviews of changes shown by the indicators and the maps can be used to inform future policy, program, and regulatory changes. 40 Draft Rural An'as Comprehensive Plan Public Hearing 219i05 Ecological Footprint Analysis is an accounting method for estimating the land area that a community needs to supply its resource needs. It is similar to fiscal impact studies already used by the County, but rather than expressing costs in dollars, it measures impacts in acres. Such a method could be used to estimate the outcomes of both County policies and proposed land uses. Adapting this method for the County's purposes could provide a tool for considering impacts on ecosystem services (air and water quality, septic absorption, climate mitigation, soil productivity, etc.) and natural systems caused by permitted or proposed land uses, as well as other activities. Another tool that would be useful for future Comprehensive Plan revisions is a landscape futures scenario process. Rather than accommodating predicted trends, this process sets a desired set of physical landscape conditions (the "scenario") that is then used as a guide for policy development. Participants in the process are presented with maps and/or pictures of an area under various future combinations of land uses and land covers. Informed by their own knowledge and preferences and the community's goals, participants choose a best case scenario, and policies are used to attempt to meet this goal. OBJECTIVES: . Effectively implement policies that acknowledge the complex interactions of the elements of the Guiding Principles and strive to achieve each Principle without hindering the overall vision. . Review future changes to County policies, regulations, and programs to ensure that all aspects ofthe Rural Areas are considered as a whole. Policies, programs, and regulations that address only one Principle to the detriment of others should be avoided or, where already in place, revised. STRATEGIES: The County should: 1. Adopt a set of Rural Areas status indicators and develop a set of frequently updated maps (or map layers) that show the status and trends of Rural Areas resources and features. These measures should be reviewed annually to inform policy, program, and regulation changes. 2. Develop a method of ecological footprint analysis to be used in estimating the impacts of proposed policies and land uses, and use that method in policy analysis and project reVIew. 3. Before the next revision of this chapter of the Comprehensive Plan, engage in a participatory process that establishes a vision for achieving agricultural and forestal land conservation, biodiversity protection, watershed protection, historic preservation and other land use goals on a shared landscape. Use the outcomes ofthis process to guide an overall landscape plan for achieving the Vision for Rural Albemarle County. 41 Draft Rural i\rt'as Comprehensive Plan Public Hearing 2,9105 INFRASTRUCTURE/COMMUNITY SERVICES TRANSPORTATION GOAL: Provide safe, effective transportation options while preserving the character of the Rural Areas. The primary objective of the Rural Areas Chapter is to preserve the rural character of the county. Depending on ones perspective, there can be many interpretations of what rural character means. In regard to transportation issues in the Rural Areas, it should not be the commuter that defines rural character; rather the local residents should define the context of rural character. It should be recognized that rural roads are the sites of most of the county's fatal automobile accidents (see Map J). Increasing the numbers of persons driving the rural roads is an unavoidable consequence of increased residential development in the rural area. A goal of the Rural Areas should be to keep residential increase to a minimum in order not to increase the numbers of drivers on rural roads. There are not enough fiscal resources to make all rural roads safe, especially when impacted with greatly increased traffic. Rural character could be described as a scenic landscape of open spaces, and is also composed of the human activities upon that landscape that define rural life. Consideration should be given to the multi-modal function of rural roads, giving non-motorized users equal consideration in rural neighborhoods and where otherwise appropriate. When possible, rural roads should be designed in such a manner that drivers passing through Rural Areas are alert to and moving at appropriate speed to react safely to slower moving farm equipment, bicyclists, horseback riders, or children walking from a school bus stop. County roads should maintain their rural character, even when changes are made to them. Road improvements should not only provide for safe and reasonable mobility, but also contribute to the rural character of the County. Roads should be identified that provide for connections/destination routes to serve the rural population and to provide farm-to-market functions. It should be clearly noted that these secondary roads should not be designated or designed to become the impetus for growth corridors. Transportation improvements should be designed in context with their setting. During the Rural Areas Public Meetings held during the winter of 2002-2003, citizen comments indicated that their primary concern was for the safety and maintenance of the County's rural roads. Road improvements, such as installing shoulders and guardrails, were preferred over building new roads. Many rural residents responded that they did not want to see transportation funding that could contribute to the safety of rural roads be channeled into the Development Areas. There was also public sentiment for alternative transportation possibilities such as JAUNT, public transport stations, and traffic calming. The County should coordinate alternative 42 !)raft Rural I\rcas Comprehcnsive Plan Public Hearing 219105 transportation possibilities with the appropriate agents, such as VDOT, at the time development or road construction occurs. Unpaved Roads There are currently 227 miles of unpaved secondary roads in the County. At the end of2002, the Virginia Department of Transportation introduced a program to pave rural roads in the County that is an alternative to the Pave-In-Place Program. The Rural Rustic Roads Program is designed to pave rural roads in a more environmentally friendly and less costly manner than the rarely used and more restrictive Pave-In-Place Program. The goal of the program is to pave more miles of roads with the limited funds available, doing so with no or minimal encroachment beyond existing ditches and without compromising the safety of the road. For a road to be considered a candidate for the program, the road must be a priority in the County Six-Year Plan; it must be part of the State's secondary system of highways and have an average daily trip count of no less than SO and no more than SOO; and it must also be familiar to most drivers and serve low-density land uses. In addition to the above criteria, the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors must pledge to designate a candidate road as a Rural Rustic Road and pass a resolution for each candidate road. Furthermore, the Board would have to pledge to limit growth along the candidate road through comprehensive planning and zoning. The Rural Rustic Roads Program would better meet the Guiding Principles for the Rural Areas than the Pave-In-Place Program. By using existing road widths for road improvements, rather than increasing road widths, the goal of preserving the County's rural scenic resources would be more obtainable. General Design Standards for Rural Roads The following are general design standards for roads in the Rural Areas and should be coordinated with the Department of Engineering: 1. Rural roads should be designed to retain their rural character and not be designed to the characteristics of suburban subdivision street standards. 2. Rural roads should consist of minimum travelway widths that are necessary for safety. 3. Typical rural section design (shoulders and ditch) should consist of greater horizontal and vertical curvature. 4. As is not always the case, Virginia Department of Transportation Mountainous Road Standards should be applicable to the Rural Areas roads. Exceptions to these may be appropriate in the rural crossroads communities where the character of those areas may dictate pedestrian facilities and road designs. 5. Rural roads should be designed to encourage multi-modal travel opportunities. 6. Design the construction of road improvements to be protective of environmentally sensitive areas. Any anticipated road improvements or construction in fragile areas 43 Draft Rural Areus Comprehcnsin~ Plan Pubiic Hearing 219105 should receive careful scrutiny and provide protection measures to eliminate ecological, environmental, and aesthetic concerns. 7. Minimize clearing activities associated with construction to the greatest extent feasible. 8. Minimize the number of access points on rural roads to those necessary to provide safe and convenient access. OBJECTIVES: . Provide a balance between the safety of rural roads and maintaining the rural character. . Evaluate the need to establish rural road design standards to help articulate expectations for road design that meet this balance. STRATEGIES: The County should: 1. Focus road improvements on safety improvements such as providing shoulders, guardrails, and spot improvements such as straightening curves rather than the paving and widening of rural roads. 2. Pursue the Rural Rustic Roads Program as an alternative to the Pave-In-Place program for qualified roads that have been designated to be paved by the County. The Rural Rustic Roads Program is a more environmentally friendly and less costly way than the Pave-In-Place Program. 3. Consider expanding transportation alternatives, such as JAUNT, to provide and enhance rural transit opportunities. 4. Explore new transportation alternatives such as park and ride lots and traffic calming in crossroad communities. S. Except for agricultural and forestal purposes, limit construction of new roads in the Rural Areas, especially where road building would impact or fragment natural habitats. 6. Require that new-road projects and road improvement projects include measures that avoid degrading habitats or actively improve them (for example, wildlife tunnels where roads cross migration corridors, stream crossing designs that consider habitat connectivity as well as flood level impacts, etc.). 7. Identify roads that would provide for connections/destination routes to serve the rural population and to provide farm-to-market routes. It should be clearly noted that these secondary roads should not be designated or designed to become the impetus for growth corridors. WATER AND SEWAGE DISPOSAL GOAL: Protect public health and water quality from the impacts of proliferating septic systems in the Rural Areas. Current County policy is to restrict development in water supply watersheds and to discourage the location of public facilities such as public sewer and water lines in the Rural Areas. Current 44 !)rafi Eurui Art'us Comprehensive Pian Public Hearing 2/9/05 County policy also does not support central water and sewer systems. The underlying goal of the County is to protect public health and the environment. As of 2002, there were 16,994 dwelling units in the Rural Areas. Based on the 1996 Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission build-out report, there is the potential for another approximately S4,867 dwelling units in the Rural Areas. Conservatively, there is the possibility of 66,000 dwelling units in the Rural Areas that would have a need for water supply and septic servIces. Considering this build-out scenario, according to the report entitled Technology Choices for Water & Wastewater, written by the County's Water Resources Manager, there would be an overall water demand of 16.S million gallons of water per day provided by individual wells and 13.2 million gallons of wastewater per day disposed into conventional septic tanks and drainfields (based on current demand figures from the Albemarle County Service Authority). If the disposed wastewater were disbursed evenly over the County's 726 square miles, there would be approximately 18,000 gallons per square mile per day of wastewater. In reality, some areas of the County would receive a higher percentage of the disposed wastewater than other areas. The report goes on to explain that in addition to the build-out scenario, the type of soils found in Albemarle County is critical to the ability to provide on-site wastewater and conventional septic systems. Of the 222 soil units listed in the Albemarle County Soil Survey, only one is considered to have "slight" limitations for septic tank absorption fields (soil properties and site features are generally favorable for absorption fields). Eighty are considered moderately unsuitable (soil properties and site conditions are not favorable) and 128 have "severe" limitations based on poor permeability or filtering, high water table, shallow depth to bedrock, or excessive slope and/or flooding. Thirteen soils are unrated. Given the characteristics of conventional wastewater technologies, the build-out scenario, and soil types, there can be no accurate prediction as to the impact on wells, streams, and reservoirs from conventional wastewater systems. The Chesapeake Bay Act sets requirements for septic tank maintenance. Those requirements were not adopted when Albemarle adopted other sections of that act. The County should consider adopting those requirements, for the sake of the Bay and to reduce the possibility offailed systems and resulting contamination of wells. OBJECTIVE: Maintain septic systems as a safe and viable waste-disposal system for the Rural Areas while avoiding contamination of wells or pollution of waterways. STRATEGIES: The County should: 1. Maintain the current policy of not encouraging the extension of the Albemarle County Service Authority Jurisdictional Area that serves the Development Areas. 2. Adopt the Groundwater Program being developed by the Groundwater Committee to enable a policy that would provide technical guidance on how to conduct site level groundwater assessments. 45 Draft Rural Areas Comprehensive' Plan Public Hearing 2/9/05 FISCAL AND TAX TOOLS GOAL: Analyze and improve County budgeting and taxation to support Rural Area goals and avoid unintentional subsidy of uses with negative impacts. The County's revenue and funding programs have a significant impact on rural land uses. Favorable tax assessments on rural land, such as those established under the County's use-value taxation program, can provide support for agriculture and land conservation and accurately reflect open spaces' low requirements for County services. However, if qualification standards for those rates are not sufficient or are not effectively enforced, those same tax rates can subsidize residential development and other activities that are counter to the County's rural area goals. Funding strategies have similar effects; they can provide for protection of the Rural Areas (e.g., purchase of development rights), or they can provide counterproductive subsidies (e.g., funding for increased road capacity in relatively undeveloped areas). Ensuring that these programs conform with Rural Areas policies will support the Guiding Principles by providing alternatives to land fragmentation, protecting the agricultural and forestal resource base, supporting local rural economies, supporting conservation and preservation of rural land, protecting natural and cultural resources, meeting the needs of current rural residents, and providing tools that offer alternatives to the fragmentation of parcels into pieces too small for economic viability. Taxation Tools The use-value taxation program, one of the County's main tax tools for supporting rural area goals, needs to be reviewed for its effectiveness in reaching those goals. The current standards may need to be altered, and new options may be required to encourage activities (such as some forms of natural or cultural resource protection) that are not strongly supported by the program. As the program covers a wide range of rural activities, its revision will require input from a variety of interests and perspectives, including non-rural residents. The issue of rollback taxes and whether they are an effective disincentive to development should be addressed. A study . committee including citizens involved in farming, forestry, horticulture, biodiversity conservation, open space protection, and historic and cultural resource protection could provide the expertise needed to improve the program and/or request changes in Virginia enabling legislation. The history of participation in the use-value program raises questions about its effectiveness. From 1982 to 2002, the percentage of the Rural Areas enrolled in the program declined from 7S.6% to 62.6%. Map H, Albemarle County Land Use Taxation, shows that few rural parcels large enough to qualify are not enrolled in the program. This suggests that the decline in area enrolled is largely due to the disqualification of land subdivided into parcels too small to qualify for the program. This raises the question of whether or not the tax relief provided by the program is effectively countering the financial pressure to subdivide and develop. 46 Draft Rural i\re'US Comprehcnsive Plan Public Hearing 219/05 Fiscal Tools The County's budget policies and funding programs should be comprehensively reviewed to ensure that they also are effectively supporting the County's goals for the Rural Areas. Existing programs, such as the Acquisition of Conservation Easements program, should be examined in light of continuing residential development of the Rural Areas and be allocated sufficient funding to respond effectively to that threat. The County should also compare its existing funding strategies to its list of rural area protection goals, and consider new programs to address unmet needs. The County will also need to find and take advantage of outside funding sources that are available for rural conservation purposes. Landowners should be helped to connect with state and federal funding sources for purchasing land (or at least associated development potential), land rental for conservation uses (such as the Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program), and installation and maintenance of Best Management Practices for natural resource protection. OBJECTIVES: . Ensure that the County's fiscal and tax policies actively support Rural Areas goals and do not provide subsidies for activities that are counter to those goals. . Find additional sources of funding for private and public projects that support the Guiding Principles. STRATEGIES: The County should: 1. Establish a committee to review the County's use-value taxation program and revise the program within the framework of state enabling legislation. The Committee should ensure that this program supports rural area policy goals and does not subsidize residential development or other activities that are counter to rural area goals. 2. Revise the standards for the Open Space category of the use-value taxation program to allow landowners to qualify through the protection of environmental resources (such as biodiversity) and ecosystem services (such as watershed protection), and create a straightforward application process for this purpose. 3. Review the County budget for opportunities to effectively provide incentives that support rural area policies and to remove inadvertent subsidies of uses and activities that are counter to rural area goals. 4. Conduct an analysis of the fiscal impacts of rural residential development, including transportation, and revise policies and regulations to address those impacts. S. Find outside funding sources for the purchase of development rights and other forms of resource protection and effectively use that funding for County land protection programs. County staff should help landowners find funding for conservation purposes. 47 Draft Rural Areas Comprehensivc Plan Public Hearing 2'9105