The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2005-04-06 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS TENTATIVE APRIL 6, 2005 9:00 A.M., MEETING ROOM 241 COUNTY OFFICE BUILDING 1. Call to Order. 2. Pledge of Allegiance. 3. Moment of Silence. 4. From the Public: Matters Not Listed on the Agenda. 5. Presentation: Certificates of Appreciation. 6. Consent Agenda (on next page). 7. 9:15 a.m. - Board to Board Presentation, School Board Chairman. 8. 9:30 a.m. - Transportation Matters: a. Presentation: Hillsdale Drive Extension Location Study. b. Matters not Listed on the Agenda. 9. 10:15 a.m. - Presentation: ArtlnPlace Program. 10. 10:30 a.m. - Albemarle First Bank-Central Sewage System Request, Appeal of Planning Commissions decision. 11. 10:30 a.m. - Albemarle First Bank-Central Sewage System Request. 12. 11 :00 a.m. - FY 2005 Budget Amendment. 13. 11:15 a.m. -Information on State Solicitation Legislation. 14. Closed Session. 15. Certify Closed Session. 16. Boards and Commissions: a. Vacancies/Appointments. b. Proposed terms of office and term limits. 2:00 D.m. - Public Hearinas: 17. SP-2004-031. Gvm at Seminole Place (Sians #14&15). Public hearing on a request to allow establishment of indoor gym in accord w/Sec 27.2.2(15) of the Zoning Ord, which allows for indoor athletic facilities in LI Dist. TM 61W Sec 3, P 18 contains 25.4 acs. Znd LI & EC. Loc on S side of Greenbrier Dr (Rt 866) in former Comdial bldg, on W side of Seminole Trail (Rt 29 N). Rio Dist. 18. SP-2004-056. Meadowaate Farm Home OccuDation-Class B (Sians #44&53). Public hearing on a request to allow Home Occupation Class B w/up to 2 employees for an office, in accord w/Sec 10.2.2.31 of the Zoning Ord, which allows for Home Occupations Class B. TM 120, P 22, contains 109 acs. Znd RA. Lloc at 7060 Esmont Farm, approx .20 miles from intersec of Esmont Rd (Rt 715) and Alberene Rd (Rt 719). Scottsville Dist. 19. SP-2004-059. Toad Hollow Farm Horse Show (Sian #30). Public hearing on a request for horse show grounds, permanent, in accord w/Sec 10.2.2.12 of the Zoning Ord which allows for horse show grounds, permanent in the RA by SUP. TM 41, P 15A, contains approx 36 acs. Loc at 4333 Cannon Brook Way, on E side of Browns Gap Turnpike (Rt 680), approx 2 mls S of White Hall. Znd RA. White Hall Dist. 20. From the Board: Matters Not Listed on the Agenda. 6:00 D.m. - Auditorium 21. PUBLIC HEARING to receive comments on Proposed Operating and Capital Budgets for FY 2005/2006 22. PUBLIC HEARING on Proposed FY 2005 Tax Rates. 23. Adjourn. CONSENT AGENDA FOR APPROVAL: 6.1 Approval of Minutes: November 10A, 2004 and February 9A, 2005. 6.2 Proclamation recognizing April 2005 as Fair Housing Month. FOR INFORMATION: 6.3 Copy of letter dated March 10, 2005 from John Shepherd, Manager of Zoning Administration, to Tara Rowan Boyd, re: Official Determination of Development Rights and Parcels - Tax Map 58, Parcel 8 (property of Thomas Hutchinson) - Section 10.3.1. 6.4 Copy of a notice filed with the State Corporation Commission of a Joint Petition of SSC Communications, Inc., and A T& T Corp., A T& T Communications of Virginia, LLC, and TCG Virginia, Inc. (Case No. PUC-2005-00035) for approval of a merger and request for expedited consideration. 6.5 Copy of draft Planning Commission minutes for March 1, 2005. 6.6 Copy of Albemarle County Service Authority Board of Directors minutes for February 17, 2005. 6.7 VDOT monthly report for April, 2005. _ r BOARD OF SUPERVISORS FINAL APRIL 6, 2005 9:00 A.M., MEETING ROOM 241 COUNTY OFFICE BUILDING 1 . Call to Order. 2. Pledge of Allegiance. 3. Moment of Silence. 4. From the Public: Matters Not Listed on the Agenda. 5. Presentation: Certificates of Appreciation. 6. Consent Agenda (on next page). 7. 9:15 a.m. - Board to Board Presentation, School Board Chairman. 8. 9:30 a.m. - Transportation Matters: a. Presentation: Hillsdale Drive Extension Location Study. b. Matters not Listed on the Agenda. 9. 10:15 a.m. - Presentation: ArtlnPlace Program. 10. 10:30 a.m. - Albemarle First Bank-Central Sewage System Request, Appeal of Planning Commissions decision. 11. 10:30 a.m. - Albemarle First Bank-Central Sewage System Request. 12. 11 :00 a.m. - FY 2005 Budget Amendment. 13. 11 :15 a.m. - Information on State Solicitation Legislation. 14. Closed Session. 15. Certify Closed Session. 16. Boards and Commissions: a. Vacancies/Appointments. b. Proposed terms of office and term limits. 2:00 D.m. - Public Hearinas: 17. SP-2004-031. Gvm at Seminole Place (Sians #14&15). Public hearing on a request to allow establishment of indoor gym in accord w/Sec 27.2.2(15) of the Zoning Ord, which allows for indoor athletic facilities in LI Dist. TM 61W Sec 3, P 18 contains 25.4 acs. Znd LI & EC. Loc on S side of Greenbrier Dr (Rt 866) in former Comdial bldg, on W side of Seminole Trail (Rt 29 N). Rio Dist. 18. SP-2004-056. Meadowaate Farm Home OccuDation-Class B (Sians #44&53). Public hearing on a request to allow Home Occupation Class B w/up to 2 employees for an office, in accord w/Sec 10.2.2.31 of the Zoning Ord, which allows for Home Occupations Class B. TM 120, P 22, contains 109 acs. Znd RA. Lloc at 7060 Esmont Farm, approx .20 miles from intersec of Esmont Rd (Rt 715) and Alberene Rd (Rt 719). Scottsville Dist. 19. SP-2004-059. Toad Hollow Farm Horse Show (Sian #30). Public hearing on a request for horse show grounds, permanent, in accord w/Sec 10.2.2.12 of the Zoning Ord which allows for horse show grounds, permanent in the RA by SUP. TM 41, P 15A, contains approx 36 acs. Loc at 4333 Cannon Brook Way, on E side of Browns Gap Turnpike (Rt 680), approx 2 mls S of White Hall. Znd RA. White Hall Dist. 20. From the Board: Matters Not Listed on the Agenda. 6:00 D.m. - Auditorium 21. PUBLIC HEARING to receive comments on Proposed Operating and Capital Budgets for FY 2005/2006 22. PUBLIC HEARING on Proposed FY 2005 Tax Rates. 23. Adjourn. - CONSENT AGENDA FOR APPROVAL: 6.1 Approval of Minutes: November 10A, 2004 and February 9A, 2005. 6.2 Proclamation recognizing April 2005 as Fair Housing Month. FOR INFORMATION: 6.3 Copy of letter dated March 10, 2005 from John Shepherd, Manager of Zoning Administration, to Tara Rowan Boyd, re: Official Determination of Development Rights and Parcels _ Tax Map 58, Parcel 8 (property of Thomas Hutchinson) - Section 10.3.1. 6.4 Copy of a notice filed with the State Corporation Commission of a Joint Petition of SBC Communications, Inc., and A T& T Corp., A T& T Communications of Virginia, LLC, and TCG Virginia, Inc. (Case No. PUC-2005-00035) for approval of a merger and request for expedited consideration. 6.5 Copy of draft Planning Commission minutes for March 1, 2005. 6.6 Copy of Albemarle County Service Authority Board of Directors minutes for February 17, 2005. 6.7 VDOT monthly report for April, 2005. - V1RGl;\~ . - To: Members, Board of SupervIsors \ ( From: Ella Washington Carey, CMC, Cle~ \(l./ Subject: Reading List for April 6, 2005 ~ Date: March 28, 2005 November lOA, 2004 Mr. Rooker February 9A, 2005 Mr. Boyd MEMORANDUM NOTE: PLEASE REMEMBER TO PULL YOUR MINUTES IF YOU HAVE NOT READ THEM. /ewc o FAIR HOUSING MONTH WHEREAS, April 2005, marks the thirty-seventh anniversary of the passage of the Fair Housing Act of 1968, which sought to eliminate discrimination in housing opportunities and to affirmatively further housing choices for all Americans; and WHEREAS, the ongoing struggle for dignity and housing opportunity for all is not the exclusive province of the Federal government; and WHEREAS, vigorous local efforts to combat discrimination can be as effective, if not more so, than Federal efforts; and illegal barriers to equal opportunity in housing, no matter how subtle, diminish the rights of all; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOL VED, WHEREAS, that in the pursuit of the shared goal and responsibility of providing equal housing opportunities for all men and women, the Board of County Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, does hereby join in the national celebration by proclaiming APRIL, 2005 as FAIR HOUSING MONTH and encourages all agencies, institutions and individuals, public and private, In Albemarle County to abide by the letter and the spirit of the Fair Housing law. Signed and sealed this 6th day of April, 2005. Dennis S. Rooker, Chairman Albemarle Board of County Supervisors COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road, Room 227 Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 Phone (434) 296-5832 Fax (434) 972-4126 March 10, 2005 Tara Rowan Boyd LeClaire Ryan 123 East Main Street, 8th Floor Charlottesville, VA 22902 RE: OFFICIAL DETERMINATION OF PARCELS & DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS - Tax Map 58, Parcel 8 (Property of Thomas Hutchinson) Section 10.3.1 Dear Ms. Boyd: The County Attorney and I have reviewed the title information for the above-noted property. It is the County Attorney's advisory opinion and my official determination that Tax Map 58, Parcel 8, is comprised of three (3) separate parcels designated as A, B and C on the attached sketch. Parcel A, the portion of the 17.5-acre parcel shown on the plat recorded in Deed Book 117 page 29, less strips of land conveyed to the Commonwealth of Virginia, located on the Southeast side of Route 738 contains at least one (1) development right. It is eligible to contain two (2) development rights. Parcel B, the 1.2-acre parcel shown on the plat recorded in Deed Book 252, page 88, less a strip of land conveyed to the Commonwealth of Virginia, contains one (1) development right. Parcel C, the 4.15-acre parcel shown on the plat recorded in Deed Book 252, page 88, less a strip of land conveyed to the Commonwealth of Virginia, contains one (1) or two (2) development rights, depending whether this parcel contains 4 acres or more. The basis for this determination is provided below. Our records indicate that Tax Map 58, Parcel 8 contains 10.344 acres and no dwellings. The property is not in an Agricultural Forestal District. The most recent deed for this property is recorded in Deed Book 783, page 472. 1:\DEPnSCZS\Determin of Parcel\58-8 Hutchinson.doc Tara Rowan Boyd March 10,2005 Page 2 1980: Tax Map 58, Parcel 8 This analysis begins with the deed recorded in Deed Book 298, page 542 and dated January 30, 1952. This deed conveyed tive tracts at land trom Arthur L. Dorsey and Hazel M. Dorsey to Stillman F. Kelley, II and Katharyn N. Kelley. Three at the tracts conveyed with this deed were: (1) 17.5 acres shown on a plat recorded in Deed Book 117, page 29 less a strip containing 0.23 acres conveyed to the Commonwealth at Virginia. [17.5 - 0.23 = 17.27] (2) 15.5 acres shown on a plat recorded in Deed Book 255, page 276. (This is designated as Tax Map 58, Parcel 8B.) (3 & 4) 5.35 acres shown on a plat recorded in Deed Book 252, page 86. That plat shows the property is actually comprised of two separate parcels; one containing 1.2 acres and the other containing 4.15 acres. (These two lots comprise a portion at Tax Map 58, Parcel 8) Together, these four parcels comprised Parcel 8 as shown on the 1979 Tax Map. Copies of three plats depicting these four tracts are attached. This deed established these four parcels as lots of record as defined in Section 3.1 of the Zoning Ordinance. The most recent deed tor this parcel recorded prior to the adoption at the Zoning Ordinance, December 10, 1980, is recorded in Deed Book 489, page 73 and is dated June 14, 1971. This deed conveyed two pieces ot land trom Stillman F. Kelley, II and Katharyn N. Kelley to the Commonwealth ot Virginia. Dettor, Edwards & Morris, Inc. is also a party to this transaction. Parcel A, a portion ot Tax Map 58, Parcel 8 containing 0.296 acres was added to the right-ot-way ot Route 738. Parcel B, a portion ot Tax Map 58, Parcel 8A containing 0.458 acres was added to the right-ot-way ot Route 676. On the basis of this deed, Parcel 8 as shown on the 1979 Tax Map was comprised of four separate lots of record designated as Parcels A through D on the enclosed sketch. Parcel A contained 17.27 acres minus .458 acres and a portion of .296 acres and was located on both sides of Route 738. The portion of this parcel that is located on the Southeast side of Route 738 is part of Parcel 8. There are five development rights associated with Parcel A, the entire remainder of the 17.5-acre property after the off-conveyances to the Commonwealth. 1:\DEPT\BCZS\Determin of Parcel\58-8 Hutchinson.doc Tara Rowan Boyd March 10, 2005 Page 3 Parcel B contained 15.5 acres minus a portion of .296 acres and was located on the southeast side of Route 738. Parcel B is not a part of Parcel 8. Parcel C contained 1.2 acres minus a portion of .296 acres. Parcel C is part of Parcel 8. Parcel D contained 4.15 acres minus a portion of .296 acres. Parcel D is part of Parcel 8. Deed Book 754, page 384, dated December 6, 1982, conveyed 8.46 acres from Stillman F. Kelley, II and Priscilla Kelley to Thomas E. Hutchinson and Colleen R. Hutchinson. The property is further described as lying on the north side of Route 738 and as being a portion of a larger tract conveyed by the deed recorded in Deed Book 298, page 542. Specifically, this lot is derived from Parcel A on the attached sketch showing the approximate location of lots of record. The property is also shown on a plat by Frank A. Gregg dated December 1982. The plat shows a 2.7-acre lot that was added to Tax Map 57, Parcel 81 B and an 8.46-acre on the northwest side of Route 738. (Tax Map 58, Parcel 8A) The residue of this transaction, containing between 5.652 and 5.356 acres on the southeast side of Route 738 is a portion of Tax Map 58, Parcel 8. [ 17.27 - .458 - 8.46 - 2.7 = 5.652 - .296 = 5.356] The five theoretical development rights associated with Parcel A were available to these three lots; the 8.46-acre lot, the 2.7- acre lot, and the 5.652 to 5.356-acre lot. Section 18-52 (p) of the Subdivision Ordinance, in effect at the time of this division, required a note on the plat stating: "The number of lots, as assigned by the subdivider into which each such parcel may be further divided by right pursuant to Section 10.3.1 of the zoning ordinance, if applicable." However, in this case the plat did not assign the development rights associated with the original 17.5-acre parcel of record. In a letter dated February 8,2005, it was determined that the portion of that parcel located on the southeast side of Route 738, (the 5.652 to 5.356-acre lot) a portion of Tax Map 58, Parcel 8, contains at least one development right because any parcel containing less than 21 acres requires a development right. It is eligible to receive up to two development rights. Deed Book 783, page 472, dated November 4,1983, conveyed 10.344 acres from Stillman F. Kelly II and Priscilla Kelly to Thomas E. Hutchinson and Colleen R. Hutchinson. The property is shown on a plat by Frank A. Greg, C.L.S. that is dated May 24, 1983. It is also described as being a portion of the property conveyed by the deed of record in Deed Book 298, page 542. Based on this deed, this parcel is comprised of three separate parcels; (1) the portion of the 17.5-acre parcel on the Southeast side of Route 738 is described above, (2) the remainder of the 1.2-acre parcel which contains one development right, and (3) the remainder of the 4.15-acre parcel which contains one or two development rights, depending on whether this 1:\DEPnBCZS\Determin of Parcel\58-8 Hutchinson.doc Tara Rowan Boyd March 10, 2005 Page 4 parcel contains 4 acres or more. The note on the plat stating that all development rights remain with the ownership of Tract B is superceded by this determination. These parcels are entitled to the noted development rights if all other applicable regulations can be met. These development rights are theoretical in nature but do represent the maximum number of lots containing less than twenty one acres allowed to be created by right. If you are aggrieved by this determination, you have a right to appeal it within thirty days of the date notice of this determination is given, in accordance with Section 15.2-2311 of the Code of Virginia. If you do not file a timely appeal, this determination shall be final and unappealable. An appeal shall be taken only by filing with the Zoning Administrator and the Board of Zoning Appeals a notice of appeal which specifies the grounds for the appeal. An appeal application must be completed and filed with the fee of $120.00. The date notice of this determination was given is the same as the date of this letter. If you have any questions, please contact me. Sincerely, ~ John Shepherd Manager of Zoning Administration Attached: Deed Book 117, page 29 Plat Deed Book 255, page 276 Plat Deed Book 252, page 88 Sketch showing location of original parcels of record and Parcels A, B & C that comprise the current Tax Map 58, Parcel 8. Copy: Thomas Hutchinson (Owner of T.M. 56 - 8) 1041 Wharf Indigo Mount Pleasant, SC 29464 Ella Carey, Clerk of the Board of Supervisors Gay Carver, Real Estate Department Reading File 58-8 1:\DEPT\BCZS\Determin of Parcel\58-8 Hutchinson.doc Sketch showing location of original parcels of. record and Parcels A, B & C that comprise the current Tax Map 58, Parcel 8. ,. / J 7. 5 AC-- - CD jø'f'AI- ~ ex:;) , I A f"'- L{) ^' 0) cb ~ < . . ........:.'::!":: .:;:~:.~.:~ ....~~. - .,--...,. ...,. ....,- ~ ~ 58..3;3 <?~--eÎa.. .>-... . ~é~j V) ~ '-s. 's ~ Y C" ~r ~ ~ r L --.1 " r ~ ~ Q ~I ~~. ~:!o 3, ~ \ ('0; ! -.;~ ~ ~ n t -l D ;t ~ f"', . ~ r 1- ( o " ) J .. (1) . t J ~ ["'-.. ¢" ...... .,. rj o I- \. (--0 <!.~ ¡ L.. '} '1, J--. IL _~ . .,.-- '1 ...., '" "S 0 "; /;,/ <><------1-" >-" ~ . . to John W. Lee, dated December 1st, 1938, recorded in D. B. 224, page 460. And in consideration of the premises the said Deborah B. Lee wife of said John W. Lee, doth hereby GRANf, BARGAIN, SELL AND CONVEY unto said Percy Montague, Jr., and Claudia Collier Jlontague, Joint/ly for their Joint lives, with remainder to survivor, all right~ title and interest whetl~r by reason of dower or otherwise which she may have in and to the real estate hereinbefore described and subject to all easements and restrictions above referred to. Witness the following signatures and seals. . C.Armonde Paxson (SEAL) Special Commissioner Deborah B. Lee (SEAL) SfAfE OF VIRGINIA, COUNTY OF ALBEWARLE, to-wit; I, Virginia C~ W~rd, a Notary Public for Albemarle County, State of Virginia, hereby certify that C. ARMON DE PAXSON, Special Commissioner and DEBORAH B. LEE, whose names are signed to the foregoing writing bearing I date of October 22nd, 1941, have and each has this day acknowledged the same before me within my County aforesaid. Witness my signature this 23rd day of October, 1941. --' ~" ~~ " Ky commission expires the 5th day of April, 1944. Virginia C. Ward, Notary Public """. o~ "'. .." o ......-..01- -... . rJ ~, ".-; '-, s~ 'J ¥'." ,... ~ 1. 0 rr" 1°' ~ (f' f ~(.'J . .J~~ .'";, .... -~ I' ,.' . .. --> i /( (.0 ~... , r: ,.' .' <l / . , '" 1;' .¡ :1 I "1..t ~.~ 'U -.",..1 I ." .J- ~>-. ,\ o \'tI" .,.."",,'J,.-c.. ~. 'I' .~,., b&-2.~2, I"':: 88 . -------- ( . )~~,~ ~ " DB 15S. P 2'~ J '\ Þ: -.,. »- <"-:to /.- '" ~..... . /) . ø..... .. .,., ~ . <" q, <- (.," .... .. ¿ . .... ~ ... ..,.. . .- .- ;... .- ~ ' .- , ~ ~Q //' ~ ~ ,I' / 1: ;' , c ,." "".,.,..... ~~ , !yo' '-{,...... ," y:;~ ' ,¡,..,. I I'. , ~... ,," \ . f" ~. ,,.......;' r'/' '-~ '\,. ;"" . \,\~I .. ", -" ,. i .., ~,.... ~/ " .. ;. .... ;J "., <)- ~ Q", y. 1., "- f/ .,.: ~ , . .... ....0 r~~ .' q ~ j ..(~\\ ',.,C....;.I r' >\/, H .,.11' S> 1. \~ ~. >-.. f ,.J -...::.... I i " ... "" ~,K"- ~ ~~ "'I\; ~ . .... ) çQ ...,. . . ~ ~ '< /s- 5- ¡{. It! ------ ...5 '\ r (,... ¡. ¿ ~ '" ...... , r::t > 1 () 0,\ >-... f" I i f &.1< ,'". ..,... n' / \t-" 'fhis is a pla t of 15 5/10 A. of land situa ted in the vie i- nity of Ivy Depot, Albemarle County, Virginia, solù by My Own Development Corporation to Percy Montague and is bounded as follows: Beginning at an iron in center of Jefferson Highway opposite a post a corner to Linwood Bowles, Bernard A. Garth and Percy Montague, thence along road with Montague 418 feet thence leaving road still with Montague S. 55! E. 475 feet to a post in cement S. 28 3/4 W. 15 ft. to center branch and down same 260 ft. to a point opposite stake a corner to My Uwn Development Corporation, thence with them a new line S. 28 3/4 W. 820 ft. to an iron on No. limits of C. & O. R.R. TROUTMAN SANDERS LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW BANK OF AMERICA CENTER 1111 EAST MAIN STREET RICHMOND, VIRGINIA 23219 www.troutmansanders.com TELEPHONE: 804-697-1200 FACSIMILE: 804-697-' 339 MAILING ADDRESS P.O. BOX 1122 RICHMOND, VIRGINIA 23218-'122 Donald G. Owens donnie.owens@troutmansanders_com Direct Dial: 804-697-1217 Direct Fax: 804-697-1339 March 14, 2005 Joint Petition of SBC Communications Inc. and AT&T Corp., AT&T Communications of Virginia, LLC, and TCG Virginia, Inc. Case No. PUC-2005-00035 Dear Madam or Sir: On March 10, 2005, the State Corporation Commission entered the enclosed Order in the above referenced proceeding. The enclosed is being sent to you in accordance with the provisions of Paragraph 11 of that Order. Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions about the Joint Petition or the Order. (()w. 1348736 Enclosure ATLANTA - HONG KONG - LONDON - NORFOLK - RALEIGH - RICHMOND TYSONS CORNER - VIRGINIA BEACH - WASHINGTON. D.C_ COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA ST ATE CORPORATION COMMISSION AT RICHMOND, MARCH 10,2005 JOINT PETITION OF SBC COMMUNICATIONS INe. and CASE NO. PUC-2005-00035 AT&T CORP., AT &T COMMUNICATIONS OF VIRGINIA, LLC, and TCG VIRGINIA, INC. For approval of merger and request for expedited consideration ORDER FOR NOTICE AND COMMENT On February 28,2005, SBC Communications Inc. ("SBC"), AT&T Corp. ("AT&T"), AT&T Communications of Virginia, LLC ("AT&T-VA"), and TCG Virginia, Inc. ("TCG") (collectively, "Joint Petitioners"), filed a Joint Petition with the State Corporation Commission ("Commission") requesting approval under Chapter 5 of Title 56 of the Code of Virginia (§ 56-88 et seq.) (the "Transfers Act") of a proposed transaction under which SBC will merge with AT&T and gain control over two companies subject to regulation by the Commission, namely AT&T-VA and TCG. The Joint Petition was filed as a result of a merger agreement between SBC and AT&T whereby AT&T will be merged into a wholly owned subsidiary of SBe. This wholly owned subsidiary is a newly formed entity created for the specific purpose of this transaction. AT&T will be the surviving entity of the merger with the newly formed subsidiary. This combined entity will retain the name "AT&T Corp." and will be a wholly owned subsidiary of SBe. AT &T is presently the holding company parent of AT&T - VA and Teleport Communications Group, Inc., which in turn, is the holding company parent for TCG. Both AT&T-VA and TCG hold certificates of public convenience and necessity to provide telecommunications services in the Commonwealth. The Joint Petition notes that SBC already wholly owns two subsidiaries that are certificated to provide interexchange and competitive local exchange telecommunications services in the Commonwealth - SBC Long Distance, Inc. fi'k/a Southwestern Bell Communications Services, Inc., and SBC Telecom, Inc. Joint Petitioners assert that, upon consummation of the merger, these certificated entities will continue to hold all of the certificates they hold prior to the proposed merger and that no transfer or disposition of assets of those certificated entities will be made in connection with the merger. Accordingly, Joint Petitioners assert that the merger will have no adverse effect on the service to the public at just and reasonable rates. The Joint Petitioners also request that the Commission consider this Joint Petition on an expedited basis so that the merger may be consummated as quickly as possible. The Joint Petition provides no deadline by which the January 30, 2005, merger agreement between AT&T and SBC must be consummated. However, Joint Petitioners assert that expedited treatment is warranted so that consumers in Virginia may enjoy the benefits that will result from the combination of financial, managerial, and network strengths of SBC and AT&T. NOW THE COMMISSION, having considered the matter and applicable law, is of the opinion and finds that public notice should be given, that interested persons should be provided with an opportunity to comment and request a hearing, and that the Commission Staff should file a report detailing the results of its review of the Joint Petition. Under § 56-88.1 of the Code of Virginia, the Commission must approve or disapprove this Joint Petition no later than sixty (60) days from the filing date, unless extended by the Commission. We find that our review period to approve or disapprove the Joint Petition should be extended an additional sixty (60) days. We 2 expect to rule on the Joint Petition expeditiously, but we find that additional time is necessary to review the transaction, to provide public notice, and to afford interested persons an opportunity to file comments or request a hearing. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT: (1) The Joint Petition be docketed as Case No. PUC-2005-00035. (2) The review period for this docket be extended for an additional sixty (60) days, pursuant to § 56-88.1 of the Code of Virginia. (3) The Joint Petitioners shall promptly make a copy of the Joint Petition available to the public, who may obtain a copy of the Joint Petition, at no charge, by requesting it in writing from the Joint Petitioners' counsel at the addresses detailed below. (4) On or before April 19, 2005, interested persons may file written comments concerning the issues in this case with Joel H. Peck, Clerk, State Corporation Commission, c/o Document Control Center, P.O. Box 2118, Richmond, Virginia 23218. Comments shall refer to Case No. PUC-2005-00035. Interested persons desiring to submit comments electronically may do so by following the instructions found on the Commission's website: http://www.scc.virginia.gov/caseinfo.htm. Comments may pertain to any issues associated with the merger described herein and whether the commenter believes any provisions of § 56-235.5: 1 of the Code of Virginia are applicable to the Joint Petition. (5) On or before April 19, 2005, interested persons may request that the Commission convene a hearing concerning the Joint Petition by filing a request for a hearing with the Clerk of the Commission at the address set forth above. Requests for hearing must include: (i) a precise statement of the filing party's interest in the proceeding; (ii) a statement of the specific action 3 sought to the extent then known; (iii) a statement of the legal basis for such action; and (iv) a precise statement why a hearing should be conducted in this matter. (6) Any interested person desiring to participate as a party in this proceeding shall file with the Clerk of the Commission at the address set forth above, on or before April 19, 2005, an original and fifteen copies of a notice of participation as a respondent pursuant to Rule 5 V AC 5-20-80 B of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure. A respondent shall, on or before April 19, 2005, serve a copy of the notice of intent to participate on counsel for the Joint Petitioners at the address set forth below. The notice of participation shall set forth: (i) a precise statement of the interest of the respondent; (ii) a statement of the specific actions sought to the extent then known; and (iii) the factual and legal basis for the action. Interested parties shall refer in all of their filed papers to Case No. PUC-2005-00035. (7) A copy of any written comments or requests for hearing shall simultaneously be sent to counsel for the Joint Petitioners: Donald G. Owens, Esquire, Troutman Sanders LLP, 1111 East Main Street, P.O. Box 1122, Richmond, Virginia 23218-1122; and Mark A. Keffer, Esquire, AT&T, Suite 1000, 1120 20th Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20036. (8) On or before May 13, 2005, the Commission Staff shall review the Joint Petition and file a report detailing the results of its investigation. (9) The Joint Petitioners shall respond to written interrogatories within ten (10) calendar days after receipt of same. Except as modified above, discovery shall be in accordance with Part IV of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure. 4 (10) On or before March 22, 2005, the Joint Petitioners shall publish the following notice as display advertising, not classified, throughout the Joint Petitioners' service territory: NOTICE TO THE PUBLIC OF A JOINT PETITION OF SBC COMMUNICATIONS INe., AT&T CORP., AT&T COMMUNICATIONS OF VIRGINIA, LLC, and TCG VIRGINIA, INC., FOR APPROVAL OF MERGER CASE NO. PUC-2005-00035 On February 28, 2005, SBC Communications Inc. ("SBC"), AT&T Corp. ("AT&T"), AT&T Communications of Virginia, LLC (" AT &T - VA"), and TCG Virginia, Inc. ("TCG") (collectively, "Joint Petitioners"), filed a Joint Petition with the State Corporation Commission ("Commission") requesting approval under Chapter 5 of Title 56 of the Code of Virginia (§ 56-88 et seq.) ofa proposed transaction under which SBC will merge with AT&T and gain control over two companies subject to regulation by the Commission, namely AT&T-VA and TCG. The Joint Petition states that the merger will have no adverse effect on service to the public at just and reasonable rates. The Joint Petition was filed as a result of a merger agreement between SBC and AT&T whereby AT&T will be merged into a wholly owned subsidiary of SBe. This wholly owned subsidiary is a newly formed entity created for the specific purpose of this transaction, AT&T will be the surviving entity of the merger with the newly formed subsidiary. This combined entity will retain the name "AT&T Corp." and will be a wholly owned subsidiary of SBe. AT&T is presently the holding company parent of AT&T -VA and Teleport Communications Group, Inc., which in turn, is the holding company parent for TCG. Both AT&T - V A and TCG hold certificates of public convenience and necessity to provide telecommunications services in the Commonwealth. The Joint Petition notes that SBC already wholly owns two subsidiaries that are certificated to provide interexchange and competitive local exchange telecommunications services in the Commonwealth - SBC Long Distance, Inc. fIkIa Southwestern Bell Communications, and SBC Telecom, Inc. Joint Petitioners assert that upon consummation of the merger, these certificated entities will continue to hold all of the certificates they hold prior to the proposed merger and that no transfer or disposition of assets of those certificated entities will be made in connection with the merger. 5 Copies of the Joint Petition are available for inspection between the hours of8:15 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, in the Commission's Document Control Center located on the first floor of the Tyler Building, 1300 East Main Street, Richmond, Virginia. Copies may also be downloaded from the Commission's website: http://www.scc.virginia.gov/caseinfo.htm. or may be obtained from the Joint Petitioners' counsel, Donald G. Owens, Esquire, Troutman Sanders LLP, 1111 East Main Street, P.O. Box 1122, Richmond, Virginia 23218-1122; and Mark A. Keffer, Esquire, AT&T, Suite 1000, 1120 20th Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20036. On or before April 19, 2005, any person desiring to comment on the Joint Petition may do so by filing such comments with the Clerk ofthe Commission at the address set forth below. A copy of the written comments shall be simultaneously served on Joint Petitioners' counsel at the addresses set forth above. Interested persons desiring to submit comments electronically may do so by following the instructions found on the Commission's website: http://www.scc.virginia.gov/caseinfo.htm. Any person may request a hearing on the Joint Petition by filing a request for a hearing on or before April 19, 2005, with the Clerk of the Commission at the address set forth below. Requests must include: (i) a precise statement of the filing party's interest in the proceeding; (ii) a statement of the specific action sought to the extent then known; (iii) a statement of the legal basis for such action; and (iv) a precise statement why a hearing should be conducted in this matter. Persons filing a request for a hearing shall serve a copy of their request on or before April 19, 2005, upon Joint Petitioners' counsel at the addresses set forth above. Any interested person desiring to participate as a party in this proceeding shall file with the Clerk of the Commission at the address set forth below, on or before, April 19, 2005, an original and fifteen copies of a notice of participation as a respondent pursuant to Rule 5 V AC 5-20-80 B of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure. A respondent shall, on or before April 19, 2005, serve a copy of the notice of intent to participate on counsel for the Joint Petitioners at the address set forth above. The notice of participation shall set forth: (i) a precise statement of the interest of the respondent; (ii) a statement of the specific actions sought to the extent then known; and (iii) the factual and legal basis for the action. Interested parties shall refer in all of their filed papers to Case No. PUC-2005-00035. 6 All written communications to the Commission concerning the Joint Petition should be directed to Joel H. Peck, Clerk, State Corporation Commission, c/o Document Control Center, P.O. Box 2118, Richmond, Virginia 23218, and shall refer to Case No. PUC-2005-00035. SBC COMMUNICA nONS INC., AT&T CORP., AT&T COMMUNICA nONS OF VIRGINIA, LLC, and TCG VIRGINIA, INC. (11) The Joint Petitioners shall forthwith serve a copy of this Order on the Chainnan of the Board of Supervisors of any county and upon the Mayor or Manager of any county, city, or equivalent officials in counties, towns, and cities having alternate fonns of government located in the Joint Petitioners' service territory. Service shall be made by first-class mail or delivery to the customary place of business or residence of the person served. (12) On or before April 12, 2005, the Joint Petitioners shall provide the Commission with proof of notice required by Ordering Paragraphs (9) and (10). (13) On or before May 27,2005, the Joint Petitioners may file with the Clerk of the Commission an original and fifteen (15) copies of any response to the Commission Staff report or to the comments and requests for hearing filed with the Commission. (14) Pursuant to § 12.1-31 of the Code of Virginia and 5 V AC 5-20-120 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, 5 V AC 5-20-10 et seq., the Commission assigns a Hearing Examiner to rule on any discovery matter that may arise in this proceeding. (15) This matter is continued for further orders of the Commission. AN ATTESTED COPY hereof shall be sent by the Clerk of the Commission to: Mark Keffer, Esquire, AT&T Communications of Virginia, Inc., Suite 1000,1120 20th Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20036; Donald G. Owens, Esquire, and Thomas C. Walker, Jr., Esquire, Troutman Sanders LLP, 1111 East Main Street, Richmond, Virginia 23219; Paul K. Mancini, 7 Esquire, Wayne Watts, Esquire, James M. Robinson IV, Esquire, and Martin E. Grambow, Esquire, SBC Communications, Inc., 175 East Houston, San Antonio, Texas 78205-2233; Scott K. Attaway, Esquire, and Colin S. Stretch, Esquire, Kellogg, Huber, Hansen, Todd, Evans & Figel, PLLC, 1615 M Street, N,W., Suite 400, Washington, D.C. 20036; C. Meade Browder, Jr" Senior Assistant Attorney General, Division of Consumer Counsel, Office of Attorney General, 900 East Main Street, 2nd Floor, Richmond, Virginia 23219; and the Commission's Office of General Counsel and Divisions of Communications, Public Utility Accounting, Public Service Taxation, and Economics and Finance. 8 . . . Albemarle County Planning Commission March 1 J 2005 The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a meeting and a public hearing on Tuesday, March 1, 2005 at 6:00 p.m., at the County Office Building, Room 241, Second Floor, 401 Mcintire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia. Members attending were William Rieley, Marcia Joseph, Vice-Chair, Jo Higgins, Calvin Morris; Pete Craddock and Bill Edgerton, Chairman. Absent were Rodney Thomas, and David J. Neuman, FAIA, Architect for University of Virginia. Other officials present were Wayne Cilimberg, Director of Planning & Community Development; Stephen Waller, Senior Planner; Rebecca Ragsdale, Senior Planner; Elaine Echols, Principal Planner; Bill Fritz, Chief of Current Development and Greg Kamptner, Assistant County Attorney. Call to Order and Establish Quorum: Mr. Edgerton called the regular meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. and established a quorum. Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda from the Public: Mr. Edgerton invited comment from the public on other matters not listed on the agenda. There being none, he stated that the meeting would move on to the review of the consent agenda. Consent Agenda: ADDroval of Plannina Commission Minutes: November 9, 2004. Mr. Edgerton asked if any Commissioner would like to pull any item off of the consent agenda for discussion or if there was a motion. Ms. Joseph moved for approval of the consent agenda. Mr. Morris seconded the motion. The motion carried with a vote of (6:0). (Thomas - Absent) Public Hearings: SP 2004-031 Gym at Seminole Place: (Formerly titled Gold's Gym): Request for special use permit to allow establishment of an indoor gym in accordance with Section 27.2.2(15) of the Zoning Ordinance which allows for indoor athletic facilities in an LI, Light Industrial district. The property, described as Tax Map 61W Section 3, Parcel 18 contains 25.4 acres, and is zoned LI, Light Industrial and EC, Entrance Corridor. The proposal is located on the south side of Greenbrier Drive (Route 866) in the former Comdial building, on the west side of Seminole Trail (Route 29 North), in the Rio Magisterial District. The Comprehensive Plan designates this property as Industrial Service in Neighborhood One. (Elaine Echols) Ms. Echols summarized the staff report. This is SP-2004-0031 for the Gym at Seminole Place, formerly titled Gold's Gym. The Commission received a staff report on this particular project some time ago and then it was deferred. Since that time Gold's Gym has decided on an alternative location. But, the applicant wants to pursue this indoor athletic facility special use permit. Since the use runs with the land and not with the person staff felt that it was appropriate to continue with the special use permit application. This is in the old Comdial building for 60,000 square feet of area. The property is currently zoned LI, Light Industrial and special use permits allow for indoor athletic facilities in this particular district with the Board's approval. Staff reviewed the request and believes that it is appropriate to approve it because it provides for a use that is supportive of the industrial uses in the area and it also reuses an existing facility. Staff has come up with a set of conditions that she would like to discuss. The conditions are listed on page 4 of the staff report. She asked to clarify that between the Planning Commission and ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - MARCH 1, 2005 1 DRAFT MINUTES (SUBMITTED MARCH 29, 2005) the Board meeting that the discrepancy would be worked out between the 50,000 square feet, as shown on the plan that is attached to the staff report, and the 60,000 square feet, as shown in the conditions of the staff report. She felt that having two different numbers will create future confusion, but staff's recommendation is for 60,000 square feet. Staff will get that corrected on the plan. The second issue has to do with the pedestrian and bicycle access. Since the staff report was initially prepared, she had done further research into the way pedestrian access was proposed. She said that condition 3 should probably be revised to reflect a more workable pedestrian connection. The condition requires sidewalks be added to both sides of the street from Greenbriar. She said that the street is a rural cross-section and sidewalks will likely not work at this location due to right-of-way width and existing landscaping. Staff would like to modify the condition to ensure that pedestrian access is provided, but, change the way in which it would be provided. Mr. Edgerton asked why staff was limiting the special use permit to 60,000 square feet. Ms. Echols stated that it was the applicant's request for a certain size, and that Mr. Slagle could talk a little more about that when he speaks. It was the applicant's request for a certain size, and then staff assessed that square footage against the existing parking. Mr. Edgerton stated that he had wondered about that since the entire building was 456,000 square feet and why they would want to restrict that. He questioned how much square footage would actually be needed. Ms. Echols stated that one of the things that staff is anticipating potentially is redevelopment in and around this site since they may want an opportunity to use it for other uses. Staff does not know the answer to that question, but the Commission could ask the applicant. Mr. Morris asked where within the old Comdial building that the gym was in relation to the area that was contaminated. Ms. Echols stated that she did not know the answer to that question. Mr. Morris stated that he recalled the last time that they were looking at Comdial that there was a specific area that had some real problems with contamination. But, it was a relatively small area. He stated that he was just wondering where that area was located. Mr. Edgerton stated that he did not remember that area being identified. Ms. Higgins stated that it was identified on the plan in the back parking lot towards the left. That area is under a permit, which is controlled and monitored. But, she did not think it would have anything to do with the interior use of the building. Ms. Joseph if staff was referencing the time in condition 1 where it talks about the gym should be operated in general accord with the letter. She questioned what staff would like to happen as a result of that condition. Ms. Echols stated that there is the time aspect that was related to the parking spaces. Staff can clarify that condition with the applicant with what the Commission is discussing with him tonight and then between the Planning Commission and the Board meeting they can square that down. Mr. Rieley stated that because they have not even seen possible redevelopment plans for this site and this special use permit would run with the land and not necessarily the building that if they approve this special use permit for a 60,000 square foot gym facility on this site it would be allowed regardless of whether the site is redeveloped in another way. Mr. Kamptner stated that condition 2 would limit that. Typically the special use permit would just run with the land regardless of the building itself. ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - MARCH 1, 2005 DRAFT MINUTES (SUBMITTED MARCH 29, 2005) 2 · · · Mr. Rieley pointed out that he was not so sure in reading condition 2 on whether that made it clear. One could read that within the perimeter of the footprint of the existing building that it might ultimately be. He stated that he did not think that it matters that much, but was just curious whether that was the geographical location or whether it would not apply if the building were taken down. He asked if it was Mr. Kamptner's feeling if the building came down and other buildings were built that would make the special use permit null and void. Mr. Kamptner stated that it was very possible that the special use permit might become null and void. It would put the zoning administrator in a tough position, but she would have to make that call. The zoning administrator would look at the building itself and not the footprint of the building. He stated that if the Commission has a concern, then they should either amend that condition to either clarify it or to simply delete the requirement. Mr. Rieley pointed out that after they hear what the applicant has to say that they might end up clarifying that condition. Mr. Edgerton asked if there were any other questions. There being none, he opened the public hearing and asked the applicant to address the Commission. Tim Slagle, representative for Seminole Properties, stated that he was one of the owners of the old Comdial building and was here to answer any questions. First, he would try to address the two questions that he had heard. The amount of square footage that was originally specified is based upon the original discussions they had with Gold Gym's about a lease for a portion of the former Comdial building. Therefore, there was nothing magisterial about the square footage since it was for the amount of square footage that they were asking for at that particular point. Whether any gym facility would come on to this property under a lease remains to be seen. But, they felt that they should go ahead and proceed with this special use permit application in the event that another such use should come forth. The second question is in reference to where the gym would be in reference to the contamination on the site. The contamination was located behind the building in an area where Comdial had some storage tanks. Those storage tanks had leaked into the ground water. The gym would be located inside the building far away from this area of contamination. Actually, Seminole Properties are in the fourth year of a six year remediation plan with the State Department of Environmental Quality. Therefore, that will not be an issue in future years. He pointed out that one of the requirements with the DEQ is not to use any of the ground water on the site for potable water, which was not an issue anticipated at any point in the future. Mr. Edgerton asked if there were any other members of the public that would like to address the Commission. There being none, he closed the public hearing to bring the matter back before the Planning Commission. Ms. Joseph asked about the details on condition 1. She wondered what exactly was being restricted and suggested that the condition be more explicit. Mr. Rieley stated that this was a really suitable use for the Com dial building and he was sorry that the negotiations did not work out with the previous potential lessee. He felt that the Commission should clarify condition 2 relating to whether the use could be reestablished in a new building if the existing building were removed or destroyed. Since the applicant's representative did not make a case that the request would be for a new building, his inclination would be to clarify that it is granted for the 60,000 square feet within the physical building itself and not simply the footprint of the building. He stated that he would leave it up to Mr. Kamptner to word the condition between now and the Board meeting. He moved for approval of SP-2004-031, Gym at Seminole Place, with that caveat to the recommended conditions in the staff report. 1. The proposed indoor gym shall be operated in general accord with the special permit justification dated June 21, 2004 (including attachments) and supplemental information contained in a letter from Timothy R. Slagle to Susan E. Thomas, Senior Planner, dated July 26, 2004, documents which are attached to these conditions; ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - MARCH 1, 2005 DRAFT MINUTES (SUBMITTED MARCH 29, 2005) 3 2. This Special Permit (SP 2004-031) is granted for up to 60,000 square feet of area within the existing physical building itself and not simply the footprint of the building. Any enlargement of the area of use beyond the 60,000 square feet will require amendment of this Special Permit; 3. Pedestrian and bicycle access shall be provided from Greenbrier Drive to the site along the existing entrance road, as shown on the attached concept plan submitted by the applicant as a part of the Special Permit application (dated September 3, 2004 and initialed by SET). These pedestrian and bicycle facilities shall meet VDOT standards, except that all sidewalks shall be five feet in width, and shall be approved by VDOT and the County Engineer. These facilities shall be built or bonded prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for Gym at Seminole Place. 4. The existing driveway access to the site from Commonwealth Drive shall be upgraded as necessary to accommodate two way traffic to the satisfaction of County Engineering and VDOT. 5. The gated access to the site from Commonwealth Drive shall remain open during all hours the gym facility is open for business. Ms. Higgins seconded the motion. Mr. Edgerton asked if there was any further discussion. Ms. Echols pointed out that there are two additional modifications to conditions that should be included in the motion. The one that Ms. Joseph brought up concerning the applicant's justification letter as referenced in condition 1 and the second regarding the pedestrian access as referenced in condition 3. That would allow staff to make those changes to the conditions before it would get to the Board of Supervisors. Mr. Rieley stated that he certainly thought that making an accommodation for the pedestrian access as discussed should be included. He felt that the important thing was that they have it. It would really complicate matters trying to turn a rural cross section into an urban cross section for the purposes of getting pedestrian access. Therefore, he felt that including modifications to that condition made a lot of sense. He asked Ms. Joseph to explain the other clarification. Ms. Joseph stated that the other one references the application in the letter. It would probably be a lot cleaner if they took out the important aspects of the letter such as the time, the hours of operation and the number of people that they expect to be served on this property. She felt that it would definitely be a cleaner condition, particularly for those who have to enforce this. It would also eliminate Zoning having to go back and forth trying to figure out exactly what general accord means. Mr. Rieley agreed to add those modifications to conditions to his motion. Ms. Higgins agreed to these modifications in her second to the motion. The motion carried by a vote of (6:0) with the following modified conditions. (Thomas - absent) 1. The proposed indoor gym shall be operated in general accord with the special permit justification dated June 21, 2004 (including attachments) and supplemental information contained in a letter from Timothy R. Slagle to Susan E. Thomas, Senior Planner, dated July 26, 2004, documents which are attached to these conditions; (WORDING TO BE WORKED ON BY STAFF) 2. This Special Permit (SP 2004-031) is granted for up to 60,000 square feet of area within the existing physical building itself and not simply the footprint of the building. Any enlargement of the area of use beyond the 60,000 square feet will require amendment of this Special Permit; 3. Pedestrian and bicycle access shall be provided from Greenbrier Drive to the site along the existing entrance road, as shown on the attached concept plan submitted by the applicant as a part of the Special Permit application (dated September 3, 2004 and initialed by SET). These pedestrian and bicycle facilities shall meet VDOT standards, except that all sidewalks shall be five feet in width, and shall be approved by VDOT and the County Engineer. These facilities ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - MARCH 1, 2005 DRAFT MINUTES (SUBMITTED MARCH 29, 2005) 4 . . . shall be built or bonded prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for Gym at Seminole Place. (WORDING TO BE WORKED ON BY STAFF) 4. The existing driveway access to the site from Commonwealth Drive shall be upgraded as necessary to accommodate two way traffic, to the satisfaction of County Engineering and VDOT. 5. The gated access to the site from Commonwealth Drive shall remain open during all hours the gym facility is open for business. Mr. Edgerton stated that SP-2004-31 was unanimously approved and will go before the Board of Supervisors on April 6. He noted that Mr. Kamptner will work on the language of the two conditions before the request goes to the Board of Supervisors. SP 2004-056 Meadowaate Farm Home OccuDation Class B: (Formerly titled "Winn, Jr., Wendall) Request for a special use permit to allow a Home Occupation Class B with up to two employees for an office, in accordance with Section 10.2.2.31 of the Zoning Ordinance, which allows for Home Occupations Class B. The property is described as Tax Map 120, Parcel 22, contains 109 acres, and is zoned RA, Rural Area. The proposal is located at 7060 Esmont Farm, approximately .20 miles from the intersection of Route 715 (Esmont Road) and Route 719 (Alberene Road), in the Scottsville Magisterial District. The Comprehensive Plan designates this property Rural Area. (Rebecca Ragsdale) Ms. Ragsdale summarized the staff report. This special use permit is for a home occupation, class B. The special use permit is to allow the author that works from her home there to have up to two employees to assist with any office related or other related things to the writing. It is expected that these employees will work normal office hours generally from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. five days per week. The employees would work within the primary residence of the house. There would be no alterations either inside or outside the house to accommodate these employees. During the site visits there would only be a laptop and phone. When the employee left they will pack up and you would never know that they had been there. This property is 109 acres located in Esmont. As included in the staff report, there are no issues regarding access. There are two entrances onto the property from two state roads that are paved. There is ample parking for these employees. Staff did not identify any issues with this being incompatible or having any impacts to the rural areas. It is a historic property, but the Historic Preservation Planner did not have any concerns since there were no alterations or concerns with it. Regarding conditions of approval and Section 5.0 of the ordinance that governs home occupations, there were no requests for modifications. The area for such home occupation shall not exceed 1,500 square feet. Since the applicant has not proposed any accessory structures to be used, staff suggested that as a condition under 2 on page 3 of the staff report. Staff recommends approval with the two conditions. Actually, the first condition is not necessary. Mr. Kamptner pointed out that condition 1 was covered under other sections of the ordinance regarding home occupations. Therefore, staff recommends approval with just the one condition that the applicant does not expand or utilize the accessory structures on the property for the home occupation. Mr. Edgerton asked if there were any questions for staff. Ms. Joseph asked if the special use permit would run with the owner. Mr. Kamptner stated that the special use permit would run with the land. Therefore, as long as they continue that same occupation the special use permit would be valid. There being no further questions for staff, Mr. Edgerton opened the public hearing and invited the applicant to come forward to address the Commission. Wendall Winn, an attorney with Richmond & Fishburne, stated that he was present to represent the applicant, Meadowgate Farm. This request is just to enable an author to write in her home, which is an old historic property. He stated that she does have one employee who devotes some of her time to supporting her writing effort. Therefore, they thought that it would come under the Class B, Home Occupation. They went ahead and applied for permission to have two employees in the event that she should subsequently hire someone else. She is a fairly well know authoress and is very glad to be in Albemarle County. Hopefully, this special use permit will be approved. ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - MARCH 1, 2005 5 DRAFT MINUTES (SUBMITTED MARCH 29, 2005) Mr. Edgerton asked if there were any questions for Mr. Winn. There being none, he asked if there was any member of the public who would like to address the Commission on this application. There being none, he closed the publié hearing to bring the matter back before the Commission for action. Mr. Craddock moved for approval of SP-2004-056, Meadowgate Farm Home Occupation Class B, subject to condition 2 recommended in the staff report. 1. The number of employees, other than family member!; residing on the premises, associated with this home oocupation shall not exoeed p.vo. 2. No accessory structures shall be used for this home occupation. Mr. Morris seconded the motion. The motion carried by a vote of (6:0). (Thomas - Absent). Mr. Edgerton stated that SP-2004-056, Meadowgate Farm Home Occupation Class B was approved unanimously and would go to the Board of Supervisors on April 6. SP 2004-059 Toad Hollow Farm Horse Show: Request for a special use permit for horse show grounds, permanent, in accordance with Section 10.2.2.12 of the Zoning Ordinance which allows for horse show grounds, permanent in the RA (Rural Areas) by special use permit. The subject parcel, described as Tax Map 41, Parcel 15A, contains approximately 36 acres and is located at 4333 Cannon Brook Way, on the east side of Browns Gap Turnpike (Route 680), approximately 2 miles south of White Hall. The property lies within the White Hall Magisterial District, is zoned RA (Rural Areas) and is in the area designated as Rural Areas 3 by the Comprehensive Plan. (Rebecca Ragsdale) Ms. Ragsdale summarized the staff report. The applicant is requesting approval of SP 2004-059 to host horse shows at their 36.78-acre property known as Toad Hollow Farm. The applicant would use an existing 25,000 square-foot covered arena and an 80' by 210' outdoor arena for the horse shows. The applicant currently has a commercial stable use there for riding lessons and for other persons who want to rent the facilities. The portion of the property that will be utilized is shown on the application plan. The applicant intends to host 6 horse show events a year for local participants and also host several smaller dog agility trials and clinics with approximately 30 people to be limited to 3 per year. A full description of the proposal has been provided by the applicant in their special use permit application. Horse show events would be attended by approximately 80 participants and spectators for dog agility trials would have approximately 30 people attend. There would be no new permanent facilities to accommodate the horse shows as arenas and parking areas are existing. Gravel parking is provided around the arenas and barn, and pastures would also be used for trucks and horse trailers. This is a request for a special use permit for horse show grounds, permanent, in accordance with Section 10.2.2.12 of the Zoning Ordinance which allows for horse show grounds, permanent in the RA (Rural Areas) by special use permit. The subject parcel, described as Tax Map 41, Parcel 15A, contains approximately 36 acres and is located at 4333 Cannon Brook Way, on the east side of Browns Gap Turnpike (Rt. 680), approximately 2 miles south of White Hall. The property lies within the White Hall Magisterial District, is zoned RA (Rural Areas) and is in the area designated as Rural Areas 3 by the Comprehensive Plan. Immediately surrounding the Toad Hollow Farm are properties within the Moorman's River Agricultural and Forestal District. There is a residential subdivision to the southwest, which has 2 to 3 acre lots. Most of the adjacent land is similar properties with commercial stables and other related facilities. The indoor horse arena was constructed in 2004 and the resident has the commercial stable use there now. This is considered an agricultural use when it comes to the site plan requirements. Therefore, staff took that into consideration when looking at the Comprehensive Plan Policy with the approach that it was a use that was supportive of agricultural uses in the County and the Rural Area Policy. Since it is a property that was adjacent to the Moorman's River Agricultural and Forestal District, the advisory committee reviewed the application and had favorable comments. They also identified concerns that came from other reviewers regarding the access to the property, which she would go into a little bit more in detail. But, ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - MARCH 1, 2005 6 DRAFT MINUTES (SUBMITTED MARCH 29, 2005) · · · they also had concerns that on event days there might be farmers in the community that would need to know about the events so that they are prepared for the increased traffic. This would be in case a farmer needed to get out on the road on their tractor during the event so that there would be no problems. The issues regarding access to the property was the main concern in this review. The concerns came from VDOT and the Engineering review. VDOT's concern was mainly the sight distance of Cannon Brook Way. Cannon Brook Way is the private lane or road that runs from Brown's Gap Turnpike back to the property. It is a nonexclusive right-of-way, which ranges from about 20 to 30 feet in right-of-way width, but the paved portion is not adequate for two way vehicle traffic. At its intersection with Route 680, VDOT has indicated that the sight distance to the south is not adequate. The site distance should be at least at a 500 foot minimum. Therefore, VDOT has recommended that the applicant provide a sight distance easement and remove the trees. The entrance itself to the state road was determined to be adequate for the increase in truck and trailer traffic. A suggested condition of approval includes VDOT's comments about sight distance being met. The engineering comments were about Cannon Brook Way itself and addressing the need for adequate room for two-way truck and trailer travel. To address that they decided that travel pull-offs was an adequate solution. A minimum of two gravel pull-offs along Cannon Brook Way would be required to allow two vehicles to pass safely. Photographs are provided at the end of the staff report to help clarify what she was trying to explain. If there were any questions, she would be happy to answer them. Attachment F is the sight distance easement at the intersection of Cannon Brook Way with Route 680. Engineering's suggested comments include providing improved signage to provide two DO NOT ENTER signs and one ONE WAY sign, which was a suggested condition of approval. Since it was determined that this was an agricultural activity the site plan was not required. A site plan could be required, but staff did not suggest that because the concept plan indicates what will be happening on the site itself. The other issues regarding the easement would be addressed on the plat. The applicant and engineering would work together to determine the appropriate size and location for the gravel pull-offs. Engineering has indicated that the size would be roughly what is required for a loading space, which would be 12 feet by 25 feet. Staff recommends approval of this application indicating that it was supportive of agricultural and forestal policies. Staff has heard from two adjacent property owners. One owner was just curious about the request. The second owner, the Smith's, who own a commercial stable just north of this property, said that they were supportive of the request. The unfavorable factors identified were that there would be some need to improve Cannon Brook Way and the sight distance to accommodate this use safely. Staff recommends approval of the request subject to the conditions listed in the staff report. Mr. Edgerton asked if there were any questions for staff. Ms. Higgins stated that staff refers to the easements, but in the conditions there is no easement language. Ms. Ragsdale stated that what VDOT has said to meet that requirement was in condition 5, which was subject to their approval. VDOT said that ultimately to insure the best maintenance of that sight distance would be an easement, but that would be something that the applicant gets approved. Staff did not specify that they would be providing an easement. At the time staff was not sure if some other arrangement would be satisfactory to VDOT. Staff did not want to be the one requiring the easement since the County would not actually be the easement holder involved in that. It would be approved with the plat, but it would subject to VDOT's requirements. Ms. Higgins questioned the condition that says the applicant shall obtain Health Department approval prior to all events. She pointed out that she did not know if the Health Department has a procedure for the issuance of an event permit. Ms. Ragsdale stated that staff did not find an actual Health Department approval that was needed, but thought that the Health Department would be the agency that would address the number of portable toilets and that sort of thing. But, they don't actually have those standards. Therefore, it would either be appropriate to eliminate that condition or suggest our own standards in a condition if the Commission feels that is appropriate. ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - MARCH 1, 2005 DRAFT MINUTES (SUBMITTED MARCH 29, 2005) 7 Ms. Higgins stated that it was not very well defined because they don't have anything like that and she was not sure in a case like this that there is even a necessity for something like that. Typically the owners would need to get portable johns or alternative facilities. Mr. Rieley stated that it was not a Health Department approval. Ms. Higgins stated that they would only need Health Department approval if they were going for an event like the County fair. Then they would have to go in and meet a certain number, which would get more involved than that. There being no further questions for staff, Mr. Edgerton opened the public hearing and invited the applicant to come forward to address the Commission. Ann Sutherland, representative for Toad Hollow Farm, LLC, stated that she was one of the general partners. They were putting in this application for a special use permit because they want to provide some additional facilities for the local horse association to have schooling shows to allow people to school their horses and have a venue for exhibiting them. In terms of the conditions, they were in favor of the conditions. They were in favor of the limitations because she did not think that they could organize more than six horse shows a year and stay sane. They have talked with the other owners along the road about changes to the layout of the road, the signage and putting in the gravel turn-outs. All of the other owners had no objections. They have specifically spoken to Chris Middleton who owns property on which they would have to obtain a sight distance easement. Mr. Middleton was completely in favor of them maintaining the sight distance there. They have not done anything formal about the easement, but she did not foresee that they would have any problems in obtaining that. If there were any other questions, she would be happy to answer them. Mr. Rieley asked if she had met with the VDOT representatives when they were looking at the sight distance. Ms. Sutherland stated no that she did not. She pointed out that everybody along that road knows that sight distance is a problem because the road curves up and away and then there is a big bank of trees right on the edge of the road. When you come up to the intersection you can look to the right and see perfectly well. But, if you look to the left you can't see much beyond the intersection with Jones Mill Road. She felt that everybody along the road have felt that even in a small car that you run the risk of coming out and running into somebody that does not know that there is a road there. Therefore, that is why everybody was in favor of having the sight distance improved at that intersection. She stated that it was not just an issue for the horse trailers that would be pulling out, but it is really for anybody pulling in and out of the road. Ms. Higgins pointed out that it had already been improved. Mr. Rieley stated that he just wanted to make sure that everybody was clear on the extent of what would have to be done. He pointed out that it appeared that the fence and some trees might be an issue. It also looked like there might be some grading required. Ms. Sutherland stated that she felt that some clearing would do the trick. She pointed out that a lot of the trees were already gone. Mr. Morris asked if condition 2 was going to be a problem if there is no outdoor amplified sound system for the events. Ms. Sutherland stated that she did not think that it would be a problem at all because most of the shows that they have gone to at other places don't even have outside amplified sound. In general there is no need for it. They do have speakers inside the arena, but they have been working with their neighbors to make sure that they were not ominous in terms of the amount of noise coming out of it. But, that was the only speaker system that they anticipate having. ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - MARCH 1, 2005 DRAFT MINUTES (SUBMITTED MARCH 29, 2005) 8 . . . Ms. Higgins questioned condition 3 that says there shall be no overnight camping. She acknowledged that they were not trying to run a campground. Therefore, if there were a two day event some people who had horse trailers with living quarters might want to stay overnight. Therefore, she did not think that needs to be part of the conditions because that means that everybody technically has to leave and then return. They would then have the in and out versus some people if they have that kind of trailer that would just stay there. She noted that there would not be any strain on the bathroom facilities because they are all self-contained. She asked if that was something that staff has a concern about or where did that condition come from. Ms. Ragsdale stated that the condition came from the zoning staff. Ms. Higgins pointed out that for a two day event that it could be an issue. Ms. Sutherland stated that at the moment they do not anticipate having any two day events. They were basing this on the model of the shows that they have gone to in the past few years where it begins at about 8 a.m. in the morning and ends at about 4 p.m. in the afternoon, which was all inclusive. Because it was a schooling show as opposed to a recognized show, it usually does not last beyond one day. Therefore, she did not anticipate that there would be any need for that. Ms. Higgins moved for approval of SP-2004-059, Toad Hollow Farm Horse Show, with the recommended conditions in the staff report except for condition 9 and 10, which would be eliminated. 1. The horse show use shall be conducted in general accord with the concept plan, titled "Toad Hollow Farm" and labeled as "Attachment B". 2. There shall be no outdoor amplified sound system for events. 3. There shall be no overnight camping. 4. All exterior light fixtures shall be full cutoff luminaries and fully shielded and arranged or directed to reflect light away from adjoining properties and away from adjacent roads. 5. Prior to the issuance of a Zoning Clearance for the horse show use, the applicant shall provide sight distance at Cannon Brook Way and Route 680 (Browns Gap Turnpike) to the satisfaction of the Virginia Department of Transportation. 6. Subject to the approval of the county engineer, prior to the issuance of a Zoning Clearance for the horse show use and to provide safe and convenient access to the site, the applicant shall provide a minimum of two gravel pull-offs along Cannon Brook Way to allow two vehicles to pass safely. The applicant shall also provide two DO NOT ENTER signs and one ONE WAY sign placed at locations specified by the county engineer along Cannon Brook Way. 7. The number of horse show events shall be limited to 6 per year. The maximum number of participants and attendees at any single event shall be 80. 8. The number of events, other than horse show events, shall be limited to 3 per year and the maximum number of participants and attendees at any single event shall be limited to 40. These events shall not utilize the pastures for parking. O. Seating provided for cpectatore shall be limited to 50 ceate. 10. Thc applicant shall obtain Health Department approval prior to all events. Mr. Rieley seconded the motion. The motion carried by a vote of (6:0). (Thomas - Absent). Mr. Edgerton stated that SP-2004-059, Todd Hollow Farm, was approved unanimously and would go to the Board of Supervisors on April 6. SP 2004-060 Second Bank & Trust - Southside: Request for special use permit to allow a drive-in window to serve a bank in accordance with Section 25.2.2.4 of the Zoning Ordinance, which allows for drive-in windows serving or associated with permitted uses. The property contains approximately 1.34 acres, zoned Planned Development - Shopping Center (PDSC), and Entrance Corridor (EC). This site lies within the Scottsville Magisterial District and is located on the southern side of Mill Creek Drive (Route 1150) approximately 240 feet east of the intersection with Avon Street Extended (Route 742), adjacent to ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - MARCH 1, 2005 9 DRAFT MINUTES (SUBMITTED MARCH 29, 2005) the Mill Creek Exxon. The Comprehensive Plan designates this property as Community Service in Development Areas Neighborhood 4. AND SDP 2004-103 Second Bank & Trust - Southside: Critical Slopes Waiver Request. (Stephen Waller) Mr. Waller stated that this is a request for a special use permit that would allow the construction of a bank with a drive-through window and an ATM Machine. The Site Review Committee has reviewed this proposal for all relevant requirements of the Zoning Ordinance and Comprehensive Plan. This includes all of the provisions and standards for safe and convenient one-way access such as adequate stacking lanes and a by-pass lane aside from the drive-through. Staff recommends approval of this special use permit with the conditions that are provided in the staff report. The staff report also includes a request for the approval of a critical slopes waiver, which is also detailed in the staff report and requires a separate action by the Commission. Mr. Edgerton asked if the Commission had recently reviewed something on this same piece of land or an adjacent parcel. Mr. Waller stated that the Commission had reviewed a critical slopes waiver for the adjacent parcel located to the south of this parcel. Mr. Edgerton asked if that property was shown as lot C on page 18. Mr. Waller stated that was correct. The prior request had come before the Commission last week on the consent agenda as a critical slopes waiver for Creekmill Commons, which was approved. He pointed out that this request could have gone on the consent agenda as well, but it was just included in the staff report for the special use permit since another action was also needed. Mr. Edgerton stated that on page 18 it showed that the only critical slopes were located on the northeast corner of the drive-through area at the retaining walls. He asked if that was correct. Mr. Waller stated that was correct. Ms. Higgins asked if the critical slopes were located in all of the shaded area. Mr. Waller stated that the shaded area included some of the critical slopes. He pointed out that the critical slopes next to the pond will remain intact. Mr. Edgerton asked if the Department of Engineering reviewed the proposed critical slopes waiver. Mr. Waller stated that Engineering had reviewed the proposed critical slopes waiver and that their report was included in the staff report. He pointed out that is why Alan Schuck's name is on the report, but that Mr. Snell actually did the analysis. Mr. Edgerton asked if there were any other questions for staff. There being none, he opened the public hearing and invited the applicant to address the Commission. Since there was no one present to speak for the applicant, he asked if there was any other member of the public that would like to speak regarding this application. There being none, he closed the public hearing to bring the matter back before the Commission for discussion and a possible action. Mr. Rieley stated that he agreed with staffs recommendation. Mr. Morris moved for approval of SP-2004-060, Second Bank & Trust - Southside, with the conditions recommended in the staff report. 1. The site shall be constructed in general accordance with the preliminary site plan entitled "Proposed Site Plan and Special Use Permit, Second Bank & Trust - Souths ide Branch", last ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - MARCH 1, 2005 DRAFT MINUTES (SUBMITTED MARCH 29, 2005) 10 . 2. revised December 27,2004. The furthest lane from the building shall be maintained free of any obstructions and limited to bypassing traffic. Signage and pavement markings shall be provided at the entrance and exit points of the drive- through lane, subject to Current Development Division engineering approval to ensure appropriate and safe travel patterns. 3. Mr. Rieley seconded the motion. The motion carried by a vote of (6:0). (Thomas - Absent). Mr. Edgerton stated that SP-2004-060, Second Bank & Trust - Southside, was approved unanimously and would go to the Board of Supervisors on April 6. Ms. Higgins moved for approval of SDP-2004-103, Second Bank & Trust - Southside Critical Slopes Waiver Request. Mr. Craddock seconded the motion. The motion carried by a vote of (6:0). (Thomas - Absent). Mr. Edgerton stated that SDP-2004-103, Second Bank & Trust - Southside Critical Slopes Waiver Request was unanimously approved. Old Business: . Mr. Edgerton asked if there was any old business. Mr. Kamptner stated that last week the Commission had asked him to provide an update on some bills that were working their way through the General Assembly. There were two bills. One dealt with the tax credit for parcels that are donated as conservation easements. The bill that was originally proposed was going to impose a limit on the amount of the tax credit and to also limit the amount of the unused tax credit that could be sold or transferred to other people. The bill that was approved was significantly changed. The approved bill imposes clearer standards for the qualified appraisal that needs to support the application for the tax credit. The other piece of legislation deals with historic preservation and establishes a standard for making applications for historic preservation state aid from DHR. It was also going to establish requirements for organizations that apply for the state aid. The bill that was passed by the House last week does those two things. It also adds "interpretation" of sites and facilities as a funding priority along with the maintenance and operation of those sites owned by historical organizations. There is a third piece of legislation working its way through Congress, which may significantly reduce the tax benefits for donations of easements for lands for conservation purposes. Mr. Edgerton asked if there was any further old business. There being none, the meeting proceeded. New Business: Mr. Edgerton asked if there was any new business. Mr. Cilimberg asked that the Commissioners take note that there will be no meeting next week. THERE ARE NO ITEMS ON THE AGENDA FOR NEXT WEEK, THEREFORE THE NEXT SCHEDULED PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING WILL BE HELD TUESDAY, MARCH 15. . There being no further new business, the meeting proceeded. Adjournment: ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - MARCH 1, 2005 DRAFT MINUTES (SUBMITTED MARCH 29, 2005) 11 With no further items, the meeting adjourned at 7:05 p.m. to the March 15, 2005 meeting. V. Wayne Cilimberg, Secretary (Recorded and transcribed by Sharon Claytor Taylor, Recording Secretary.) ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - MARCH 1, 2005 DRAFT MINUTES (SUBMITTED MARCH 29, 2005) 12 Albemarle County Service Auth'rity ~"'--- --::::>~ Serving' Conserving March 23, 2005 Ella Carey Clerk Albemarle County Board of Supervisors 401 Mcintire Road Charlottesville, VA 22902 Re: ACSA Board of Directors Minutes: February 17, 2005 Dear Ella: Please find enclosed a copy of the above-referenced minutes. Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call. Sincerely, A . ,~.~- ~.~ -~g-H Susan L. Rohm-Briggs Administrative Office Associate Enclosure cc: Bob Tucker, County Executive Tom Frederick, Executive Director, RWSA Jack Farmer 168 Spotnap Road · P.O. Box 2738 · Charlottesville, VA 22902 · Tel (434) 977-4511 . Fax (434) 979-0698 www.acsanet.com Albemarle County Service Authority Board of Directors Minutes of February 17, 2005 Page 1 The Board of Directors of the Albemarle County Service Authority met in regular session on February 17, 2005 at 9:00 am. Members Present: Mr. Parker, Chairman, Mr. Wagner, Vice-Chairman; Messrs. Humphris, Larsen, Roberts Members Absent: Mr. Lumpkin Staff Present: Messrs. Brent, Bowling, Humphrey, Kister, Shoop; Ms. Barton, Ms. Breeden, Ms. Rohm- Briggs, Ms. Thraves Public Present: Mr. Thomas Frederick and Ms. Jennifer Whitaker, Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority; Ms. Katie Hobbs, Mr. Jim Colbaugh, Mr. John Martin The Chairman called the meeting to order and a quorum was established. Approval of Minutes The minutes of the Board's January 27, 2005 meeting were reviewed and approved with one editorial change on page two. Consent Aqenda For Information a. Monthly Financial Reports - Mr. Brent pointed out that there had been a dramatic climb in urban area water and wastewater use by ACSA relative to the City's use. He said the budgeted ratio for water had been 56% City/44% ACSA. The current ratio is 52.5% City/47.5% ACSA. He said the staff is searching for an explanation of this sudden change. b. Monthly CIP Report c. RWSA Minutes of December 2 and December 20, 2004 Presentation on Water Supply Altematives by RWSA Staff The Chairman stated that Mr. Thomas Frederick was present to advise the Board of the status of the water supply project. Mr. Frederick passed out printed material for reference during his presentation (Attached as Pages _). He started by advising the Board that his presentation today had been previously presented to the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors and the Charlottesville City Council. He added that the focus of the presentation is to give each Board or Council with a stake in the decision-making process an overview of the progress of the water supply study and upcoming steps. Mr. Frederick stated that Rivanna's goal for increasing the local water supply was to obtain necessary permits that would achieve the 9.9 mgd of added safe yield over 50 years. Albemarle County Service Authority Board of Directors Minutes of February 17, 2005 Page 2 Mr. Frederick commented that the public is very interested in how the final decision to select an alternative is made. He said that there would be a joint meeting with the Albemarle County Service Authority Board of Directors, Albemarle County Board of Supervisors, Charlottesville City Council and RWSA on March 3, 2005 to discuss the final decision making process. Mr. Frederick reminded the Board of the four concepts; South Fork Rivanna Reservoir (SFRR) dredging adding 5.5 mgd, SFRR expansion (4-Foot Crest) adding 3.3 mgd, James River intake adding 9.9 mgd and Ragged Mountain Reservoir expansion adding 9.9 mgd. Mr. Frederick reviewed the dredging alternative which drew questions from the Board. The Chairman suggested that it would be interesting to see a profile of the original reservoir bottom to determine where the sediment was actually accumulating. Ms. Whitaker said limited information existed but there had been discussion of making the next bathymetric survey more topographically based to obtain this information. Mr. Roberts inquired about the ability to scoop sediment from the reservoir when the water level was low. Mr. Frederick said that RWSA had sought a permit to do this during the drought but the rains came and refilled the reservoir before a permit could be obtained. Mr. Brent added that although the exposed material appeared to be recoverable through conventional excavation methods it had only formed a cake on the surface. It would have required a drag line or clamshell operation to remove it. Mr. Frederick gave an overview of the process of dredging and disposal of the material. He said it was very difficult to quantify the marketability of the dredged material. Mr. Frederick said that there was great concern in the community about what the reservoir would look like in the future if dredging was not done. The volume would slowly decrease and biotic vegetation would likely increase, some of which could be invasive and would require increased monitoring of water quality. There is no expectation of upstream flooding or that the body of water would become a mud bog. He added that dredging remains an option in the future even if not selected as the desired alternative this time. Mr. Humphris asked if wineries had been explored as a possible market for the dredged material. Mr. Frederick said they had talked to haulers, composters, etc. in reviewing opportunities but had not done a comprehensive search of the end-use businesses. Mr. Larsen commented that the cost of the dredging operation was heavily skewed towards the trucking costs. Mr. Humphris wanted to know if consideration had been given to using water from the dead zone at the dam to make up some of the water requirement. Mr. Frederick said the intake pipes were imbedded in the dam structure and it would be very costly to alter this. Albemarle County Service Authority Board of Directors Minutes of February 17,2005 Page 3 Mr. Frederick then moved to the option of adding a four-foot crest gate to the SFRR dam. Mr. Bowling asked if raising the water level would create the new wetlands and could the new wetlands be used to offset damage to existing wetlands. Mr. Frederick said that would be strongly pursued if this was the selected option but he had no indication what the trade-off might be. Mr. Frederick said 115 acres of land would have to be acquired for the raised pool of water. The Ivy Creek bridge would also have to be replaced. Mr. Frederick said this option had the highest wetlands and stream inundation impact of all the options. Mr. Humphris asked if some height between four-feet and eight-feet had been considered for raising of the dam. Mr. Frederick said that four-feet was selected because at higher elevations the environmental damages became disproportionately higher. Mr. Humphris also asked if a survey for the James Spiny Mussel within the higher pool level had been conducted. Mr. Frederick said a study had been conducted and that one mussel had been found near - but not within - the higher pool level. Regulators could require that this be further studied. Regarding the James River concept, Mr. Frederick said such a project could be undertaken by RWSA or done in conjunction with Fluvanna and Louisa counties. He reviewed the intake structure and possible route approximately following Route 20. Wetlands impact was minimal and there would be no permanent stream impact. Mr. Humphris wondered why the cost of the James River option in a 1977 study was so much higher than the current estimates. Ms. Whitaker could not comment on the earlier report but said that this cost estimate is based upon comparable recent work in Virginia. Mr. Humphris inquired if it would be possible to serve a water treatment plant in southern Albemarle County by this raw water pipeline if in the future growth was designated in that area. Mr. Frederick replied that this had not been studied. Mr. Larsen asked if any of the four plans had a higher on-going treatment cost than the others. Mr. Frederick said that they were just now getting into the study of this issue. Mr. Roberts asked if there was an opportunity for other utilities to share the water line trench. Mr. Brent and Mr. Frederick did not think this was likely. Mr. Humphris inquired if the Sugar Hollow pipeline would need to be replaced if the James River option were chosen. Mr. Frederick said it was likely that this would not have to be done since water from Sugar Hollow Reservoir could reach the South Rivanna Reservoir via the Moorman's River. Albemarle County Service Authority Board of Directors Minutes of February 17, 2005 Page 4 Mr. Frederick then reviewed the option of expanding the Ragged Mountain Reservoir. He noted that $5 million in repairs to the existing dam are required. With improvements the existing dam could be raised 13-feet maximum. The consultants indicated a better alternative is to move downstream and construct a new, higher dam. A new dam could satisfy the 9.9 mgd requirement. He said environmental impacts are low regarding wetlands but there are stream impacts. When compared to the other projects these steam impacts are "in the middle". Catchments can be added to the storm drain system to limit the spill threat from Interstate 64. Mr. Humphris asked if it would be possible to obtain an extension of the deadline for a dam repair decision. Mr. Frederick said the issue of a timetable for a water supply decision would come up at the March 3, 2005 meeting but he emphasized that RWSA was "under the gun" from the dam safety officials to correct the deficiencies at this dam. Mr. Roberts asked what percentages of a project cost would the City and ACSA bear. Mr. Brent replied that this would have to be worked out between the City and ACSA. There are different variables with each project. An agreement was previously negotiated for splitting the four-foot increase at SFRR. This would have to be renegotiated. General discussion followed on sedimentation control, water conservation and demand projections. The Board then thanked Mr. Frederick for his presentation. Consideration of Corrected Rate Resolution Mr. Brent stated that the rate resolution presented to the Board at the January 27, 2005 meeting contained two mistakes in need of correction. The effective date for the rain sensors in section 17.02 should be February 1, 2005 and the RWSA Capacity Charge should be $920. Mr. Brent asked that the Board adopt the corrected resolution as presented (Attached as Pages _). Mr. Humphris moved to adopt the resolution as presented, seconded by Mr. Larsen. The Chairman called for a roll-call vote: Mr. Larsen, aye; Mr. Parker, aye; Mr. Roberts, aye; Mr. Humphris, aye. (Mr. Wagner previously excused himself from the remainder of the meeting and was not present for the vote.) Consideration of Request for Water Service to Glenorchv Mr. Brent had submitted a recommendation to the Board that water service be offered to four property owners in Glenorchy subdivision provided all four agree to connect to the system (Attached as Pages _). The four homes are currently served by a central well operated by one of the four homeowners, Mr. and Mrs. Harley Easter. The Easters had given notice that they were discontinuing water service to the other homes. Albemarle County Service Authority Board of Directors Minutes of February 17, 2005 Page 5 Mr. Roberts expressed his concern about the Easters discontinuing service. The Chairman said this did occur with some regularity. He added that the Authority had taken the responsibility to provide service in these instances where no other alternative for water service was available. Mr. Larsen moved to authorize staff to proceed with the design and construction of a water main to serve G/enorchy, seconded by Mr. Humphris. The Chairman called for a roll-call vote: Mr. Larsen, aye; Mr. Parker, aye; Mr. Roberts, nay; Mr. Humphris, aye. Appropriation of Funds for All-Terrain Vehicle and Trailer Mr. Brent stated that included in the Capital Improvement Program is the purchase of several pieces of required equipment. He added that an appropriation in the amount of $3,400 was requested for the purchase of a 5-ton trailer. He also requested an appropriation of $10,196 for an all-terrain vehicle to transport equipment into areas where trucks cannot maneuver. Mr. Brent stated that in the future he would try to package appropriation requests and avoid individualizing each equipment appropriation to save the Board's time. Mr. Roberts moved to approve the appropriation of $3,400 for the requested trailer and $10,196 for the all-te"ain vehicle in the Capital Improvement Fund, seconded by Mr. Larsen. All members voted aye. Consideration of Resolution Authorizino Sionatures for Financial Transactions Mr. Brent referred to several resolutions provided to the Board requiring their approval in authorizing Ms. Lisa Breeden to execute documents requiring the signature of the Authority's Director of Finance as of February 26, 2005 (Attached as Pages _). Mr. Brent asked that the Board adopt the generic resolution authorizing Ms. Breeden to execute needed documents for the Authority as well as the resolution specifically for Bank of America. Mr. Humphris asked if Mr. Bowling had reviewed both resolutions and Mr. Bowling stated that he had. Mr. Humphris moved to adopt both resolutions as presented, seconded by Mr. Larsen. The Chairman called for a roll-call vote: Mr. Larsen, aye; Mr. Parker, aye; Mr. Roberts, aye; Mr. Humphris, aye. RecoQnition of Jim Kister Upon Retirement Mr. Brent stated that Mr. R. James Kister had worked for the Authority for 27 years as the head of the Finance department. Mr. Brent stated that for 22 consecutive years the Authority was in receipt of the Government Finance Officers Association Certificate of Achievement for Excellence in Financial Reporting and that the Authority was the first public water and sewer authority in the state of Virginia to obtain such an award. He added that the Authority obtained the highest bond rating available to a revenue-supported Albemarle County Service Authority Board of Directors Minutes of February 17, 2005 Page 6 public utility and has maintained those ratings. Mr. Brent said that Mr. Kister had excelled in the accounting field and has been recognized by his peers in serving as president of the state financial officials association as well as serving on national committees. Mr. Brent stated that through the hard work of Mr. Kister the Authority had reached a level of distinction in govemmental financial circles. The Chairman reiterated Mr. Brent's comments stating that the Board has had complete confidence in the financial reporting over the years with Mr. Kister in charge. Mr. Humphris stated that he knew from the start that Mr. Kister was competent in his position. Mr. Roberts added that for any agency of the Authority's caliber to go through as many audits without substantial differences was amazing. Mr. Kister said that when he first started with the Authority he felt that it was a great opportunity for him being that no one had previously held this position. He later found out that it was a great opportunity. Mr. Kister added that with a Board member's help he was able to save the Authority and that he had never publicly thanked Mr. Humphris for his assistance. He thanked Mr. Brent for allowing him to perform his duties. The Chairman stated that the Board appreciated Mr. Kister's hard work and presented him with a gift wishing him well in the future and the resolution recognizing Mr. Kisters's service and retirement was read aloud (Attached as Page _). Mr. Humphris moved to adopt the resolution, with honor, acknowledging Mr. Kister's 27 years of service and retirement seconded by Mr. Larsen. The Chairman called for a roll-call vote: Mr. Larsen, aye; Mr. Parker, aye; Mr. Roberts, aye; Mr. Humphris, aye. There being no further business, Mr. Roberts moved the meeting be adjourned, seconded by Mr. Larsen. All members voted aye. :;!", L--- J. W. lent Secretary-Treasurer James S. Utterback, PMP Charlottesville Residency Administrator Virginia Department of Transportation 701 VDOT Way Charlottesville, VA 22911 'ft.... CHARLOTTESVILLE RESIDENCY MONTHLY REpORT MARCH 2005 CONSTRUCTION Active Construction Projecls Route 649 (Airport Road improvement project) 0649-002-158, C501 Original completion date: 9/2/2005 Award amount: $4,820,177 Estimated completion date: 9/2/2005 Est. completion amount: $4,855,598 · New waterline installation complete and in service. · Continued storm drain installation throughout the project. Route 20 (Carter's Bridge replacement project) 0020-002-126, C501, B608 Original completion date: 5/1/2005 Award amount: $1,488,823 Estimated completion date: 5/1/2005 Est. completion amount: $1,498,346 · Both abutments completed with bridge beams placed. Route 53 (Buck Island Creek bridge replacement project) 0053-002-101, C501, B601 Original completion date: 11/1/2005 Award amount: $1,644,187 Estimated completion date: 11/1/2005 Est. completion amount: $1,644,187 · Side channel improvement and permanent fence completed. · Borrow material source obtained. · Began fill embankment operations. BP-7 A-05 (District wide bridge painting project) Original completion date: 8/26/2005 Award amount: $1,556,670 Estimated completion date: 8/26/2005 Est. completion amount: $1,556,670 · Continuing work on the bridge over Route 637. · Began working on Route 690 bridge over 1-64. MAINTENANCE WORK COMPLETED Albemarle County · Rt 667, drainage issue, ditching completed · Orchard Acres Subdivision, concrete ditch drainage issue completed · Millington Bridge, surface issue, closed · Route 614, drainage issue, pipe cleaned · West entrance to Mt. Moriah Church in White Hall, cars dragging, added stone · Patching potholes in preparation of schedule work · Slurry operations in various subdivisions · Emergency Operations: Snow removal & incident management on 1-64 Greene County · Emily Couric Markers, markers ordered 3/18/05, expect delivery in mid April · Route 632, gravel road maintenance and drainage complete · Route 33 and 230 sidewalks, pending PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING Albemarle County · Route 22 / 250 Intersection Improvements, 0022-002-104, C501 Field Inspection is scheduled for April 11, 2005. · Route 631 McIntire Road, 0631-002-128, C502, B612, B657 On schedule for a June 2008 Ad Date with ROW acquisition scheduled to begin in December 2005. · Route 691 Jarmans Gap Road, 0691-002-158, C501 On schedule for December 2008 Ad Date. The Public Hearing is scheduled for July 2005. Page 1 of4 · Route 656 Georgetown Road, 0656-002-254, C501 Proj ect is in preliminary design to development concepts drawings based on the 1994 public proposal for an informational meeting later this year. · Route 606 Dickerson Road, 0606-002-P75, N501 On schedule for a December 2007 Ad Date. The ROW for this gravel road project is only partially available. · Route 640 Gilbert Station Road, 0640-002-P78, N501 Project will be constructed using State Forces with construction beginning in April 2005. · Route 666 Allen Road, 0666-002-P80, N501 Project will be constructed using State Forces with construction beginning in April 2005. Greene County · Route 627 Bacon Hollow Road, 0627-039-195, C501 Project is on schedule for December 2006 Ad Date. · Route 640 Watson Road, 0640-039-137, N501 Project will be constructed using State Forces with construction beginning in April 2005. Virginia Department of Transportation 701 VDOT Way Charlottesville, VA 2291J PLANNING, PERMITS AND LAI\D DEVELOP:Y1EI\T Land Development Items Total This Month Special Use Permits and Rezoning Application Review Site Plan Reviews for new Subdivisions New Entrance Plan Reviews Total Permits Processed Utility Permits Processed Inspection of new Subdivision Street conducted Inspection of new entrance conducted Miles of Street Accepted in the State System 4 6 16 19 16 6 69 o Total This Fiscal Year 60 70 79 124 110 45 576 3.53 TRAFFIC ENGINEERING · On March 16, 2005, the reduced speed limits on Route 22 and Route 231 were approved by CTB. Route 231, trom Gordonsville County line to Route 22, speed limit was reduced trom 55 to 50 mph. Route 22, trom Route 231 to Route 250 was reduced trom 50 mph to 45 mph. New signs were posted on March 17,2005. · Guardrail install is complete on Route 20 North, at Cason Farm. · Guardrail request on Route 708, Dry Bridge- Installation is in progress. ALBEMARLE Route Location Issue Tvpe Received Description Complete Request for advance 20 @ Fontana Drive Signage 1/19/2005 warnmg 2/24/2005 Request to lower 20N @ Cason Farm Rd SpeedlSignage 2/18/2005 speed limit & post 3/4/2005 29 Rt. 29 & Rio Signage 6/1/2004 Request to install red 29NBL Ashwood Flashing light 5/21/2004 flashing light Page 2 of 4 Virginia Department of Transportation 701 VDOT Way Charlottesville, VA 22911 Question to remove 29 29Bypass to 250W exit Signage 9/15/2004 stop sign at junction 250 @ Tilman Light location 2/22/2005 Signal position 2/11/2005 Request to lower 621 Rt. 621, offRt. 20 N speed & signage 1/27/2005 speed limit & post 2/11/2005 627 Betwn. Rt. 795&Rt.20 Speed 3/2/2005 Speed study Intersection study/left turns at 631 Int. with Covenant/Left Int. study 3/21/2005 Covenant 631 @ Rt. 1177 Signal analysis 2/3/2005 Request for signal Signage review, 671 Ballards Mill Road Signage 9/30/2004 Speed reduction 2/16/2005 Btwn Rt 637&paved Request for speed 682 682 speed study 1/31/2005 study Customer suggests 712 North Garden Lane One way? 1/11/2005 one way road Traffic congestion at 729 @ Route 250 Intersection 9/17/2004 school Signage review, Curved portion of 743 Near Squirrel Ridge Signage 12/10/2004 roadway 1/19/2005 Intersection 743 Rt. 743/663@store Signage 2/10/2005 confusion 2/16/2005 EARL studies on 743 Various portions Sign/speed/g/r 2/17/2005 various safety issues Request for lower 1521 Powell Creek Drive Speed 2/16/2005 speed limit GREENE E!!E1£ Location Issue Tvpe Received Description Complete Traffic backing out Turning left WB onto onto turnlane onto 29NB 33 Traffic backup 10/20/2004 Rt. 29 Traffic in a.m. backs 33EB Turning right onto 29 S Traffic backup 10/20/2004 up onto Rt. 33 33 @ Rt. 633 Signal review 1/5/2005 Signal upgrade 3/7/2005 Page 3 of 4 MAINTENANCE BUDGET Virginia Department of Transportation 701 VDOT Way Charlottesville, VA 22911 20 - - TOTAL MAINT BUDGET FORECASTED EXPENDITURES ó-- CUMULATIVE ACTUAL 15 II) c .2 10 :i 5 III - - ~- ~ - - - - - ~ .~ - -- ~- - - ---.--..-- o Jul-04 Aug-04 Sep-Q4 Oct-04 Nov-04 Dec-04 Jan-05 Feb-05 Mar-05 Apr-05 May-05 Jun-05 Months · As of March 2005, Charlottesville Residency has expended $807,000 of a $1.4 million snow allocation. PLANNED MAINTENANCE WORK · Guardrail install will be occurring at various locations along 1-64 Westbound. · Contract patching operations will continue on 1-64 Eastbound :trom milemarker 110 to 115 and at the bridge on 1-64 Eastbound, Rivanna River, to repair the approaches. · Contract milling and patching on Route 250, near the railroad overpass at Mechum River, between Route 151 and Route 6. · VDOT crews are performing shoulder maintenance on Route 29 from Route 64 to Route 692. · Mowing work is planned at various locations on Route 250 to improve sight distance for drivers. · Maintenance crews will be cleaning up snow equipment and sweeping roadways. Crews will be patching in preparation for roadway surface improvements. · Slurry application is ongoing (began on March 24, 2005). · Plant Mix operations to begin April 11, 2005 Page 4 of 4 COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AGENDA TITLE: Hillsdale Drive Extension AGENDA DATE: April 6, 2005 SUBJ ECT/PROPOSALlREQUEST: Review and approve recommendations of Hillsdale Drive Extension Steering Committee ACTION: X INFORMATION: CONSENT AGENDA: ACTION: INFORMATION: STAFF CONTACTCS): Tucker, Foley, Davis, Cilimberg, Benish, Wade ATTACHMENTS: Yes LEGAL REVIEW: Yes REVIEWED BY: ~ ( BACKGROUND: The City has undertaken a study of the extension of Hillsdale Drive from Pepsi Place to Hydraulic Road. The Study Area for this project is generally defined as the area bordered by Route 29 on the west, Brandywine Drive on the east, Greenbrier Drive on the north and Hydraulic Road on the south. The corridor options for extending Hillsdale Drive from its present termini at Greenbrier Drive to Hydraulic Road would include constructing a new roadway in a new location, utilizing existing roadways with improvements, or a combination of these. Development of the road as a multi-modal facility (i.e. automobiles, transit, pedestrians, bicycles, etc.) was an integral part of this Study. The purpose of this location study was to determine if there is a feasible location for the extension of Hillsdale Drive from Greenbrier Drive to Hydraulic Road. The intent of this project is to: · Address safety and security issues existing along Hillsdale Drive · Relieve congestion on Route 29 and the Route 29 / Hydraulic Road intersection · Complete the area's multi-modal transportation network · Improve access to commercial businesses The Study process considered five alternatives for the extension of Hillsdale Drive, including a no-build option. A description of these alternatives, with a summary of the impacts of each, is provided in Attachment B. A graphic display of all alternatives can be found on Attachment C, D, E, and F of this executive summary. More detailed information regarding the alternatives and their impacts can be found in the full Study, the Hillsdale Drive Extension Location Study Report, located at www.hillsdaledrive.orq. As part of the Study process, the City appointed a steering committee to assist a hired consultant in identifying cultural, historical and natural resources and define potential alignments for the proposed Hillsdale Drive Extension. The Steering Committee mission was to recommend an extension location for the extension of Hillsdale Drive. Several representatives from Albemarle County were appointed to the Steering Committee. County representatives included David Bowerman, Juandiego R. Wade, Bob Metzger (Brookmill Homeowners Association), John Gregg (Branchland Property Owners Association) and James Hill (Northfield Homeowners Association). The Steering Committee met on numerous occasions and held four public meetings. The Steering Committee's recommendation is attached (Attachment A). Development of this project has been a long standing priority of the City and County because it has been seen as providing an important link to commercial areas and as an alternative parallel road to Route 29 for local traffic. This project is identified in the County Priority List for Secondary Road Improvements, the County Capital Improvement Plan, and CHART (the regional transportation plan for the City and County Urbanized Area). Angela Tucker, from the City of Charlottesville Department of Neighborhood Services, will present the Study findings and Steering Committee recommendations to the Board at the April 6th Board meeting. The City Council approved Alternative C at their March 7, 2005 meeting with the same conditions as noted in Attachment G. AGENDA TITLE: Hillsdale Drive Extension April 6, 2005 Page 2 STRATEGIC PLAN: 3.1 Make the County a Safe and Healthy Community in which citizens feel secure to live, work and play. DISCUSSION: There was strong support for Alternative E, the "No-Build" option, at the public hearings held by the Steering Committee, particularly from several neighborhoods and homeowner associations within the immediate study area, some of which are represented on the Steering Committee. The major objections to building the project expressed by the citizens related to concerns over public safety, congestion, noise pollution, air pollution and impacts to property values generated by increased traffic on Hillsdale Drive. Nevertheless, several members of the Steering Committee supported constructing the project, specifically Alternative C. Alternative C was considered the best alternative because it would have the least environmental impacts (to Meadow Creek and its floodplain), utilized the most existing infrastructure/built area, and was furthest from the Brook Mill residential area. The final recommendation from the Steering Committee (Attachment A) is reflective of the preferences of the members that supported either Alternatives C (Attachment C) or the "No-Build" option. This was achieved by noting the concerns of those supporting the "No-Build" alternative in the final Steering Committee recommendations and recommending to the Board and City Council that, if the "Build" option is chosen, Alternative C would be the recommended alternative, with the conditions as noted in Attachment A. These conditions are intended to address the concerns outlined by neighbors and citizens surrounding the "No-Build" option. The Steering Committee does not provide a recommendation to the Board or Council on whether to support a build or no-build option. While staff recognizes the concerns of the residents of the area, staff supports the Steering Committee's recommendations of Alternative C as the preferred alternative. Staff supports Alternative C because it: · Provides an alternate route for traffic in the vicinity of Hillsdale Drive, reducing traffic on Route 29 by 6,000 trips (in the forecast year-2025). . Connects major commercial areas along Route 29. · Provides access for pedestrian, bicyclists, and vehicular traffic to commercial areas without accessing Route 29. · Does not impact forested land or the established screening behind the Pepsi Place or the Seminole Square Center, and is removed from proximity to the Brookmill development. . Does not have any impact on Meadow Creek or its floodplain. Staff recognizes, as did the Steering Committee, that there was significant public opposition to any alternative. A major concern for some of the opposition is a fear that the road would attract a significant amount of traffic from Rt. 29 to the Hillsdale Road area, negatively affecting the character of the area and making the road more unsafe for residents. It should be noted current traffic volumes on Hillsdale Road are 5,800 vehicle trips/day. Under the no-build alternative, the forecasted traffic volume (2025) on the existing Hillsdale Drive is 8,700 trips/day, while under the build option (Alternative C) traffic volumes are forecast at 10,000 trips/day. Staff opinion is that the additional impact from the Hillsdale extension (Alternative C) is not significantly different from what would be anticipated if no extension were made. The recommended road design parameters noted in the Steering Committee's conditions of approval call for a lower speed, multi-modal and pedestrian friendly road, which would mitigate impacts of the additional traffic. Staff supports the eight conditions recommended by the Steering Committee as part of the Alternative C, option. The recommended conditions establish road design expectations and a community review and input process which will help to address and mitigate the negative impacts of the extension. The County has recently been awarded grant funding to begin installing pedestrian related safety improvements on the existing Hillsdale Drive, including completing the sidewalk system, providing pedestrian crosswalks, mid-road "safe heavens" at crossing points and other improvements. Alternative C would continue these concepts in the new project. One of the impacts of Alternative C is the potential need to relocate the existing storm water retention pond located at the corner of Hillsdale and Greenbrier Drive in order to realign Hillsdale Drive to intersect with Pepsi Place Drive. Although final design/construction plans have not yet been done for this improvement, relocating the pond adjacent to the realigned Hillsdale Drive is a feasible and acceptable concept according to the County Engineer. AGENDA TITLE: Hillsdale Drive Extension April 6, 2005 Page 3 In summary, the extension of Hillsdale Drive, from Greenbrier to Hydraulic Road, is a critical component of a high priority regional strategy to establish a network of local roads parallel to Route 29. This network would provide alternate travel routes, better connections between neighborhoods, better access to businesses and services, safer travel routes for pedestrian and bicyclist and more direct and efficient transit routes between destinations. The Hillsdale Drive extension is one of the high priority parallel roads in this parallel road network as evidenced by its priority in CHART and the 29H250 Study (Phase I and II). RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends the Board of Supervisors endorse the resolution noted on Attachment G supporting Alternative C. ATTACHMENTS Attachment A- Steering Committee Final Recommendations Attachment B- Corridor Alternative Descriptions Attachment C- Alternative C Location Map Attachment D- Alternative A Location Map Attachment E- Alternative B Location Map Attachment F- Alternative D Location Map Attachment G- Resolution Supporting Alternative C Attachment H - City of Charlottesville Location Public Hearing Approval Resolution 05.023 Attachment A Hillsdale Drive Extension Location Study Steering Committee Recommendation January 7, 2005 At the outset of this study a Steering Committee made up of City of Charlottesville and Albemarle County staff, VDOT Staff, elected officials, members from local businesses and residential communities and private design consultants was formed to oversee and guide the Hillsdale Drive Extension Location Study. After this initial group met, it was decided to invite leaders of the neighboring communities and organizations to become members of the Steering Committee. Its mission was to recommend a location for an extension of Hillsdale Drive (or a No-Build Alternative) and to ensure that every point of view and every concern was presented and discussed in an open, honest forum. The members of the Steering Committee have taken their responsibilities very seriously and each has represented its groups admirably. The members' dedication to the study and to those they represent is commendable. As the Committee completes its work with the publication of this recommendation, the citizens of our community should be reassured that they have been heard and their concerns were carefully considered. The Steering Committee met on nine occasions during this process and has participated in three Citizen Information Meetings and one Public Hearing, along with numerous and well attended neighborhood meetings with those citizens they represent. Ninety six people signed the Location Public Hearing attendance list. Of those, approximately 43% (41 people) were residents of the Brookmill or Branchlands neighborhoods. Both communities were represented by their association Presidents. Both spoke in favor of the No-Build Alternative. Petitions with a total of 151 signatures supporting the No-Build were received from these two communities. Written and oral comments include those received from the three organizations in the immediate area that serve the senior community, the Senior Center, Rosewood Village and The Laurels. Rosewood Village supports the No-Build Alternative. The Senior Center and The Laurels have serious concerns about parking and neighborhood safety for their respective facilities under any build alternative. All are looking for assurance that their concerns will be satisfactorily addressed before supporting any build alternative. The residents of the Brookmill and Branchlands communities support overwhelmingly the No-Build Alternative. The major objections expressed by the citizens relate to concerns over public safety, congestion, noise pollution, air pollution and impacts to property values generated by increased traffic on Hillsdale Drive. The business community, some local residents and commuters frustrated with the Route 29 traffic are more supportive of a build alternative. Input seems to indicate that some citizens will never accept any thing other than the No-Build Alternative. Others see this project as an opportunity to supplement safety improvements along existing Hillsdale, create convenient access other than Route 29 to and from existing shopping areas and allow for the redevelopment of new residential, commercial and retail areas that will have a positive impact on the community and the City. Based on the comments of those who participated in the Public Hearing, there appears to be significant desire for the No- Build Alternative. Of those supporting the extension of Hillsdale Drive, the overwhelming opinion is in favor of Alternative C. Similar opinions exist among the members of the Steering Committee. Some people who spoke at the Public Hearing in support of the No-Build Alternative indicated Alternative C would be the least objectionable build alternative. It is the recommendation of the Steering Committee that if Charlottesville City Council and the Albemarle Board of Supervisors pass resolutions in support of a build alternative and the Commonwealth Transportation Board subsequently selects a build alternative, that the following conditions should be included in their resolution: ~ The current Steering Committee should retain its official role throughout the design and construction of the project. ~ That Alternative C is the alternative the Steering Committee supports under the following conditions: 1. The safety of those working and living in, using the services of and traveling through the area are of the utmost importance and design features incorporated into the roadway must enhance and promote its function as a local, low speed (posted a 25 mph) road which is user friendly to motorists, pedestrians, bicyclist and transit as well as those using other modes of mobility. 2. A community workshop program is to be developed by the Steering Committee so the citizens of the area have the opportunity to provide input about the project and to comment on design features. 3. Any loss in the number of parking spaces presently existing in the vicinity of the Senior Center, Jordan Building, Laurels, or Pepsi Plant, or on the street at Pepsi Place must be replaced in any build alternative. 4. Sidewalks and bike/multi-use trails are to be provided throughout the project and should connect with and include safety features similar to those being implemented on Hillsdale Drive north of its intersection with Greenbrier Drive. 5. The possibility of separated bike paths/multi-use trails and/or alternative-vehicle paths should be thoroughly investigated, particularly in the area east of the Senior Center, the Jordan Building and the Pepsi Plant. 6. Traffic calming and traffic control features should be incorporated into the design to promote a safe, low speed facility and encourage its use as a local road and not as a bypass to Route 29. 7. Design features such as landscape/streetscape, lighting, etc. that will promote the Route 29/H/250 Phase 2 Report vision for the area should be utilized where feasible. 8. Every effort should be made to protect the viewshed, watershed and natural features of the impacted area (including the Rivanna Trail) as part of the design and construction of any build alternative. ~,~1.·~Hillsdale .D. rive E, xtension '(~,~~ ' I 0 C (, ill () 11 S 1 u d \" ..' , .¡,.' ,r, .'.'.,"~' .'" ·;.,,:,.'.·.·:·:..·>:,·,:·i···:,:' Corridor Options Alternative A (Meadow Creek Path) is 0.89 miles (4688.24 feet) long. It begins at the existing intersection of Hillsdale Drive and Greenbrier Drive and heads south, passing east of the Senior Center. The alignment curves to the southeast crossing of Meadow Creek and then turns south, running roughly parallel to Meadow Creek and Brandywine Drive and would be located approximately midway between the two. It would then turn southwest again crossing Meadow Creek and tie into the existing Michie Drive at the Hearthwood Apartment Homes, where it presently dead ends. The alignment would utilize existing Michie Drive to its intersection with Hydraulic Road. This Alternative requires two bridges over Meadow Creek and the associated 100 year floodplain. A 1419 foot (0.27 miles) connection is provided between Alignment A and Seminole Court. This connection ties to Alignment A near the north end of the study and parallels the Pepsi Plant property before turning southwest to tie to existing Seminole Court. Impacts: · Impacts forested areas · Crosses Meadow Creek twice, requiring two bridges. · Close to Brookmill and Brandywine Neighborhoods · Impacts the University Tire and Auto Center · Impacts trail · Minor intrusion into the floodplain · Proposes more "new" pavement than the other alternatives · Impacts parking at the Senior Center and the Jordan Building · Potentially higher design speed Alternative B (Behind Senior Center and Pepsi Plant) is 0.83 miles (4360.97 feet) long. It begins at the existing intersection of Hillsdale Drive and Greenbrier Drive and heads south, passing the Senior Center on its east side. The alignment curves to the southwest towards the Pepsi Plant. The alignment passes to the east of the Pepsi Plant and proceeds south directly behind the Seminole Square Shopping Center. As alignment continues south it threads between the Hearthwood Apartment Homes to the east and the Cinema 4 Theater to the west. It continues south through the Terrace Theater (closed) and ties to Hydraulic Road between Virginia Dominion Power and the Kroger Center. Two connections are provided to Seminole Shopping Center. The first is north of Office Depot and ties to Seminole Court. The second is north of the Cinema 4 Theater and ties to Line Drive. Impacts: · Impacts trail Impacts 20 year old screening behind the Seminole Square · Shopping Center · Impacts parking at the Senior Center and the Jordan Building · Impacts the flood plain · Impacts the Terrace Theater (Closed) · Impacts Detail Express Car Wash · Alternative C (Extend Pepsi Place through Seminole Square Shopping Center) is 0.99 miles (5237.38 feet) long. It begins on Hillsdale Drive slightly north of it present intersection with Greenbrier Drive. Hillsdale Drive is relocated to the west to align with Pepsi Place on Hydraulic Drive. The alignment utilized existing Pepsi Place. At the southern end of Pepsi Place the alignment veers to the southwest before turning south to weave between the Pepsi Plant and the Post Office. It continues south crossing the existing stormwater management basin and through one or more businesses at the northern end of the Seminole Square Shopping Center before lining up with Zan Drive. The next section utilizes existing Zan Road from its intersection with Seminole Court to its intersection with Line Drive. Existing Line Road is then utilized from its intersection with Zan Road to its intersection with India Road. From this intersection the alignment heads southeast across the Cinema 4 Theater parking lot before turning south to thread between the Cinema 4 Theater to the west and the Hearthwood Apartment Homes to the east. It continues south through the Terrace Theater (closed) and ties to Hydraulic Road between Virginia Dominion Power and the Kroger Center. Impacts: Crosses existing stormwater ponds at Greenbrier/Hillsdale and · between the Pepsi Plant/Post Office and the Seminole Square Shopping Center · Utilizes existing Zan Road and Line Road alignments · Impacts Cinema 4 parking · Impacts the Terrace Theater (Closed) · Uses more existing pavement · Does not impact the trail, Meadow Creek or the flood plain Impacts several businesses in the Seminole Square Shopping · Center · Impacts the Pepsi Plants loading area · Impacts Post Office parking lot Impacts Detail Express Car Wash · Alternative D (Extend Pepsi Place behind Pepsi Plant) is 1.07 miles (5642.30 feet) long. It begins on Hillsdale Drive slightly north of its present intersection with Greenbrier Drive. Hillsdale Drive is relocated to the west to align with Pepsi Place on Hydraulic Drive. The alignment utilized existing Pepsi Place. At the southern end of Pepsi Place the alignment makes a sharp turn to the east and crosses the Pepsi Plant parking lot. It then makes a sharp turn to the south and passes to the east of the Pepsi Plant before turning west and tying to existing Seminole Court in the area of the main Pepsi Plant entrance. This Alternative utilizes existing Seminole Court to its intersection with Zan Road. From this intersection Alternative D follows the same alignment as Alternative C, to the intersection with Hydraulic Road. Impacts: · Crosses existing stormwater ponds at Greenbrier/Hillsdale Uses more of the existing roads (Seminole Court, Zan Road and · Line Road) · Impacts flood plain Impacts the Pepsi Plant entrance and stormwater management · pond · Tights geometry and lowest design speed · Impacts Cinema 4 parking · Impacts the Terrace Theater (Closed) · Impacts the University Tire and Auto Center · Impacts Car Wash · · Alternatiye E: No Build Alternative E has been designated as the No-Build Alternative for this study. The No-Build Alternative establishes the baseline conditions to which the Build Alternatives will be compared. The No-Build Alternative will include routine maintenance and currently programmed and funded projects in the VDOT Six Year Plan. II 12 c¡ 0"0" ~ ~¡~ .~ I' ! ~ "~~ I L ! J ~ ~ #" ~ r¡1 ~ U ~ ~9,Z'lf Jd I TR>\' /~ ------- ~ , ~ ¡<¡ ~ <¡p-P ~ ~ I ' I~ gl '~ i~ ~gr I I I .. g . ~ :> , ~ I I I \ I , ~ ~. . . ~ ¡;¡i I :5 a: I a.. ~ s: I OOa..wZ~~ ~ W-lWìJ55 - a..OO~ - .. Z ~ ~, 'f@~~ ið f6 : I!!~~~~~ ðtti:X:009 ii:ög¡¡;¡~~ :1; Ow 8 I ~~~J:~ j i <{ 0 " ~ (J) _ ~ .. -I ~ <{ I 31ONlr43S I : I ~o' I~ ...J '" (L I ~ I g I ~~ ~ I~ I ~ ~ -' .. <Ç. 00 "^"'<J , ~ I aVŒJ Oì3I:::U.S3M ZÇP. 'riA , <l<;r..'o~" ," l u _ Z Z _ ~ ~ ::Ii ~ : 0- 155. ~<_ ~ ~ ~~ : H ii ~ i ~ ¡Iii >~,,' " . , ii Ii l~ ~ ,~~.~ !!I (è~ ~ ~ IE ~ ~ n . ~ t 2 i ~ ,u I 9 '\t:; 1- ~ 1R!>.\l/~ 'b,,? --------- ~ , ~. , zì co. ~ "' "~ , \ ~ \ ~rh l~ ¡ ~ ~ 8i~ ~ I' 5l-ZIl'~JC ~ 1 ~ O"q;, ~ ~ q,,- Q.<.. r-:" "~~4 , ~ !l §~ ~~ °1 "Q,,! ì ~ ~Q q;J #' I ->}~ ~ ,po{) ~~ I ..J I : I ~ I I 3~~SI I I~ I I g I Ii I AJ.I~ 31",^,,3J.J.O-"'H~ _ ~ - - ~ - A.lNf)(X)mvanv ~ .wnO~ I ~ IJ ¿ ~ .3""N"'>£-) ~ (¡ ILÎ I I ~ ~' a.. " [6 ,¡ J: W ~ 0 II: <'~ ;;; () ~5 ... i ~ ~8~~ ~ I w '1I:«!!i~ ~ II ::)L1J2jo º~ ¡j! ",i LL<i:~Ù ~I ~~~ ! F= ~¡: ~ " II: ~ « ~I o· ~ ~. u " - - ~ ! < Z Z . i I II, ! Ii H ¡ 10 Q 0"' ~ ,Z " I~ :: ~ ~~ :1 , I- Z <t: ..J (L CJ) (L w (L o z <t: a: w I- Z W o a: o z w CJ) o Z I W m m w > I- <t: Z a: W I- ..J <t: , ~ " I I "' iii "' ! :1 ~ ~ '0 I ~ I Pl ]7'~2!ii , 0 I ~: I W' .~ 1 2 i ! ! / if: : .rr9·~l ~ I;t; I I ) I PC2H'C.17 I I I I 'R'\L/~ ------- ~ - '~ PT 1ì'2~,~ \ f'c. ,..~..,~ ~ > \~ '~ /~ \ IL ~ ~ a:: ~ w , () S I a: Z~ ~ I ~!z1iJ~;: I W::¡z - .. ffi I ~~n.~~ ~ ~ 1 ã~~~~ i u.~~~g: ~ i CDZ is 0 ¡¡; : ~4: ¡s jl ~ I F ;:¡: I r w, ~ ö i ".. I a:: _!.II I ~ ~i I ~ <i ¡§~ I ~II i ~~ ~ÜI 0.0" ~ ~ q.~~< I:, <I.t ~ ~o ,p \, ~ ,p-P I I I .. I ~ I ~ I I ~3S1 I I ; I ~ I. ~ .woo~ i .! I "' i~ I ~ I l~ j ¡ I Am 31l1.\S3~01"VH~ _ ~ - -- - AlNOO:J ~VY'I38ì'r¡l' i'f .... q; w " z z _ ~ ~ !! :::¡¡ z . 00 ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~II. ni d,~ o : II ~ ~b. II t:l311::18N33b"D ~ , '",\\ /~ ~ ~ , . - ~ . ~- " J , w () :) I Q.. :!!::J: >- I ëi.ir-z~~ ~ i fl:¡z ¡¡¡5' - ~ I Q..:) z - .. r'~ li)oQ..~~ ~ !!:!z¡e ~ ~ I a~~ ~9 ~ i[Ö~~~ ~ ~ ~I ~~ ~ ~~'f~~1 ~@. z" ~, ~~ ~ ! ~] '~I ~ r,¡ iE !~ ~ ." 0."" 01< ~I~ I' J ~ '"<~ ~ 'oq,,/ " If ~ ~ ..,.p ~ ~I ~ 5r·6f.~. Jd I ~. "iI-(1;o·90'd i ~ U PC 46-21U7 I I 8 ~~ ~ " 3lON~3S I I I : I I ,. ~ Ii I ~ A..U:J 3-n11\S~~ _ - ~ - J...lNt1OO 3l1:1VV'l381V N ~ ~ ~ , ~~ ~ D ~ 3MJo I w "'¡g ~i'j " ~ ~SI:1. 'tA aV'oo 0l3l::!l.S3M ~ t ~, ¡¡¡ ~ I I I :I I i I ~ I ~" o - u " ~ =. - ~ ~ "" , , , ^ " : ~I ¡ ¡ Ii ! i ~~ td-"" " II II ~I. II . I Attachment G RESOLUTION TO APPROVE ALTERNATIVE C FOR HILLSDALE DRIVE EXTENSION WHEREAS, a Location Public Hearing was conducted on November 4, 2004 in the City of Charlottesville by representatives of the City of Charlottesville, County of Albemarle, the Steering Committee, and the Commonwealth of Virginia Department of Transportation after due and proper notice for the purpose of considering the proposed location of the Hillsdale Drive Extension Project UOOO-1 04-119, PE1 01, R201, C501 in Albemarle County and the City of Charlottesville, at which hearing aerial photographs, drawings and other pertinent information were made available for public inspection in accordance with state and federal requirements; and WHEREAS, all persons and parties in attendance were afforded full opportunity to participate in said hearing; and WHEREAS, representatives of the County of Albemarle were present and participated in said hearing; and WHEREAS, the Board has previously requested the Virginia Department of Transportation to program this project; and WHEREAS, the Board considered all such matters; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors hereby approves the location of the proposed project under the "Alternative C" alignment as presented at the Public Hearing subject to the following conditions: 1. The safety of those working and living in, using the services of and traveling through the area are of the utmost importance and design features incorporated into the roadway must enhance and promote its function as a local, low speed (posted a 25 mph) road which is user friendly to motorists, pedestrians, bicyclist and transit as well as those using other modes of mobility. 2. A community workshop program must be developed by the Steering Committee so the citizens of the area have the opportunity to provide input about the project and to comment on design features. 3. Any loss in the number of parking spaces presently existing in the vicinity of the Senior Center, Jordan Building, Laurels, or Pepsi Plant, or on the street at Pepsi Place must be replaced in any build alternative. 4. Sidewalks and bike/multi-use trails will be provided throughout the project and should connect with and include safety features similar to those being implemented on Hillsdale Drive north of its intersection with Greenbrier Drive. 5. The possibility of separated bike paths/multi-use trails and/or alternative-vehicle paths should be thoroughly investigated, particularly in the area east of the Senior Center, the Jordan Building and the Pepsi Plant. 6. Traffic calming and traffic control features should be incorporated into the design to promote a safe, low speed facility and encourage its use as a local road and not as a bypass to Route 29. 7. Design features such as landscape/streetscape, lighting, etc. that will promote the Route 29/H/250 Phase 2 Report vision for the area should be utilized where feasible. 8. Every effort should be made to protect the view shed, watershed and natural features of the impacted area (including the Rivanna Trail) as part of the design and construction of any build alternative. 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 March 2, 2005. Clerk, Board of County Supervisors Mr. Bowerman Mr. Dorrier Mr. Wyant Mr. Boyd Mr. Rooker Ms. Thomas Aye Nay " t ReceiVED k!.!¡ri .¡ q ".'ns I~, ., " \J iiju NEIGHBORHOOD DEVELOPMENT SERVICES LOCATION PUBLIC HEARING APPROVAL RESOLUTION WHEREAS, a Location Public Hearing was conducted on November 4, 2004 in the City of Charlottesville by representatives of the City of Charlottesville, County of Albemarle, the Steering Committee, and the Commonwealth of Virginia, Department of Transportation after due and proper notice for the purpose of considering the proposed location of the Hillsdale Drive Extension Project UOOO-I04-119, PEIOI, R201, C501 in the City of Charlottesville, at which hearing aerial photographs, drawings and other pertinent infonnation were made available for public inspection in accordance with state and federal requirements; and WHEREAS, all persons and parties in attendance were afforded full opportunity to participate in said hearing; and WHEREAS, representatives of the City of Charlottesville, were present and participated in said hearing; and WHEREAS, the Council has previously requested the Virginia Department of Transportation to program this project; and WHEREAS, the Council considered all such matters; now THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Council of the City of Charlottesville hereby approves the location of the proposed project under the "Alternative C" alignment as presented at the Public Hearing and in accordance with the following conditions; 1. The safety of those working and living in, using the services of and traveling through the area are of the utmost importance and design features incorporated into the roadway must enhance and promote its function as a local, low speed (posted a 25 mph) road which is user fiiendly to motorists, pedestrians, bicyclist and transit as well as those using other modes of mobility. 2. A community workshop program is to be developed by the Steering Committee so the citizens of the area have the opportunity to provide input about the project and to comment on design features. 3. Any loss in the number of parking spaces presently existing in the vicinity of the Senior Center, Jordan Building, Laurels, or Pepsi Plant, or on the street at Pepsi Place must be replaced in any build alternative. 4. Sidewalks and bike/multi-use trails are to be provided throughout the project and should connect with and include safety features similar to those being implemented on Hillsdale Drive north of its intersection with Greenbrier Drive. 5, The possibility of separated bike paths/multi-use trails and/or alternative- vehicle paths should be thoroughly investigated, particularly in the area east of the Senior Center, the Jordan Building and the Pepsi Plant. 6, Traffic calming and traffic control features should be incorporated into the design to promote a safe, low speed facility and encourage its use as a local road and not as a bypass to Route 29, 7. Design features such as landscape/streetscape, lighting, etc. that will promote the Route 29/H/2S0 Phase 2 Report vision for the area should be utilized where feasible. 8, Every effort should be made to protect the view shed, watershed and natural features of the impacted area (including the Rivanna Trail) as part of the design and construction of any build alternative. Adopted this ~ÿ+. day of M (t,t'"u, , 2005 City of Charlottesville Virginia BY ~Â.Â~ ~ ø. Ú didk-~fC~ VI -60 Department of Neighborhood Development Services City Hall· P.O. Box 911 Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 Telephone 434-970-3182 Fax 434-970-3359 www.charlottesville.org CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE "A World Class City" February 2, 2005 Albemarle County Board of Supervisors 40 I McIntire Road Charlottesville, VA 22902 Charlottesville City Council City Hall Charlottesville, VA 22902 Re: Hillsdale Drive Extension Location Study Dear Board Members and City Council Members, Please find attached our Steering Committee Recommendation for the proposed Hillsdale Drive Extension project. Also included are sample resolutions, one for a NO BUILD selection, and another for selection of the Alternative C Alignment with conditions. If you are interested in reviewing any of the supporting technical documents, hard copies are available from the City's Department of Neighborhood Development Services (NDS) and on the website at www.hillsdaledrive.org. Once your decision has been made on this location study, we are prepared to forward the results of your actions to the Virginia Department of Transportation and the Commonwealth Transportation Board. Thank you, ge uc Development Services Manager/Project Manager On behalf of the Steering Committee David Bowerman/Albemarle Board of Supervisors John GiomettilVDOT John GregglBranchlands Neighborhood Rodney Hayzlett/ Johnson. Mirmiran & Thompson James Hill/Northfields Neighborhood Jay Jessup/Pepsi Kevin Lynch/City Council Bob Metzger/Brookmill Neighborhood Kristin PeuralGiant Seminole Ltd Chuck Rotgin/Great Eastern Mgmt Rick SeamanIRTF and Greenbrier Neighborhood Peter Thompson/Senior Center W~Th~Joonw~Wrm~an&Th~p~ Juan WadelAlbemarle County Attachments Hillsdale Drive Extension Location Study Steering Committee Recommendation January 7, 2005 At the outset of this study a Steering Committee made up of City of Charlottesville and Albemarle County staff, VDOT Staff, elected officials, members from local businesses and residential communities and private design consultants was formed to oversee and guide the Hillsdale Drive Extension Location Study. After this initial group met, it was decided to invite leaders of the neighboring communities and organizations to become members of the Steering Committee. Its mission was to recommend a location for an extension of Hillsdale Drive (or a No-Build Alternative) and to ensure that every point of view and every concern was presented and discussed in an open, honest forum. The members of the Steering Committee have taken their responsibilities very seriously and each has represented its groups admirably. The members' dedication to the study and to those they represent is commendable. As the Committee completes its work with the publication of this recommendation, the citizens of our community should be reassured that they have been heard and their concerns were carefully considered. The Steering Committee met on nine occasions during this process and has participated in three Citizen Information Meetings and one Public Hearing, along with numerous and well attended neighborhood meetings with those citizens they represent. Ninety six people signed the Location Public Hearing attendance list. Of those, approximately 43% (41 people) were residents of the Brookmill or Branchlands neighborhoods. Both communities were represented by their association Presidents. Both spoke in favor of the No-Build Alternative. Petitions with a total of 151 signatures supporting the No-Build were received from these two communities. Written and oral comments include those received from the three organizations in the immediate area that serve the senior community, the Senior Center, Rosewood Village and The Laurels. Rosewood Village supports the No-Build Alternative. The Senior Center and The Laurels have serious concerns about parking and neighborhood safety for their respective facilities under any build alternative. All are looking for assurance that their concerns will be satisfactorily addressed before supporting any build alternative. The residents of the Brookmill and Branchlands communities support overwhelmingly the No-Build Alternative. The major objections expressed by the citizens relate to concerns over public safety, congestion, noise pollution, air pollution and impacts to property values generated by increased traffic on Hillsdale Drive. The business community, some local residents and commuters frustrated with the Route 29 traffic are more supportive of a build alternative. Input seems to indicate that some citizens will never accept any thing other than the No-Build Alternative. Others see this project as an opportunity to supplement safety improvements along existing Hillsdale, create convenient access other than Route 29 to and from existing shopping areas and allow for the redevelopment of new residential, commercial and retail areas that will have a positive impact on the community and the City. Based on the comments of those who participated in the Public Hearing, there appears to be significant desire for the No-Build Alternative. Of those supporting the extension of Hillsdale Drive, the overwhelming opinion is in favor of Alternative C. Similar opinions exist among the members of the Steering Committee. Some people who spoke at the Public Hearing in support of the No-Build Alternative indicated Alternative C would be the least objectionable build alternative. It is the recommendation of the Steering Committee that if Charlottesville City Council and the Albemarle Board of Supervisors pass resolutions in support of a build alternative and the Commonwealth Transportation Board subsequently selects a build alternative, that the following conditions should be included in their resolution: ~ The current Steering Committee should retain its official role throughout the design and construction of the project. ~ That Alternative C is the alternative the Steering Committee supports under the following conditions: 1. The safety of those working and living in. using the services of and traveling through the area are of the utmost importance and design features incorporated into the roadway must enhance and promote its function as a local, low speed (posted a 25 mph) road which is user friendly to motorists, pedestrians, bicyclist and transit as well as those using other modes of mobility. 2. A community workshop program is to be developed by the Steering Committee so the citizens of the area have the opportunity to provide input about the project and to comment on design features. 3. Any loss in the number of parking spaces presently existing in the vicinity of the Senior Center, Jordan Building, Laurels, or Pepsi Plant, or on the street at Pepsi Place must be replaced in any build alternative. 4. Sidewalks and bike/multi-use trails are to be provided throughout the project and should connect with and include safety features similar to those being implemented on Hillsdale Drive north of its intersection with Greenbrier Drive. 5. The possibility of separated bike paths/multi-use trails and/or alternative-vehicle paths should be thoroughly investigated, particularly in the area east of the Senior Center, the Jordan Building and the Pepsi Plant. 6. Traffic calming and traffic control features should be incorporated into the design to promote a safe, low speed facility and encourage its use as a local road and not as a bypass to Route 29. 7. Design features such as landscape/streetscape, lighting, etc. that will promote the Route 29/H/250 Phase 2 Report vision for the area should be utilized where feasible. 8. Every effort should be made to protect the viewshed, watershed and natural features of the impacted area (including the Rivanna Trail) as part of the design and construction of any build alternative. LOCATION PUBLIC HEARING APPROVAL RESOLUTION WHEREAS, a Location Public Hearing was conducted on November 4, 2004 in the City of Charlottesville by representatives of the City of Charlottesville, County of Albemarle, the Steering Committee, and the Commonwealth of Virginia, Department of Transportation after due and proper notice for the purpose of considering the proposed location of the Hillsdale Drive Extension Project UOOO-104-119, PE101, R201, C501 in Albemarle County and the City of Charlottesville, at which hearing aerial photographs, drawings and other pertinent infonnation were made available for public inspection in accordance with state and federal requirements; and WHEREAS, all persons and parties in attendance were afforded full opportunity to participate in said hearing; and WHEREAS, representatives of the County of Albemarle, were present and participated in said hearing; and WHEREAS, the Board has previously requested the Virginia Department of Transportation to program this project; and WHEREAS, the Board considered all such matters; now THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors hereby approves the location of the proposed project under the "Alternative C" alignment as presented at the Public Hearing and in accordance with the following conditions; 1. The safety of those working and living in, using the services of and traveling through the area are of the utmost importance and design features incorporated into the roadway must enhance and promote its function as a local, low speed (posted a 25 mph) road which is user friendly to motorists, pedestrians, bicyclist and transit as well as those using other modes of mobility, 2. A community workshop program is to be developed by the Steering Committee so the citizens of the area have the opportunity to provide input about the project and to comment on design features. 3. Any loss in the number of parking spaces presently existing in the vicinity of the Senior Center, Jordan Building, Laurels, or Pepsi Plant, or on the street at Pepsi Place must be replaced in any build alternative. 4. Sidewalks and bike/multi-use trails are to be provided throughout the project and should connect with and include safety features similar to those being implemented on Hillsdale Drive north of its intersection with Greenbrier Drive, 5. The possibility of separated bike paths/multi-use trails and/or alternative- vehicle paths should be thoroughly investigated, particularly in the area east of the Senior Center, the Jordan Building and the Pepsi Plant. 6. Traffic calming and traffic control features should be incorporated into the design to promote a safe, low speed facility and encourage its use as a local road and not as a bypass to Route 29. 7. Design features such as landscape/streetscape, lighting, etc. that will promote the Route 29/H/250 Phase 2 Report vision for the area should be utilized where feasible. 8. Every effort should be made to protect the view shed, watershed and natural features of the impacted area (including the Rivanna Trail) as part of the design and construction of any build alternative, Adopted this day of . 2005 County of Albemarle Virginia ATTEST: BY County Executive Clerk of the Board VI -60 LOCATION PUBLIC HEARING APPROVAL RESOLUTION WHEREAS, a Location Public Hearing was conducted on November 4, 2004 in the City of Charlottesville by representatives of the City of Charlottesville, County of Albemarle, the Steering Committee, and the Commonwealth of Virginia, Department of Transportation after due and proper notice for the purpose of considering the proposed location of the Hillsdale Drive Extension Project UOOO-1 04-119, PE 1 0 1, R201, C501 in the City of Charlottesville, at which hearing aerial photographs, drawings and other pertinent infonnation were made available for public inspection in accordance with state and federal requirements; and WHEREAS, all persons and parties in attendance were afforded full opportunity to participate in said hearing; and WHEREAS, representatives of the County of Albemarle, were present and participated in said hearing; and WHEREAS, the Board has previously requested the Virginia Department of Transportation to program this project; and WHEREAS, the Board considered all such matters; now THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors of the County of Albemarle hereby approves the NO BUILD alternative based on strong public input as presented at the Public Hearing. Adopted this day of , 2005 County of Albemarle Virginia ATTEST: Clerk of the Board BY County Executive 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. ScottsvilIe David C. Wyant White Hall April 11, 2005 Ms. Angela Tucker Development Services Manager/Project Manager City of Charlottesville City Hall PO Box 911 Charlottesville, VA 22902 Re: Hillsdale Drive Extension Location Study Dear Ms. Tucker: At its meeting on April 6, 2005 the Board of Supervisors adopted the attached resolution supporting Alternative C for the Hillsdale Drive Extension project. Sincerely, /ewc =8lkf;t)a~f EllaW. careY~~i Attachment cc: Charlottesville City Council Juandiego Wade * Printed on recycled paper RESOLUTION TO APPROVE ALTERNATIVE C FOR HILLSDALE DRIVE EXTENSION WHEREAS, a Location Public Hearing was conducted on November 4, 2004 in the City of Charlottesville by representatives of the City of Charlottesville, County of Albemarle, the Steering Committee, and the Commonwealth of Virginia Department of Transportation after due and proper notice for the purpose of considering the proposed location of the Hillsdale Drive Extension Project UOOO-104- 119, PE1 01, R201, C501 in Albemarle County and the City of Charlottesville, at which hearing aerial photographs, drawings and other pertinent information were made available for public inspection in accordance with state and federal requirements; and WHEREAS, all persons and parties in attendance were afforded full opportunity to participate in said hearing; and WHEREAS, representatives of the County of Albemarle were present and participated in said hearing; and WHEREAS, the Board has previously requested the Virginia Department of Transportation to program this project; and WHEREAS, the Board considered all such matters; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors hereby approves the location of the proposed project under the "Alternative C" alignment as presented at the Public Hearing subject to the following conditions: 1. The safety of those working and living in, using the services of and traveling through the area are of the utmost importance and design features incorporated into the roadway must enhance and promote its function as a local, low speed (posted a 25 mph) road which is user friendly to motorists, pedestrians, bicyclist and transit as well as those using other modes of mobility. 2. A community workshop program must be developed by the Steering Committee so the citizens of the area have the opportunity to provide input about the project and to comment on design features. 3. Any loss in the number of parking spaces presently existing in the vicinity of the Senior Center, Jordan Building, Laurels, or Pepsi Plant, or on the street at Pepsi Place must be replaced in any build alternative. 4. Sidewalks and bike/multi-use trails will be provided throughout the project and should connect with and include safety features similar to those being implemented on Hillsdale Drive north of its intersection with Greenbrier Drive. 5. The possibility of separated bike paths/multi-use trails and/or alternative-vehicle paths should be thoroughly investigated, particularly in the area east of the Senior Center, the Jordan Building and the Pepsi Plant. 6. Traffic calming and traffic control features should be incorporated into the design to promote a safe, low speed facility and encourage its use as a local road and not as a bypass to Route 29. 7. Design features such as landscape/streetscape, lighting, etc. that will promote the Route 29/H/250 Phase 2 Report vision for the area should be utilized where feasible. 8. Every effort should be made to protect the view shed, watershed and natural features of the impacted area (including the Rivanna Trail) as part of the design and construction of any build alternative. 9. Every effort should be made by the City of Charlottesville to continue network and interchange improvements south of Hydraulic Road. 10. Every effort should be made to complete the Meadow Creek Parkway prior to completion of this project. ********** 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, Virginia, by a vote of five to one, as recorded below, at a regular meeting held on April 6 2005. Aye Mr. Bowerman Mr. Boyd Mr. Dorrier Mr. Rooker Ms. Thomas Mr. Wyant OvW{Och Nay ~ C erk, Board of County super ors y y y y y COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AGENDA TITLE: ArtlnPlace Program Presentation AGENDA DATE: April 6, 2005 ACTION: INFORMATION: X SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Information regarding proposal for expansion of the ArtlnPlace Program into the County. CONSENT AGENDA: ACTION: INFORMATION: STAFF CONTACTCS): Tucker, Davis, White, Mullaney ATTACHMENTS: LEGAL REVIEW: Yes REVIEWED BY: No lzv, ~ // I i .{ / BACKGROUND: ArtlnPlace is a local non-profit corporation established to make art accessible to the general public. Over the past several years, ArtlnPlace has worked with the City of Charlottesville in establishing sites to display outdoor sculptures with a wide range of artistic styles, themes and media. Locations in the City which have been selected for public sculpture are in areas of high vehicular traffic. Each year, 10 works are selected for exhibition. Each installation is in place for one year. This program of temporary exhibitions is designed to provide interesting art to drivers in their travels about the City. This program was funded initially with a grant from the City of Charlottesville and has been maintained by corporate sponsorships, commissions from the sale of artwork, and an annual grant from the City of approximately $5,000 to help defray basic costs. ArtlnPlace is interested in developing a suitable variation of this program for expansion to County sites if the County Board of Supervisors is generally supportive of this expansion. Supporters of ArtlnPlace will make a brief presentation, regarding their proposal, to the Board of Supervisors on April 6th. STRATEGIC PLAN: Goal: 1.1 - Create accessible opportunities for everyone in the community to learn, ensuring all educational services meet the needs of the changing demographics within the community. 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 primary difference between the current City program and a proposed program for the County is the VDOT ownership and maintenance of the medians in the County. While the County currently has a permit with VDOT which allows an expanded level of maintenance on selected median strips, any work not currently under permit will require approval from VDOT. In addition, other differences such as the speed of traffic along County medians could influence the suitability of the display both in terms of the enjoyment and safety of the traveling public. County staff discussed these issues with ArtlnPlace representatives who recommended that median strip projects could be limited to landscape designs while sculpture displays could be targeted for other high traffic County owned properties such as the County Office Buildings and County parks. The issue of County liability as a result of this program will need to be investigated. The City currently leases the property to ArtlnPlace where any sculpture is to be located for liability protection. Also, the potential future cost of this program to the County needs to be calculated. For instance, if landscape improvements to the median strips require an enhanced level of maintenance, it is anticipated that the County would be responsible for those ongoing costs. It is the intent of ArtlnPlace to seek funding for an intern position this summer to develop the details of expanding the ArtlnPlace program into the County. This intern would work closely with the Parks and Recreation Department and other appropriate County staff to develop a proposal for review by ArtlnPlace and the County Board of Supervisors. AGENDA TITLE: ArtlnPlace Program Presentation April 6, 2005 Page 2 BUDGET IMPACT: No budget impact is anticipated in the current fiscal year. A minimal budget impact would be anticipated, if approved, in the second half of FY 05/06. The full budget impact anticipated in FY 06/07 is dependent on the landscape project selection and will be estimated during the intern study and included in the finished proposal. RECOMMENDATIONS: The ArtlnPlace presentation is for the Board's information and comment only and requires no Board action at this time. 05.031 town success 88£Ç-6L6-t7£Þ lOM 1~ ma up ÁlddY lrnJ 1.IU d!l{SlOSuods COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AGENDA TITLE: Albemarle First Bank-Central Sewage System: 1) Appeal of Planning Commission decision of Compliance with Comprehensive Plan; 2) Approval of Central System request as per County Code. AGENDA DATE: April 6, 2005 ACTION: X INFORMATION: CONSENT AGENDA: ACTION: INFORMATION: SUBJECT/PROPOSALlREQU EST: 1) Board review of an appeal of the Planning Commission's finding that the proposed central system is inconsistent with the County's Comprehensive Plan, and 2) Board review and approval of proposed central system. ATTACHMENTS: Yes REVIEWED BY: LEGAL REVIEW: YES ~ STAFF CONTACTCS): Tucker, Foley, Graham, Cilimberg, Kelsey, Benish BACKGROUND: The applicant is proposing to modify the interior of the former Shadwell Antiquaries building, located on Route 22, to allow multiple users/tenants within the structure. No expansion of the structure is proposed. Because the existing septic system could potentially serve three or more users, it is considered a central system. Central systems are considered public facilities and, therefore, are subject to review by the Planning Commission for compliance with the Comprehensive Plan in accordance with the State Code (Section 15.2-2232). Central systems must also be approved by the Board of Supervisor's as per the County Code (Section 16-100). STRATEGIC PLAN: Protect the County's Natural Scenic and Historic Resources. DISCUSSION: The Planning Commission reviewed this request on February 15, 2005 and found that it is not in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan. The staff report for the February 15th Commission review is provided as Attachment 1. Attachment 2 is an updated report from the County Engineer on the proposed central system recommending approval of the proposed system, with conditions. Attachment 2 supercedes the previous comments from the County Engineer referred to as Attachment 1A in the February 15th staff report. Several letters of opposition have also been received by (or forwarded to) staff and are attached for the Board's consideration (Attachment 3). RECOMMENDATIONS: The Board should first consider the appeal of the Planning Commission's action on compliance with the Comprehensive Plan. Should the Board find this proposal is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, staff recommends approval of the central system with the conditions as recommended by the County Engineer. ATTACHMENTS Attachment 1- February 15, 2005 Staff Report to Commission-Compliance with the Comprehensive Plan 1A-County Engineer's report (superceded by Attachment 2) 1 B-Location Map 1 C-Land Use Plan, Central Systems Recommendations Attachment 2 - County Engineer's Report-Central System (March 17, 2005) Attachment 3 - Letters of opposition (5) Attachment 4 - Applicant's Appeal Letter Attachment 5 - Planning Commission Minutes for February 15, 2005 ATTACHMENT 1 Staff Person: Planning Commission: David Ben ish February 15, 2005 Review for Compliance with the Comprehensive Plan ~ Code 15.2- 2232) - Albemarle First Bank Central Sewaae System Reauest (Shadwell Antiauaries} **MODIFIED TO REFER TO UPDATED ATTACHMENTS PROVIDED IN THE APRIL 6, 2005 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY.** Proposal: The applicant intends to modify the interior of the Antiques/Retail building to provide a multi-user building, No expansion of the building is proposed, Since the septic system serving the site could serve three of more users under this proposal, it would be defined as a central system. Central systems are considered public facilities and, therefore, must be found in Compliance with the County's Comprehensive Plan as per State Code (Section 15,2-2232). If the Commission finds this proposal in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan, The Board of Supervisors must review and approve the central system, Attached is the staff report from the County Engineer, which provides an analysis and recommendation regarding the proposed central system (Att~chmcnt 1A) [superceded by Attachment 2]. The County Engineer's report is not subject to Commission review and recommendation, but is provided for information, Location: The site, previously referred to as Shadwell Antiquaries, is located on the south side of Louisa Road (Route 22), approximately 600 feet from its intersection with Route 250. The 2,04 acres property, described as Tax Map 79, Parcel 19, is located in the Rivanna Magisterial District (Attachment 1B). The site is Zoned C-1, Commercial and EC, Entrance Corridor and is recommended as Rural Area in the Comprehensive Plan. History: A final site plan for the property was approved administratively on June 11, 1999 for 2,112 square feet of building space, in two connected structures, to be used as an antique store and workshop. On December 7, 1999 the Planning Commission approved an amendment to the site plan modifying the use of the smaller building on site from a workshop to a restaurant (tea room). The Commission's review of this amendment was based on an appeal by an adjacent property owner, The Commission unanimously approved the site plan amendment. Character of the Site! Area: The site is fully developed with two buildings, parking lot and septic system. The site is located on the south side of Route 22, between Route 22 and Route 250. The Shadwell market convenience store is the adjacent property on the western boundary of the site (zoned C-1). The adjacent property to the east, consists of the CSX Railroad and, across the tracks, the GOCO Oil gas station (zoned RA), The adjacent property to the north, across Route 22, is rural in character (zoned RA), The property is accessed by an entrance off of Route 22, just past the Shadwell Market. Staff Comment: The County's growth management policy discourages non-rural related development within the Rural Area, However, this site and the adjacent Shadwell Market property are zoned C-1, Commercial. This "old zoning" was established prior to 1980 to recognize existing development and prior activities on these properties. Therefore, while the zoning and existing development on-this site is inconsistent with the County's current Comprehensive Plan, it is consistent with the existing zoning. The Comprehensive Plan policy regarding central utility systems discourages the use of central systems in the Rural Area (Attachment 1e), However, in this particular case, the site has been developed for commercial uses consistent with its zoning and is served by an existing private septic system, The internal modifications to the building proposed by the applicant, that would permit three (3) or more separate users in the existing buildings, necessitate the re-designation of the system from a private to central (public) system, There is no expansion of the buildings or intensification of use of the site, Most of the existing system is being utilized, including the existing drainfields, Modifications to the system are primarily related to laterals into the building to accommodate multiple users (see County Engineer's comments for more detail on system modifications), Staff opinion is that this request, although not entirely consistent with the principles and recommendations noted above, is not contrary to the Plan's overriding intent to provide for orderly development and provide for the protection of the Rural Area and its associated resources. The intent of the Comprehensive Plan statements is to discourage the use of new central systems that support and encourage new development, which may not have occurred without the use of a central system, This proposal amounts to a reclassification of an existing private system to a central system because of the potential for the system to serve three or more users, No expansion of the building is proposed and essentially the same septic system, including existing drainfields, is being used. The existing development constitutes a significant capital investment on the property, The approval of the system does not facilitate an expansion of the use and no expansion to the leasable square footage is proposed, Approval of the central system does provide the owner greater flexibility in leasing the existing space, Recommendation: Staff recommends the Planning Commission find this proposal consistent with the Comprehensive Plan with the condition that the central septic system is to serve existing on-site structures only. Attachments: lA - County Engineer's Report [see Attachment B-updated County Engineer's Report, dated March 17, 2005] 18 - Location Map lC - Land Use Plan, Central Systems Recommendations 2 Attachment 1A COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Community Development MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: Ella Carey - Clerk to the Board of Supervisors Jack M. Kelsey, PE - County Engineer 2 February 2005 Albemarle First Bank Central System Request Shadwell Antiquairies, Inc., TMP 79-19 The owner of this property has proposed modifications to the existing sewerage system that will facilitate the owner's desired use of the building. However, these modifications create a "central system" as defmed by the Code which must be reviewed by the County Engineer and authorized by the Board of Supervisors. A brief description of the site improvements, the existing sewerage system, and proposed modifications to that system has been provided in the paragraphs that follow. The descriptions make reference to the attached site plan where the existing system has been highlighted in "yellow" and the proposed modifications have been highlighted in "red". The site consists of two existing structures. The smaller (west) building was approved as a Tea RoomlRestaurant. Sewerage from this Tea Room/Restaurant is discharged into two existing septic tanks located on the south side of the building and the effluent conveyed to the adjacent private pumping station (see attachment). The existing force main conveys the effluent around the west and north sides of the Tea Room/Restaurant and then to an existing distribution box adjacent to State Route 22. This distribution box divides the flow into the two septic fields that are also adjacent to State Route 22. The larger (east) building was approved as an Antiques/Retail building. Sewerage from the Antiques/Retail building is discharged to a private grinder pump located off the southeast building comer and then pumped in a northemly direction to an existing distribution box (see attachment). The effluent then flows into the existing septic field located directly east of the Antiques/Retail building. The applicant intends to modify the interior ofthe Antiques/Retail building to provide a multi-user building. The existing sewerage lateral, grinder pump, force main, and septic tank that currently serve the Antique/Retail building are to be abandoned. New individual sewerage connections will be provided to each user. These sewerage laterals will discharge into a new septic tank that will be located on the west side of the Antiques/Retail building (see attached). The effluent from this tank will then be conveyed to the pump station that serves the Tea Room/Restaurant and pumped to the existing distribution box adjacent to Route 22. This box, which currently splits the Tea Room/Restaurant flow into the two septic fields, will be modified or replaced with a new box that will accommodate a third distribution line. This third line will convey a portion of the total flow to the existing septic field located directly east of the Antiques/Retail building. '/- Albemarle First Bank Central System Request Page 2 of2 Page 2 The applicant has not proposed to expand the existing buildings nor expand the existing sewerage facilities, The proposed modifications simply redefine and consolidate the sewerage system, resulting in it being classified as a "central system". As required by the Code, I have reviewed these modifications as the County Engineer and recommend approval of the application with the following conditions: · Owner will submit to the County Engineer documentation of Virginia Department of Health approval for the construction and operation of the pump and sewerage system modifications prior to the issuance of any building permits or zoning clearances for any changes in use, · Total sewerage flow to the system will not exceed the capacity of the three septic fields rated by the Health Department at 630 gpd, 500 gpd and 500 gpd for a total of 1630 gallons per day. Enclosure cc: David Benish File: afb central system. doc ~- QijQ '" g ¡¡; ;<¡ :>J ¡n <Ii ~ .~ r z m ¡¡¡ :t '" o :>J :r: o o o is: o o .µJ o ¡¡¡ .¿ti Q ç ~ m o o m < m ,.. o 1;) is: m z -4 Z o c ~ :>J ~ ~ :>J 7< :>J ¡;; :>J m <Ii Õ m z -4 ~ :r: m ~ Z o c .~. è' ?; r ~ ". <Ii f"" ~ ž " c ~ < § m :>J m m .~. 3 f: .¡:¡ :>J ill õ m z -4 ;;: r g is: fii ¡¡¡ ¡;; f"" m z ~ z o m g :>J :>J Õ o æ ~ :>J ¡n <Ii Õ m z -4 IE ª ¡:: ¡n ~ ~ o " " õ ¡n ¡¡¡ :>J m õ ¡n ~ f"" d ~ o " ¡r¡ ª ¡: m .3: "" 'Jj ¡n <Ii Õ ¡n ;:<¡ ~ o ~ 'Jj ~ :Q r: ¡n ~. » z z m o a .~ )!! o " is: ¡n .~ is: X m o o o is: is: m 'Jj () .~ Attachment 1 C Sewer Service to the Rural Area Homes and businesses located outside the County's designated Development Areas are almost always served by private septic systems. Development in the Rural Area is to be served by private septic systems (i.e. septic field/tank). The use of a central sewer system (system consisting of drainfields or septic tanks serving three or more connections) is discouraged except to solve a public health or safety problem of existing residences. In no cases should a rural subdivision density utilizing a central system exceed the density achievable with the use of an independent system. The County currently follows the procedure outlined in the County Code for permitting a central sewer facility and requires Board of Supervisors' approval. As with central water systems, the ACSA discourages County approval central sewer systems in the Rural Area due to the potential of the Authority having to take over the system. Any new system that may be approved shall be built to ACSA standards. ~ Recommendations New central sewer systems in the Rural Area shall be strongly discouraged except to address health and safety problems. · Any new system approved must meet ACSA standards and not allow residential densities to increase beyond that density achievable under individual on-site facilities. Defining Public Water and Sewer Service Areas Public water and sewer facilities are defined as facilities capable of serving the entire Development area boundary. Public water and sewer are to be actively used by the County as an incentive for growth and, as such, should be provided in all classifications of Development Areas. Conversely, such utilities are not provided in the Rural Area, as these services can increase development pressures. Water and sewer service jurisdictional areas provide the implementing measure for directing utilities according to the land use plan and overall growth management policies. They also permit these services to be provided in a manner which can be supported by the utility's physical and financial capabilities. The jurisdictional areas are those portions of the County that can be served by water and/or sewer service and generally follow the Development Area boundaries. Delineation and adoption of utility project jurisdictional areas by a local governing body is provided in Title 15:1-1247 of the Code of Virginia. DQ Î Attachment 2 COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Community Development MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: Ella Carey - Clerk to the Board of Supervisors Jack M. Kelsey, PE - County Engineer 17 March 2005 Albemarle First Bank Central System Request Shadwell Antiquairies, Inc., TMP 79-19 The owner ofthis property has proposed modifications to the existing sewerage system that will facilitate the owner's desired use of the building. However, these modifications create a "central system" as defined by the Code which must be reviewed by the County Engineer and authorized by the Board of Supervisors. A brief description ofthe site improvements, the existing sewerage system, and proposed modifications to that system has been provided in the paragraphs that follow. The descriptions make reference to the attached site plan where the existing system has been highlighted in "yellow" and the proposed modifications have been highlighted in "red". Existing Facilities The site consists of two existing structures. The smaller (west) building was approved as a Tea Room/Restaurant. Sewerage from this Tea Room/Restaurant is discharged into two existing septic tanks located on the south side of the building and the effluent conveyed to the adjacent private pumping station (see attachment). The existing force main conveys the effluent around the west and north sides of the Tea Room/Restaurant and then to an existing distribution box adjacent to State Route 22. This distribution box divides the flow into the two septic fields that are also adjacent to State Route 22. The larger (east) building was approved as an Antiques/Retail building. Sewerage from the Antiques/Retail building is discharged to a private grinder pump located offthe southeast building comer and then pumped in a northemly direction to an existing distribution box (see attachment). The effluent then flows into the existing septic field located directly east of the Antiques/Retail building. Sewerage System Modifications The applicant intends to modify the interior of the Antiques/Retail building to provide a multi-user building. The existing sewerage lateral, grinder pump, force main, and septic tank that currently serve the Antique/Retail building are to be abandoned. New individual sewerage connections will be provided to each user. These sewerage laterals will discharge into a new septic tank that will be located on the west side of the Antiques/Retail building (see attached). The effluent from this tank will then be conveyed to the pump station that serves the Tea Room/Restaurant and pumped to the existing distribution box adjacent to Route 22. This box, which currently splits the Tea Room/Restaurant flow into the two septic fields, will be modified or replaced with a new box that will accommodate a third distribution line. This third line will convey a portion of the total flow to the existing septic field located directly east of the Antiques/Retail building. In summary, the applicant has not proposed to expand the existing buildings nor expand the existing sewerage facilities. The proposed modifications simply redefine and consolidate the sewerage system, resulting in it being classified as a "central system". Albemarle First Bank Central System Request Page 2 of3 Sewerage System Safeguards & Maintenance The "Rural Areas" discussions have recently raised concerns for assuring the maintenance and long term function of sewerage systems involving septic tanks and subsurface disposal fields. In the paragraphs that follow I'll describe the manner in which the Virginia Department of Health (VDH) regulations address these concerns. The VDH regulations classify the sewerage system serving the Shadwell Antiquaries site as a "Type II" system, meaning it consists of a septic tank, a subsurface disposal field, and serves a commercial or other establishment [12V AC5-61O-250]. The VDH permit process includes approval of the system plans and specifications, issuance of a "construction permit", inspection of the completed system, and lastly issuance of an "operation permit". The "operation permit" identifies that the owner is responsible to maintain the system and to repair it if it ceases to operate. Any type of system failure, as defined by the regulations, is considered a violation for which VDH may take enforcement action. In my earlier description ofthe sewerage system I explained that it is also a "pump" system. The effluent from the septic tank is piped to another tank where the pump is located. A pair of "float" switches controls when the pump turns on and off based on the level of liquid in the pump tank. A third "float" switch triggers a high water alarm. VDH regulations require this to be an audiovisual alarm that is located within an area where it may be monitored. The regulations also require at least 1;4 day storage volume (based on the average daily flow) be provided above the high water alarm level to reduce the risk of system back up and/or release of effluent to the ground surface in the event of pump or electrical power failure. Septic tanks, installed after 1 July 2000, are required by VDH to provide an "inspection port" to allow the accumulation of solids to be periodically checked without the need to uncover the tanks. As an alternative, an "effluent filter" may be installed on the outlet line from the tank with an at grade access port to allow for periodic inspection and cleaning of the filter. The purpose of the filter is to screen any solids that may pass through the septic tank to a pumping system and/or subsurface disposal field. VDH has not yet established any guidelines on how often "effluent filters" should be inspected and cleaned. However, failure to routinely inspect and clean these filters could result in system failure. Over time sinking and floating solids accumulate inside of a septic tank. The rate of accumulation is dependent on the amount of non-degradable materials that are generated by the user and enter the system. Examples of non-degradable materials include oil, grease, hair, vegetable matter (cellulose), plastics and other synthetic materials. In time the accumulated solids need to be removed. Unfortunately, VDH does not regulate how frequently septic tanks are inspected and pumped out, but they do recommend that septic tanks be pumped and cleaned every 3 to 5 years. Failure to routinely inspect and pump out a septic tank could result in clogging ofthe distribution box and subsurface disposal field and cause system failure. In summary the VDH design criteria provide for some safeguards against system failure and the regulations provide that the owner is responsible for the maintenance and repair of the sewerage system. However, there are no VDH requirements for the frequency of system inspection or the pumping and cleaning of the septic tanks. Should this "central system" request be approved, a new septic tank will be installed to serve the Antiques/Retail building. An "inspection port" will be required on this new tank, in accordance with VDH regulations, to allow the accumulation of solids to be checked. The existing septic tanks serving the Tea Room/Restaurant will not be required by VDH to provide any modifications, such as "inspection ports". Albemarle First Bank Central System Request Page 3 of3 Recommendations The applicant has not proposed to expand the existing facilities, but rather to simply redefine and consolidate the sewerage system, resulting in it being classified as a "central system". The VDH design criteria provide for some safeguards against system failure and maintenance provisions are provided for through the regulations. However, there are shortcomings such as no requirements for the frequency of system inspection or the pumping and cleaning of the septic tanks. As required by the Code, I have reviewed the proposed modifications as the County Engineer and recommend approval of the application with the following conditions: 1. Virginia Department of Health approval for the construction and the operation of the pump and sewerage system modifications prior to the Zoning Administrator approval of any building permit and/or zoning clearance for the subject property. 2. Virginia Department of Health confirmation that the total sewerage flow to the system will not exceed the capacity of the three septic fields prior to the Zoning Administrator approval of any building permit and/or zoning clearance for the subject property. The three septic fields are currently rated by VDH at 630 gpd, 500 gpd and 500 gpd for a total of 1630 gallons per day. To address the concern for assurances that this system will be adequately inspected and maintained in the future, the application is also recommended for approval with the following conditions: 3. Virginia Department of Health approval of "inspection ports" installed on the existing septic tanks serving the Tea Room/Restaurant building (per 12V AC5-6l0-8l7.B.), prior to the Zoning Administrator approval of any building permit and/or zoning clearance for the subject property 4. Annual inspection of the septic tanks by a septic system maintenance professional, possessing a valid "sewage handling" permit issued by the Virginia Department of Health, for the accumulation of solids and the need for pumping and cleaning. This professional shall submit an inspection report to the County Engineer addressing the amount of accumulated solids found in the tanks; the general condition of the tanks, lines, and pumping system; and recommendations for ongoing maintenance of the system to assure its continued operation. 5. Pumping and cleaning of the septic tanks at least every 5 years or more frequently as determined necessary by the septic system maintenance professional and/or the County Engineer based on the annual inspections noted in condition #4 above. The owner shall provide documentation of the completed maintenance to the County Engineer and Zoning Administrator. Enclosure cc: David Benish J an S prink! e ATTACHMENT "3 February 13, 2005 Dear Mr. David Benish, We are writing to express concern for and opposition to the proposal to go forth with changes for any additional multi-uses and extension or enhancement of the existing sewer system for the former Shadwell Antiquaries building. The property is set within the entrance corridor of Route 22 and the Southwest Mountain Historic District. We have firm reservations- about any changes that would establish precedence for future growth, increased traffic and eventual changes in this protected rural region. We have had concerns about this site and complex since it was first approved in 1999. The venture has proven to be "laden with difficulties", as far as we can see. We appeal to you to avoid any further mistakes by implementing the proposal at hand. We feel the building can bec utilized in an "as is" state, if painting and repairs are made to the facade of the structure. Sincerely, rd ~ ¿e.o~rrv ~ Pat and Leo Napoleon Please forward this letter to the Planning Commission. FEB-14-05 MON 7:45 PM JIM BALLHEIM FAY NO 414?932514 P. 2 ATTACHMENT 3 ('ìA~. bö, <J d ,,~' f C vyJ~-'t'V . {!"- ~/1' .?Øj- eX P 11~:izi :11~ v d~1# ~~IlM}þ<- ~ ~}Th-n'I;' 7I;:.r;;¡~ (!þ~ '/f/LIft ~4 íIt:it~rUd 7k- Aú. r¿ '. ~~. 7k - ,fr,).? ~ ø c7S0 aÍ< t2I! tB µ- /Ýf/ OJ · ~e-- I!tJl'í..1P!f ~~~ . /l1Ij~MY~ 'it ~ '/õ Þ t;r¡~ 1õ:l~ 11 1~ 1tttJlf¡zF~::::~;;£ 1¡/t~7MIfI7~~rt1 '!L ~~ø4~Iih~~f&j ~~ akt%;~·wh~/~ ~ aft¿} ëd d í{,PUVÆ lilt ~~ KklMuJ. .~ ~,W David Benish Attachment 3 From: Marcia Joseph Sent: Wednesday, February 16, 2005 9:39 AM To: David Benish Subject: Fwd: Shadwell Begin forwarded message: From: keswickstables@webtv.net (Peggy Augustus) Date: February 12, 20052:00:16 PM EST To: Bill@oakhillfund.org, rodney@charlottesvillepress.com, wdr@rieleyandassociates.com, suecradd@aol.com, cal_ mor@msn.co, musxit@aol.com, marcia481@earthlink.net Subject: Shadwell PLEASE do not allow a central septic system at the Shadwell Antiqueries building. The Keswick Rural Area should not pay the price of the Albemarle First Bank's bad investment. They should be more careful of their loans in the future. The building should never have been allowed to be built so please don't compound the mistake by allwing a septic system. Peggy Augustus ill R/2005 Attachment 3 David Benish From: Marcia Joseph Sent: Wednesday, February 16,20059:40 AM To: David Benish Subject: Fwd: Shadwell Antiquaries Building Begin forwarded message: From: "Laura M. Easter" <empress@cstone.net> Date: February 14,20056:18:12 PM EST To: Bill@oakhillfund.org, wdr@ri1eyandassociates.com, marcia481@earthlink.net, suecradd@aol.com Subject: Shadwell Antiquaries Building Gentlemen, Please deny the zoning variance for the Shadwell Antiquaries building on Rt. 22 . The building should remain for 2 businesses only. Thank you. Laura M. Easter 3/18/2005 Attachment 3 David Benish ____~.y_~_~-_,V_~_,_~_'_~_~~___·__A~___'_"_.,~"~~~_~'<_,,~~~~~-~.~~-'-~"~-' -,--,,^-,--,..y..~~.,,--,~.~----,~-~,_..~,~,--._-~~,._,------_..~ From: Marcia Joseph Sent: Wednesday, February 16, 20059:39 AM To: David Benish Subject: Fwd: Shadwell rezoning request Begin forwarded message: From: <R T ay 10r@ScottStringfellow.com> Date: February 13,2005 3:26:32 PM EST To: <B ill@oakhillfund.org>, <rodney@charlottesvillepress.com>, <wdr@rieleyandassociates.com>, <marcia481 @earthlink.net>, <suecradd@ao1.com>, <cal_ mor@msn.com>, <musxit@ao1.com> Subject: Shadwell rezoning request Dear Commission Members: Recently, I learned that Albemarle First Bank has asked that the septic system for the building they repossessed in Shadwell be upgraded to allow for more intensive commercial use of the site. I would like to register my strong opposition to this request. I believe that requests like this one are encouraged only for legitimate health and safety issues. There is no health or safety issue involved with this site, merely the owner's desire to seek a remedy for a poor investment. The original owners borrowed money from Albemarle First and were unable to pay the money back. The bank repossessed the site rather than sell it for what it's actually worth...far less than the amount that they foolishly lent. Now they are trying to dig themselves out of the hole that they dug for themselves by requesting a waiver of preexisting regulations. To grant a waiver sends the wrong message. It suggests that the Commission's heartstrings can be plucked by anyone trying to turn an economic sow's ear into a silk purse merely by waving the "health and safety" banner. I'm sorry that the investment failed but I do not believe that that failure warrants a waiver. This site is not in a growth area, many of us who are neighbors have done our utmost to preserve the rural nature of this area, and a mini sewer plant is inappropriate. Finally, I am amazed that Albemarle First sees itself as the victim in this circumstance. The site limitations, which they say cause "undue hardship," have always been there. Maybe the bank should have investigated more thoroughly when they lent the money rather than bemoaning those limitations now. l/l R/2005 Attachment 4 ZUNKA, MILNOR CARTER & INIGO, LTD. Attorneys at Law 414 Park Street P,O. Box 1567 Charlottesville, VA 22902 John W. Zunka Richard H. Milnar Richard E. Carter Alvaro A. Inigo Telephone 434-977-0191 Real Estate 434-977-5060 Facsimile 434-977 -0198 Magruder Dent, Jr. 1919-1994 Robert E. Taylor 1906-1998 February 21, 2005 Board of Supervisors County of Albemarle 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, VA 22902-4596 Re: Albemarle First Bank, Central Sewerage System Proposal Review for Compliance with the County Comprehensive Plan Gentlemen: Albemarle First Bank does hereby Petition the Board of Supervisors and does hereby appeal the decision of the Planning Commission at its meeting on February 15, 2005 in finding that the above noted proposal is not in compliance with the County's Comprehensive Plan pursuant to VA Code Section 15.2-2232. Albemarle First Bank alleges as follows: 1) The application for modification of the interior of an existing building which would result in a central sewerage system is in compliance with the County's Comprehensive Plan. 2) The property which is the subject of the petition is zoned C-l, Commercial. This zoning was in existence at the time of the adoption of the Comprehensive Plan; therefore, any use under this zoning is in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan. 3) of the use including primarily users. There is no expansion of the buildings or intensification of the site. Most of the existing system is being utilized, the existing drainfields. Modifications to the system are related to laterals into the building to accommodate multiple 4) The report of the staff to the Planning Commission stated "This request ...is not contrary to the Plan's overriding intent to provide for orderly development and provide for the protection of the rural area and its associated resources. ...This proposal amounts to a reclassification of an existing private system to a central system.... No expansion of the Page Two February 21, 2005 building is proposed and essentially the same septic system, including existing drainfields, is being used." The report goes on to say, "The approval of the system does not facilitate an expansion of the use and no expansion of the leasable square footage is ~rphsed." The dentral sewerage system is necessary to accommodate three or more users. Albemarle First Bank agrees to accept a condition of approval that there will not be more than five users of the central sewerage system. ð»~ Richard E. Carter REC/p cc: Mr. David Benish, Chief of Planning 401 McIntire Road, Room 227 Charlottesville, VA 22902 Mr. Thomas Boyd Albemarle First Bank 1265 Seminole Trail Charlottesville, VA 22901 Mr. Marshall Pryor Albemarle First Bank 1265 Seminole Trail Charlottesville, VA 22901 Albemarle County Planning Commission February 15, 2005 The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a meeting and a public hearing on Tuesday, February 15,2005 at 6:00 p.m., at the County Office Building, Room 241, Second Floor, 401 Mcintire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia. Members attending were William Rieley, Rodney Thomas, Marcia Joseph, Vice- Chair, Jo Higgins, Pete Craddock and Bill Edgerton, Chairman. Absent was David J. Neuman, FAIA, Architect for University of Virginia and Calvin Morris. Other officials present were Wayne Cilimberg, Director of Planning & Community Development; David Benish, Chief of Planning & Community Development; Stephen Waller, Senior Planner; Amelia McCulley, Division Director of Zoning and Current Development; Louise Wyatt, Zoning Enforcement Manager and Greg Kamptner, Assistant County Attorney. Call to Order and Establish Quorum: Mr. Edgerton called the regular meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. and established a quorum. Albemarle First Bank-Shadwell Antiauaries. Review for ComDliance with the ComDrehensive Plan: Review of a proposal to convert a private septic system to a central system (to serve 3 or more users) for its compliance with the Comprehensive Plan as per State Code 15.2-2232. No building expansion is proposed. The site is located on the south side of Louisa Road (Route 22), approximately 600 feet from its intersection with Route 250. The property, described as Tax Map 79, Parcel 19, is located in the Rivanna Magisterial District. The site is Zoned C-1, Commercial and EC, Entrance Corridor and is recommended as Rural Area in the Comprehensive Plan. (David Benish) Mr. Benish summarized the staff report for the review for compliance with the Comprehensive Plan (Va. Code 15.2 - 2232) for the Albemarle First Bank Central Sewage System Request (Shadwell Antiquaries). The applicant intends to modify the interior of the Antiques/Retail building to provide a multi-user building. No expansion of the building is proposed. Since the septic system serving the site could serve three of more users under this proposal, it would be defined as a central system. Central systems are considered public facilities and, therefore, must be found in Compliance with the County's Comprehensive Plan as per State Code (Section 15.2-2232). If the Commission finds this proposal in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan, The Board of Supervisors must review and approve the central system. Attached is the staff report from the County Engineer, which provides an analysis and recommendation regarding the proposed central system (Attachment A). The County Engineer's report is not subject to Commission review and recommendation, but is provided for information. The action is forwarded to the Board so that they are aware of the Commission's finding in its compliance. The Board may decide to entertain that issue, disagree with the Commission's finding or have other comments to make. The site, previously referred to as Shadwell Antiquaries, is located on the south side of Louisa Road (Route 22), approximately 600 feet from its intersection with Route 250. The 2.04 acres property, described as Tax Map 79, Parcel 19, is located in the Rivanna Magisterial District (Attachment B). The site is Zoned C-1, Commercial and EC, Entrance Corridor and is recommended as Rural Area in the Comprehensive Plan. A final site plan for the property was approved administratively on June 11, 1999 for 2,112 square feet of building space, in two connected structures, to be used as an antique store and workshop. On December 7, 1999 the Planning Commission approved an amendment to the site plan modifying the use of the smaller building on site from a workshop to a restaurant (tea room). The Commission's review of this amendment was based on an appeal by an adjacent property owner. The Commission unanimously approved the site plan amendment. The site is fully developed with two buildings, parking lot and existing septic system. The site is located on the south side of Route 22, between Route 22 and Route 250. The Shadwell market convenience store is the adjacent property on the western boundary of the site (zoned C-1). The adjacent property to the east, consists of the CSX Railroad and, across the tracks, the GOCO Oil gas station (zoned RA). The ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - FEBRUARY 15, 2005 DRAFT MINUTES - ALBEMARLE FIRST BANK - SHADWELL ANTIQUARIES adjacent property to the north, across Route 22, is rural in character (zoned RA). The property is accessed by an entrance off of Route 22, just past the Shadwell Market. The County's growth management policy discourages non-rural related development within the Rural Area. However, this site and the adjacent Shadwell Market property are zoned C-1, Commercial. This "old zoning" was established prior to 1980 to recognize existing development and prior activities on these properties. Therefore, while the zoning and existing development on-this site is inconsistent with the County's current Comprehensive Plan, it is consistent with the existing zoning. The Comprehensive Plan policy regarding central utility systems discourages the use of central systems in the Rural Area (Attachment C). However, in this particular case, the site has been developed for commercial uses consistent with its zoning and is served by an existing private septic system. The internal modificaiions io ihe building prüpüsed by the applicant, that wûüld permit three (3) or more separate users in the existing buildings, necessitate the re-designation of the system from a private to central (public) system. There is no expansion of the buildings or intensification of use of the site. Most of the existing system is being utilized, including the existing drainfields. Modifications to the system are primarily related to the laterals into the building to accommodate the multiple users (see County Engineer's comments for more detail on system modifications). Staff opinion is that this request, although not entirely consistent with the principles and recommendations noted above, is not contrary to the Plan's overriding intent to provide for orderly development and provide for the protection of the Rural Area and its associated resources. The intent of the Comprehensive Plan statements is to discourage the use of new central systems that support and encourage new development, which may not have occurred without the use of a central system. This proposal amounts to a reclassification of an existing private system to a central system because of the potential for the system to serve three or more users. No expansion of the building is proposed and essentially the same septic system, including existing drainfields, is being used. The existing development constitutes a significant capital investment on the property. The approval of the system does not facilitate an expansion of the use and no expansion to the leasable square footage is proposed. Approval of the central system does provide the owner greater flexibility in leasing the existing space. Staff recommends the Planning Commission find this proposal consistent with the Comprehensive Plan with the condition that the central septic system is to serve existing on-site structures only. Mr. Edgerton asked if the only decision that they were being asked to make tonight is whether it is in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Benish stated that was correct. Mr. Edgerton stated from what Mr. Benish had wrote and just said that he had heard fairly clearly that it was not in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan, but it was in compliance with the old zoning. He asked if that was correct. Mr. Benish stated that his opinion was that it was not on its face consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, but it was consistent with the overriding intent of the Comprehensive Plan to support orderly development. Because of the existing circumstances on the site and the proposal it cannot be consistent with the Comp Plan because it did not start out consistent with the Comp Plan. But, it was not intensifying the use or making it any more inconsistent with the Comp Plan. He noted that was probably the best way to explain it. He pointed out that he had a larger copy of the system and the site to post on the board because the one in their packets is very small and hard to read. Ms. Joseph passed out copies of two letters in opposition of the request that she received. The first letter was dated February 13, 2005 from Pat and Leo Napoleon. The second letter was dated February 14, 2005 from Jim Ballheim. (ATTACHMENTS - TWO) ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - FEBRUARY 15, 2005 DRAFT MINUTES - ALBEMARLE FIRST BANK - SHADWELL ANTIQUARIES 2 Ms. Higgins asked if they were allowed to consider some of the basis that the Planning Commission has already forwarded to the Board with respect to the Comp Plan Amendment to the Rural Areas, which involved negative opinion on its consistency with what the Planning Commission has recommended on how it relates to cross road communities. She asked if there was any relationship between this analysis and what is now before the Board of Supervisors. In other words, they have a Comprehensive Plan now, but the Commission forwarded to the Board amendments to the Comp Plan relating to the Rural Areas and at that time the Commission took specific conversation and note about what was called cross road communities. She asked if this was one of those types of established locations. She asked if staff has any input on that. Mr. Benish stated that it was too early to say whether this site would be one of those cross roads that they would designate. That would be subject to the implementation tools that they put in place for that. But, he feit that this could be characierisiic or UJose types ûf things that theÿ Wûüld be designating. Theoretically, it could be. But, they were not at a point in time yet that they have decided which ones they were going to designate and what sort of tools they would use. He stated that arguably yes, there could be that type of location on Keswick, Cismont or Batesville sites that have existing facilities and historic characteristic to them. Now whether this one will qualify and will one that they designate he was not sure because they were not at the point of implementing it yet. Mr. Thomas pointed out that on the first page of the staff report it has the word restaurant. When this came before the Commission previously they had emphasized that there not be a restaurant. He stated that it was a tearoom, but he did not remember the stipulations that they put on it. Mr. Craddock stated that they could have a commercial kitchen. He stated that they had also approved a veterinary office on that site a few years ago. Currently there was a wine shop on the site, which he felt had a minimum water use and falls into compliance. Mr. Benish stated that the property was zoned C-1, which permits a broad range of retail and commercial type of uses. It is one step away from the HC zoning district, which is accommodating commercial. There are a lot of uses that could be made of the building regardless of whether it is petitioned off. Arguably the larger the building that was not petitioned the larger type of use that could fit in. The more the building is petitioned off the smaller the scope that any individual use could be. They were really looking at the same building and the same square footage of land use that is in play using essentially the same septic systems. Staff sees it more as a reclassification that allows more than three entities to be located within the building as opposed to the two prior ones. Mr. Thomas asked if the property would be able to be utilized more extensively with the new septic system. Mr. Benish stated that it could be used more extensively if extensively defines how many people could be in the building, but it was still the same square footage because there was no expansion to the building that would accommodate any more square footage of activity. Ms. Higgins stated that it was still the same septic field size because there was no proposed expansion of the septic field. Mr. Benish stated that the change really related to the way the septic system was developed. There are three drainfields with two to serve the tea room and one was for the antique shop. They are simply combining them all into one system so that the distribution box distributes to all three systems for the whole building. In essence, that is what they are proposing to do. Mr. Thomas asked if this had anything to do with the market located on the adjacent property, and Mr. Benish stated that it did not. Mr. Craddock stated that he would like to argue that this is all water under the dam because it was all approved administratively for this building many years ago. There was a residence on that property back then and the only commercial use was right there where Shadwell Store is, which had a house right ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - FEBRUARY 15, 2005 DRAFT MINUTES - ALBEMARLE FIRST BANK - SHADWELL ANTIQUARIES 3 behind it. There was also another house that was on this property. He stated that maybe it got old zoned as commercial through administration, but there was a residence on this. Then when it came to the Commission in 1999 he voted for it because it was going to be on a private septic system. Mr. Rieley agreed with Mr. Craddock. Mr. Benish stated that he did not research how this particular property got that zoning. The zoning has been there for a long time. The best that staff can speculate is that there was some activity within those buildings that caused at some point in time when the zoning was put on the property to recognize it for that zoning. But, staff could not figure that out. He stated that it was very clear that the Shadwell Market was a commercial retail store. He stated that he could not find any history to find out why this property was zoned C-1, but that is old history from a long time ago. Mr. Craddock stated that his grandparents ran the store and the post office for thirty years. Mr. Edgerton asked if there were any other questions for staff. There being none, he opened the public hearing and invited the applicant to address the Commission. Richard Carter, representative for the applicant Albemarle First Bank, stated that he would argue that it was consistent with the Comprehensive Plan in that when the Comprehensive Plan was adopted this property was zoned the same thing that it is today. Therefore, if the Comprehensive Plan recognized that this was commercial, then arguably it was consistent with the Comprehensive Plan at that time. It is not something that was residentially zoned. It was commercial at the time the Comprehensive Plan was adopted. Therefore. he would argue that by recognition of this and this zoning at the time that it was already consistent with the Comprehensive Plan for the commercial use. They agree with and adopt the staff report. What this does is that there is one small building, as Mr. Craddock mentioned, where a special use permit was granted on it for a veterinary hospital. Also, a special use permit was granted for a tea room. There is now a wine shop in the little building. He stated that the bank was using the big building right now as the only tenant. The bank can continue to occupy the whole building, and they can wait for another big tenant to come along. But it makes more sense if they had multiple users. As Mr. Benish said, they are not really increasing the intensity with the multiple users. They may even be with multiple small users as opposed to one big user actually diluting the intensity of it. What they were trying to do was to make some internal changes to give them some more bathrooms so that they could have those users. They were not increasing the square footage. They were not increasing the intensity of use. They were not doing anything other than adding some bathrooms to this. They recognize that the property is in the Rural Areas, which was why they were asking for the central sewage system. This property was there when they unfortunately had to buy it back. Therefore, they are doing what they think is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan as a use when the Comprehensive Plan was adopted. He stated that Mr. Pryor was present from the bank and he would be happy to answer any questions. Mr. Edgerton asked if there were any questions for Mr. Carter. There being none, he asked if there were any members of the public that would like to address the Commission on this application. Judith Summer stated that she lived on a farm located on Route 631 in Keswick. Only recently had she heard about this plan to divide up the Shadwell Antiquaries building and that she mostly had questions. She felt that Albemarle First Bank had made a bad business decision and now they are asking the Commission to make a bad decision. The County's own staff said that it was inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Certainly the proposal is an intensification of a use. If you take a large building and divide it up into multiple spaces with multiple users, of course, you would have multiple people compared to what it was before. She noted that she had not heard the number of divisions that the applicant plans for this building. But, from what she heard it sounded like a mini mall, which she felt was an inappropriate way to use that building. She asked who will renovate and manage the building. How many employees will there be for these multiple users? How many customers do they plan to have for these multiple uses? She asked what type of parking will be required and do they plan to pave over the entire area? She asked what about the use of signs, flags and pennants to advertise the multiple users in that building? She asked what about access for commercial trucks if they have commercial businesses? She asked whether it would make the road unsafe. She asked if there was any evidence that the site will ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - FEBRUARY 15, 2005 DRAFT MINUTES - ALBEMARLE FIRST BANK - SHADWELL ANTIQUARIES 4 support that number of businesses. She understood that there is an area dedicated to Glenmore for multiple small businesses, but she did not know when that would be utilized. She believed that the overriding intent of the Comprehensive Plan is to protect the Rural Areas and the residents and not to allow development, which is what this multiple use would be. She felt that this was development that was in the wrong place. Jeff Werner, representative for the Piedmont Environmental Council, stated that the Southwest Mountains was a very important place to the PEC. There is a tremendous amount of stewardship in that historic district. This is the doorstep to the Southwest Mountains. Mr. Carter refers to the importance of the Comprehensive Plan. Given Mr. Carter's enthusiasm for holding up the Comp Plan, he looked forward to him supporting the regulations proposed in the Mountain Overlay District that was adopted into the Comp Plan. He stated that he would like to read something dated August 3, 2004 from staff when this came to the Commission beíüre. This pïûject ïeqüií8s cûnnecting the dûts. This property is currently served by private well and septic neither of which is a central water supply or a central system. Therefore, under Section . . . this property would only be permitted to have one establishment. While there is less than 120,000 square feet of site area which is required for two establishments, two establishments were mistakenly approved on this property in the past. The applicant has asked for a variance to allow a possibility of 15 separate commercial establishments on this property. Fifteen separate commercial establishments on private well and septic require a total of 900,000 square feet of land area. This property consists of 88,000 square feet. Therefore, this is a variance of 811,000 square feet. The applicant last year claimed undue hardship in requesting this, but that was denied. So now they were back requesting a pocket septic plan which will allow this. He asked that they look at the Comprehensive Plan. It states that pocket septic plans within the rural area shall be strongly discouraged except to address health and safety problems. This is a foreclosure on a piece of property that the owner now says that they cannot make money on it. That implies that it is a poor investment and not a health and safety problem. However, he talked to some of the folks out there and they are encouraged about some uses there. But, they are very concerned about the potential for 15 uses. Back when the Board of Supervisors reviewed this on 1-15-03, their minutes reflect a specific discussion about requiring turn lanes into this facility and the additional traffic that might be brought on. Therefore, what they have here is a site that is problematic. The site may be able to serve the community, but he suspected that there was more to risk here than just simply a few more tenants in this space. He stated that he wished the wine shop well, but he just thinks that the Planning Commission does not need to start providing precedence to rural area policy, which in his opinion was very specific when there was no demonstrable health or safety issue involved. Marshall Pryor, of Albemarle First Bank, stated that they don't envision putting fifteen people in there. They envision having possibly two or three other tenants. They certainly hope that there will be more traffic, but it would probably just be the traffic that is already on the road that would stop and use that. One can never be certain what will ever end up in the future. It is a 2 acre piece of property that is adjoined by the railroad tracks, an existing store, the road and the interstate. It could not be used for anything else other than a small commercial site, which has already been put on there. They were simply trying to utilize the site to the best of their ability. Currently the bank now uses 7,000 square feet and the wine shop uses 2,100 square feet. There are several people who are interested in that. They feel that two or three other uses would be the maximum that could be put there. He stated that they think that this would be a good use of the property and appreciate the Commission's consideration. Mr. Edgerton asked if there was anyone else present to speak on this request. There being none, he closed the public hearing to bring the matter back before the Commission for discussion and a possible action. Mr. Thomas stated that the applicant has stated in the staff report that it would be up to 3 modifications to the building proposed by the applicant that would permit 3 or more separate users. The applicant stated that it would probably be a maximum of 3 separate users. Ms. Joseph stated that Mr. Pryor stated that there would be 3 additional users, which would be a total of 5 separate users. ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - FEBRUARY 15, 2005 DRAFT MINUTES - ALBEMARLE FIRST BANK - SHADWELL ANTIQUARIES 5 Mr. Edgerton stated that the definition of central is 3 or more units. Therefore, there is no way to limit it. Mr. Benish stated that he would suppose that they could make a finding, and Mr. Kamptner could correct him on the compliance review, that would set a limit on this. But, again the users would be using the same amount of square footage. Basically they would be looking at cubicles if they had 15 users in 2,200 square feet. Ms. Higgins stated that there were also two other limiting factors that are controlled, but the building footprint does not change. Each time a new user goes into a C-1 space they have to meet the parking requirements. Each individual user must go to the Zoning Department to get their Certificate of Occupancy and they must prove how the parking is calculated for the use. Therefore, as far as traffic it could be a mixture, but traffic generation is considered based on the number of parking spaces. When she iooked at this she asked what the ïestïictiûns on the site ŸÝere if the büilding footprint does not change. If the use changes within it from the wine shop and bank, she felt that 15 users would not meet the parking requirements for that kind of base use just for the employees only. Therefore, that is one limiting factor that would considered. The second one is that there is a Code requirement for bathroom facilities and hand wash facilities and the septic fields are not being modified. She asked if the septic fields were modified if that is again an expansion. She felt that they were taking almost all of the area on the site right now. She stated that the applicant could not get into high traffic generators because of the limit on the parking space requirements. Mr. Thomas stated that previously they approved the convenience store, which would be a pretty high intense use of that corner right in the fork of the road. He asked the status of that approval. Mr. Benish stated that he honestly did not know, but to the best of his knowledge the County had never received a site plan on it. Mr. Thomas stated that this site would not be as intense as that store. He felt that no more traffic would be generated than the store that was sitting there now. Mr. Craddock pointed out that the store was going to run their septic line under Route 250 to the little parcel over on the other side of the road. That will be a private septic system. Mr. Edgerton stated that Mr. Craddock had made a very specific distinction between a private septic system and a central septic system. He asked how they are different if they are using the same tanks and the same fields. Ms. Higgins stated that she spoke with Mr. Benish today and found out that basically at the third user the health department calls it a central sewer. But, two people can share and it will still be private. Mr. Edgerton stated that from reading the staff report that he felt that they would have to add two more septic tanks, but the fields were going to stay the same. Mr. Benish stated that the applicant was not adding a tank, but actually deprogramming one tank and putting in a new tank so that there was one line that feeds both buildings to the drainfield. Right now the way that the drainfield system is set up that there are two lines with one coming out of the wine shop and the other one coming out of the tea room. The new facilities are to centralize the lines, but to use the same drainfields. Mr. Rieley stated that he was certainly sympathetic to the situation that the bank is in. He felt that the points have been made that the parking, square footage and the septic systems themselves will not be expanded. But, it is hard for him to think that this will not end up intensifying the use as Ms. Summers said. The economic reality is that they are trying to intensify the use and get more use out of this building. At the end of the day he was struck with two very straight forward statements that he thinks answers their questions. The Commission only has one determination to make. The second sentence in Jack Kelsey's memo says, however these modifications create a "central system" as defined by Code. It is not by the health department. On page 7 or page 129 of the Comprehensive Plan under recommendations a ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - FEBRUARY 15, 2005 6 DRAFT MINUTES - ALBEMARLE FIRST BANK - SHADWELL ANTIQUARIES statement is made that new central sewer systems in the rural area should be strongly discouraged except to address health and safety problems. In addition to those two statements he agreed with the statement that Mr. Craddock made earlier, of which he concurs with having the same vote. He stated that he was part of the unanimous vote in favor of this. At the time the fact that this was on a private system that could not be expanded because if it was expanded that it would become a central system was a big part of the approval process. He stated that he voted for it on the condition that it was private. He stated that he would not have voted for it if it had been on a central system. Ms. Higgins asked what his thoughts were on what they had just recently recommended that would change this language. There is the old zoning for the old store in this location, but also there is the existing zoning. She asked if they were acting contradictory to what they just forwarded to the Board. ¡vir. Rieley stated that he felt that she had a veíÿ gûûd pûint. 8üt he felt that the distinction is that the kind of language in the Comprehensive Plan that they forwarded was to address situations like Batesville, which are historic cross road communities. He pointed out that he lived in that community and would guarantee if there was a proposal to put Page's Store to a good use that the surrounding community would be in here filling up the room in favor of that. He pointed out that he had received a lot of emails on this application. But, there was not even a single positive email.This is not an integral part of the cross roads community. This is a new building that was built. He stated that the promotional material that came with the last application said that the reason that this was needed so badly in the Keswick community was that the nearest place that one could get a really good sandwich was Paris and they needed to address that. He felt that was why the business had failed. He felt that it was a good point that the Commission should be consistent with what they were sending on to the Board. But, the difference between the cross roads community like Batesville and the function that it plays and this building was that this building was simply built out of scale from what it should have been to begin with. Now they were trying to back up and make the building fit when it does not fit. Therefore, he felt that there was a big distinction. Ms. Joseph stated that one of the other aspects of the cross road communities was looking at some of the historic structures to see if those could be preserved by some other uses within those structures. This building is fairly new. In 1999, during the review when everyone was wondering why they needed such a big building that it was explained that they needed that enormous space to do the repair work and that they would be selling out of the smaller space. She stated that she could not support this because it is not in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Craddock stated that he would not support it either because of the aforementioned reasons and that this is not addressing any health or safety problems as noted in the staff report. Mr. Edgerton stated that he was very torn about this because he was very sympathetic to the request since nothing is changing except the plumbing lines. But, he pointed out that he was very concerned about setting a precedent. If what they were doing this evening was reviewing for compliance with the Comp Plan, then he did not think there was much question because to approve this change was not in compliance with the Comp Plan. He pointed out that he was one of the groups of persons who voted unanimously for this, but he did not share Mr. Craddock's distinction between a private and central system in this particular issue. Once a central system was approved then the question was, without a lot of extra conditions, whether they would be able to control the limit of development. He noted that he had received a lot of emails. He asked staff if the question about the 15 businesses was something that came up last summer. Mr. Benish stated that staff has not talked about that in this review and honestly he could not remember that piece of information from when it came out before. But, again he would suppose if they petitioned off the building for cubicle space, then they could literally have 15 different people operating 15 individual businesses requiring business license on there. But, he did not remember the details of that discussion. He felt that from the Comprehensive Plan standpoint the precedent that you always set is the precedent on the case that they were reviewing. The circumstance here in staff's evaluation of the Comp Plan is the C-1 zoning and the existing buildings that are out there now. He stated that any decision that the Commission may make is unique to the proposal in front of them. He stated that he was sympathetic to ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - FEBRUARY 15, 2005 7 DRAFT MINUTES - ALBEMARLE FIRST BANK - SHADWELL ANTIQUARIES where the Commission is because this was not an easy one for staff given the history and the unique characteristics of this site, the zoning and the potential use in whether it was subdivided or not. He noted that the individual uses may be more intensive as multiple uses depending on the type of use. Mr. Edgerton asked if heard him correctly earlier on that this will go to the Board for their determination since they make the decision about going from private to central sewer system. Mr. Benish stated that what would happen in this circumstance is that the finding that the Commission has made on the Comprehensive Plan will be forwarded to the Clerk's Office and on to the Board. The Board can decide whether to entertain it or not. The Board should be using that information in their deliberation of the central system. Since a central system has not been found to be in compliance with the Comp Plan, then he would defer to Mr. Kamptner or Mr. Davis as to how they will deal with that at the Boarå. But, he wouid suppose that the 80aïd cüüld take theÎí actiûn üp as a revie'vv of the centra! system and make a different finding. Mr. Kamptner stated that if the Commission recommends disapproval, the owner can appeal that decision to the Board if they file the petition within ten days and then the Board can make a recommendation. Ms. Higgins agreed with both sides, but was torn because she felt that they were changing laterals and putting in plumbing fixtures. But, on the other hand she thought that smaller uses fit more in a rural area than one large use. Whether it was a financial decision or not, she felt that seeing a building that goes partially vacant out in the rural area does not help anybody. But, the one question she had was if there was a way to modify this or make a recommendation that says unlimited that they don't think that it is in compliance, but if it were limited to four or five uses then they were seeing it in a different light. She asked if that was a possibility. She felt that to say yes or no does not give the Board as much direction as saying well if the applicant was not looking for 15 uses because of the intensification issue and that the parking limits it as well as the septic lines themselves. But, if they said that there will not be more than five users, that it would be more consistent with it. She suggested that they forward it with that information and let the Board make its decision. She stated that was just a thought. Mr. Edgerton stated that it was a very interesting thought because there were a lot of other requirements in the Ordinance that were going to have to be met such as use and parking regulations. Mr. Kamptner stated that on at least a couple other occasions when the Commission has had a 15-2- 2232 review in front of them that the Commission has imposed conditions or limitations that allows them to make a finding of consistency. But, there needs to be a nexus between the conditional and the finding of consistency with the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Rieley suggested that they deal with this in the same way they dealt with an issue earlier this evening, which is that they take their action and then ask the Board to read the minutes. He pointed out that was what the Commission had done earlier. Mr. Thomas stated that the applicant stood in front of the Commission just a few minutes ago and said that it would be four users. He supported the idea of limiting it to four users. Ms. Higgins stated that she was not against the central system in this case because it is already built and is being used differently. That is what makes this a unique situation. But, she felt that modifying their review for compliance, as Mr. Kamptner said, has been done in the past in saying that they consider it consistent up to a point, but if it goes beyond that point then they were in a different ballpark. Then that would also set a precedent. Mr. Rieley stated that since the engineering department has said that these modifications will create a central system under the Code and because the Comprehensive Plan says that new central sewer systems in the Rural Areas shall be strongly discouraged except to address health and safety problems, that he would make a motion that the request is not consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. He asked to attach to that motion once again the admonition that the entire conversation that the Commission had will be forwarded to the Board of Supervisors and that they be encouraged to look at all of that. ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - FEBRUARY 15,2005 8 DRAFT MINUTES - ALBEMARLE FIRST BANK - SHADWELL ANTIQUARIES Ms. Joseph seconded the motion. Ms. Higgins stated that under the discussion part of this in reading the words where it says new central systems in the rural areas shall be strongly discouraged that she thought that the engineering report says that it is not a new central sewer system. Mr. Rieley stated that however these modifications create a "central system" as defined by the Code, which was what it says. Ms. Joseph stated that it does not exist as a central system now. Ms. Higgins stated thai it sãyS U-Iat It exists as a sÿstem. She stated that as the motion stands that she could not support it because she felt that there was opportunity to allow it with a limitation of no more than four or five users. Then, that information could be used by the Board because she felt that they would consider it differently. She asked that the Board be given the opportunity to do that. She asked that Mr. Rieley consider making an amendment to the motion so that she could support it. Mr. Rieley stated that the addition of the third use is what puts it in to the category of a central system, which was the point that he felt that they need to stand on. Mr. Craddock agreed with Mr. Rieley. The motion carried by a vote of (4:2). (Higgins, Thomas - No) (Morris - Absent) Mr. Edgerton stated that the motion to determine the noncompliance with the Comprehensive Plan was approved. (Recorded and transcribed by Sharon Claytor Taylor, Recording Secretary.) ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - FEBRUARY 15, 2005 DRAFT MINUTES - ALBEMARLE FIRST BANK - SHADWELL ANTIQUARIES 9 A t1nc.J'\ V11 € h .~ PI &11111"\~) /\{\q n ,Jk j h 2-jts- 10'; Cø (VII~,Y\¡ 'S '.:J I d n February 13, 2005 Dear Mr. David Benish, We are writing to express concern for and opposition to the ......"...."...al t" g" f"rth ulith "hannoc- fnr ~n" ~rlrli+inn-.:::al ml tlti_,,~o~ ~nrl tJ1UJV';:' I LV U IVI II VVU.II VI' II~V'" 'VI ~IIY U..........U.....,.ILtI lilY"" ........"... ~...... extension or enhancement of the existing sewer system for the former Shadwell Antiquaries building. The property is set within the entrance corridor of Route 22 and the Southwest Mountain Historic District. We have firm reservations about any changes that would establish precedence for future growth, increased traffic and eventual changes in this protected rural region. We have had concerns about this site and complex since it was first approved in 1999. The venture has proven to be "laden with difficulties", as far as we can see. We appeal to you to avoid any further mistakes by implementing the proposal at hand. We feel the building can be utilized in an "as is" state, if painting and repairs are made to the facade of the structure. Sincerely, rß~ ¿e-~~ Pat and Leo Napoleon Please forward this letter to the Planning Commission. FEB-14-05 MON 7:45 PM JIM BALLHEIM n l-tMeJ-,VY'( rJh) d !¡C,!D'J FAX NO. 4342932514 P. 2 (\f) n (u r'] ('v è>(Y1 (Y' i':'<) \ 0f\ /-/\/1")-('') ~/~ .zø.s- ~~ v ~~Prf ~~MÞL ~ 't/4/b ~ -¡-Wfw 7IAJ rL' cd"-" 7k ~ frJ? 1 ø c7S0 oj;. aft ¡¿ ~~--. tv ~M/h'¡ OJ a¿ > ~ · ~e-- &l71.tWf X ~~ ~. /1lrj Ajìø4 jMl~ ~~Ýôktl;¡~ 1õf~1f1~ /'~ ðJ-a~~i: ~ ~ ~~41 fÂR liid frutiAJÞ ~ t7t4t.t/vJ ?/~#~ filf¡J"f¡¿ k Iiv ~ //if /ùU'~ /lcßnJ frvv. /lJrI71fj '. óIt/p /ie; I/«1J kbf #t¡tu</~~.iL w;t( ~vhJ t?;lnad frrtU. ~ ~ ðt-~ ~ ~;¡ âtl& f+ ~ tftItIAJ ~ /lfa ~ ~M?:L¿, /I~ØM ~v /7ll~ wk,,& ~ ~ t xi( úiHdd /J/1- ~~f ~_ Ñk./MuJ. '.~ ~,#I - --->-,-- 18 ¡:¡ '" Tax Map: RURAL AREAS PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT LIGHT INDUSTRY VILLAGE RESIDENTIAL R1 RESIDENTIAL NEIGHSORHOOD MODEL DISTRICT HEAVY INDUSTRY PLANNED DEVELOPMENT INDUSTRIAL PARK R2 RESIDENTIAL NATURAL RESOURCE EXTRACTION OVERLAY ENTRANCE CORRU)ORS TOWN OF SCOTTSVlllE CHARLOTTESVILLE (p ZUNKA, MILNOR, CARTER & INIGO, LTD. Attorneys at Law 414 Park Street POBox 1567 Charlottesville VA 22902 ""'-'''-'''''''........''''''.-...........- John W. Zunka Richard H. Milnor Richard E. Carter Alvaro A. Inigo Telephone 434-977-0191 Real Estate 434-977-5060 Facsimile 434-977-0198 Magruder Dent, Jr. 1919-1994 Robert E. Taylor 1906-1998 February 21, 2005 Ms. Ella Carey, Clerk Albemarle County Board of Supervisors 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, V A 22902 Re: Albemarle First Bank-Central Sewerage System Dear Ms. Carey; The above matter is set for deliberation by the Board of Supervisors on March 2, 2005. The matter came before the Planning Commission on February 15,2005 to determine if it was in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan. The Planning Commission determined by a 4 to 2 vote that it was not. I have this day filed a Petition for Appeal to the Board of Supervisors appealing the Planning Commission's decision. I ask that the matter set before the Board of Supervisors on March 2, 2005 be deferred until such time as the appeal can be heard by the Board of Supervisors. I would ask that the appeal and the March 2 determination be made at the same meeting. If this deferral is not acceptable, please let me know as soon as possible. Very truly yours, ø~# Richard E. Carter Cc: Mr. David Benish Mr. Thomas Boyd Mr. Marshall Pryor ZUNKA, MILNOR, CARTER & INIGO, LTD. Attorneys at Law 414 Park Street P.O. Box 1567 Charlottesville, VA 22902 .........."-'''"'-'~".......''"-'................ John W. Zunka Richard H. Milnor Richard E. Carter Alvaro A. Inigo Telephone 434-977-0191 Real Estate 434-977-5060 Facsimile 434-977-0198 Magruder Dent, Jr. 1919-1994 Robert E. Taylor 1906-1998 February 21, 2005 Board of Supervisors County of Albemarle 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, VA 22902-4596 Re: Albemarle First Bank, Central Sewerage System Proposal Review for Compliance with the County Comprehensive Plan Gentlemen: Albemarle First Bank does hereby Petition the Board of Supervisors and does hereby appeal the decision of the Planning Commission at its meeting on February 15, 2005 in finding that the above noted proposal is not in compliance with the County's Comprehensive Plan pursuant to VA Code Section 15.2-2232. Albemarle First Bank alleges as follows: 1) The application for modification of the interior of an existing building which would result in a central sewerage system is in compliance with the County's Comprehensive Plan. 2) The property which is the subject of the petition is zoned C-l, Commercial. This zoning was in existence at the time of the adoption of the Comprehensive Plan; therefore, any use under this zoning is in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan. 3) of the use including primarily users. There is no expansion of the buildings or intensification of the site. Most of the existing system is being utilized, the existing drainfields. Modifications to the system are related to laterals into the building to accommodate multiple 4) The report of the staff to the Planning Commission stated "This request ...is not contrary to the Plan's overriding intent to provide for orderly development and provide for the protection of the rural area and its associated resources. ...This proposal amounts to a reclassification of an existing private system to a central system.... No expansion of the Page Two February 21, 2005 building is proposed and essentially the same septic system, including existing drainfields, is being used." The report goes on to say, "The approval of the system does not facilitate an expansion of the use and no expansion of the leasable square footage is ;rp;psed." The dentral sewerage system is necessary to accommodate three or more users. Albemarle First Bank agrees to accept a condition of approval that there will not be more than five users of the central sewerage system. ð..4?U Richard E. Carter REC/p cc: Mr. David Benish, Chief of Planning 401 McIntire Road, Room 227 Charlottesville, VA 22902 Mr. Thomas Boyd Albemarle First Bank 1265 Seminole Trail Charlottesville, VA 22901 Mr. Marshall Pryor Albemarle First Bank 1265 Seminole Trail Charlottesville, VA 22901 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 February 23, 2005 Dennis S. Rooker Jack Jouett Sally H. Thomas Samuel Miller IJndsay G. Dorrier, Jr. Seattsville David C. Wyant White Hall Mr. Richard E. Carter Taylor, Zunka, Milnor & Carter, Ltd. 414 Park Street PO Box 1567 Charlottesville, VA 22902 Re: Albemarle First Bank-Central Sewerage System Dear Mr. Carter: This is to aCknowledge receipt of your letter dated February 21, 2005 appealing the determination of the Planning Commission that the aboye-referenced project is not in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan. Pending reyiew and all necessary information receiyed, this appeal and Board reyiew of the request for a central sewer system will be scheduled to be heard by the Board on April 6, 2005. This item has tentatively been scheduled for 10:30 a.m. The meeting will be held in Meeting Room #241, Second Floor, County Office Building, 401 Mcintire Road, Char1ottesville, Virginia. You will receiye a copy of the tentatiye agenda prior to the meeting. If you haye any additional information you wish to be presented to the Board prior to the meeting, please forward it to the Clerk no later than March 29, 2005. YOU OR YOUR REPRESENTATIVE MUST BE PRESENT AT THIS MEETING. If you should haye any questions or comments conceming, please do not hesitate to contact me at (434) 296-5843. lewc :¡¡¡,~i:ereIY' U! 7 / --.- Cé ¿ ¡(aLe( Ella W. Carey, Cle~ cc: Jack Kelsey Dayid Benish Larry Davis * Printed on recycled paper COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road, Room 227 Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 Phone (434) 296-5832 Fax (434) 972-4126 February 17, 2005 Richard Carter Taylor, Zunka, Milnor & Carter, Ltd. 414 Park Street P.O. Box 1567 Charlottesville, VA 22902 Re: Albemarle First Bank, Central Sewerage System Proposal-Review for Compliance with the County Comprehensive Plan Dear Mr. Carter: The Albemarle County Planning Commission, at its meeting on February 15, 2005, found the above noted proposal not in compliance with the County's Comprehensive, as per Virginia Code 15.2-2232, by a 4-2 vote. Please be advised that the applicant has ten (10) days to appeal the decision of the Planning Commission to the Board of Supervisors. If you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, ~ David Benish, Chief of Planning cc: Robert W. Tucker Ella Carey COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AGENDA TITLE: Proposed FY 2005 Budget Amendment AGENDA DATE: April 6, 2005 SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Public Hearing on the Proposed FY 2005 Budget Amendment in the amount of $3,783,253.56 and request approval of amendment and of Appropriations #2005046, #2005047, #2005049, #2005050, and #2005051 to provide funding for various General Government, School, and Capital Programs. ACTION: X INFORMATION: CONSENT AGENDA: ACTION: INFORMATION: ATTACHMENTS: Yes STAFF CONTACTCS): Messrs. Tucker, Breeden, Wiggans; Ms. White REVIEWED BY: LEGAL REVIEW: Yes BACKGROUND: The Code of Virginia § 15.2-2507 stipulates that any locality may amend its budget to adjust the aggregate amount to be appropriated during the current fiscal year as shown in the currently adopted budget. However, any such amendment which exceeds one percent of the total expenditures shown in the currently adopted budget or the sum of $500,000, whichever is lesser, must be accomplished by first publishing a notice of a meeting and holding a public hearing before amending the budget. The Code section applies to all County funds, i.e., General Fund, Capital Fund, E-911, School Self-Sustaining, etc. STRATEGIC PLAN: 4.2 Fund County services in a fair, efficient manner and provide needed public facilities infrastructure. DISCUSSION: The proposed increase of this FY 2005 Budget Amendment totals $3,783,253.56. The estimated expenses and revenues included in the proposed amendment are shown below: ESTIMATED EXPENDITURES Local Government Programs/Grants Education Fund Education Programs/Grants ECC Capital Improvement Program $ $ $ $ $ 142,754.26 175,656.08 290,517.52 28,500.00 3.145.825.70 TOTAL ESTIMATED EXPENDITURES - All Funds $ 3,783,253.56 ESTIMATED REVENUES Local Revenues State Revenues Federal Revenues Other Fund Balance $ $ $ $ 141,053.81 10,638.00 189,272.79 3.442.288.96 TOTAL ESTIMATED REVENUES - All Funds $ 3,783,253.56 The budget amendment is comprised of twelve (12) separate appropriations, seven (7) of which have already been approved by the Board as indicated below: Approved January 5, 2005: AGENDA TITLE: Proposed FY 2005 Budget Amendment April 6, 2005 Page 2 · One (1) appropriation (#2005039) in the amount of $117,089.90 for various education programs and donations. Approved February 2, 2005: · One (1) appropriation (#2005040) in the amount of $54,288.54 for various education programs and donations; · One (1) appropriation (#2005041) in the amount of $100,774.00 to transfer funds from the Glenmore proffer to the school CIP; and · One (1) appropriation (#2005042) in the amount of $28,500.00 for a vehicle for ECC operations. Approved March 2, 2005: · One (1) appropriation (#2005043) in the amount of $124,735.86 for various education programs and donations; · One (1) appropriation (#2005044) distributes $101,901.00 from the General Fund salary contingency to various departments who had reclassifications during FY 2005; and · One (1) appropriation (#2005045) in the amount of $45,000.00 for completion of the HVAC project at the Health Department. The five (5) new appropriations are as follows: · One (1) appropriation (#2005046) in the amount of $280,754.26 for the Domestic Preparedness Equipment Grant; · One (1) appropriation (#2005047) in the amount of $16,111.00 for various education programs and donations; · One (1) appropriation (#2005049) in the amount of $16,000.00 for the ECC CERT Grant; · One (1) appropriation (#2005050) in the amount of $3,000,000.00 to transfer the FY 04 General Fund surplus to the CIP; and · One (1) appropriation (#2005051) in the amount of $255,000.00 to transfer additional funds from Bright Stars and the schools to the Family Support program. A detailed description of these requests is provided on Attachment A. RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends approval of the FY 2005 Budget Amendment in the amount of $3,783,253.56 after the public hearing, and then approval of Appropriations #2005046, #2005047, #2005049, #2005050, and #2005051 to provide funds for various General Government, School, and Capital programs as described in Attachment A. 05.030 Attachment A ADprODriation #2005046 $280,754.26 Albemarle County will be receiving grant funds in the amount of $280,754.26 to assist in the preparation of response to incidents involving mass destruction weapons. These funds will be split 50/50 between Fire-Rescue and the Police Department. The equipment purchased under these grants must come only from the commodity areas targeted by the Federal government. There is no local match ADDrODriation #2005047 $16,111.00 Albemarle County Schools received a donation in the amount of $4,000.00 from the Hollymead Elementary School PTO. This donation will be used to help offset the cost of installing a climbing wall at the school. The Citigroup Foundation awarded Stone Robinson Elementary School a grant in the amount of $2,500.00 for the Reading Intervention Project. These funds will be used to extend reading tutoring for 2nd and 4th graders. The Junior League of Charlottesville awarded Agnor Hurt Elementary School a grant in the amount of $1 ,000.00 for the Promoting Literacy Through Audio Books Project. These funds will be used to purchase audio books kits. These kits will be processed for circulation through the library and will support the schools improvement plan of 90% of K-5 students will be at or above level in language arts. Douglas and Sarah DuPont made a matching donation in the amount of $1,000.00 to Henley Middle School for the Frederick Upton Foundation Grant. This donation will support Henley's Cultural Enrichment Program in funding three artists-in-residence programs: Sculpture, Writer, and Dramatic Interpretation. The projects will involve interactive activities to include hands on learning experiences for students with performing, visual and musical arts. The Virginia Commission for the Arts made grant awards to several Albemarle County Schools. Teacher Incentive Grants were made to Baker Butler Elementary School in the amount of $1,200.00, Greer Elementary in the amount of $82.00, Meriwether Lewis Elementary in the amount of $929.00, Murray Elementary in the amount of $300.00, Stony Point Elementary in the amount of $3,600.00, Yancey Elementary in the amount of $300.00, Burley Middle in the amount of $900.00 and Henley Middle in the amount of $300.00. These programs will involve interactive activities to include hands on learning experience for students with performing, visual and musical arts. ADDroDriation #2005049 $16.000.00 This appropriation provides $16,000.00 for the Citizen Emergency Response Team (CERT) grant. The monies through this grant cover training volunteers to respond to emergency situations. Examples include cutting trees out of the road, setting up temporary shelter, and taking pictures of incidents (tornado's, hurricanes, etc). Some of the monies are also used for equipment for this same purpose. Examples are: flashlights, chain saws, cots, blankets, lanterns, cameras, back packs, batteries, etc. ADDrODriation #2005050 $3,000,000.00 This appropriation will transfer $3,000,000.00 in General Fund FY 04 surplus to the CIP. Based on the resolution of the PPTR funding issue, staff had recommended to the Board at the January 19th Business Plan work session that these previously frozen funds could be transferred into the Capital Improvement Program. ADDrODriation #2005051 $255,000.00 This appropriation transfers $255,000.00 from the Schools and from Bright Stars to the Family Support Fund to offset decreased federal revenues. This action was approved previously by the Board. COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE APPROPRIATION APP# DATE BATCH# 2005046 EXPLANATION: Funding for Domestic Prepardeness Equipment Grant. SUB LEDGER GENERAL LEDGER TYPE FUND DEPT OBJECT DESCRIPTION CODE AMOUNT DEBIT CREDIT 1 1545 31091 550403 Traininq J 1 1,000.00 1 1545 31091 800100 Mac. & Eauip J 1 139,377.13 1 1545 31092 550403 Traininq J 1 1,000.00 1 1545 31092 800100 Mac. & Eauip J 1 139,377.13 2 1545 33000 330001 Grant Revenue J 2 280,754.26 1545 0501 Est. Revenue 280,754.26 1545 0701 Appropriation 280,754.26 TOTAL 561,508.52 280,754.26 280,754.26 PREPARED BY: BD. OF SUPV APPROVAL: ACCT. APPROVAL: ENTERED BY: Melvin Breeden Ella W. Carey DATE: Feb. 24,2005 DATE: 4/6/2005 DATE: DATE: COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE APPROPRIATION APP# DATE BATCH# 2005047 EXPLANATION: Funding for various School donation and programs. SUB LEDGER GENERAL LEDGER TYPE FUND DEPT OBJECT DESCRIPTION CODE AMOUNT DEBIT CREDIT 1 2111 61338 601300 Ed/Rec Supplies J 1 4,000.00 1 3104 60210 132100 PT Salary-Teacher J 1 2,320.00 1 3104 60210 210000 FICA J 1 180.00 1 3104 60215 601200 Books/Subscriptions J 1 1,000.00 1 3104 60252 312500 Prof Svc Inst J 1 1,000.00 1 3104 60204 312500 Prof Svc Inst J 1 82.00 1 3104 60206 312500 Prof Svc Inst J 1 79.00 1 3104 60206 601300 Ed/Rec Supplies J 1 850.00 1 3104 60211 601300 Ed/Rec Supplies J 1 3,600.00 1 3104 60213 601300 Ed/Rec Supplies J 1 300.00 1 3104 60216 601300 Ed/Rec Supplies J 1 300.00 1 3104 60217 601300 Ed/Rec Supplies J 1 1,200.00 1 3104 60251 601300 Ed/Rec Supplies J 1 900.00 1 3104 60252 601300 Ed/Rec Supplies J 1 300.00 2 2000 18100 181109 Donations J 2 4,000.00 2 3104 18000 189900 Misc Revenue J 2 3,500.00 2 3104 18000 181221 Upton Grant J 2 1,000.00 2 3104 24000 240263 VCA Grant-B Butler J 2 1,200.00 2 3104 24000 240281 VCA Grant-S-Point J 2 3,600.00 2 3104 24000 240284 VCA Grant-Yancey J 2 300.00 2 3104 24000 240328 VCA Grant-Murray J 2 300.00 2 3104 24000 240329 VCA Grant-Greer J 2 82.00 2 3104 24000 240331 VCA Grant-Henley J 2 300.00 2 3104 24000 240332 VCA Grant-M Lewis J 2 850.00 2 3104 24000 240333 VCA Grant-Burley J 2 900.00 2 3104 24000 240365 VCA Grant-M Lewis J 2 79.00 2000 0501 Est. Revenue 4,000.00 2000 0701 Appropriation 4,000.00 3104 0501 Est. Revenue 12,111.00 3104 0701 Appropriation 12,111.00 TOTAL 32,222.00 16,111.00 16,111.00 PREPARED BY: BD. OF SUPV APPROVAL: ACCT. APPROVAL: ENTERED BY: Melvin Breeden Ella W. Carey DATE: Feb.24,2005 DATE: 4/6/2005 DATE: DATE: COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE APPROPRIATION APP# DATE BATCH# 2005049 EXPLANATION: ECC CERT Grant SUB LEDGER GENERAL LEDGER TYPE FUND DEPT OBJECT DESCRIPTION CODE AMOUNT DEBIT CREDIT 1 4100 31045 800100 Contract Services J 1 5,585.00 1 4100 31045 301210 Mac. & EquiD J 1 10,415.00 2 4100 33000 330213 Fed'l Grant J 1 16,000.00 4100 0501 Est. Revenue 16,000.00 4100 0701 ADDropriation 16,000.00 TOTAL 32,000.00 16,000.00 16,000.00 PREPARED BY: BD. OF SUPV APPROVAL: ACCT. APPROVAL: ENTERED BY: Melvin Breeden Ella W. Carey DATE: DATE: DATE: DATE: 3/8/2005 4/6/2005 COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE APPROPRIATION APP# DATE BATCH# 2005050 EXPLANATION: Transfer of FY04 G/F Surplus to CIP SUB LEDGER GENERAL LEDGER TYPE FUND DEPT OBJECT DESCRIPTION CODE AMOUNT DEBIT CREDIT 1 1000 93010 930010 Trs. To CIP J 1 3,000,000.00 2 1000 51000 510100 G/F Balance J 2 3,000,000.00 2 9010 51000 512004 Trs. From G/F J 2 3,000,000.00 2 9010 51000 510100 CIP F/B J 2 (3,000,000.00) 1000 0501 Est. Revenue 3,000,000.00 1000 0701 Appropriation 3,000,000.00 TOTAL 6,000,000.00 3,000,000.00 , 3,000,000.00 PREPARED BY: BD. OF SUPV APPROVAL: ACCT. APPROVAL: ENTERED BY: Melvin Breeden Ella W. Carey DATE: DATE: DATE: DATE: 3/8/2005 4/6/2005 COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE APPROPRIATION APP# DATE BATCH# 2005051 EXPLANATION: Allocation of additional funds to Family Support Program SUB LEDGER GENERAL LEDGER TYPE FUND DEPT OBJECT DESCRIPTION CODE AMOUNT DEBIT CREDIT 2 1557 51000 512044 Trs from Briç¡ht Stars J 2 55,000.00 2 1557 51000 512044 Trs from Briç¡ht Stars J 2 46,000.00 2 1557 51000 512001 Trs from School Fund J 2 154,010.00 2 1557 33000 330001 Federal Revenue J 2 (255,010.00) 2 1553 51000 510100 Briç¡ht Stars F/B J 2 55,000.00 1 1553 61150 999999 Briç¡ht Stars Continç¡ency J 1 (46,000.00) 1 1553 93010 930213 Trs. To Family Support J 1 101,000.00 2 2000 51000 510100 School F/B J 2 154,010.00 1 2111 93010 930208 Trs. To Family Support J 1 154,010.00 1553 0501 Est. Revenue 55,000.00 1553 0701 Aooropriation 55,000.00 2000 0501 Est. Revenue 154,010.00 2000 0701 Appropriation 154,010.00 TOTAL 418,020.00 209,010.00 209,010.00 . PREPARED BY: BD. OF SUPV APPROVAL: ACCT. APPROVAL: ENTERED BY: Melvin Breeden Ella W. Carey DATE: DATE: DATE: DATE: 3/8/2005 4/6/2005 COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: Members of the Board of Supervisors </~. Debi Moyers, Senior Deputy Clerk DATE: March 28, 2005 RE: Vacancies on Boards and Commissions Attached please find an updated listing of vacancies on boards and commissions through September 30, 2005. CHART Advisory Committee VACANT (Replace Sojke) Milton Moore resigned March 17, 2005. Spoke with Ryan Mickles of T JPDC 3/10/05. Said this committee is in transition and has asked us to hold off on all appointments at this time. ReQion 10 Community Services Board Carole Wernstrom resigned February 22, 2005. Advertised on website and in Daily Progress. Closing date 4/15/05 RSWA Citizens Advisory Committee Chris Gensic resigning May 11, 2005. Advertised on website and in Daily Progress. Closing date 4/15/05 ....II- LLctZ""" ~w~~~ t> W :¡¡¡I- 'S 'S 'S -I- CTCTCT O::enZQ)Q)Q) I--ÕO::O::O:: !Q~Il.e:e:e: e """ Il. .Q .Q .Q ..::ct131313 ««« a a a ZZZ I I I >=>=>= LLLLLL ('. we m~ OZ I-õ ZIl. !Q!à: ~w 0:: Q) Q) Q) :ë:ë:ë :Q¡:Q¡:Q¡ ¡¡j¡¡j¡¡j ~encococo Wooo ~e:;~~~ >0.........--........ >><y-~~ wwã5ã5ã5 Z enl!)l!)l!) :¡¡¡wooo 0::0::000 wã:~~~ I-><~~~ wcococo 0:: I- W e: m" Q) """ ro ...c:. ..:: ..c:. I a. W u Q) :¡¡¡æ§èi3 .. « ¿ ~~ro .- Q) Q) (j)=....J Q) ro u ~:::2::::2: Z Q en !Q :¡¡¡ :¡¡¡ o U 0:: o e 0:: ct o m §§§ " " Q) Q) .: .!::: :J :J CT CT Q) Q) 0::0:: e: e: 2.Q u13 «« a a ZZ I I >=>= LLLL Q) Q) :f1:f1 .Q> .Q> ¡¡j¡¡j I'- I'- 00 00 NN -- ..- ..- MM -- l!)l!) l!) l!) 00 00 NN -- ..- ..- MM -- l!) l!) Q) e: . ECD ro E ~ .!S! :::2::= ..~ CI) ~ .. e: >. ro Q) ..0 è: :J ro WI C)e ZZ i~ ZZ 00 ...1...1 55 ZZ ::::Þ::::Þ 00 0(.) ~.~ 00 .0 5> tt E .¿ E Q) >. a a. Ü x <Ii e: W " " " 0 " " " CIÌ " -0 -0 " " -0 -0 -0 Q) Q) Q) E >- Q) Q) Q) :J .£; Q) Q) Q) ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ .!:: .!:: .!:: .. >- LL '- '- '- CD LL '- .... .... :J :J :J LL , :J :J :J -., -., :J "5 '5 :J :J 'S 'S 'S CT CT CT en I ci CT CT CT CT CT CT CT CT CT CT CT CT CT Q) Q) Q) ..c:. ci Q) Q) Q) Q) Q) Q) Q) Q) Q) Q) Q) Q) Q) Q) 0:: 0:: 0:: - Q) 0:: 0:: 0:: 0:: 0:: 0:: 0:: 0:: 0:: 0:: 0:: 0:: 0:: 0:: - 0:: E e: e: e: ta e: e: e: e: e: e: e: e: e: e: e: e: e: .Q .Q .Q en E CI) a a a a a a .Q .Q a a .Q .Q a 13 13 13 - "¡:: :;:; ß :s :e ~ TI ~ ~ ~ TI ~ ~ ~ I: E :J U « « « C) a « « « « « « « « a a a E a f- a a a a a a a a a a a a a Ü Z Z Z - ro z z z z z z z z z z z z Z I I , I: CIÌ I I , I I I I I I I I I I >= >= ü >= >= >= >= >= >= >= >= >= >= >= >= >= >- 0 :J a LL LL LL 0- m ....J LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL l.L. l.L. l.L. 0- Il) ta 0 - ta Q) ..... ~ .... I: - "0' M 0 Q) Q) Q) Q) CJ) 'a :::: :f1 :f1 :ë :ë Q) C) 0 .Q> .Q> :Q¡ :Q¡ Q) u I: 'a Q) Q) Q) Q) Q) Q) Q) Q) Q) Q) Q) :f1 ro C) :ë :ë ¡¡j ¡¡j :f1 ¡¡j ¡¡j :ë :ë :ë :ë :f1 :f1 :f1 :ë .Q> c.. ïii Õ :Q¡ :Q¡ õ õ .Q> - - :Q¡ :Q¡ :Q¡ :Q¡ .Q> .Q> .Q> :Q¡ Q) C) ..c:. a a ¡¡j 0:: 0:: 0 ¡¡j ¡¡j Z Z ¡¡j Z Z ¡¡j ¡¡j ¡¡j ¡¡j ¡¡j ¡¡j ¡¡j ¡¡j - en I'- I'- co co co co co co co co co ;:, I'- I'- co I'- I'- I'- 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 'a 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 C) N N N N N N N ~ ~ N N ~ - - - - - N N ~ - - N N ~ - - 0 0 0 0 0 - - 0 0 M M - - M M en co co co ..- ..- ..- - - ct M M M M M - - - M M ..- ..- - - - -.:t -.:t - - - - - I'- I'- co - - - - 0) 0) 0) co co co co co 0) 0) co co I: 0 l!) l!) I'- :¡:; LD l!) l!) LD LD l!) l!) l!) l!) l!) l!) l!) U') U') U') 0 0 0 ïii 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 I: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N N N N N ~ ~ N N N N N ta â â â - - N N N - - ~ ~ ~ - - - ... 0 0 - ã5 <D 0 0 M M M M M co ..- ..- ..- - - - - M M M M M ~ - - ~ ~ ..- ..- - - - -.:t -.:t -.:t I: <D <D - - - I'- co - ã5 0) 0) 0) co co co 0) 0) co .!!! C) e: C) a - .!a ~ ~ E " --. ro :::2: E è:' 0) :::2: c... .£; ..c:. CI) ~ 0 a "5 E c... u 0) ¡:: Ii Q) a >. Q) Q) a ¡:: ro 0) " G ro e: Ii Q) Q) Q) .!!! 0 '- èi3 ..c:. .!!2 :::2: ~ c.9 ...: ..c:. ro .£; .... e: ..c:. '""J Ü ~ a " " l.L. Q) ..c:. a e: E '""J CI) "0 e: l- e: .... a :;:; CJ) ~ ~ " - cñ ~ .... ro ro ¿ ~ ...: - cñ ro 0:: ro CJ ...: e: I- :::2: It'Ì 0) '""J '(j) Q) :J Ü '""J a 2 CD e: a cñ .£; '""J Ü ¿ :::2: z 0 a E ro ¿ cñ - Q) - CI) .... E .£; Q) a ..: Q) « .... 0 - CJ e: 2 ro E cñ CI) a ï5.. " Q) >. Ü a ..- :§ u :ö ro E 0) ~ ro " >. " >, :J ~ U :g « a - ro a Õ u ro ro M ~ :J ro ..c:. ~ :J :J ro ..c:. ro :::2: > :::2: u ¡¡j :::2: 0:: Ü 0:: '""J Ü CD I I- :::2: CJ) c... e Il. '"') I- QQ 11 - ~,¡~ ,"., 0 j".: en Ii/I ;';¡:-Z C) .. 00 3i: ~I! 5i .!:! ..; ...: :¡¡¡ ~."-.~ ._.,.~ 1E:2 I~"\I I: =1 Q ta ..~ >- 0:: ~.I§ (;)," ". "~ ..c:. ~;~. - I¡ii j a71 ......"'" 99 ¡.z C) ".'. ~ !1!1 5¡~ ;i5:e 0 ~"- ~.~ 1.15 0- !i!i en ~ gg Iii ""'/" .... £)".e C) Q æ æ.;¡ IiI - .-. 0 ('I Z !' o~ø QQ .. !·æ .,. lill i .....;Joi,¡; ...I'.:...s .... "~<. i~ a i)~ 00 ..., ...,..,. C) o ... 1:1. ....I.... >. !:!:«_Z-o= WQ)CIS .... 0::: :E .;;: C ~ ~ .... 5-oð O:::CI)ZQ),Q ....aÕO:::CI) S!2«I:I.§~ C:E%:ß"'g « 1/1 o:e Z CI) ...!. > ii~ ('0. wC £O~ oz ....õ J:I:I. Cl)1:I.Q) i~;Q W.2> 0:::[jJ :ECI)COCO 0::: woo ~~§§ ;:1:1.00 w~~~ Z C.DC.D Cl)L()L() :EWOO o:::~~~ wI:I.ââ ....xC'?C'? w<:oc:o 0::: W £0 Q) :E § W cu :E x 0.... O:::z ai« :!:ü ~:; il 00 Z .rm OflSœ -ww ~(,)(,) --:; :E~D:: :E W.W Oøœ o>-~ 0:::1::_ 0.22 C=.= c:::::E2 «:&'2 000 £0(,)(,) 00 -.... zz CO sa W.W «.« 't' CI) 1/1 :e CI) 1/1 > 1/1 't' ~ ~C) CI) e .!!I:I. oS>. 0= c..CIS c..C «oð - e,Q .- CI) ~;: .... .... -- It') C) e e C) ïñ CI) 0::: I"- o o N -- ..- C'? -- N ..- L() o o N -- ..- C'? -- N ..- - ..... 'Cõ ~ £ CI) ï::::: ~ Ü c5 .¡¡¡ c Q) <.9 w t i ::E o C,) ~ o en :; ~ en z w N ¡:: ëj . ~ ~ -0 -0 -0 Q) Q) Q) ..... ..... ..... .- .- .- :J :J :J 0- 0- 0- >- Q) Q) Q) -0:::0:::0::: c c c c o 0 0 0 :>=ßßß LL««« .,.!. 000 czzz r5..!.~-!.. cu>->->- >LLLLLL o Z I"-CO co co 0000 0000 NNNN '""'-""'-""'--- 0000 C'?C'?C'?C'? -- ""'- -- -.... C.DC.DC.DC.D "<t1.()1.()L() 0000 0000 NNNN """---""'-""'- 0000 C'?C'?C'?C'? """- """- ......... -- C.DC.DC.DC.D -~ ..... Q) C Q) .0 Q) ::!:::cuI CUü ;S:c(j . cu . """')CI)- .:J=-s C) C/) ....: cu .~ rñ c c.. à3cê· > 'Cõ c ~ .3~IU5 !¡I~ 00'00 mm_m ............... ZZZZ WW.1II ""=' ::E ï=: . .... œ(l)' . ~!e.~'~ zzzz ~' ,.....,....'~' ~~!i 2222 ~ .~ « a:: ~i~i It') o -- co ~ M o 't' CI) 1/1 .:; CI) 0::: March 10,2005 Ms. Ella Carey Secretary Albemarle County Board of Supervisors 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, VA 22902 Dear Ms. Carey, Please advise the Board of Supervisors that the March 16th CHART meeting will be my last and to please accept my resignation as of March 17, 2005. I recommend that the Board change the Aviation position that I occupied to a County-At-Large position. Except for my initial meeting with the Airport manager, there was no further need to meet with him for the remaining time of my tenure. Airport operations and properties are governed by State and Federal policies and reguJations, which do not normally concern the CHART Committee. The roads and highways around the airport that are not under airport jurisdiction, should be considered by the CHART as are other roads. In my opinion, designating this an At-Large position would provide greater flexibility in the choice of a replacement and would allow the Board to choose a representative that best meets its transportation needs.. It has been a pleasure to serve on the CHART Committee. Thank you for the opportunity. Sincerely, . /UdÞ- /t1~ Mihon Moore 106 Falcon Drive Charlottesville, VA 22901 (434) 979-2848 miltmoore@ao1.com ~3!15!2005 15:55 434g702104 _-...3E~ION_.:[I~:_N HR PAGE 02 .i"""'"""f~J . . IEC :::-< ~ ED FEB 2 5 ZJQ5 Sally H. Thomas, Chairman Albemarle County Board of Supervisors 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, VA 22903-4596 February 21,2005 Carole WeIill>'1rom 362 N. Main St. Plains, Pennsylvania 18705 (570) 824-1471 Dear Ms. Thomas, Regretfully, due to family responsibilities in Pennsylvania, I must resign my position on the Board for Region 10, effective February 22,2005. Thank you for the opportunity to serve and give somethíng back to this community I have gWWIl to love (except for the traffic on 29N). Best wishes for the County in the future and with the new Executive Director, Philip Campbell, at the helm, I believe Region 10 has an unprecedented opportunity to enhance and develop services for the people they serve. Sincerely, a~ Carole Wernstrom, RN, BSN, MSN cc: Susan Garrett, Board Chair Stephen Campbell, Executive Director Debi Moyers From: Sent: To: Subject: Ella Carey Thursday, March 10, 2005 5:01 PM Debi Moyers FW: Riyanna Solid Waste Committee - change of appointee status -----Original Message----- From: Chris Gensic [mailto:cgensic@tjpdc.org] Sent: Thursday, March 10, 2005 4:40 PM To: clerk-Albemarle; bentley@charlottesville.org Cc: Bruce Edmonds Subject: Rivanna Solid Waste Committee - change of appointee status I am currently serving as the chair of the Rivanna Solid Waste Authority Citizens Advisory Committee. I am the joint city/county representative. \~ fl1\1 III I am stepping down as chair of the committee after our May meeting. I would like to be made the City representative for one term, which will fill a vacancy and open the joint city-county position (which is by default the chair) open for someone else to fill starting in July. Also, the committee has decided to meet every other month rather than monthly. Thank you, Chris Gensic Regional Planner TJPDC 434-979-7310 1 COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE MEMORANDUM TO: Members of the Board of Supervisors FROM: Ella W. Carey, Clerk, CMC DATE: March 28, 2005 RE: Boards and Commissions - Proposed terms of office and term limits The Board requested staff to review and propose terms for all boards and committees that did not have specific membership terms andlor term limits. The attached is a listing of all committees that fit that category. The attachment is set out in three tables. The first table is a listing of committees on which only County representatives serve. The second table is a listing of committees on which representatives from the County and City serve. The third table is a listing of committees that have regional representation. The term limits proposed for the membership in the attached chart were used following the option listed below for the Board to consider: One year terms - Eligible to serve six consecutive one-year terms (total of 6 years) Two year terms - Eligible to serve three two-year terms (total 6 years) Three year terms - Eligible to serve two consecutive three-year terms (total of 6 years) Four year terms - Eligible to serve two consecutive four-year terms (total of 8 years) Five year terms - Eligible to service two consecutive five-year terms (total of 10 years) If you decide to approve the set terms for the membership, you should consider staggering the terms of the current members by designating an initial one-year, two-year, three-year or four-year initial term for each member. The current members would then be eligible to serve additional terms as designated. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. Attachment Committees with County Term Proposed Term Limit reDresentatiY8s only ACE Committee (Acquisition of Three year terms Two consecutive terms Conservation Easements Committee) ACE Appraisal Review Committee One year terms Six consecutive terms Development Areas Initiatives Steering Four year terms Two consecutive terms Committee II Historic Preservation Committee Four year terms Two consecutive terms Mountain Overlay District Committee Four year terms Two consecutive terms Route 250 West Task Force Three year terms Two consecutive terms Architectural Review Board Four year terms Two consecutive terms Board of Buildina Code Appeals Five year terms Two consecutive terms Fire Prevention Code of Appeals Five year terms Two consecutive terms Jordan Development Corporation One year terms Six consecutive terms Land Use Tax Advisory Board Two year terms Three consecutive terms Public Recreational Facilities Authority Three year terms Two consecutive terms *Albemarle County Service Authority Four year terms No term limit *Industrial Development Authority Four year terms No term limit *Planning Commission Four year terms (at-large two year No term limit term) *Board District appointments Ci ¡Count A ointed Committees CIA Foundation Governin Board CIA Regional Transportation Advisory Committee Public Defender Office Citizens Advisor Committee Rivanna Solid Waste Authorit Rivanna Water & Sewer Authorit Term Three ear terms Three year terms Pro osed Term Limit Two consecutive terms Two consecutive terms Three year terms Two consecutive terms Two ear terms Two ear terms Three consecutive terms Three consecutive terms Term Two ear terms Two ear terms Four year terms Limit Three consecutive terms Three consecutive terms Two consecutive terms Two consecutive terms Three consecutive terms Two consecutive terms Four year terms Two consecutive terms Three ear terms Three ear terms Two consecutive terms Two consecutive terms Revised February 23, 2005 COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AGENDA TITLE: SP-2004-31 Gym at Seminole Place (Signs #24 & 15) SUBJECT/PROPOSAUREQUEST: Request for special use pennit to allow establishment of an indoor gym in accor-dance with Section 27.2.2(15) of the Zoning Ordinance which allows for indoor athletic facilities in an U, Light Industrial district. The property, described as Tax Map 61W Section 3 Parcel 18 contains 25.4 acres, and is zoned U, Light Industrial and EC, Entrance Corridor. The proposal is located on the south side of Greenbrier Driye (Route 866) in the former Comdial building, on the \Aest side of Seminole Trail (Route 29 North), in the Rio Magisterial District. The Comprehensiye Plan designates this property as Industrial Service in Neighborhood One. STAFF CONTACT(S): Cilimberg, Benish, Echols EGAL REVIEW: NO AGENDA DATE: April 6, 2005 ACTION: X INFOR~TION: CONSENT AGENDA: ACTION: INFOR~TION: ATTACHMENTS: YES REVIEWED BY: BACKGROUND: On March 1, 2005, the Planning Commission reviewed this request and recommended approval contingent on rewording of the conditions for clarification and to state that the permit was for the existing building only, not a possible future building should the Comdial facility ever be removed. STRATEGIC PLAN: Strategic Direction 2: Protect the County's natural, scenic and historic resources. Strategic Direction 3: Enhance the Quality of Life for all Albemarle County Citizens DISCUSSION: Staff has modified the conditions to reflect the Commission's request. RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff and the Planning Commission recommended approval of the special use permit with the following conditions: 1. This Special Use Pennit (SP 2004-031) for an indoor athletic facility is granted for up to 60,000 square . feet of area within the existing physical building itself and not simply the footprint of the building. Any enlargement of the area of use beyond the 60,000 square feet will require amendment ofthis Special Permit. 2. The indoor athletic facility shall have no more than 3500 members. 3. Pedestrian access shall be provided along at least one side ofthe existing entrance road from Greenbrier Drive to the site, as shoWl on the attached concept plan submitted as part of the Special Use Permit application (dated September 3, 2004, revised March 24, 2005 and initialed by TRS). The pedestrian path shall consist of striping of a pedestrian way on the street or shoulder of the existing entrance road, if approyed by VDOT, or a concrete or asphalt path meeting the standards in the Design Standards manual. The pedestrian path shall be in place prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for the indoor athletic facility. 4. The existing driveway access to the site from Commonwealth Driye shall be upgraded as necessary to accommodate two-way traffic, to the satisfaction of the County Engineer. 5. The gated access to the site from Commonwealth Drive shall remain open during all hours the indoor athletic facility is open for business. ATTACHMENT: Concept Plan for Gym at Seminole Place Oncluded with conditions) 2. ~ ATTACHMENT oŠ 1fr-'~ \ OVle "'5;&-e-- '7 DRIVE ,- ---- ~ -. -.:~ , Sidewalk 'and bicyc1e access shall be provìded :trom Greenbrier Drive to the site on Bom ~j.J..,::; of the existing entrance 'road (arrows are for representation purposes only) . GREENBRIER Bikelane -::y ---<\1.1 ~I !fiI -c' zS &!! c :;¡ Sidewalk I . . I f . I . . I , , 1111111 II 11111111111 I ~J~IIIIIIIIII lei Gym at Seminole Place 5--0 000 S F +,' an (J) J .. I tI'I C'\J No r'I^ ð v"e.. -th 00-- '^' ro 0 000 :;;' l> F: CD N .J , p\S, '3/~/O) w ~ :J 0 .. !Y: ..se.212 Sq.Ft, Bulld1ng Are. . (f) . ~ :J Z ~ Z ~ ~ ~ 301. 0 ' HDu 10_ 0 .. -- ----- SEMINOLE TRAIL PROPERTIES 1180 SEMINOLE TRAIL CHARlOTTESVILLE. VA 22091 rl . o 01 ... ... S' 141 . ,... ... CD CD ~ ì'; .. l¡ '"Ll! - .~ - 0 . = å ¡r = .. . = ¡" , =* =ï N ~ ... ri ·0 - ::::it = "' - - - - - - - - _I - - =.'I' = - - - - - - - - - - - rt -, ~ -1 .~~ ~ -- ~ Exiot.. ~y....... ohoJ be IIJ>Iroded <:: ·~IO~""'''''' . I o InIIic _ __" U 00Ic _10 IÌIC I11III .... OJICII....... aD høun .... .,.. 60ciIiIy is OJICII .... ~ ~ - 0:::: a · · · F COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road, Room 227 Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 Fax (434) 972-4126 Phone (434) 296-5823 March 16, 2005 Tim Slagle 1932 Blue Ridge Road Charlottesville, VA 22903 RE: SP 2004-00031 Gym at Seminole Place (formerly named Gold's Gym) - Tax Map 61 W Section 3 ParcellS Dear Mr. Slagle: The Albemarle County Planning Commission, at its meeting on March 1, 2005, unanimously recommended approval ofthe above-noted petition to the Board of Supervisors. Please note that this approval is subject to the following conditions: 1. The proposed indoor gym shall be operated in general accord with the special pennit justification dated June 21,2004 (including attachments) and supplemental infonnation contained in a letter iTom Timothy R. Slagle to Susan E. Thomas, Senior Planner, dated July 26, 2004, documents which are attached to these conditions; (WORDING TO BE WORKED ON BY STAFF) 2. This Special Pennit (SP 2004-031) is granted for up to 60,000 square feet of area within the existing physical building itself and not simply the footprint of the building. Any enlargement of the area of use beyond the 60,000 square feet will require amendment of this Special Pennit; 3. Pedestrian and bicycle access shall be provided from Greenbrier Drive to the site along the existing entrance road, as shown on the attached concept plan submitted by the applicant as a part of the Special Pennit application (dated September 3, 2004 and initialed by SET). These pedestrian and bicycle facilities shall meet VDOT standards, except that all sidewalks shall be five feet in width, and shall be approved by VDOT and the County Engineer. These facilities shall be built or bonded prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for Gym at Seminole Place. (WORDING TO BE WORKED ON BY STAFF) 4. The existing driveway access to the site from Commonwealth Drive shall be upgraded as necessary to accommodate two-way traffic, to the satisfaction of County Engineering and VDOT. 5. The gated access to the site from Commonwealth Drive shall remain open during all hours the gym facility is open for business. Please be advised that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors will review this petition and receive public comment at their meeting on April 6, 2005. Any new or additional infonnation regarding your SP 2004-031 Gym at Seminole Place March 16, 2005 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, - ~tu~ Elaine Echols ürban An:as Principal Plauiieï Planning Division /aer Cc: Ella Carey Amelia McCulley Jack Kelsey Steve Allshouse · · · STAFF PERSON: PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS DATE: ELAINE ECHOLS, AICP MARCH 1, 2005 APRIL 6, 2005 SP 2004-0031 GYM AT SEMINOLE PLACE (Formerly Titled Gold's Gym) (Revised from September 14,2004 Staff Report to reflect new name) Applicant's Proposal: This special use permit request would allow an indoor athletic facility in a portion of an existing building, on property zoned LI, Light Industrial. The subject building is located at 1180 Seminole Trail, across from the Main Post Office and on the south side of Greenbrier Drive. If approved, Gym at Seminole Place would occupy up to 60,000 square feet of space in the former Comdial building. This building also houses a variety of small contractors, manufacturing uses, and other commercial establishments. Although this proposal initially was submitted as "Gold's Gym", Gold's Gym has decided to relocate to a different place. Nevertheless, the applicant would like to pursue this special use permit for an indoor athletic facility which, at full operation, would reach a membership of approximately 3500 members. (See Attachments A, B, C and D) Petition: Request for special use permit to allow establishment of an indoor gym in accordance with Section 27.2.2(15) of the Zoning Ordinance which allows for indoor athletic facilities in an LI, Light Industrial district. The property, described as Tax Map 61 W Section 3 Parcel 18 contains 25.4 acres, and is zoned LI, Light Industrial and EC, Entrance Corridor. The proposal is located on the south side of Greenbrier Drive (Route 866) in the former Comdial building, on the west side of Seminole Trail (Route 29 North), in the Rio Magisterial District. The Comprehensive Plan designates this property as Industrial Service in Neighborhood One. Character of the Area: This portion of Neighborhood One has a wide variety of existing commercial, office and industrial uses along Commonwealth Drive, Greenbrier Driver, and Seminole Trail, with high concentrations of residential use (mainly multi-family) located close by to the west on Greenbrier and Commonwealth and in numerous smaller neighborhoods/developments such as Minor Hill, Turtle Creek, Berkeley, and Four Seasons. Immediately north ofthis parcel is a series of commercial and office uses along Greenbrier Drive, and to the south is the proposed Albemarle Place development and Sperry plant. To the west are townhouses and apartments on Commonwealth Drive, and across Seminole Trail are the main post office and commercial uses. A Jazzercise facility was recently approved by special permit in a building located across Greenbrier Qrive (north side) in a building formerly leased by Comdial, also the previous occupant of this facility. Recommendation: Staff recommends approval, with conditions. Gym at Seminole Place complements the nearby residential uses, and also fits well with office and other industrial and commercial uses in the general area. With the diversification of tenants that has accompanied adaptive re-use of Comdial, the gym may have a potentially larger market right on site. Its potentially large membership can be accommodated within this former factory of 456,000 square feet, along with 1 numerous other users. With no impacts other than parking, the indoor athletic use could co-exist virtually on any site in the urban area that had adequate parking and could accommodate the characteristic equipment, space needs, and traffic associated with this type of business. Staff believes that the proposed use is appropriate for the site, with conditions. Recommended conditions address the need for retrofitting sidewalks and bike lanes along the access road from Greenbrier Drive, and the need to make minor improvements to the rear entrance. Zonin2 and Subdivision Historv: None available. The (former) Comdial plant was constructed in 1954. Comprehensive Plan: The Comprehensive Plan designates this area for Community Service in Neighborhood One. Zoning is LI, Light Industrial, Commercial, and EC, Entrance Corridor. The intent of the LI, Light Industrial, district is: "to permit industries, offices and limited commercial uses which are compatible with and do not detract from surrounding districts." Indoor athletic facilities are allowed in a LI district by special permit. The 1996 Comprehensive Plan, Land Use Plan makes the following recommendations relevant to this request: Industrial Service uses are recommended for the undeveloped area north of Hydraulic Road, between Route 29 and Commonwealth Drive. As an alternative, this area may be considered for mixed-use development consistent with the Transitional designation to include commercial services serving additional community scale needs rather than regional demands. Major considerations in the review of any alternative land use proposals will be the impact to the surrounding road system and adjacent residential uses, and consistency with the land use development standards of the Comprehensive Plan. Staff finds the proposed indoor athletic use to be in general conformity with the Land Use Plan. The Neighborhood Model The Neighborhood Model, an adopted part ofthe Comprehensive Plan, Land Use Plan, sets forth twelve principles for evaluating development proposals within the Development Area. Although the existing building was constructed fifty years ago in what might be called a more suburban style, the mix of uses that would result from approval of this special permit actually makes the structure more consistent with the Neighborhood Model. Neighborhood Model principles most strongly reflected by this proposal are: Pedestrian Orientation - With the retrofit of sidewalks and bike lanes from Greenbrier to the site, non-vehicular access is enhanced and encouraged. Mixture of Uses - The proposed site and adjacent parcels are characterized by a mixture of uses with considerable variety, which is a benefit to the neighborhood and the larger area. The indoor gym blends very well with surrounding and nearby commercial, office, and residential uses, providing a health-oriented activity convenient to many kinds of users. Neighborhood Centers - This stretch of Greenbrier Drive, from Seminole Trail to Commonwealth Drive, seems to be a center for the neighborhood extending to the west, north and south. There is the potential for additional future uses in the unoccupied portions of the building and the immediate vicinity to supplement the neighborhood center. 2 · · · Redevelopment - The new use in an existing industrial building is a positive example of this Neighborhood Model principle. No new buildings or parking are proposed with this special permit application, and no major changes to the site are necessary for this use. For these reasons, the remaining principles of the Neighborhood Model do not appear to be applicable to this analysis. Analvsis of the Special Use Permit as related to Section 31.2.4.1 of the Zoning Ordinance: The Board of Supervisors hereby reserves unto itself the rif!ht to issue all svecial use permits permitted hereunder. Svecial use permits for uses as provided in this ordinance may be issued uvon a findinf! by the Board of Supervisors that such use will not be of substantial detriment to adiacent property. Staff has not identified any detriment to adjacent property that would result from inserting the indoor gym use in an existing building. Staff sees the proposed supporting commercial use as a complement to existing employment, commercial and residential uses in the area. The location of the facility on a bus line and within walking distance of numerous neighborhoods is positive from the standpoint of accessibility. that the character of the district will not be changed thereby. The activity associated with the proposed gym will not negatively change the character ofthe district. Although potentially more active than other uses currently in the same building, the indoor athletic use fits in well with the overall area and can be accommodated adequately on the site. In an industrial area, the associated noise and activity can be accommodated. and that such use will be in harmony with the vurvose and intent of this ordinance, The proposed indoor gym is a supporting service to the LI district and nearby residential and commercial districts. with the uses permitted by rif!ht in the district. This new use should not impact any other uses in the district. Building Code and Zoning Services has determined that sufficient parking exists on the site, and VDOT and Engineering have identified no deficiencies in access or circulation. Planning is recommending that the access road from Greenbrier Drive to the site be upgraded to include sidewalks and bike lanes, to encourage and accommodate pedestrians and cyclists who might be expected to access the facility from nearby neighborhoods or via the bus. with additional regulations provided in Section 5.0 of this ordinance. The Supplementary Regulations section of the ordinance does not address this use. and with the public health. safety and general welfare. In staffs opinion, the addition of the indoor athletic use in this portion of Neighborhood One is positive for the existing industrial, commercial and residential uses. The site is or can be made accessible to pedestrians, vehicles and transit, it is well located for activity throughout the day, and can accommodate the Gym at Seminole Place parking demand without adversely impacting other uses in the building. In staff s opinion, traffic impacts from the relatively large membership will be less than the impacts from the truck and employee traffic characteristic of 3 Comdial under full operation because they will take the form of personal vehicles, dispersed throughout the day and evening. SUMMARY: Staff has identified the following factors which are favorable to this request: 1. Re-use of an existing building conserves resources; 2. Parking is adequate; 3. This proposal reflects several principles of the Neighborhood Model, among them Mixture of Uses, Redevelopment, and Neighborhood Centers; 4. The indoor athletic facility would offer services to residents, employees, and others meeting a need and demand for health and fitness opportunities in the urban area; 5. There are already a variety of tenants in the facility who might be expected to take advantage of the gym use. Staff has identified no factors that are unfavorable to this request. RECOMMENDATION: Staff finds that no adverse impacts to other uses on the site or adjacent properties will occur as a result ofthe indoor athletic use. The gym will benefit current and future residents within Neighborhood One and the larger area. Staff recommends approval ofSP 2003-088, with the following conditions: 1 . The proposed indoor gym shall be operated in general accord with the special permit justification dated June 21,2004 (including attachments) and supplemental information contained in a letter from Timothy R. Slagle to Susan E. Thomas, Senior Planner, dated July 26, 2004, documents which are attached to these conditions; 2. This Special Permit (SP 2004-031) is granted for up to 60,000 square feet of area within the existing building. Any enlargement of the area of use beyond the 60,000 square feet will require amendment of this Special Permit; 3. Pedestrian and bicycle access shall be provided from Greenbrier Drive to the site along the existing entrance road, as shown on the attached concept plan submitted by the applicant as a part of the Special Permit application (dated September 3, 2004 and initialed by SET). These pedestrian and bicycle facilities shall meet VDOT standards, except that all sidewalks shall be five feet in width, and shall be approved by VDOT and the County Engineer. These facilities shall be built or bonded prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for Gym at Seminole Place. 4. The existing driveway access to the site from Commonwealth Drive shall be upgraded as necessary to accommodate two way traffic, to the satisfaction of County Engineering and VDOT. 5. The gated access to the site from Commonwealth Drive shall remain open during all hours the gym facility is open for business. 4 . . . Attachments: A - Area Map B - Site Map C -Concept Plan (September 3, 2004) D - Applicant's Justification 5 · L ATTACHMENT "A" Q.) 0 CO c.. Q.) 0 · c:: .. ,- E '" 'E '" Co Q.) e C/) Q. e ~ .!! /, · / 1/ .' / ;" v f l ,.,: / (p Attachments: A - Area Map B - Site Map C -Concept Plan (September 3, 2004) D - Applicant's Justification E - July 26,2004 Letter from Timothy R. Slagle 5 . . '. > ..., ..., > (") == æ ~ :2: ..., = SeminOle Place ¡"...... -\ et:: \;. W ; ; 0:::: t, m Z 18311:)Y DE' 01 liaHlS D3NJYlNJYN 3lYlB ~~ " I 0:::: Q) I G~ ¡ ~ .~ () ~ Z w :i J: o « :: « w > 0::: o l ----....-....-.... ~/.!!/ / / '0 1// / / ---------...... /// ..- '4. .-.................... .:t¡ 0/~ '.... (yQ '.... iV. ' "Sf '..~ \ , , \ \ I J J en ~ -0:'9 ~ en ~~ of-< ....0 o..~ ~ ] ¡:: ï3 o 0 ::¿ä ~ '" ..c: ..... ~ en en 0 ~~'i~ ~;9op,. (.) 0 .... c (.)..... 0 as ~ ~.... > '>J .... ~ 'C ª ~ >'0 l:;j ~ (.) ¡:: Q) :.õt~6. -o'\:: bO ~ s::: .g ..9 6 Çd~enr.,=; ~ ~..... Q) tað~1;¡ ~ c::1 ~ ~ ~¡;;¡;9o :-g .8 <+-t ~ U)<-o....... ~ ~ Q) "'=' .... Cf.) «) 6Z 3.lnOèJ 's'n 1..-1 i . - .9·E9~ en - w - t- - - - a: - - W - D- - - Q) 0 - - () - ro a: CD - D- o - a.. ~ - I - ..J - Q) .......... - « -J~ 0 + c: g:~~ E LL .. Q) . W ~CI) CJ) (J) +'G ..J ~~ IL. 'L 0 ..... 0 c:r~ 0_ UI ro 0 co .L Z~O (\IC . E 0 ...... 0 fi -W-J (\I.., ~ ClHX: .... ... ~ 0 10·.. 0 Wß~ IO::J cr¡ <.9 ....m Lf) CJ) ¡:: 0 .O·6H . w r if ... ~ .... ,L' J9 .9'ttE '" --.to 'l:'Þs B'£'£ 1/1/lllt 1/11 ª I~I cO c><u; 111111111111111 IIIIIIII1 rill II ill I 1III I1111 11111 I' III1IIII1111I III11III1 rill III £ ~ '; ." .. !!f'iij '1iI "§ 011 . S'" ! I~J!~ .S š i ! ~D.8.: J!\ I ~ 0 - I If I .8~ I / il i I 10 I III . Hll\i]MNOV'4~bS , Sign # - U TMP 'J JQL W u_ <V~_ lVU - U LL U '-"' Magisterial District: ~r Staff: 'ç¿(£ Date: Z' . SP# . eApplication for Special Use Permit ATTACHMENT D ~ ~ Please See the List at the bottom of page 4 for the Appropriate Fee (mafJ'will auist you with this item) Project Name (how should we refer to this appncati:n?): G D J l ~ (Ÿj tM... . . *Existing Use: i4.tJAd- ,t WAf) tirndhJ Proposed Use: ::C'^ J2DOV (J...~/e;f¡'c ~(,"I,.t:J * Zoning District: L -C ~ £ r -'" Zoning Ordinance Section number requested: tJ '1-, ~ ,:l. 1/5\ (*stafhriU assist you with this item) (;J :7 Number of acres to be covered by Special Use Permit fú a portion it must be delineated on a plat): ~ s: if Is this an amendment to an existing Special Use Permit? 0 YES œ(~O Are you submitting a preliminary site plan with this-application? 0 YES ¡:Ø NO Contact Penon (Who should we call/write cooceming this project?): "IT v'A- <i" I a. ~ I.¿,. Adm-ess iC(3ï7- C?/\Je.. A~Æje f{DfÁ.&' City é.h,-v(..Q.tfé5-\lJ'lkState vtt Zip ?-d4o'3 DaytimePhoDe éŒD q73- i'>-"1 ( Fax # q 7"J-5'r~O E-mail ""'H-$d-~{e.. € ~-th (,'A 1<... ý\e:j- Owner of Record Se..M:""O o(¿... No...ì frDflerttes ¿'LC- . ' ~ Address Jl(3'd- {3/Ue.. A"~e «00-&... City åA.vJoitet>Vì/l-e. State VA Zip "')...-;;...qo;; DaytimePhODe~ (¡73-)r¡'-1/ Fax# qtJ-~ E-mail -f¡-ç(4j Ie- @.,~ý-/ltI/,."I<,t1€--r Applicant (Who is the Contact person rcprtsCI1ting? Who is requesting the rezoning?): 5e /IA r~"'\. 0 .e, W-~ ì I (J ro~-¡-r€5 U-'-' AddressJcr3'?- IJI(}~ ~,,~'e.. f<..()o-tL. City é-h.ó..ý!ø-f/¿5"¡/,'/!'€. State V"A Zip ?-J-Cfo3 Daytime Phone ~ q 7 -; - ';-'5'-7/ Fax # q73 -~BO E-mail ~ -r~ ) e:J Ie.., ~ e r:....¥ fÅ I,' ""K, t1:€.;t" Tax map and parcel: r:..... X /'A.6-{) b; LJ ~ f (i.... v c..e-I I {3 r Physical Street Address (if assigned): II eO 5 e "'^ r' 0'\. Ð 'e... .,-r",; \ C h. 6-../' ) o·1tesv; , ( e.. .-- /J I Location ofvroperty (lan9marks, iDtersecti1. or other): ,- vO.l\.T> oil\.. I\.. C lJ--re, --;;2.9 It e.o...Ý Greenl2vi~.(' D.('~'Ie- t:L^ CcMMOV\UJe.ø-/+J... 1')v~ve- Docs the owner of this property own (or have my ownership interest in) any abutting property? If yes, please list those tax map and parcel numbers ¡-.fo OFFICE US Fee amount S By Who? Histol!= /' ( Lr ZMAs &. Proffers: Q Leucr of AUIborization Q Special Use Permits: Q Variauccs: Coocurrcnt rniew ofSilC Dcvclopmcut Plan? YES NO . County of Albemarle Department of Building Code & Zoning Services 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, VA 22902 Voice: (434) 296-5832 Fax: (434) 972-4126 1211/02 Page 1 of 4 ~ Section 31.2.4.1 of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance states that, "The board of supervisors hereby reserves unto itself the right to issue all special use permits permitted hereunder. Special use permits for uses as provided in this ordinance may be issued upon a finding by the board of supervisors that such use will not be of substantial detriment to adjacent property, that the character of the district will not be changed thereby and that such use will be in harmony with the purpose and intent of this ordinance, with the uses permitted by right in the district, with additional regulations provided in section 5.0 of this ordinance, and with the public health, safety and general welfàre." The items that follow will be reviewed by the staff in their analysis of your request. Please complete this form and provide additional information which will assist the County in its review of you request. If you need assistance :filling out these items, staff is available. . What is the Comprehensive Plan designation for ~ property? How will the proposed special use affect adjacent property? How will the proposed special use affect the character of the district(s) surrounding the property? How is the use in harmony with the purpose and intent of the Zoning Ordinance? How is the use in harmony with the uses permitted by right in the district? What additional regulations provided in Section 5.0 of the Zoning Ordinance apply to this use? How will this use promote the public health, safety, and general welfare of the community? 12/1102 Page 2 of 4 5e¿ Atto..che¿J¿ fJ~~5 \0 Descn'"be your request in detail and include all pertinent information such as the number of persons involved in the use, operating hOUlS, and any unique features of the use: . €- e- Art ð-ch--ed ATI'ACHMENTS REQUIRED -provide two (2) copies of each ri 1. Recorded plat or boundary survey of the property requested for the rezoning. If there is no recorded plat or boundary survey, please provide legal description of the property and the Deed Book and page number or Plat Book and page number. _ Note: If you are requesting a rezoning for a portion of the property, it needs to be described or delineation on a copy of the plat or surveyed drawing. , 2. Ownership information - If ownership of the property is in the name of any type of legal entity or organization including, but not limited to, the name of a corporation, partnership or association, or in the name of a trust, or in a fictitious name, a document acceptable to the County must be submitted certifying that the person signing below has the authority to do so. If the applicant is a contract purchaser, a docmnent acceptable to the County must be submitted containing the owner's written consent to the application. . If the applicant is the agent of the owner, a document acceptable to the County must be submitted that is evidence of the existence and scope of the agency. OPTIONAL ATfACBMENTS: CJ 3. Drawings or conceptual plans, if any. ¡J JA CJ 4. Additional Information, if any. ¡vI f¡ Owner/Applicant Must Read and Sign I hereby certify that I own the subject property, or have the legal power to act on behalf of the owner in filing this application. I also certify that the information provided on this application and accompanying information is accurate, tIUe, and correct to the be my know! e. t~, Agent cor7 ( . g~¿¿t'" þ Date ~ þ/ ß~ / / . LT~ v- 973-~--S-7/ Daytune phone number of Signatory . 12/1/02 Page 3 of 4 \\ Special Use Permit Application Pages 2 and 3 of 4 What is the Comprehensive Plan designation for this property? Industrial Service How will the proposed special use affect adjacent property? The propOsed special use will have the following positive impacts: 1) A reduced volume of1I'actor trailer and truck traffic on Route 29 and in the residential areas along Commonwealth Drive and Greenbrier Drive and 2) Provide an amenity for the residential neighborhoods along Commonwealth Drive and Greenbrier Drive and existing tenants in the building. How will the proposed special use affect the character of the district(s) surrounding the property? The character will remain largely unchanged. The propOsed special use is consistent with the use of the neighboring property at 340 Greenbrier Drive (Tax Map 61 W. Parcel 8) that is zoned light industrial and has an indoor athletic facility (Jazzercise). How is the use in harmony with the pwpose and intent of the Zoning Ordinance? 1. The proposed special use will help to reduce or prevent congestion in the public streets (Albemarle County Code Chapter 18. Section 1.4.2) by reducing the amount of tractor trailer and truck traffic that would otherwise be present on Route 29. Commonwealth Drive. Greenbrier and other neighboring thoroughfares. 2. The proposed special use will help to facilitate the creation of a convenient. attractive and harmonious community (Albemarle County Code Chapter 18. Section 1.4.3) by providing a health-oriented amenity that is convenient to the other tenants of the building. neighboring residential areas and the greater Albemarle/Charlottesville community. 3. The proposed special use will help protect against the overcrowding of land (Albemarle County Code Chapter 18. Section 1.4.6) by utilizing space in an existing. underutilized building rather than the propOsed tenant's consideration of construction of a new building on vacant land. 4. The proposed special use will provide desirable employment and enlarge the tax base (Albemarle County Code Chapter 18. Section 1.4.7) by increasing employment opportunities in the community. How is the use in harmony with the uses permitted by right in the district? The proposed special use is a pennitted use in Neighborhood One of the Comprehensive Plan and provides an amenity to employees and residents in the area. What additional regulations provided in Section 5.0 of the Zoning Ordinance apply to this use? None. \2. . . . How will this use promote the public health, safety and general welfare of the community? The proposed special use will provide a health-oriented amenity for other tenants in the building and the residents along the Commonwealth Drive and Greenbrier Drive corridors adiacent to the property. Discussions with existing tenants in the building indicate that they believe an indoor athletic facility would be a oositive contribution to the property and the surrounding community. Describe your request in detail and include all pertinent information such as the number of persons involved in the use, operating hours and any unique features of the use: The request is for a SPecial use uermit that would allow Gold's Gym to operate a facility in the existing approximately 456.000 Square foot building. occupYing approximately 50.000 Square feet (not to exceed 60.000). The number ofuersons anticiœted to be involved in the use initially would be approximately 2.200 members. The tenant expects that number to increase to approximately 3.500 members over the course of the tenancy. Operating hours are anticipated to De 6:00AM to 10:00PM. There are no unique features of the prooosed use. 13 A IT ACHMENT E SEMINOLE TRAIL PROPERTIES, LLC 1932 BLUE RIDGE ROAD CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 22903 Phone (434) 973-5571 Fax (434) 973-5580 July 26, 2004 Ms. Susan E. Thomas, AICP Senior Planner Department of Community Development County of Albemarle 401 McIntire Road, Room 217 Charlottesville, VA 22902-4596 Re: SP 2004-00031 Gold's Gym VIA EMAIL AND REGULAR MAIL Dear Ms. Thomas: This letter will provide additional infonnation as requested in your memorandum dated July 20, 2004. For sake of clarity I will refer to Seminole Trail Properties, LLC (the owner of the property) as "Applicant" in this letter. Item #2: The Applicant's property currently has approximately 880 parking spaces, of which approximately 85 are being used by existing tenants. Based upon infonnation supplied by Gold's Gym from a representative period in May 2004 the highest number of members that entered their building in Seminole Square during anyone-hour period was 86 (members typically exercise for one hour or less), The actual impact of Gold's Gym members on parking at the Applicant's property would be somewhat mitigated by the following: 1. Gold's Gym does not track the number of vehicles at their existing facility. Rather, they track the number of members who enter their building. Members in some instances may be riding together in one vehicle-for example a husband and wife. The highest number of 86 mentioned above therefore likely represents fewer than 86 vehicles. 2. The majority of the Applicant's current tenants are businesses that operate from 8:00 AM to 5:00PM. A significant portion of Gold's Gym's parking requirement is from 6:00AM to 8:00AM or 5:00PM to 8:00PM-a lot of members tend to exercise before or after work. The parking requirements \l\- . . . Ms. Susan E, Thomas, AICP July 26,2004 Page 2 for Gold's Gym is therefore somewhat counter-cyclical to the Applicant's other tenants. Item #3: You are correct in that the rear (Commonwealth Drive) driveway is open and being used as a secondary access to the building. The road itself is a public road fiom Commonwealth Drive to the Applicant's property line. I anticipate that the road will remaIn open. Please call me if you have any questions or require further infonnation. Sincerely, Timothy R. Slagle C: Richard B. Hewitt \0 · · · COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road, Room 227 Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 Fax (434) 972-4126 Phone (434) 296-5823 March 16,2005 Wendell W. Winn, Jr. 214 E. High Street Charlottesville, V A 22902 RE: SP 2004-056 Meadowgate Farm - Home Occupation Class B (Sign #44 & 53); Tax Map 120, Parcel 22 Dear Mr. Winn: The Albemarle County Planning Commission, at its meeting on March 1,2005, unanimously recommended approval ofthe above-noted petition to the Board of Supervisors. Please note that this approval is subject to the following condition: 1. No accessory structures shall be used for this home occupation. Please be advised that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors will review this petition and receive public comment at their meeting on April 6, 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, {~ (aP(J~ Rebecca Ragsdale Planner Planning Division /aer Cc: J an Karon 7060 Esmont Farm Rd Esmont, VA 22937 SP 2004-056 Meadowgate Farm March 16, 2005 Sharon Engle 679 Berkmar Circle Charlottesville, V A 22968 Ella Carey Amelia McCulley Jack Kelsey Steve Allshouse . . . STAFF PERSON: PLANNING COMMISSION: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS: Rebecca Ragsdale March 1, 2005 April 6, 2005 SP 2004-056 MEADOWGATE FARM HOME OCCUPATION CLASS B UPDATE: This report has been updated to reflect revised recommended conditions of special use permit approval. A second condition (The number of employees, other than family members residing on the premises, associated with this home occupation shall not exceed two.) has been deleted from the staff recommendation section of this report. It was included in the version of this staff report provided to the Planning Commission. The condition of approval is not necessary as the supplemental regulations of Section 5.2.2 which govern home occupations specify how many employees may be permitted. Applicant's Proposal: The applicant is requesting approval of a special use permit for a Home Occupation, Class B to allow up to two employees to assist an author, the applicant. The employees would generally work normal office hours of 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. five days per week. The employees would work within the primary residence on the property and would not utilize any accessory structures. No alterations to the residence are proposed to accommodate the employees. Petition: SP 2004-0056 Meadowgate Farm-Home Occupation Class B: Request for a special use permit to allow a Home Occupation Class B with up to two employees for an office, in accordance with Section 10.2.2.31 of the Zoning Ordinance, which allows for Home Occupations Class B. The property is described as Tax Map 120, Parcel 22, contains 109 acres, and is zoned RA, Rural Area. The proposal is located at 7060 Esmont Farm, approximately .20 miles from the intersection of Route 715 (Esmont Road) and Route 719 (Alberene Road), in the Scottsville Magisterial District. The Comprehensive Plan designates this property Rural Area. Character of the Area: The area immediately surrounding the site consists of fairly wooded parcels, some ranging in size from 100 to 300+ acres, with the Totier Creek Agricultural and Forestal District located less than a half-mile south of the Meadowgate Farm property. Site Historv: There is no history of previous planning or zoning applications on this property. The residence on the property was constructed in 1819. Land use of the property includes 26 acres of forestry use and 79 acres of agricultural use, according to County real estate records. Comprehensiye Plan: The Comprehensiye Plan identifies this site and surrounding area as being located in the Rural Areas. The Comprehensive Plan offers no specific policy regarding home occupations in the Rural Areas. However, the level of intensity of the proposed use would not be incompatible with the character of the Rural Areas or be counter to stated goals in the Rural Areas. The property is an identified historic resource in the Comprehensive Plan. It is listed individually on the State and National Registers and is also included as part of the proposed Southern Albemarle Rural Historic District. The Historic Preservation Planner reviewed this request and has not identified any adverse impacts to the historic resource. SP 2004-056 Meadowgate Fann March 24, 2005 1 Staff Comment: Staff will address each provision of Section 31.2.4.1 of the Zoning Ordinance: The Board of Supervisors hereby reserves unto itself the right to issue all special use permits permitted hereunder. Special use permits for uses as provided in this ordinance may be issued upon a finding by the Board of Supervisors that such use will not be of substantial detriment to adjacent property. No detrimental impacts to adjoining properties have been identified. that the character of the district will not be changed thereby, This home occupation would not result in any increased levels of activity on the site that would be inconsistent with the character of the area. and that such use will be in harmony with the purpose and intent of this ordinance, Staff has reviewed the purpose and intent as contained in Chapter18, Sections 1.4, 1.5, and 1.6 of the Albemarle Zoning Ordinance. In the opinion of staff, the proposed use would not conflict with the purpose and intent as described in the Zoning Ordinance. with the uses permitted by right in the district, This use would not prevent by-right use of the adjacent properties. and with the public health, safety and general welfare. The public health, safety, and general welfare of the community are protected through the special use permit process, which assures that uses approved by special use permit are appropriate in the location requested. Meadowgate Farm is located along two paved state Routes 719 and 715 (Alberene Road and Esmont Road). The Virginia Department of Transportation has indicated that the existing entrance to the site is adequate for the limited use proposed with this home occupation. There are adequate paved and gravel parking areas on the property for two employees. with additional regulations provided in Section 5.0 of this ordinance, Home occupation permits are governed by Section 5.2.2 of the Zoning Ordinance (Attachment C). The applicant has not requested any modifications to the provisions of this section of the Zoning Ordinance. Summary: Staff has identified the following factors favorable to this application: 1. There would be no additional traffic generated from this proposal than what would be considered normal residential traffic. 2. There would be no noise or lighting impacts on surrounding neighbors. Staff has not found any factors that are unfavorable to this request. SP 2004-056 Meadowgate Farm March 24, 2005 2 . . . Staff Recommendation: Based on the findings contained in this staff report, staff recommends approval of SP 2004-056, subject to the following conditions: 1. No accessory structures shall be used for this home occupation. Attachments: A. Application B. Location Map C. Section 5.2.2 SP 2004-056 Meadowgate Farm March 24, 2005 3 . . . 12/06/2004 17:26 FAX 434 972 4012 Albe, Planning A TT ACHMENT A OFFIC~SE ON;L Y SP #I ',;j(i{'f-f - OS{£) . TMP --L 2- -º- J2. -º-- -.1L -º- - Ô JL. -º- --ª. À -º- ¡¿ Magirterial District: 5r ,)H~ VIII Ú Staff: Date: Sign # AMENDED Apolication for Special Use Permit SP tl'Ž004-056 8,,"5 . '7;' .. . t~ Please See the List at the bottom of page 4 for the Appropriate Fee (srafhñlJ assist you with this Item) Project Name (how should we refer to this appUcatioll?): Meàdowgate Farm L.L.C. ~Existing Use: Residential/Farm Proposed Use: Home Occupation Class B .. Zonjng District: RA Zoning Ordinance Section number requested: 10.2.2.31 (·sta!fwl.ll assist yOu with this Item) Number of acres to be covered by Special Use Permit (if s. portion it must be delineated on Ii plat): Is tbis an amendment to an existing Special Use Permit? BYES ~NO Are you submitting a preliminary site plan with this application? YES NO Contact Person (Who should we calVwrite concc:ming Ihis project?); Wendall L. Winn, Jr. Address 214 E. High Street City Charlottesville State Va Zip 22902 (434) Daytime Phone ~ 977-8590 Fax # 296-9861 E-mail wlw@richfish.com Owner of RecDrd Meadowgate Farm L.L.C: . Address P.O. Box 127 City Esmont State VA Zip 22937 (434) DaytimePhoncllli 286-7613 Fax # 286-7617- E-mail Applicant (Who is the CODI1;\Ct prooe rcprcocntiDg7 Who is rcqu~lillg the rczoI1ÎDg?): Meadowgate Farm L.L.C. Address P.O. Box 127 City Esmont State VA Zip 22937 Daytime Phooe ~ 286-7613 ~434~ Fax # 86- 617 E-mail Tax map and parcel: TM 120 Parcel 22 Physical Street Address (if assigned): 7060 Esmont Farm, Esmont, VA 22937 Location of property (landmarks, int=ections, or other): 2/10 mile from intersection of Rt. 715 and Rt. 7]9 Does tl1e Owm:r of this property own (or bave any ownersbip Ìl1tecest in) any abutting property? IfYe::!, please list those tax map and parcel numbers NO ¡ OFFICE USE ONI. Y ! Fcc amoun¡ S Pate Paid Check # By Who? Receipt # By: History: I 1:1 SpedaJ U3e Permits: Q ZMAs &. Proffers: C3 V¡¡rjIlD~a: 0 Letter of AutboriZBlÙJD i Concurn:llt review of Sib: Devcloprocnr Plan? DYES DNo i County of Albemarle Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, VA 22902 V olee: (434) 296-5832 Fax: (434) 972-4126 7/1/04 Page I of 4 t5 12/06/2004 17:26 FAX 434 972 4012 Albe, Planning @010/012 Section 31.2.4.1 of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance states that, '"The board of supervisors hereby reserves unto itself the right to issue all special use permits permitted hereunder. Special use permits for uses as provided in this ordinance may be issued upon a fInding by the board of supervisors that such use will not be of substantial detriment to adjacent property, that the character of the district will not be changed thereby and that such use will be in. harmony with the purpose and intent of this ordinance, witb the uses permitted by right in the district, with additional regulations provided in section 5.0 of this ordinance, and with the public health, safety and general welfare." The items that follow will be reviewed by the staff in their analysis of your request. Please complete this fann and provide additional information which will assist the County in its review of you request. If you need assistance filling out these items, staff is available, Rural Area What is the Comprehensive Plan designation for this property? Home Occupation C las s B How will the proposed special use affect adjacent property? The special use will have no effect on the adjacent property. The office will be within the home. How will the proposed special use affect the charaGter of the district(s) surrounding the property? The proposed special use will have no effect on the adjacent property. How is the use in hannony with the purpose and intent of the Zoning Ordinance? Chapter 18 Section 1-1.4.7 By using the home as a home office it will generate tax revenue for Albemarle County. How is the use in harmony with the uses permitted by right in the district? Section 10.2.2.31 of the zoning ordinance allows for a Home Occupation Class B. What additional regulations provided in Section 5.0 of the Zoning Ordinance apply to this USe? Section 5.2 #8 the traffic of two employees would not require any improvements to be made by VDOT. How will this use promote the public health, safety, and general welfare of the community? The proposed special use will neither promote nor adversely affect the public health, safety, general welfare of the community. 07/1/04 Page 2 of 4 lß 12/06/2004 17:27 FAX 434 972 4012 Albe. Planning [4¡ 011/012 . Describe your request in detail and include all pertinent information such as the number of persons involved in the use, operating hours, and any unique features of the use: There will be oneauthor, (family member who resides on the premises) and two . h· the home from 9 a.m to 5 P.m. five days per week. employees working w~t ~n No unique features A Tr ACHMENTS REQUIRED - provide two (2) copies of each o 1. Recorded plat or recorded boundary survey of the property requested for the pem:ùt. If there is no recorded plat or boundary survey, please provide legal description of the property and the Deed Book and page nwnber Or Plat Book and page number. o 2. Ownership infoxmation - If ownership of the property is in the name of any type oflegal entity or organization including, but not limited to, the name of a corporation, partnership or association, or in the name of a trust, or in a fictitious name, a document acceptable to the County must be submitted certifying that the person signing below has the authority to do so. . If the applicant is a contract purchaser, a document acceptable to the Couuty must be submitted containing the owner's written consent to the application. If the applicant is the agent of the owner, a docUtnent acceptable to the County must be submitted that is evidence oftbe existence and scope of the agency, O:PTIONAL ATTACHMENTS: o 3. Provide 16 copies of any drawings or conceptual plans. o 4. Additional Information. if any. (16 copies) Owner! Applica.nt Must Read and Sign I hereby cenify that I own the subject property, or have the legal power to act on behalf of the owner in filing this application. I also certifY that the information provided on this application and accompanying information is accurate, true, and correct to .; the best o£my knowledge. CLk1æJ.¿ j (du~L) Signature of Owner r kJEA/bALL L. ¿Or ¡v/'/ ~ Print Name . ú.'tt~J ~. 0Vv~ ~"'-4J .;2 ~ 20::>5 ~ te 177-?~rm Daytime phone number of Signatory 7/1104 Page 3 of 4 Î 12/06/2004 17:27 FAX 434 972 4012 Albe, Planning !4J 012/012 FEES o o o o o o o o o o ~ o o o Rural area division for the pmpose of "family division" where all original 1980 development rights have been exhausted under "fanúly division" as defined under section 14-106 (1 S) of the subdivision ordinance = $220 Rural area divisions = $1,240 Conunercial use = $980 Industtiallße = $1,020 Private club/recreational facility = $1,020 Mobile home park or subdivision = $980 Public uti1ities = $1,020 Grade/fiU in the flood plain = $870 Minol.' amendment to valid special use pcrmit or a special use pennit to allow minor expansion of a non-confolIIÙng use: = $110 Extending special use permits = $70 Home Occupation-Class B = $440 For day care centers - six (6) to nine (9) children = $490 For day care centers - ten (10) or more children z $980 All other uses except signs = $980 7/1/04 Page 4 of 4 B . . . ATTACHMENT B >,1< ;.- '""'3 '""'3 ;.- (j == ~ t'"1 2 '""'3 O; q A TT ACHMENT C ALBEMARLE COUNTY CODE . 5.1.41 PARKING LOTS AND PARKING STRUCTURES (Added 2-5-03) A site plan shall be required for each parking lot and parking structure, unless the requirement is waived as provided in section 32.2.2. (Ord. 03-18(1), 2-5-03) 5,2 HOME OCCUPATIONS 5.2,1 CLEARANCE OF ZONING ADMINISTRATOR REQUIRED Except as herein provided, no home occupation shall be established without approval of the zoning administrator. Upon receipt of a request to establish a home occupation, Class B, the zoning administrator shall refer the same to the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation for approval of entrance facilities and the zoning administrator shall detennine the adequacy of existing parking for such use. No such clearance shall be issued for any home occupation, Class B, except after compliance with section 5.2.3 hereof. (Amended 3-18-81) 5,2.2 REGULATIONS GOVERNING HOME OCCUPATIONS 5.2.2.1 The following regulations shall apply to any home occupation: . a. Such occupation may be conducted either within the dwelling or an accessory structure, or both, provided that not more than twenty- five (25) percent of the floor area of the dwelling shall be used in the conduct of the home occupation and in no event shall the total floor area of the dwelling, accessory structure, or both, devoted to such occupation, exceed one thousand five hundred (1,500) square feet; provided that the use of accessory structures shall be pennitted only in connection with home occupation, Class B; b. There shall be no change in the outside appearance of the buildings or premises, or other visible evidence of the conduct of such home occupation provided that a home occupation, Class B, may erect one home occupation Class B sign as authorized by section 4.15 of this chapter. Accessory structures shall be similar in facade to a single-family dwelling, private garage, shed, barn or other structure nonnally expected in a rural or residential area and shall be specifically compatible in design and scale with other development in the area in which located. Any accessory structure which does not confonn to the setback and yard regulations for main structures in the district in which it is located shall not be used for any home occupation; c. There shall be no sales on the premises, other than items hand crafted on the premises, in connection with such home occupation; this does not exclude beauty shops or one-chair barber shops; d. No traffic shall be generated by such home occupation in greater volumes than would nonnally be expected in a residential neighborhood, and any need for parking generated by the conduct of such home occupation shall be met off the street; e. All home occupations shall comply with perfonnance standards set forth in section 4.14; f. Tourist lodging, nursing homes, nursery schools, day care centers and private schools shall not be deemed home occupations. . 5.2.2.2 Prior to issuance of clearance for any home occupation, the zoning administrator shall require the applicant to sign an affidavit stating his clear understanding of and intent to abide by the foregoing regulations. 18-5-22.6 Zoning Supplement #30, 10-13-04 10 ALBEMARLE COUNTY CODE (12-10-80, § 5.2.2; Ord. 01-18(3), 5-9-01) 5,2,3 CERTAIN PERMITS REQUIRED No home occupation, Class B, shall be established until a permit shall have been issued therefor. The provisions of section 5.2.1 ofthis ordinance shall apply hereto, mutatis mutandis. 5,2.4 REVOCA nON The zoning administrator may revoke any clearance or permit issued pursuant to this section, after hearing, for noncompliance with this ordinance or any condition imposed under the authority of this section. 18-5-22.7 Zoning Supplement #30,10-13-04 II . . . F COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road, Room 227 Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 Phone (434) 296-5823 Fax (434) 972-4126 March 16,2005 Ann Sutherland 1574 Brown's Gap Tpke Charlottesville, VA 22901 RE: SP 2004-059 Toad Hollow Farm Horse Show (Signs #30): Tax Map 41, Parcel15A Dear Ms. Sutherland: The Albemarle County Planning Commission, at its meeting on March 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 conditions: 1. The horse show use shall be conducted in general accord with the concept plan, titled "Toad Hollow Farm" and labeled as "Attachment B". 2. There shall be no outdoor amplified sound system for events. 3. There shall be no overnight camping. 4. All exterior light fixtures shall be full cutoff luminaries and fully shielded and arranged or directed to reflect light away from adjoining properties and away from adjacent roads. 5. Prior to the issuance of a Zoning Clearance for the horse show use, the applicant shall provide sight distance at Cannon Brook Way and Route 680 (Browns Gap Turnpike) to the satisfaction of the Virginia Department of Transportation. 6. Subject to the approval of the county engineer, prior to the issuance of a Zoning Clearance for the horse show use and to provide safe and convenient access to the site, the applicant shall provide a minimum of two gravel pull-off's along Cannon Brook Way to allow two vehicles to pass safely. The applicant shall also provide two DO NOT ENTER signs and one ONE WAY sign placed at locations specified by the county engineer along Cannon Brook Way. 7. The number of horse show events shall be limited to 6 per year. The maximum number of participants and attendees at any single event shall be 80. g. The number of events, other than horse show events, shall be limited to 3 per year and the maximum number of participants and attendees at any single event shall be limited to 40. These events shall not utilize the pastures for parking. Please be advised that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors will review this petition and receive public comment at their meeting on April 6, 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. SP 2004-059 Toad Hollow Horse Show March 16, 2005 If you should have any questions or comments regarding the above noted action, please do not hesitate to contact me (434) 296-5823. Sincerely, (ulHJø ~ Rebecca Ragsdale Planner Planning Division /aer Cc: Ella Carey Amelia McCulley Jack Kelsey Steve Allshouse . STAFF PERSON: PLANNINGCOMMISSION: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS: Rebecca Ragsdale March 1, 2005 April 6, 2005 SP 2004-059 TOAD HOLLOW FARM Applicant's Proposal: The applicant is requesting approval of SP 2004-059 to host horse shows at their 36.78-acre property known as Toad Hollow Farm. The applicant would use an existing 25,000 square-foot covered arena and an 80' by 210' outdoor arena for the horse shows. The applicant intends to host 6 horse show events a year for local participants and also host several smaller dog agility trials and clinics. A full description of the proposal has been provided by the applicant in their special use permit application. (Attachment A) Horse show events would be attended by approximately 80 participants and spectators while dog agility trials would have approximately 30 people attend. There would be no new permanent facilities to accommodate the horse shows as arenas and parking areas are existing. Gravel parking is provided around the arenas and barn (see concept plan Attachment B) and pastures would also be used for trucks and horse trailers. . Petition: Request for a special use permit for horse show grounds, permanent, in accordance with Section 10.2.2.12 of the Zoning Ordinance which allows for horse show grounds, permanent in the RA (Rural Areas) by special use permit. The subject parcel, described as Tax Map 41, Parcel 15A, contains approximately 36 acres and is located at 4333 Cannon Brook Way, on the east side of Browns Gap Turnpike (Rt. 680), approximately 2 miles south of White Hall. The property lies within the White Hall Magisterial District, is zoned RA (Rural Areas) and is in the area designated as Rural Areas 3 by the Comprehensive Plan. Character of the Area: Immediately surrounding Toad Hollow Farm are properties within the Moorman's River Agricultural and Forestal District. Adjoining Toad Hollow Farm is Indigo Ridge (Smith property) which also has a commercial stable use and horse farm. Some residential properties are within the vicinity of the site and front along Brown's Gap Turnpike; the Luxor Terrace subdivision is also located to the south of Toad Hollow Farm. Site History: There has been no recent subdivision of the property and the parcel was in existence at least in the 1950's. The single family home on the property was constructed in 2002. A horse trainer, who lives on the property, was issued a home occupation for instruction and a zoning clearance was issued in October 2004 for a commercial stable use for lessons and/or private riding on the property. Comprehensive Plan: The site and surrounding area are designated Rural Areas in the Comprehensive Plan. The current Rural Area policy establishes that agricultural and forestry uses are the desired land uses in the Rural Areas. The proposed horse show use is considered a type of agricultural activity and is consistent with the policies within the Comprehensive Plan. Other RA policies such as watershed protection will not be adversely impacted by this proposal and there will not be increased service delivery to the Rural Areas as a result of this use. The Open Space Concept Map identifies the site . as part of the major open space system of farmlands and forests to be protected for its SP 2004-059 Toad Hollow Farm February 22, 2005 t environmental, aesthetic, cultural, agricultural/forestal and recreational value. The proposed horse show use would not be in conflict with this policy either. As mentioned, the Moorman's River Agricultural and Forestal District surrounds the Toad Hollow Farm property and the Sugar Hollow AF District is approximately one mile to the west of Cannon Brook Way. The Agricultural and Forestal District Advisory Committee reviewed this application at their January 10, 2005 meeting and recommended unanimous approval of the application, indicating that the proposed horse show use would compliment existing horse farms in the area. The Committee also offered the following comments: o The Committee has concerns regarding the use of loud speakers for horse shows and possible detrimental impacts from noise to adjoining properties. o The Committee recognized that Cannon Brook Way is too narrow for two- way travel of large vehicles. The Committee suggested adding gravel pull-offs along the sides of Cannon Brook Way so that one vehicle could pull over and let the other pass. Also, the Committee suggested posting traffic monitors with radios at each end of Cannon Brook Way to direct traffic down Cannon Brook Way one at a time. o The Committee suggested that the applicant consider notifying neighbors in advance of any planned events at Toad Hollow Farm so that they can plan their agricultural activities accordingly and are prepared for the increased traffic. These issues raised by the committee are addressed later in the report. The applicant has indicated they intend to notify neighbors as a courtesy prior to events. The Toad Hollow Farm property is not currently in the Moorman's River Agricultural & Forestal district but the property owners have applied to add their property to the district which indicates their interest in continued support of agricultural and forestal uses in the County. The Economic Development Policy of the Comprehensive Plan notes that agriculture and forestry are an important component of the County's economy. Horse related industries have a longstanding history in the County and are a significant portion of that agricultural component of the economy. The 2001 Virginia Equine Report estimated that there were 7,000 horses in the County worth $90,886,000 and Albemarle ranked third in the state in the number of horses. Virginia is the 5th largest equine state according to this report. The horse industry and related activities such as horse show venues are also supportive of the policy goal of protecting Albemarle County's agricultural lands and forests as a resource base for its agricultural and forestry industries and for related benefits they contribute towards the County's rural character, scenic quality, natural environment, and fiscal health Staff Comment: Staff will address each provision of Section 31.2.4.1 of the Zoning Ordinance: SP 2004-059 Toad Hollow Farm February 22, 2005 2 . . . The Board of Supervisors hereby reserves unto itself the right to issue all special use permits permitted hereunder. Special use permits for uses as provided in this ordinance may be issued upon a finding by the Board of Supervisors that such use will not be of substantial detriment to adjacent property. Possible detrimental effects to adjoining properties such as the potential for increased noise, lighting impacts, and traffic have been identified. As the applicant notes and the suggested conditions of approval reflect, these have been mitigated to the greatest extent possible. The proposed horse show venue is not located near residences and the property is quite wooded which creates a buffer. Conditions of approval prohibiting amplified outdoor sound systems and also one to address lighting have been recommended. Also, the applicant has indicated that they do not plan any evening events. that the character of the district will not be changed thereby, The horse show use is not expected to change the character of the area as it will utilize existing horse facilities and events will be limited in frequency. Some increased traffic in the area on event days may be expected. and that such use will be in harmony with the purpose and intent of this ordinance The Rural Areas zoning district provides for the preservation and protection of agricultural and forestal lands and activities; provides for water supply protection; provides an area of limited service delivery; and provides for the conservation of natural, scenic, and historic resources. Staff has reviewed the purpose and intent as contained in Chapter 18, Sections 1.4, 1.5, and 1.6 of the Albemarle Zoning Ordinance. In the opinion. of staff, the proposed use is supportive of the purpose and intent as described in the Zoning Ordinance. with the uses permitted by right in the district, This use would not prevent by-right use of the adjacent properties. with additional regulations provided in Section 5.0 of this ordinance, There are no additional supplemental regulations for horse show grounds in Section 5.0. Since the applicants have a commercial stable use on the property already, they must comply with the supplemental regulations for that use: 5,1.03 COMMERCIAL STABLE a. Riding rings and other riding surfaces shall be covered and maintained with a material to minimize dust and erosion; (Amended 11-15-95) b. Fencing and other means of animal confinement shall be maintained at all times. Stable, Commercial: A building, group of buildings, or use of land, or any combination thereof, where, for compensation, whether monetary or goods, provision is made for horses or ponies for hire or instruction in riding. (Amended 11-15-95) SP 2004-059 Toad Hollow Farm February 22,2005 3 and with the public health, safety and general welfare. The public health, safety, and general welfare of the community are protected through the special use permit process, which assures that uses approved by special use permit are appropriate in the location requested. With this request to host horse shows at Toad Hollow Farm, the primary safety concern is vehicular access to the farm. Specifically, the inadequate width of Cannon Brook Way for two-way trucks with horse trailers to pass each other and the sight distance looking south on Browns Gap Turnpike from Cannon Brook Way. (Please see Attachment F) The Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) has recommended the following: . The existing entrance onto Route 680 is inadequate for the proposed use (Sight distance at the entrance has to be 500' minimum) . The entrance needs to be improved to comply with the Minimum Standards of Entrances to State Highways. [Further evaluation of the entrancefound it to be sufficient) VDOT has indicated that in order to remedy the sight distance problem that tree removal and a permanent sight distance easement is needed across Tax Map Parcel 41-14, which the applicant does not own. That property owner has been very cooperative with the applicant thus far regarding tree removal but the possibility of a permanent easement has yet to be resolved. It has been noted that a permanent easement is the best way to ensure that the sight distance is maintained. Engineering concurs with VDOT's comments regarding the need for improved site distance, an improvement needed in order to provide safe and convenient access from Cannon Brook Way onto Route 680 (Browns Gap Turnpike). Regarding access from Cannon Brook Way to Toad Hollow Farm, Engineering initially recommended widening Cannon Brook Way but is agreeable to the applicant's proposal to add strategically placed gravel pull-offs along the drive large enough for trucks with trailers to pull over. (Suggested dimensions are those for loading spaces) To further improve safety of yehicular traffic along Cannon Brook Way, Engineering has recommended directional signage, specifically two DO NOT ENTER SIGNS and one ONE WAY sign, on both sides of the one-way split portion of the drive. (Attachment G) The applicant has been working with property owners along Cannon Brook Way and these requirements are acceptable to them. To prevent erosion issues, Engineering has suggested events and pasture parking be limited. Zoning, has determined that this use is an agricultural activity and is exempt from the Site Plan requirement (Section 32.2.1 of the Zoning Ordinance). However, it is the Board of Supervisor's prerogative with their review of the special permit criteria to require a site plan. The applicant has provided a fairly detailed conceptual plan that adequately shows proposed uses of the site of existing facilities for events. Engineering comments can be reflected in the same conceptual-type plan and the VDOT sight distance requirement would ultimately be addressed on a plat. Summary: Staff has identified the following factors that are favorable to this request: SP 2004-059 Toad Hollow Farm February 22, 2005 4 . 1. The proposed use is supportive of Agricultural and Forestal policies. 2. Adjoining property owners and the Agricultural and Forestal District Advisory Committee have expressed their support of the use. Unfavorable factors identified: 1. Existing conditions of Cannon Brook Way are inadequate for increased truck and horse trailer traffic and improvements are needed to make it safer and more functional for the horse show use. Recommendation: Based on the findings contained in this staff report, staff recommends approval of SP 2004-059, subject to the following conditions: . 1. The horse show use shall be conducted in general accord with the concept plan, titled "Toad Hollow Farm" and labeled as "Attachment B". 2. There shall be no outdoor amplified sound system for events. 3. There shall be no overnight camping. 4. All exterior light fixtures shall be full cutoff luminaires and fully shielded and arranged or directed to reflect light away from adjoining properties and away from adjacent roads. 5. Prior to the issuance of a Zoning Clearance for the horse show use, the applicant shall provide sight distance at Cannon Brook Way and Route 680 (Browns Gap Turnpike) to the satisfaction of the Virginia Department of Transportation. 6. Subject to the approval of the county engineer, prior to the issuance of a Zoning Clearance for the horse show use and to provide safe and convenient access to the site, the applicant shall provide a minimum of two gravel pull-offs along Cannon Brook Way to allow two vehicles to pass safely. The applicant shall also provide two DO NOT ENTER signs and one ONE WAY sign placed at locations specified by the county engineer along Cannon Brook Way. 7. The number of horse show events shall be limited to 6 per year. The maximum number of participants and attendees at any single event shall be 80. 8. The number of events, other than horse show events, shall be limited to 3 per year and the maximum number of participants and attendees at any single event shall be limited to 40. These events shall not utilize the pastures for parking. 9. Seating provided for spectators shall be limited to 50 seats. 10. The applicant shall obtain Health Department approval prior to all events. Attachments: A- Special Use Permit Application B- Concept Plan C- Location Map & Tax Map D- Covered Arena E- Overview of Cannon Brook Way F- Intersection of Cannon Brook Way/State Route 680 (2 Photos) G- One Way Split of Cannon Brook Way with suggested signs (2 Photos) . SP 2004-059 Toad Hollow Farm February 22,·2005 5 A TT ACHMENT A W;"CE ~'2l¿j- 05Q TMP -º- !£ 7r to º- - fl Q - ß () - () ..12. r-r u Sig~ # 30. Magisterial District: t..J 'Staff: Date: 11/z.::z)O p . . Application for Special Use Permit Please See the List at the bottom of page 4 for the Appropriate Fee (staff will assist you with this item) Project Name (how should we refer to this application?): *~xisting Use: - COW\YY\f>r¿lð..l s'l-c...b)p ToA-1'. If-oLLDW FARH Sl-bw P~t--\IT Proposed Use: fOHMac ¡!'TL 'STAR.LI=:- .¡-. l-b~ $t~ Gf<ov~'ù'S. Zoning Ordinance Section number requested: i tJ . 2.... J... 4 I :L. * Zoning District: R....A (*staffwill assist you with this item) Number of acres to be covered by Special Use Permit (if a portion it must be delineated on a plat): "'8 Is this an amendment to an existing Special Use Permit? Are you submitting a preliminary site plan with this application? DYES ~YES ~NO DNO Contact Person (Who should we calUwrite concerning this project?): AN N St.,'Ïl'1 ~ LA-IV"h \ Address ;'5 74 ~ Row ¡.J' ~ (....A:p , TP Kk- Daytime Phone ~ ~2?,. - 1'I:J-5 F.ax # City ß..¡MLOí1~\I~LLE- State vA Zip 22.901 Owner of Record l6A'b I-6LLDN F AR.M E-mail ~vlÞlifr ~n:-rk4@ Ocó/ . (OW'\ L.L..C. Address S~4- Bf?nWN1S, ~ îp~~ City ~r+A-¡LC>n~\J\L~ State VA Zip "1Z'1öl Daytime Phone ~ <62 -:s - l'ì-:t S Fax # E-mail b"\{ r-c...(" \:::. 4 (@ CÅo I . c..ø V\l'\ Applicant (Who is the Contact person representing? Who is requesting the rezoning?): T 6Æ~ 14nLI1"> hI F.AcR..1-'I. LL G Address IS:¡'4 BRoWN'S C.,.þ.¿> Tpl::.t City l'i-\-A;2L.DTIts.V'LL Eo State vA Zip 220, 01 Daytime Phone (45'1-) ~ 2 ~ - 9:¡. 5 Fax # E-mail b1' rc.. r k 4- (Çi) tJ..tj 1 . CDW\ Tax map and parcel: T: H, 4-1 - \~A Physic~1 Street Add~ess (if assigned): 4- ~:) "3 ('AN NO tJ BR.oe> K.. W A'f ) Œ.M.e LDTI éS, Vr...Lé, V A 2246/ Location of property (landmarks, intersections, or other): Does the owner of this property own (or have any ownership interest in) any abutting property? If yes, please list those tax map and parcel numbers NO OFFICE US Fee amount S o Special Use Pennits: . t Receipt #() 7;:¿OÝ By: D (5 !)\..O ZMAs & Proffers: o Variances: o Letter of Authorization ~soJv Concurrent review of Site Development Plan? 0 YES 0 NO RECCI\/I:fAty of Albemarle Department of Community Development ~h~MRoad Charlottesville, VA 22902 Voice: (434) 296-5832 Fax: (434) 972-4126 NOV 2 2 200~ 7/l/04 Page I of 4 '1. ,~nl\l!lIlIllr.,I\TV nr=\fi=1 nPflllI:::klj .- Section 31.2.4.1 of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance states that, "The board of supervisors hereby reserves unto itself the right to issue all special use pennits permitted hereunder. Special use pennits for uses as provided in this ordinance may be issued upon a fmding by the board of supervisors that such use will not be of substantial detriment to adjacent property, that the character of the district will not be changed thereby and that such use will be in harmony with the purpose and intent of this ordinance, with the usespennitted by right in the district, with additiona¡ regulations provided in section 5.0 of this ordinance, and with the public health, safety and general welfare." The items that follow will be reviewed by the staff in their analysis of your request. Please complete this form and provide additional information which will assist the County in its review of you request. If you need as~istance filling out these items, staffis available. What is the Comprehensive Plan designation for this property? RPr How will the proposed special use affect adjacent property? 5£G An- Ac...HE: ~ How will the proposed special use ~ffectthe character of the district(s) surrounding the property? \ Sé& ÄTrkt-t'-b, How is the use in harmony with the purpose and intent of the Zoning Ordinance? 5GG A,\ACH~b, How is the use in harmony with the uses permitted by right in the district? SEG A-ïmcHG- ~. What additional regulations provided in Section 5.0 of the Zoning Ordinance apply to this use? 'Sf:E. An ALrt€:b. How will this use promote the public health, safety, and general welfare of the community? ~fk A-rr-1k~. 07/1/04 Page 2 of 4 8 Describe your request in detail and include all pertinent information such as the number of persons involved in the use, operating hours, and any unique features of the use: :Séf: 4rr-AŒ&~ . . ATTACHMENTS REQUIRED -provide two (2) copies of each }?J 1. Recorded plat or boundary survey of the property requested for the rezoning. If there is no recorded plat or boundary survey, please provide legal description of the property and the Deed Book and page number or Plat Book and page number. Note: If you are requesting a rezoning for a portion of the property, it needs to be described or delineation on a copy of the plat or surveyed drawing. ,)g.' 2. Ownership information - If ownership of the property is in the name of any type of legal entity or organization including, but not limited to, the name of a corporation, partnership or association, or in the name of a trust, or in a fictitious name, a document acceptable to the County must be submitted certifying that the person signing below has the authority to do so. If the applicant is a contract purchaser, a document acceptable to the County must be submitted containing the owner's written consent to the application. . If the applicant is the agent of the owner, a document acceptable to the County must be submitted that' is evidence of the existence and scope of the agency. OPTIONAL ATTACHMENTS: ßl 3. Provide 16 copies of any drawings or conceptual plans. o 4. Additional Information, if any. (16 copies) Owner/Applicant Must Read and Sign I hereby certify that I own the subject property, or have the legal power to act on behalf of the owner in filing this application. I also certify that the information provided on this application and accompanying information is accurate, true, and correct to ~ best of my knowledge. <bvntf.{è L f1-Nò Print Name 1\ /1. \ Jot Dare I I _ (t3~ ~2<S-L623 LCLU pl1crw J (4-3~ ~ 2'-~ - ¡q=15 Daytime phone number of Signatory 7/1/04 Page 3 of 4 . q Toad Hollow Farm Special Use Permit Application Answers to questions on page 2. 1. How will the proposed special use affect adjacent property? The proposed use of this property as a Horse Show Grounds would have both positive and potentially negative effects on the surrounding properties. Potential Negative Effects The major negative effect could be the increased traffic of horse trailers on the days of the shows on Cannon Brook Way. This is mitigated by the fact that the driveway entrance to Toad Hollow Farm is only a short distance in from the main road (Brown's Gap Tpke), and the traffic would pass only one other residence (Dr. Chris Middleton) before entering the show site. Cannon Brook Way is paved, so there would be no problem of dust generated by the trailers, and is wide enough for passage of the maxÌmwn size trailer. Between Brown's Gap Turnpike and Toad Hollow Farm, most of Cannon Brook Way is not wide enough for two vehicles side-by-side, but there is a sizeable section with two lanes, and several pull-offs within sight distance that allow for passage of trailers and other traffic in both directions at the same time. The other potential negative effect would be increased noise coming from Toad Hollow Farm, due to more people, more horses, and more vehicles. The noise would be minimal and natural. At these shows, each horse competes individually, not in groups, so there are never large nwnbers of horses trotting or cantering at one time. Thus the show noise would add little to the sound of horses that normally occurs in this area, since there are more than 50 horses pastured daily next door at Indigo Ridge and at Toad Hollow Farm. The vehicles (pickup trucks) are all preswnably street legal and do not make excessive noise, apart from the fact that many are diesels. There would be no highly amplified noise, either voice or music. Moreover, the arena is nestled into the woods on three sides, and located in a hollow, all tending to muffle the transmission of sound to adjacent areas. Any increase in noise would affect George and Erlyne Smith most directly as their farm is close to the arena where the shows would be held, whereas other adjoining residences, both on Cannon Brook Way and in the Luxor Terrace development (adjoining Toad Hollow Farm to the south), are distant from the proposed show area. The proposed show use will take place during a single day, between the hours of 8am and 4pm. Thus artificial lighting will generally not be required. If, due to weather conditions, lighting is required in the covered arena, it should pose no problem to surrounding properties, as it is all shielded from direct view by the location of the arena in a hollow, the overhang of the roof of the arena, and the surrounding woods. There will be no disruption to surrounding properties during the evening hours. Potential Positive Effects The major positive effect will be in providing a venue for hosting schooling shows for riding students in the nearby area. George and Erlyne Smith run a commercial stable on their property where people board their horses and take riding lessons. Many of their students (both children and adults) compete in local horse shows held at other venues, and sponsored by the Virginia (D . . . Dressage Association (V ADA) or the Virginia Horse Trials (VH1). Similarly, the Pony Academy, a riding instruction business located on a property a short distance north of Toad Hollow Farm, has many students that take lessons and compete in the same local shows. Having some of these local shows held close enough that the students wouldn't have to trailer their horses would be a particular benefit, especially for those who do not have the resources to trailer to distant shows. It would also encourage participation in these competitions by more of the students if they were easy to get to, 2. How will the proposed special use affect the character of the district(s) surrounding the property? The proposed special use should have little or no effect on the character of the district surrounding the property . We will not have to alter our property to accommodate the Horse Show Grounds use, so the major effect will be an increase in the number of people and horses on the days of the shows. As the surrounding district is designated a Rural Area, Toad Hollow Far and most of the surrounding properties contain open pasture or cropland, and many of them already raise and graze horses. At least two horse training facilities lie within a half-mile of Toad Hollow Farm (the Pony Academy and Indigo Ridge) and there are at least a half dozen horse owners on Brown's Gap Turnpike between Route 240 and White Hall. 3. How is the use in harmony with the purpose and intent of the Zoning Ordinance? This use is in harmony with the purpose of the Zoning Ordinance in implementing the Comprehensive Plan for the county. Rural Areas are devoted to preservation of agricultural and forestal lands and activities, and hosting horse shows on this property is consistent with the agricultural activities in this area. It is also consistent with the goal of encouraging economic development activities in that it promotes the horse industry. By providing a venue for competition, Toad Hollow Farm would encourage people to have and use their horses, as well as generate a need for competition-related products. 4. How is the use in harmony with the uses pennitted by right in the district? The use of Toad Hollow Farm as a Horse Show Grounds is in harmony with the by right uses of the Rural Area. Specifically it is an enhancement of the Commercial Stable use, as it provides additional ways for customers of the stable to participate in the sport of horseback riding. It is also an enhancement of the agricultural uses of the land, as it provides people who raise and train horses a venue to showcase their work (i.e. showing how well their breeding and training has gone) and to add to the value of their livestock (i.e. by adding to their experience and perfonnance characteristics). 5. What additional regulations provided in Section 5.0 of the Zoning Ordinance apply to this use? None are listed that apply specifically to this use. We currently observe the additional regulations that apply to the Commercial Stable use (Section 5.1.03): a. Riding rings and other riding surfaces shall be covered and maintained with a material to minimize dust and erosion; (Amended 11-15-95) I { We have sand or stone dust on the surface of the arenas, and they are watered regularly to minimize dust, They are also well drained. b. Fencing and other means of animal confmement shall be maintained at all times. All our pastures are fenced, and the fencing is maintained in good condition. 6. How will this use promote the public health, safety, and general welfare of the community? The use of Toad Hollow Farm as a Horse Show Grounds would improve the general welfare of the community by providing an additional venue for horse activities. The health and safety of the general public is promoted by the limited number of participants and activities proposed for this use, and the health and safety of the participants will be promoted by having proper sanitary facilities as well as a veterinarian and an emergency medical technician on site at each activity. (2-- . Toad Hollow Farm Special Use Permit Application Description of requested use as Horse Show Grounds. Describe your request in detail and include all pertinent information such as the number of persons involved in the use, operating hours, and any unique features of the use. We are requesting a Special Use Permit to use part of our property, Toad Hollow Farm, as a Horse Show Grounds. In particular, we would like to be able to host schooling shows for local associations such as the Virginia Dressage Association (V ADA) and the Virginia Horse Trials (VHT). We do not propose to host regional or statewide events at our facility, as these are too large in scope for our facility. We do propose to host dog agility trials and clinics of the appropriate size (number of participants, see below). Having an additional venue to host such events would be of great benefit to the horse industry in the county, and would expand the ability of local horse associations to put on such events. . Toad Hollow Farm is a property of36+ acres, situated between Crozet and White Hall, just off Brown's Gap Turnpike (see attached plat and conceptual plan). About 28 acres of the property is wooded, with the remaining acreage in pasture or under buildings. The buildings on the property consist of a house with a detached studio, a barn, and a 100' by 250' covered arena. There is also an 80' by 210' outdoor arena right next to the covered arena. This outdoor arena is currently a flat surface covered with stone dust and underlain with 8 drain trenches. We plan to put railroad ties down, in the next 6 months, to outline the dressage arena (66 feet by 198 feet), and then to cover the stone dust with 1-2 inches of sand and crumb rubber as a riding surface. There is currently no seating for spectators next to either arena, but we anticipate purchasing a mobile aluminum bleacher unit that can seat 30-50 spectators for use in both arenas. Only part of the property would be included in the Horse Show Grounds use, including the barn, the two arenas and the two larger pastures (Pastures #1 and #2; detailed on the conceptual plan). The competition would be sited in the two arenas, with one arena used for warm-up and the other for the dressage tests and/or jumping trials. Parking for the cars and trailers would be in the two larger pastures (Pastures #1 and #2 on the conceptual plan), which have a large flat area on their western edge. This area is a grassy surface, which is well drained, is large enough to accommodate drive-through parking for trailers, and is unlikely to undergo significant erosion due to trailer traffic. Parking for spectators would be in the same area. None of the proposed events will be advertised to the general public, thus the spectators will be either other participants or people associated with other participants. Around the barn we currently have a graveled area that provides parking space for 6-10 cars (see conceptual plan for details). However, for the proposed show events, this parking will not be adequate, and cars parked in this area will be detrimental to the efficient passage of participants. . The overall maximum number of participants at any horse show would be limited to 80, and for dog shows and clinics, the maximum number of participants would be 40. The difference in numbers is due to the number of people that will be on site at the same time. For dog shows and horse clinics, all the participants would be on grounds at the same time. For horse shows, due to the way that these competitions are scheduled, not all the competitors will be on the show grounds at one time. We expect that 20-30 participants would be on premises at any given time ì'3 of day. At a typical show, each competitor arrives about 1 hour before their scheduled ride time, and departs after their class has fInished and they have received their scores and ribbons. The classes typically have 5-8 riders, and each ride takes approximately 6 minutes. From our previous experience in participating in these shows at other venues, we expect that each competitor will stay on the show grounds 2-2.5 hours. Additionally, we expect a proportion of the participants to come from adjacent properties (Indigo Ridge, owned by George and Erlyne Smith; Pony Academy, run by Diane Hawkins), who would arrive on foot and might spend less time overall at the show site. We will have a maximum of 6 shows per year, which would be held only on weekends, either on Saturday or on Sunday. The horse competition season runs from March to November, so we expect to hold shows during these months. The competitions would be completed in one day, and would start at 8am and fInish at 4pm. Given the amount of time spent at the show by each competitor, we would expect the earliest riders to arrive at 7am, and the last participants to leave by 5pm. The participants may arrive singly, or may arrive together in multi-horse trailers. The horses will be tied to the trailers in the pasture when not competing. Water troughs will be provided for these horses in the pasture. The manure from the participating horses will be spread on the pasture after the competition by dragging, and any damage to the pasture by the trailers or the horses, if it occurs, will be repaired by over seeding. To facilitate cleanup and reduce trash, we will provide trash barrels in the pasture and next to the arenas. We will also provide port-a-potties to limit the stress on the septic system associated with the bam. At the conclusion of the show, we will dispose of all accumulated trash and will also clean up any trash that we might fmd along Cannon Brook Way. We feel that this use of our property will be a signifIcant enhancement to the horse-riding community without being a detriment to the neighborhood or the district. In particular, very few indoor or covered arenas are located in this area, and almost none grant access to the public. By making our facilities available for public use, we can provide a guaranteed venue, rain or shine. We are most interested in promoting the sport of horsemanship, and in particular, in giving young people the opportunity to excel at the disciplines of dressage and jumping, We feel that we can most effectively achieve these goals by providing an additional venue for local horse associations to hold schooling competitions that are the training grounds for state and regional competitions. \4 Ll:V ;) LN3 · (I t"":1 69000-vOOl-dS v 3: J..N3:WH . . . ." ;j · ') ~ PLEASE SIGN BELOW IF YOU WISH TO SPEAK ON THE PROPOSED BUDGET AND THE PROPOSED TAX RATES. ß I 33 '8IAYt"l ~l3 - S478' f77-67t3 q 7 f, 7? Ý RJ· Ô )...>- ~ 251 ,?~ 2 glf .21(:- '1352- d,-, / -, 1) ¿. >- Ie 2 , ) · PLEASE SIGN BELOW IF YOU WISH TO SPEAK ON THE PROPOSED BUDGET AND THE PROPOSED TAX RATES. & ß, // {¡¿"'/6- 0"9 v/.o /Ý ð C ¿ E"" &é"t7/' /~ -<'t'..;>..(t:, /Ó (,/ '" ,. /' '" / /' /1 T e f)~, ~ v~ ~ <'-" écyOL"" / c/?7'7/ '4/.L// L- )4. ~~-4 TO: Supervisors Rooker, Bowerman, Boyd, Dorrier, Thomas and Wyant tj'.~ FROM: Martha Harris 'VED AT BOS ME;::; ¢ fl-::¡/ DATE: April 5, 2005 ,~. . SUBJECT: County Compensation .-;é-.;:,~~~,,:~: ~ / " "......,,,. ._-~_...- ---.._........ I spoke at the last public hearing on March 9 regarding the County Budget for 2005 -2006 and addressed the concerns I have about the increased cost of operating the county government and particularly that of the school division. Again, I want to emphasize the concerns I and many others have regarding the increase cost of operating the county government. In particular it should be of major concern to all Albemarle citizens that the school budget has increased dramatically - in the last four years the school budget has increased 32.31 %. However, student enrollment for the last four years has only increased by 119 pupils or less than 1 % - even more unbelievable is the estimate of only a 17 pupil increase for 2005-06 . As with any organization/corporation, personnel costs is the largest component of a budget. However, labor cost increases are usually tied to an expansion in production or new products development as well as wage rate increases. However, the tremendous increase in personnel cost for the county has no correlation to an increase in student enrollment or requirements for additional services necessitated by great population growth. What has caused this increase in compensation cost is the dramatic wage increases that have been given to county and school employees over the most recent years. A prime example of this is the 2005-06 proposed incredible 9% teacher wage increase and the 4.4% to 7.4% wage/merit pay increase for classified and administrative employees. I challenge anyone to document similar rate increases with any other organization/corporation in Albemarle County. Of equal importance and cost are the benefits that are paid for all county employees without any employee contribution. I again challenge anyone to document any organization/corporation in Albemarle County that provides the quality benefits without any employee contributions as does Albemarle County. To support my conclusions, I obtained through the Freedom of Information Act compensation reports of the county and school personnel who would be paid wages, stipends & other taxable income of$45,000 or greater as proposed in the 2005-06 budget. (I chose this bench mark as it is mid level for the teacþ.er scale.) I have selected some samples of salaries for which I feel you should have knowledge in the administrative cost of the school system and am sending this data also as an attachment. I am sending another compilation of general government positions that I believe are excessive when the extremely generous benefit package is included in the total cost for those position. These are by no means all inclusive but the reports I will distribute at the meeting tonight will have a complete listing of all employees making $45,000 or greater for your study and evaluation. I strongly believe that the method for recommending annual wage rate increases as originally established by a panel consisting of mainly county employees, with 2 Supervisors and 2 county residents is unfair to the taxpayers. This method compares Albemarle County to 27 other school districts plus 3 local entities and makes recommendations for annual increases based on how we rank. It doesn't take into account that some of the localities are not similar or comparable to Albemarle in size, population, location or cost of living, such as Prince William County and others in Northern Virginia. The 9% increases have elevated Albemarle Schools from 6th place to 3Td place in the ranking of these 27 school districts. Does this make our children get a better education or does this just fuel a fabricated bidding struggle? Albemarle's low employee turnover rate is evidence that the county does not had a difficult time attracting and keeping good teachers or other employees and should cease this perceived need to compete with Northern Virginia I believe there should be a Compensation Board established by the BOS which consists of a representative appointed by each of the supervisors, the County Executive and/or a Human Resource representative to meet as necessary to detennine the wage increases as appropriate for the upcoming budget.. This committee composition would be less biased and should be able to reach an equitable wage recommendation that will be fair to the employees as well as the employer, the Tax Payers. Most residents of Albemarle County do not have the privilege of sitting on an employer's panel and then telling the employer what they will be paid! Why should the county employees have this privilege when the people who are paying their salaries with tax revenues do not! I appreciate your time and consideration in reviewing my proposal and evaluating the data I am sending you. SCHOOL DIVISION SALARIES l\T£EDING REVIEW Name Position Salary Retirement Health Dental Castner Superint 179,136 21,802 5,860 202 Moran Ast Super. 119,690 14,566 5860 202 Behrens Ex/Dir Sup 99,952 12,165 All the same All the same Benson Ex/Dir Cur 100,412 12,221 Endahl Ex/Dir Pr Dv 81,114 9,872 Howen Ex/Dir POSA 100,412 12,221 Hughes Ex/Dir Div 100,412 12,221 Nash Ex/Dir Intv 99,402 12098 Reaser Dir/Bld Srv 105,739 12,669 Smith Dirrrransp 102,242 12,443 Zimmerman Ex/Dir Fisc 99,262 12,081 Collins AlDir Tech 83,560 10,169 All the same All the same Collins AlDir Fed P 83,209 10,127 Fisher AlDir B/PR 86,506 10,528 Kirst AlDirBestP 86,506 9,477 Selden AlDir Asses 81,940 9,972 Dwier Corr/Inst 74,030 9,010 All the Same All the Same Evans " 65,577 7,981 Farrell Corr/SpEd 65,940 8,025 Freeman Corrllnst 76,565 9,318 Green Corrllnst 83,325 10,140 Hughes Corr Inst 70,120 8,534 Kasonil Corr/SpEd 74,264 9,035 Kirk Corr/Inst 78,181 9,515 Morris Corr/SpEd 58,761 7,152 Pace Corr inst 69,783 8,493 Reid CorrÆxtD 67,206 8,179 Robinson Corr/Inst 69,708 8,483 Roby Corr/Inst 62,609 7,620 Root Corr/Inst 80,465 9,791 Ross Corr/Inst 63,826 7,767 Sheffield Corr/Inst 78,103 9,504 Smith Corr/Inst 66,130 8,048 Whitaker Corr/Inst 68,710 8,362 Wollenberg Corr/Inst 74,314 9,043 Petsenburger Food Serv 76,044 9,255 Synder Custodial 64,267 7,821 General Government Salaries & Benefits Needing Review Name Salary Tucker 173,327 Davis 138,136 Camblos 127,288 White 125,759 Foley 115,789 Marshall 110,832 Breeden 110,221 Miller 106,474 Wiggans 105,811 Ralston 105,102 Graham 103,245 Culp 102,239 Trank 101,578 Mullaney 99,961 Cilimberg 98,275 McCulley 95,292 Eggleston 91,162 Robb 89,461 W oodzell 88,604 Moore 88,387 Wells 88,254 Walters 87,900 Koonce 85,829 Burnett 84,334 Kamptner 83,353 Freeman 82,053 Cattell-Gordon81,440 Limerick 80,952 Weaver 79,357 Benish 79,193 Lowe 76,740 Lewis 76,479 Herrick 76,018 Stumbaugh 75,245 Deloria 75,156 Kelsey 74,807 Fica 8,260 7,750 7,593 7,571 7,426 7,354 7,345 7,291 7,281 7,271 7,244 7,229 7,220 7,196 7,1 72 7,129 6,974 6,844 6,778 6,762 6,751 6,724 6,566 6,452 6,377 6,277 6,230 6,193 6,071 6,058 5,871 5,851 5,815 5,756 5,749 5,723 Ret 19,066 15,195 14,002 13,833 12,737 12,192 12,124 11,712 11,639 11 ,561 11 ,357 11,246 11,174 10,966 10,810 10,482 10,028 9,841 9,746 9,723 9,708 9,669 9,441 9,277 9,169 9,026 8,958 8,905 8,729 8,711 8,441 8,413 8,362 8,277 8,267 8,229 Health 5,752 Same Dental 200 Same ALBEMARLE COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS FY 2005-06 NEW POSITION SUMMARY Funded Position FTE Compensation Benefits Total FUND 2100 K-12 INSTRUCTION-SALARIES 112100 SALARIES-TEACHER CTIP 1.00 41,296 14,247 55,543 ELEMENTARY LITERACY SPECIALIST 0.25 10,324 3,561 13,885 MIDDLE SCHOOL LITERACY SPECIALIST 0.50 20,648 7,122 27,770 ESOL TEACHERS 2.50 103,240 35,617 138,857 SPECIAL EDUCATION 1.00 41,296 14,247 55,543 INTERVENTION/PREVENTION 2.00 82,592 28,494 111,086 MURRAY HIGH EXPANSION 0.57 23,539 8,120 31,659 TEST SUPPORT 1.00 41,296 14,247 55,543 GROWTH 4.02 166,010 57,271 223,281 EMERGENCY STAFFING 2.00 82,592 28,494 111,086 113100 SALARIES-NURSE ELEMENTARY NURSES 2.24 67,835 27,023 94,858 114100 SALARIES-TEACHER AIDE ELEMENTARY 6.57 97,565 59,163 156,728 115000 SALARIES-OFFICE CLERICAL OA III - CALE 0.50 10,120 3,805 13,925 Total 24.15 788,353 301,411 1,089,764 FUND 2111 INSTRUCTIONAL SUPPORT 111400 SALARIES-OTHER MANAGEMENT COMMUNITY SERVICES LEARNING COORDINATOR 1.00 66,130 19,169 85,299 WORLD LANGUAGES COORDINATOR 0.50 30,522 9,081 39,603 112100 SALARIES-TEACHER WORLD LANGUAGES 1.24 54,038 9,626 63,664 Total 2.74 150,690 37,876 188,566 FUND 2118 ASSESMENT & INFORMATION SERYICES 112100 SALARIES-TEACHER TEST ADMINISTRATOR 0.90 37,166 8,299 45,465 115000 SALARIES-OFFICE CLERICAL OAIV 0.50 14,455 4,137 18,592 Total 1.40 51,621 12,436 64,057 FUND 2410 BUILDING SERVICES 111400 SALARIES-OTHER MANAGEMENT COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT COORDINATOR 1.00 89,140 23,730 112,870 Total 1.00 89,140 23,730 112,870 FUND 2432 TRANSPORTATION SERYICES 117100 BUS DRIVER-ADDITIONAL TIME 0.00 74,315 5,685 80,000 Total 0.00 74,315 5,685 80,000 D~ ALBEMARLE COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS FY 2005-06 NEW POSITION SUMMARY Funded FTE Compensation Benefits Position Total FUND 2433 BUILDING SERVICES 111400 SAlARIES-OTHER MANAGEMENT WORK RELEASE COORDINATOR 0.50 31,350 9,245 40,595 116000 SALARIES-TRADES/MAINTENANCE GROWTH 0.65 15,216 6,473 21,689 HVAC MECHANIC 1.00 28,909 10,875 39,784 119100 SAlARIES-CUSTODIAN GROWTH 1.91 41,121 18,426 59,547 INCREASE TO 12 MONTH POSITIONS 0.78 21,319 1,632 22,951 Total 4.84 137,915 46,651 184,566 FUND 2556 SALARY RESTRUCTURING ACCOUNT 119999 SAlARY RESTRUCTURING SUB-RATE INCREASE 0.00 54,343 4,157 58,500 MARKET ADJUSTMENT 0.00 250,376 49,624 300,000 Total 0.00 304,719 53,781 358,500 ¡TOTAL NEW POSITIONS 34.13 1,596,753 481,570 2,078,323 J1~ -iff ~~) d-.5Lj, ~ 5' D;/ ~ ::¡. .,:0., ~ ;",..... " r -- FY 2005/06 School Data ~ TOTAL BUDGETED LAST NAME FIRST NAME TITLE COMPENSATION STIPENDS FICA RETIREMENT HEALTH DENTAL ABELL JEANETTE CLASSROOM TEACHER $51,566 * $3,945 $6,276 $5,860 $202 ABIDIN CHRISTINE 7-- CLASSROOM TEACHER $51,660 $3,952 $6,287 $5,660 $202 ACKERMAN-BOND JANET '7 CLASSROOM TEACHER $55,675 * $4,259 $6,776 $5,660 $202 ADAMS WAYNE Lf CLASSROOM TEACHER $53,472 $4,090 $6,506 $5,660 $202 ADLER ANNE MARIE 5 CLASSROOM TEACHER $46,391 * $3,549 $5,646 $5,660 $202 ALBRIGHT GEARY f., CLASSROOM TEACHER $49,981 * $3,624 $6,083 $5,860 $202 ALDRED REBECCA + CLASSROOM TEACHER $60,185 * $4,604 $7,325 $5,860 $202 ALDRETE FRAZER CECI f(, CLASSROOM TEACHER $50,769 $3,864 $6,179 $202 ALDRIDGE ROBIN q CLASSROOM TEACHER $54,176 $4,144 $6,594 $5,860 $202 ALLEN CALA I /? CLASSROOM TEACHER $48,071 $3,677 $5,650 $5,860 $202 ALLEN KATHY I ( CLASSROOM TEACHER $55,784 * $4,268 $6,769 $5,860 $202 ALLEN SUSAN 11. CLASSROOM TEACHER $48,561 * $3,715 $5,910 $5,860 $202 ALMAS CAROL ( > CLASSROOM TEACHER $60.165 * $4,604 $7,325 $5,660 $202 AMATUCCI DIANA l't CLASSROOM TEACHER $56,764 * $4,344 $6,911 $5,860 $202 AMBURN ANGELA 15 CLASSROOM TEACHER $54,972 * $4,205 $6,690 $5,860 $202 ANDERSON BRYAN I (, CLASSROOM TEACHER $50,071 $3,630 $6,094 $5,860 $202 ANDERSON CORLlS I ;rCLASSROOM TEACHER $54,284 $4,153 $6,606 $5,860 $202 ANDERSON ~ DOMINIQUE l C( CLASSROOM TEACHER $47,476 * $3.632 $5.776 $5,860 $202 ::; E ANDERSON MELISSA SENIOR SYSTEMS ENGINEER $56,646 $4,333 $5,098 $5,860 $202 ANDERSON REBECCA ( if CLASSROOM TEACHER $50,113 * $3,834 $6,099 $5,660 $202 ANDERSON RODEZ 7- 0 CLASSROOM TEACHER" $57,185 * $4,374 $6.959 $5,860 $202 ANHOLD SUSAN . ~( CLASSROOM TEACHER $45,391 $3,472 $5,524 $5,860 $202 ARCHER DIANE -z.'"1-CLASSROOM TEACHER $55,331 * $4,233 $6,734 $5,860 $202 ASHER / BROOKE z..;CLASSROOM TEACHER $54,378 * $4,159 $6,618 $5,860 $202 P ASHER JAMES ASST. PRINCIPAL - HIGH $77,898 $5,959 $9,460 $5,860 $202 ATKINS PATRICIA .;2~ CLASSROOM TEACHER $48,466 * $3,709 $5,901 $5,660 $202 AUFILL CAROL ~5 CLASSROOM TEACHER $55,685 $4,259 $6,777 $5,860 $202 AUST KIMBERLY 2(, CLASSROOM TEACHER $49,566 * $3,791 $6,032 $5,660 $202 AUST / NANCY Z 't-cLASSROOM TEACHER $55,665 $4,259 $6,777 $5,660 $202 P AVERY JEANETTE PRINCIPAL - ELEMENTARY SC $72,707 $5,562 $8,646 $5,660 $202 AYARS VIRGINIA Z g CLASSROOM TEACHER $46,401 * $3,703 $5,691 $5,660 $202 AYLOR SHERRY 2't CLASSROOM TEACHER $49,066 * $3,753 $5,971 $202 BABER COLLEEN 3D CLASSROOM TEACHER $54,126 * $4,141 $6,587 $5,660 $202 BABER DINA '3 t CLASSROOM TEACHER $50,901 * $3,694 $6,195 $5,660 $202 BAILEY HANNAH :3'"2..CLASSROOM TEACHER $47,061 * $3,600 $5,727 $5,660 $202 BAILEY JACQUELINE :3 ?CLASSROOM TEACHER $59,685 * $4,565 $7,264 $5,860 $202 @ FY 2005/06 School Data TOTAL BUDGETED LAST NAME FIRST NAME TITLE COMPENSATION STIPENDS FICA RETIREMENT HEALTH DENTAL BAIN KELL Y "3 t1 CLASSROOM TEACHER $48,901 $3,741 $5,951 $5,860 $202 BAIN LINDEN 35 CLASSROOM TEACHER $50,769 $3,884 $6,179 $5,1\60 $202 BAKER DODSON MARY 3'" CLASSROOM TEACHER $57.034 * $4,363 $6,941 $5,860 $202 BAKER / LISA ., ~LASSROOM TEACHER $51.071 * $3,907 $6,215 $5,860 $202 P BAKER . VICKIE ASST. PRINCIPAL - ELEMENT $67,432 $5,159 $8,206 $5,860 $202 BALLARD JEANNIE 3l'6 CLASSROOM TEACHER $49,363 $3,777 $6,007 $5,860 $202 f: BALSAM ,,)( WILLIAM FACILITIES-OPERATION SPEC $45,625 $3.491 $4,106 $5,860 $202 BANNISTER SUSAN 3 ~ CLASSROOM TEACHER $48,071 $3.677 $5,850 $5,860 $202 BANNISTER WILLIAM -1 D CLASSROOM TEACHER $55,878 $4.274 $6,800 $5,860 $202 BARANIK ALICIA -4 I CLASSROOM TEACHER $45,731 $3,498 $5,565 $5.860 $202 BARBER JUDITH q. )...CLASSROOM TEACHER $50,160 * $3,838 $6,104 $5,860 $202 BARBER TIFFANY 4 3 CLASSROOM TEACHER $47,051 * $3,599 $5,726 $5,860 $202 BARBERIO DENNIS 4- 4 CLASSROOM TEACHER $56,925 * $4,354 $6,928 $5.860 $202 BARES LESTER q '5 CLASSROOM TEACHER $54,081 * $4,137 $6,582 $5,860 $202 Þt BARNES I FITZGERALD ATHLETIC DIRECTOR - HIGH $67,217 $5,142 $8,180 $5,860 $202 BARRON MARC 4.'- CLASSROOM TEACHER $45,056 * $3,446 $5,483 $5,660 $202 BARTOLACCI LILLIAN q.4- CLASSROOM TEACHER $59,185 * $4,528 $7,203 $5,660 $202 ? BAYLOR} KATHRYN PRINCIPAl - MIDDLE SCHOOL $86,909 $6,648 $10,577 $5.860 $202 H ~ BEDNARCZYK / JEFFREY HUMAN RESOURCES MANAGER $53,767 $4,114 $6,543 $5,860 $202 BEGLEY KATHERINE "t i CLASSROOM TEACHER $49,901 $3,818 $6,073 $5,860 $202 EX()3EHRENS 'Á ELIZABETH EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, SUPPO $99,952 $7.350 $12,165 $5,860 $202 . B'ELCIK THELMA ~ i CLASSROOM TEACHER $46,646 * $3.568 $5,677 $202 BELL HARRIET ~ CLASSROOM TEACHER $53,972 * $4.129 $6,568 $5,860 $202 BEllUCCI SHARON S I CLASSROOM TEACHER $54,580 * $4,175 $6.642 $2,930 $202 BENOIT X JUNE oS ;W::LASSROOM TEACHER $48,986 * $3.747 $5,962 $5.860 $202 ¡.C BENSON , WILLIAM EXECt11'lVE DIRECTOR, CURRI $100,412 $7,357 $12,221 $5,860 $202 BERGIN ANNE 5 ~ CLASSROOM TEACHER $48,072 $3,678 $5,650 $5,860 $202 BERNHARDT GLENN ~ CLASSROOM TEACHER $49,310 * $3,772 $6.001 $5,860 $202 BERTOLA THEA 5 S CLASSROOM TEACHER $54.222 * $4,148 $6,599 $5,860 $202 BERTRAND CAROLINE .5 '- CLASSROOM TEACHER $48.816 * $3,735 $5,941 $5,860 $202 BESANCON MAY ADA S1CLASSROOM TEACHER $53,581 $4,099 $6,521 $202 BEVERLY ANGELA 5~ CLASSROOM TEACHER $51,571 * $3,945 $6,276 $5.860 $202 BIASIOLLl ELEANOR 5 ~ CLASSROOM TEACHER $59,685 * $4.565 $7,264 $5,860 $202 BICKERS CHARLENE /, () CLASSROOM TEACHER $55,685 $4,259 $6,777 $5,860 $202 BILLUPS JOANNE 'I CLASSROOM TEACHER $46,901 $3,588 $5,708 $5.660 $202 BIRCKHEAD JACQUELIN . ,"-CLASSROOM TEACHER $54.581 * $4,175 $6.643 $5,860 $202 @ FY 2005/06 School Data TOTAL BUDGETED LAST NAME FIRST NAME TITLE COMPENSATION STIPENDS FICA RETIREMENT HEALTH DENTAL BLOOM BETSY t'3 CLASSROOM TEACHER $46,726 * $3,575 $5,667 $5,860 $202 BLOOM PATRICIA (. tf CLASSROOM TEACHER $56,378 * $4,312 $6,861 $202 BOHANNON DOTTY (. 5 CLASSROOM TEACHER $59,185 * $4,527 $7,203 $5,860 $202 BOLEN TINA J. (,. CLASSROOM TEACHER $46,231 * $3,536 $5,626 $5,860 $202 BOOTH MARY ANN (,¡ CLASSROOM TEACHER $58,535 * $4,478 $7,124 $5,860 $202 BOUCHER-CARPENTER C ? ~ CLASSROOM TEACHER $50,066 $3,830 $6,093 $5,860 $202 BOWEN NANCY (,'1 CLASSROOM TEACHER $48,731 * $3,728 $5,931 $5,860 $202 BOYD LYNN 10 CLASSROOM TEACHER $57,435 * $4,394 $6,990 $5,660 $202 BOYER JUDITH '4-1 CLASSROOM TEACHER $56,935 * $4,356 $6,929 $5,860 $202 BRADBURY CHERYL ::¡.--z.CLASSROOM TEACHER $58,080 * $4,443 $7,068 $5,860 $202 BRADFIELD LUCINDA :¡...?CLASSROOM TEACHER $56,764 * $4,344 $6,911 $5,860 $202 BRADLEY PAMELA ::¡ L- CLASSROOM TEACHER $50,066 $3,830 $6,093 $5,860 $202 BRAGG KENNETH 7-'1 CLASSROOM TEACHER $56.185 * $4,298 $6,838 $5,860 $202 BREEDLOVE TIMOTHY :;.(, CLASSROOM TEACHER $56,580 $4,328 $6,886 $5,860 $202 BRENNAN JANE :¡.1-cLASSROOM TEACHER $49,421 * $3,781 $6,015 $202 BRIDGEFORTH RUTH ::H{ CLASSROOM TEACHER $53,175 * $4,068 $6,471 $5,660 $202 BRIGHAM MICHELE :r'1 CLASSROOM TEACHER $60,785 * $4,649 $7,397 $3,868 $202 BRITT THERESA t¿ () CLASSROOM TEACHER $50,066 $3,830 $6,093 $5,860 $202 BRITTINGHAM F. MICH «I CLASSROOM TEACHER $51,916 $3,972 $5,274 $182 BROADBENT ROXANNE 't 1. CLASSROOM TEACHER $56,534 * $4,325 $6.880 $5,860 $202 BROADUS ELAINE ~1CLASSROOM TEACHER $50,816 * $3,888 $6,184 $5,860 $202 BRODERSEN REIMER '61 CLASSROOM TEACHER $45,391 $3,473 $5,524 $5,860 $202 BROOKS-DAVIS CHERYL gSCLASSROOM TEACHER $48,571 * $3,715 $5,911 $5,860 $202 BROWN DAVIS CHERYL ~l CLASSROOM TEACHER $63.784 * $4,880 $7,763 $5,860 $202 BROWN JR WARREN ~rCLASSROOM TEACHER $60,685 * $4,642 $7,385 $5,860 $202 BROWN ELAINE i ~ CLASSROOM TEACHER $55,987 * $4,283 $6.814 $5,860 $202 BROWN MAURY ~ ~ CLASSROOM TEACHER $50,171 * $3,839 $6,106 $5,860 $202 BROWN PATRICIA crt) CLASSROOM TEACHER $50,363 * $3,853 $6,129 $202 BROWN / PAULA q CLASSROOM TEACHER $53,566 * $4,0(18 $6,519 $5,860 $202 G BROWN (' YVONNE HIGH SCHOOL GUIDANCE DIRE $70,312 $5,379 $8,557 $5,860 $202 BROWNIN VERONA f2 CLASSROOM TEACHER $54,987 $4,208 $6,692 $5,860 $202 BROWNLEE DIANE q 'fLASSROOM TEACHER $5~, 185 * $4,527 $7,203 $5,860 $202 BRYAN ELSIE c¡ tf CLASSROOM TEACHER $56,987 $4,359 $6,935 $5,860 $202 BRYANT JAMES q5'CLASSROOM TEACHER $52,175 $3,992 $6,350 $5,660 $202 BRYANT MARY qt.CLASSROOM TEACHER $58,935 * $4,509 $7,172 $5,860 $202 BRYANT SHARON 'i.:rcLASSROOM TEACHER $57,222 * $4,378 $6,964 $3,516 $202 G FY 2005/06 School Data TOTAL BUDGETED LAST NAME FIRST NAME TITLE COMPENSATION STIPENDS FICA RETIREMENT HEALTH DENTAL BUCKNER CAROL q g CLASSROOM TEACHER $58,284 * $4,459 $7,093 $5,860 $202 BUGLlA THOMAS 'i f CLASSROOM TEACHER $52,836 * $4,027 $6,406 $5,860 $202 BUNIN JOHN I þ f> CLASSROOM TEACHER $47,551 * $3,637 $5.767 $5,860 $202 BURG KATHLEEN I (/ ( CLASSROOM TEACHER $58,534 * $4,478 $7,124 $5,860 $202 BURKE DAVID I 0 2- CLASSROOM TEACHER $52,876 $4,045 $6.435 $5.860 $202 BURNETTE KELLYANN D 3 CLASSROOM TEACHeR $46,561 $3,561 $5,666 $5,860 $202 BURNETTE LUCY D ~CLASSROOM TEACHER $53,722 * $4,110 $6,538 $5,860 $202 BURROWBRIDGe VIRGIN fD CLASSROOM TEACHER $52,863 * $4,045 $6,433 $5,860 $202 BURTON THERESA ID' CLASSROOM TEACHER $55,581 $4,252 $6,764 $202 BUTLER DIANE I () t-cLASSROOM TEACHER $51,472 $3,937 $6,264 $5,860 $202 BUTLER DWIGHT It> QCLASSROOM TEACHER $55,175 $4,221 $6,715 $202 BUTLER LINDA ')~CLASSROOM TEACHER $58,685 * $4,489 $7,142 $5.860 $202 CAMPBELL DEN lESE II t> CLASSROOM TEACHER $52,269 * $3,999 $6,361 $5,860 $202 CAMPBELL LAURETTA II t CLASSROOM TEACHER $47,986 * $3,671 $5,840 $5,860 $202 CARPENTER JEFFREY I 2. CLASSROOM TEACHER $45,051 * $3,446 $5,483 $5,860 $202 CARROLL JOHN II ~ CLASSROOM TeACHER $45,646 * $3,492 $5,555 $202 CARTER F. THOMAS II L.CLASSROOM TEACHER $53,722 * $4,110 $6,538 $5,860 $202 CASH-HOELSCHER / SHAR MANAGEMENT ANALYST $53,116 $4,063 $6,464 $5,860 $202 CASS CYNTHIA II tJ CLASSROOM TEACHER - ~ $3.939 $6,266 $5.860 $202 ~ASTNER .¥.. KEVI~ - DIVISION SUPERINTENDENT 0 $179,136 ** $10.854 $21,802 $5,860 $202 - CATLETT JANELLE 4 CLASSROOM TEACHER $52.Ti3 ... S3.967 $6,342 $ZUZ' CECALUPO JACQUELINE lIt CLASSROOM TEACHER $53,269 * $4,075 $6,483 $5,860 $202 CHANEY WALTER /I ~ CLASSROOM TEACHER $47,146 $3,607 $5,738 $5,860 $202 CHAPMAN JAMESL Y I ~ CLASSROOM TEACHER $48,901 $3.741 $5,951 $5,860 $202 CHURCH COLLEEN ¡ 2DCLASSROOM TEACHER $53.580 $4,098 $6,520 $5,860 $202 CLARK CAROL 12./ CLASSROOM TEACHER $47,391 * $3,625 $5,767 $5,860 $202 CLARK DIANE I '2.'ZCLASSROOM TEACHER $53,072 * $4,060 $6,459 $5,860 $202 CLARK SHIRLEY I 'ÜCLASSROOM TEACHER $57,685 $4,412 $7,020 $5,860 $202 CLAY / MATTHEW Jl~ CLASSROOM TEACHER $46,947 * $3,592 $5,713 $5,660 $202 tt ~ CLEMMONSNAZEER MITS HUMAN RESOURCES MANAGER $62,256 $4,763 $7,577 $5,860 $202 CLINE JILL I ~ S CLASSROOM TEACHER $45,811 * $3,504 $5,575 $5,860 $202 COFFMAN CATHERINE I Lt,CLASSROOM TEACHER $47,146 $3,607 $5,738 $5,860 $202 COLEMAN JEFFREY I 2. :f<;LASSROOM TEACHER $45,976 $3,518 $5,595 $5,860 $202 COLEMAN :¡: VIRGINIA Z CCLASSROOM TEACHER $48,401 * $3,703 $5,890 $5,860 $202 1t: COLLINS . . DAREN ASST. DIRECTOR, TECHNOLOG $63,560 $6,393 $10,169 $5,860 $202 * COLLINS ì.-\ DEBORA ASST DIR, FeDERAL PGMS, G $83,209 $6,365 $10,127 $5,860 $202 ~ FY 2005/06 School Data TOTAL BUDGETED LAST NAME FIRST NAME TITLE COMPENSATION STIPENDS FICA RETIREMENT HEALTH DENTAL CONRAD / ANNE ~ CLASSROOM TEACHER $57,665 * $4,412 $7,020 $5,660 $202 P COUGHLIN ANNE PRINCIPAL - HIGH SCHOOL $107,106 $7,454 $13,035 $5,660 $202 COUGHLIN DENNIS ¡ 3 Q CLASSROOM TEACHER $50,769 $3,664 $6,179 $5,860 $202 COURTENAY / CHRISTINA 1:3( CLASSROOM TEACHER $52,086 $3,963 $6,336 $5,860 $202 P COUSINS,J KIMBERLY PRINCIPAL - ELEMENTARY SC $72,707 $5,562 $6,848 $5,860 $202 CRADDOCK SUSAN I 32- CLASSROOM TEACHER $56,435 * $4,317 $6,866 $5,860 $202 CRAIG THOMAS i)' CLASSROOM TEACHER $60,165 * $4.604 $7,325 $5,860 $202 CRANE JOHN I '31. CLASSROOM TEACHER $54,081 * $4,137 $202 P CRAWFORD v' JEFFREY ASST. PRINCIPAL - MIDDLE $74,730 $5,717 $9,095 $5,660 $202 CROCKER KAY ! } ~ CLASSROOM TEACHER $55,269 * $4,228 $6,726 $5,660 $202 CROCKETT MARK L ,,- CLASSROOM TEACHER $59,665 $4,565 $7,264 $5,660 $202 CRONE /. JOETTE I ~ t CLASSROOM TEACHER $49,461 * $3,785 $6,022 $5,660 $202 G CRONEIS SEAY CHERYL HIGH SCHOOL GUIDANCE DIRE $69,265 $5,301 $8,432 $5,860 $202 CROSBY MARTHA { .3 ß CLASSROOM TEACHER $50,660 $3,676 $6,165 $5,860 $202 CRUMMIE GWEDETTE I YI CLASSROOM TEACHER $50,571 * $3.666 $6,154 $5,860 $202 CULPEPPER PATRICIA (.I.\ 0 CLASSROOM TEACHER $55,061 * $4,214 $6,703 $5,660 $202 CUNNINGHAM FAY I '-1\ CLASSROOM TEACHER $64,034 * $4,698 $7,793 $5,860 $202 CURRY . MARVIN I£. Æ:LASSROOM TEACHER $69,411 * $5,311 $8,447 $5,860 $202 P CUSHMAN I DAVID PRINCIPAL - ELEMENTARY SC $81,890 $6,264 $9,966 $5,860 $202 CUTRIGHT JUDY I ~PCLASSROOM TEACHER $56,685 $4 ,489 $7,142 $5.660 $202 DALY WILLIAM I -ÞtCLASSROOM TEACHER $47,146 $3,606 $5,737 $5,660 $202 D'ANTONI X JEANNE IIf ~LASSROOM TEACHER $49,363 $3,777 $6,007 $5,660 $202 S DAUGHDRill DONAlO SR SUPPORT ANALYST, SCHOO $46,640 $3,583 $5,700 $5,860 $202 DAUGHERTY BilLIE /4 /.. CLASSROOM TEACHER $55,665 $4,259 $6,777 $5,860 $202 DAVIDSON PETER 4 rcLASSROOM TEACHER $60,935 * $4,662 $7,416 $5,660 $202 DAVIDSON PHYLLIS I If 'tLASSROOM TEACHER $56,987 * $4,359 $6,935 $5,660 $202 ¡' P DAVIES I SUE ASST. PRINCIPAL - ELEMENT $63,996 $4,896 $7.788 $202 DAVIS ALEXANDRA ILl 1 CLASSROOM TEACHER $45,806 * $3,504 $5,575 $5,860 $202 DAVIS GREGORY I SOCLASSROOM TEACHER $52,972 * $4,052 $6,447 $5,660 $202 DAVIS JUDITH 51 CLASSROOM TEACHER $55,685 $4,259 $6,777 $5,860 $202 DAVIS PAMELA 5~LASSROOM TEACHER $47,476 * $3,632 $5,778 $5,660 $202 DAWSON CORRIE /5'3CLASSROOM TEACHER $58,435 $4,4 70 $7,112 $5,660 $202 DAY I KATHERINE I S4:LASSROOM TEACHER $46,731 $3,728 $5,931 $5,860 $202 L¡) DEAlE SELINA WEB ANALYST $51,781 $3,961 $6,302 $5,860 $202 DEAN \~ PAMELA 55 CLASSROOM TEACHER / $55,878 $4,274 $6,800 $5,860 $202 f DEANE . LOUIN SUPERVISOR OF FACILITIES $51,072 $3,907 $4,596 $5,860 $202 ® FY 2005/06 School Data TOTAL BUDGETED LAST NAME FIRST NAME TITLE COMPENSATION STIPENDS FICA RETIREMENT HEALTH DENTAL DEERING EUGENIA I ";)J- CLASSROOM TEACHER $46,696 * $3,566 $5,707 $5,860 $202 DEGOOD HILDRENE I S 1- CLASSROOM TEACHER $56,264 $4,306 $6,850 $5,660 $202 DEGROAT / DONNA 15« CLASSROOM TEACHER $51,736 * $3.958 $6,297 $5,860 $202 P DEL GALLO¡/' MICHELE PRINCIPAL - ELEMENTARY SC $82.828 $6.336 $10,081 $5,860 $202 DEMAIO FRANCES l 51 CLASSROOM TEACHER $46,071 $3.677 $5,650 $5,660 $202 DERRY JEANNE I (.D CLASSROOM TEACHER $56,284 $4,305 $6.849 $5,860 $201 DEWITT NANCY ¡ ¡, ¡CLASSROOM TEACHER $57,987 $4,436 $7.057 $5.860 $202 DIEFENDERFER LISA ~LASSROOM TEACHER $48.566 * $3.715 $5.910 $5,860 $202 DIERKING ROBIN I ,,)CLASSROOM TEACHER $47,811 * $3,657 $5,819 $5,860 $202 DIKE EDWARD L t CLASSROOM TEACHER $51,863 * $3,966 $6,312 $202 DIXON CATHERINE Il.5CLASSROOM TEACHER $53,472 $4,090 $6,508 $5,860 $202 DIXON J SUSAN f .l.CLASSROOM TEACHER $52,863 * $4,045 $6,433 $5,860 $202 DOHERTY I THERESA ¡'-"CLASSROOM TEACHER $55.972 * $4,262 $6,812 $5,860 $202 P DOMECQ GREGORY ASSOC. PRINCIPAL· HIGH $80,851 $6.186 $9,639 $202 DOSS VICTORIA / " tcLASSROOM TEACHER $56,435 * $4,317 $6,868 $5,860 $202 DOUGHERTY KATHERINE I (.. ~CLASSROOM TEACHER $45,731 $3,498 $5.565 $5,860 $202 DOVEL CONSTANCE I '" iCLASSROOM TEACHER $55,034 * $4,210 $6,698 $5,860 $202 DOVEL THOMAS / 1lCLASSROOM TEACHER $58,185 * $4,451 $7,061 $5,860 $202 DREYER MARY !1-\ CLASSROOM TEACHER $46,146 * $3,683 $5,859 $5,660 $202 DUDLEY KATINA \.:¡..:z.. CLASSROOM TEACHER $47,471 * $3,631 $5,777 $5,860 $202 DULANEY REBECCA (H CLASSROOM TEACHER $58.764 * $4,497 $7,154 $5,860 $202 DUNSMORE PAULA -+ ~ CLASSROOM TEACHER $54,128 * $4,141 $6,587 $5,860 $202 EX 'V DWIER-SELOEN V\ ALISON COORDINATOR - INSTRUCTION $74,030 $5,662 $9,010 $4,395 $202 POYER ./ JOSEPH ASSOC. PRINCIPAL - HIGH $81,191 $6,211 $9,881 $5.860 $202 DYER JULIA 11- 5 CLASSROOM TEACHER $54,769 * $4,190 $6,665 $5,860 $202 (; EALY I NANCY I:¡..L,. CLASSROOM TEACHER $46,561 $3,562 $5,666 $5,860 $202 EAST CAROLINE HIGH SCHOOL GUIDANCE DIRE $69,034 $5,281 $6.401 $5,660 $202 EASTER EMILY J 11- CLASSROOM TEACHER $56,284 $4,306 $6,850 $5,860 $202 EATON SUSAN I "}- t¿ CLASSROOM TEACHER $51,363 $3,930 $6,251 $202 EDDY DELEANNA I =t l' CLASSROOM TEACHER $47,486 $3,633 $5,779 $5,860 $202 :p EDWARDS BARBARA PRINCIPAL - ELEMENTARY SC $84,062 $6,431 $10,231 $5,860 $202 EIDEN JANICE f ~ c> CLASSROOM TEACHER $48,401 * $3,703 $5,690 $5,860 $202 EISENHUTH GARY I 91 CLASSROOM TEACHER $52,816 $4,041 $5,274 $182 ELGORT VIRGINIA I "ZCLASSROOM TEACHER $56,499 $4,322 $6,876 $5,860 $202 ELLIOTT MARIAN J q .3 CLASSROOM TEACHER $55,685 $4,259 $6,777 $202 ELY MICHAEL ~ ~ CLASSROOM TEACHER $59,185 * $4.527 $7,203 $5,860 $202 ~ FY 2005/06 School Data TOTAL BUDGETED LAST NAME FIRST NAME TITLE COMPENSATION STIPENDS FICA RETIREMENT HEALTH DENTAL .. ENDAHl X. JAMIE DIR, PROF DEV, MEDIA SER. $81,114 $6,204 $9.872 $5,860 $202 EPPS GAIL , '6 ~ CLASSROOM TEACHER $55,628 .. $4,256 $6,770 $5,860 $202 -. EVANS I>( WILLIAM COORDINATOR -INSTRUCTION $65,577 $5,017 $7,981 $5,860 $202 FAGAN GARY I ~" CLASSROOM TEACHER $62,685 .. $4,795 $7,629 $5,860 $202 FAGAN PHYLLIS /~':1- CLASSROOM TEACHER $52,472 .. $4,014 $6,386 $5,860 $202 FAITH ANDREA o/i CLASSROOM TEACHER $54,331 .. $4,157 $6,612 $5,860 $202 FALLON )( PAULA 1q CLASSROOM TEACHER $52,066 $3,983 $6,336 $5,860 $202 . FARRELL', PATRICK COORDINATOR OF SPECIAL ED $65,940 $5,044 $8,025 $5,860 $202 FECHTMANN FREDDIE L q (I CLASSROOM TEACHER $50,486 $3,862 $6,144 $5,860 $202 FELLOWS ,,- PHILIP q { CLASSRQOM TEACHER $57,487 .. $4,398 $6,996 $4,688 $202 P FERGUSON../ LINDA PRINCIPAl- ELEMENTARY SC $82,994 $6,349 $10,101 $5,860 $202 FERRER KAREN q 1. CLASSROOM TEACHER $49,901 $3,817 $6.073 $5,860 $202 FIELDS MARIA q3 CLASSROOM TEACHER $46,226 .. $3,536 $5,626 $5,860 $202 E.-t FISHER X REBECCA ASST DIRECTOR FOR BEST PR $86,506 $6,619 $10,528 $5,860 $202 FITZGERALD BONNIE q 4 CLASSROOM TEACHER $59,185 .. $4,527 $7,203 $5,860 $202 FLADD SUZANNE QS CLASSROOM TEACHER $48,660 $3,723 $5,922 $202 FLE;ETWOOD KAREN r'- CLASSROOM TEACHER $53,863 .. $4,121 $6,555 $5,860 $202 FLINT THOMAS 91- CLASSROOM TEACHER $59,435 .. $4,547 $7,233 $5,860 $202 FLORY STEPHANY 'i~ CLASSROOM TEACHER $52,769 $4,037 $6,422 $5,860 $202 FLYNN-BOND MARY q~ CLASSROOM TEACHER $56,378 .. $4,312 $6,861 $5,860 $202 FORMAN VIRGINIA d. 0 OCLASSROOM TEACHER $55,878 $4.274 $6,800 $5,860 $202 FOSS DONALD DI CLASSROOM TEACHER $63,845 * $4,884 $7,770 $5,860 $202 FOSS M, JEAN P;;¿ CLASSROOM TEACHER $58,685 .. $4,489 $7,142 $5,860 $202 FOUTZ R. STEPHEN D 3 CLASSROOM TEACHER $72,331 .. $5,533 $8,803 $5,860 $202 FOWLER JEAN Þ 1" CLASSROOM TEACHER $55,685 $4,259 $6,777 $5,860 $202 FOX ANNE t> ~ CLASSROOM TEACHER $49,363 $3,777 $6,007 $5,860 $202 FOX ;j CINDY b (. CLASSROOM TEACHER $45,476 .. $3,479 $5,534 $202 F FRANCIS ' ALBERT ENERGY MANAGEMENT TECHNIC $53,424 $4,087 $4,808 $5,860 $202 FRANCIS DAVID ASST, PRINCIPAL - HIGH $46,268 - W2.L.. - ~ $1Oi - b=tCLASSROOM TEACHER * FRANCO JUDITH $49,986 $3,824 $6,083 $5,860 $202 FREEMAN í ALLEN b ~ CLASSROOM TEACHER $51,916 $3,972 $5,274 $182 PFREEMAN JANE COORDINATOR -INSTRUCTION $76,565 $5,857 $9,318 $5,860 $202 FREIMAN-CARLISLE HE 61 CLASSROOM TEACHER $53.472 $4,090 $6,508 $5,860 $202 GALLIGAN MARY I 0 CLASSROOM TEACHER $57,487 .. $4,398 $6,996 $5,860 $202 GAMBLE CONSTANCE II CLASSROOM TEACHER $57,685 $4,412 $7,020 $5,860 $202 GARCIA KATHLEEN I "2-CLASSROOM TEACHER $50,660 $3.876 $6,165 $5,860 $202 ~ FY 2005/06 School Data TOTAL BUDGETED LAST NAME FIRST NAME TITLE COMPENSATION STIPENDS FICA RETIREMENT HEALTH DENTAL GARLAND KAREN ;;) Lt\ CLASSROOM TEACHER $51,972 * $3,976 $6,325 $5,860 $202 GARNETT JAMES i./2 CLASSROOM TEACHER $55,685 $4,259 $6,777 $5,860 $202 GARNETT JILL LJ- 3 CLASSROOM TEACHER $53,581 $4,099 $6.521 $5,860 $202 GARRISON DOLLY qifCLASSROOM TEACHER $58,685 $4.489 $7,142 $5,860 $202 GATLING-AUSTIN BRUC :tè CLASSROOM TEACHER $45,386 * $3.472 $5,523 $5,860 $202 GAUSS ERIK CLASSROOM TEACHER $46,561 $3,562 $5,666 $5,860 $202 GEISSLER FREDRICK LR- CLASSROOM TEACHER $45.801 * $3,503 $5,573 $5,861 $202 GENTRY DAVID OPERATIONS MANAGER $48,475 $3,708 $4,363 $5,860 $202 GENTRY MARIANNE ..¡. '6 CLASSROOM TEACHER $58,185 * $4.451 $7,081 $5,860 $202 H R,GEROME ¡- LORNA HR MANAGER, COMPENSATION $82,998 $6,350 $10,101 $5,860 $202 GIBSON ALICE Ltc¡ CLASSROOM TEACHER $58,685 $4.489 $7,142 $5,860 $202 GIBSON CYNTHIA SO CLASSROOM TEACHER $56,935 * $4,356 $6,929 $5,860 $202 GIBSON KIMBERLY .5'( CLASSROOM TEACHER $49,316 $3,773 $6,002 $202 GISSENiNNER STEVEN :) ~ CLASSROOM TEACHER $45,556 * $3,485 $5,544 $5,860 $202 'f GLASS LISA PROJECT MANAGER $59,305 $4,537 $5,337 $5,860 $202 GLOVER CATHERINE .s.3 CLASSROOM TEACHER $45,146 $3.454 $5,494 $202 GODBOLD SHARON S 1 CLASSROOM TEACHER $56,534 * $4,325 $6,880 $5,860 $202 GOFORTH CARRIE 5 CLASSROOM TEACHER $49,901 * $3,818 $6,073 $5,860 $202 GOODLOE KAREN .5 (.. CLASSROOM TEACHER $50,986 * $3,900 $6,205 $202 GOODRICH DIANE 'Sf- CLASSROOM TEACHER $62,237 * $4,761 $7,574 $5,860 $202 GOUGH LAURA LINDLEY Sl CLASSROOM TEACHER $57,185 * $4,374 $6,959 $5,860 $202 GOURDET LESL Y .5 'ì CLASSROOM TEACHER $48,321 * $3,697 $5,881 $5,860 $202 GRANT/ SUZANNE (..0 CLASSROOM TEACHER $55,784 * $4,268 $6,789 $202 HeGRAY JOHN HUMAN RESOURCES MANAGER $73,641 $5,634 $8,962 $5,860 $202 £~ GREEN ~ CHARLENE COORDINATOR -INSTRUCTION $83,325 $6,375 $10,140 $5,860 $202 GREEN GARY Ie. I CLASSROOM TEACHER $46,901 $3,588 $5,708 $5,860 $202 GREEN MARK (, ì.- CLASSROOM TEACHER $45,136 * $3.452 $5.493 $5,860 $202 GREENE.,; ALLISON ¡,., CLASSROOM TEACHER $45,306 * $3.466 $5,514 $5,860 $202 P GRIDER ANDREW PRINCIPAL - ELEMENTARY SC $80,700 $6,173 $9,822 $5,860 $202 GRIM NANCY ~1 CLASSROOM TEACHER $57,685 $4.412 $7,020 $5,860 $202 GRISSOM MARGARET f, '5 CLASSROOM TEACHER $49,651 * $3,798 $6,043 $202 GROPPER MARY-JOSEPH ~ (, CLASSROOM TEACHER $54,988 $4.208 $6,692 $5,860 $202 GROVE MARCIA ~~ CLASSROOM TEACHER $46,061 * $3,524 $5,606 $5,860 $202 GRUBBS DAVID ~ C6 CLASSROOM TEACHER $50.401 * $3,856 $6,134 $5,660 $202 GUERRANTJR WILLIAM ~ &) CLASSROOM TEACHER $53,066 $4,059 $6.458 $5,860 $202 GUERRANT SUSAN ~ =r ¿¡CLASSROOM TEACHER $53,519 * $4,094 $6,513 $5,860 $202 @ FY 2005/06 School Data TOTAL BUDGETED LAST NAME FIRST NAME TITLE COMPENSATION STIPENDS FICA RETIREMENT HEALTH DENTAL GUM DENIKA I 3 CLASSROOM TEACHER $48,731 * $3,728 $5,931 $5,860 $202 GUNSALLUS ANNABEL IIf CLASSROOM TEACHER $57,685 $4,412 $7,020 $5,860 $202 P HAAS~ MATTHEW PRINCIPAL - HIGH SCHOOL $94,559 $6,951 $11,508 $5,860 $202 HAAS SARA 5 CLASSROOM TEACHER $45,636 * $3,491 $5,554 $5,860 $202 HADDOCK JAMES l{.. CLASSROOM TEACHER $57,685 $4,412 $7,021 $5,860 $202 HAIRSTON /' GWENDOLYN I =t-CLASSROOM TEACHER $55,284 * $4,229 $6,728 $5,860 $202 P HAIRSTON LESTER PRINCIPAL - MIDDLE SCHOOL $94,649 $7,240 $11,519 $5,860 $202 HALL MARY I ~ CLASSROOM TEACHER $54,784 * $4,191 $6,667 $5,860 $202 HAMBLIN BONNIE I ~ CLASSROOM TEACHER $57,284 * $4.383 $6,971 $5,860 $202 P HAMMON KEITH PRINCIPAL· ELEMENTARY SC $93,793 $7,175 $11,415 $5,860 $202 HAMPT SUJATHA 2..0 COORDINATOR -INSTRUCTION $67,711 $5,180 $8,240 $5,860 $202 HANEY LISA 2-1 CLASSROOM TEACHER $46,231 * $3,536 $5,626 $5,860 $202 HANE MARGARET 21- CLASSROOM TEACHE;R $54,284 $4,153 $6,606 $5,860 $202 AN INS THOMAS 23. CLASSROOM TEACHER $45,136 * $3,452 $5,493 $5.860 $202 HÀ ELL MICHAEL 2. .: CLASSROOM TEACHER $46,901 $3,588 $5,708 $5,860 $202 HANSELL SARAH 2$ CLASSROOM TEACHER $46,316 $3,544 $5,637 $5,860 $202 HARDER PATRICIA £...(.. CLASSROOM TEACHER $60.885 * $4,843 $7,385 $5,860 $202 HARDING JUDITH "21-CLASSROOM TEACHER $53,066 $4,059 $6,458 $5,860 $202 HARGRAVE SHARLENE 1. «6CLASSROOM TEACHER $58,685 $4,489 $7,142 $5,860 $202 tie HARPER fC') / SANDRA FISCAL SERVICES ASSISTANT $50,844 $3,889 $6,188 $5,860 $202 HARRELL CAROL 2. q CLASSROOM TEACHER $45,976 $3,518 $5,595 $202 HARRIS CHERYL 30 CLASSROOM TEACHER $52,769 $4,037 $6,422 $5,860 $202 HARRIS LISA 31 CLASSROOM TEACHER $56,685 * $4,336 $6,899 $5,860 $202 HARTLEY STEVEN 3 Z.CLASSROOM TEACHER $47,561 * $3,639 $5,788 $5,860 $202 ? HASTINGS / CAROLE PRINCIPAL - ELEMENTARY SC $97,322 $7,270 $11,844 $202 HATCHETT YULANDA '3 ~ CLASSROOM TEACHER $47,651 * $3,645 $5,799 $202 HAUN INDIA 3'-\ CLASSROOM TEACHER $49,486 $3,786 $6,022 $5,860 $202 P HAUN I JOHN PRINCIPAL - HIGH SCHOOL $97,740 $7,318 $11,895 $5,860 $202 HAZLETT JEFFREY 3., CLASSROOM TEACHER $46,816 * $3,582 $5,698 $5,860 $202 HENDERSON I GLEN 3 (" CLASSROOM TEACHER $52,160 * $3,990 $6,348 $5,860 $202 1> HENDERSON SYLVIA PRINCIPAL - ELEMENTARY SC $92,681 $7,106 $11.304 $5,860 $202 HENDRIX STEPHEN 3 :t- CLASSROOM TEACHER $51,401 * $3,932 $6,256 $5,860 $202 HENDRIX VICKI ~ 'I CLASSROOM TEACHER $51,566 * $3,945 $6,276 $202 HENNINGER SARAH '3i CLASSROOM TEACHER $45,976 $3,518 $5,595 $5,860 $202 HENRY WILLIAM 40 CLASSROOM TEACHER $52,878 $4,045 $6,435 $5,660 $202 HENSCHEL SUSAN It ~ CLASSROOM TEACHER $54,878 $4,198 $6,679 $5,860 $202 G FY 2005/06 School Data iOTAl BUDGETED A LAS) NAME FIRST NAME TITLE COMPENSATION STIPENDS FICA RETIREMENT HEALTH DENTAL HEON ./r STEVEN ATHLETIC DIRECTOR - HIGH $62.669 $4.794 $7,627 $202 HEPLER NANCY if I CLASSROOM TEACHER $55,935 * $4,279 $6,807 $5.860 $202 HEPLER WAYNE :t 2. CLASSROOM TEACHER $57.685 $4,412 $7.020 $5,860 $202 HIATT JEAN ~ CLASSROOM TEACHER $48,901 $3,741 $5,952 $5,450 $202 HIGGINS DEBORAH +~ CLASSROOM TEACHER $60.185 * $4,604 $7,325 $5.860 $202 HILGARTNER LISA 1-5 CLASSROOM TEACHER $46.141 * $3,530 $5,615 $202 HILL LINDA ..:¡. (. CLASSROOM TEACHER $57,128 * $4,370 $6,952 $5.860 $202 HILL MARY ~-:¡CLASSROOM TEACHER $51 .472 $3,937 $6,264 $5,860 $202 HILLEARY LYNN :z.~ CLASSROOM TEACHER $59,237 * $4,532 $7,209 $5,860 $202 HOFFMAN PAULA 3-í CLASSROOM TEACHER $54,769 $4.190 $6,665 $5.860 $202 HOFFMAN-LATTER DORI t,¡O CLASSROOM TEACHER $57,487 * $4,398 $6.996 $5,860 $202 HOGLE LINDA ~( CLASSROOM TEACHER $57,987 $4.436 $7,057 $5,860 $202 HOLDEN SUSAN ~'2.CLASSROOM TEACHER $55,769 * $4,267 $6,787 $5,860 $202 HOLLAND MILDRED '6'CLASSROOM TEACHER $53,972 * $4,129 $6,568 $5,860 $202 HOLUB ROBERT ~1 CLASSROOM TEACHER $58,685 $4.489 $7,142 $5,860 $202 HOOPER CYNTHIA 8S CLASSROOM TEACHER $50,566 * $3,868 $6,154 $5,860 $202 HORWITZ LYNN U CLASSROOM TEACHER $52,769 $4,037 $6.422 $5,860 $202 , HOWARD i MARCHA ASST. PRINCIPAL - MIDDLE $73,766 $5,643 $8,978 $5,860 $202 5 HOWEN SHERRARD EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR (POSA) $100,412 $7,357 $12,221 $5,860 $202 HOWETH TIM ~ '1-CLASSROOM TEACHER $47,986 * $3.671 $5,840 $5,860 $202 HOZA LAN I <d'6CLASSROOM TEACHER $54.071 * $4,137 $6,580 $5,860 $202 HUDGINSf.i EDWIN 1'1 CLASSROOM TEACHER $55,685 $4.259 $6,777 $5,860 $202 .p HUGHES '. ~ FRANCINE ASST. PRINCIPAL - HIGH $81,175 $6,210 $9,879 $5,860 $202 Ø;UGHES' KEVIN EXECUTIVE DIR., DIVISION $100,412 $7,357 $12,221 $5,860 $202 UGHES ~ PATRICIA COORDINATOR - INSTRUCTION $70,120 $5.365 $8,534 $5,860 $202 HUGHES SUE '( D CLASSROOM TEACHER $59.185 * $4,527 $7,203 $5.860 $202 HULL SUSAN ti/ CLASSROOM TEACHER $57,331 * $4.385 $6,978 $5,860 $202 HUNEYCUTT BARBARA 'f-¡' CLASSROOM TEACHER $47.731 $3,651 $5,809 $5.860 $202 HUNEYCUTT JAMES q }CLASSROOM TEACHER $53,486 * $4,092 $6,509 $5,860 $202 HUNT CARLA If\{-CLASSROOM TEACHER $59,737 * $4.570 $7,270 $5,860 $202 HUTCHINS BERNICE tf5CLASSROOM TEACHER $53,581 $4.099 $6,521 $5,860 $202 HUTCHINSON PAGE q" CLASSROOM TEACHER $46,061 * $3,524 $5,606 $5,860 $202 HUTSON LINDA lj'':}6LASSROOM TEACHER $54,376 * $4,159 $6.618 $202 HYDE LOUISE q 'Í;LASSRooM TEACHER $46,316 $3,697 $5,860 $5,860 $202 IGEL HEATHER l(4CLASSROOM TEACHER $46,561 $3,562 $5.666 $5,860 $202 INSALACO LINDA .3ct5LASSROOM TEACHER $55,081 * $4.214 $6,703 $5.860 $202 @ FY 2005/06 School Data DENTAL $202 $202 $202 $202 $202 $202 $202 $202 $202 $202 $202 $202 $202 $202 $202 $202 $202 $202 $202 $202 $202 $202 $202 $202 $202 $202 $202 $202 $202 $202 $202 $202 $202 $202 $202 $202 HEALTH $5,860 $5,860 $5.860 $5,860 $5.860 $5.860 $5.860 $5,660 $5.860 $5,B60 $5.660 $5,860 $5,880 $5,B60 $5,860 $5,860 $5.660 $5,860 $5,860 $5,860 $5.880 $5,880 $5,860 $5,860 $5,860 $5,860 $5,660 $5,660 $5,880 $5,860 $5,860 RETIREMENT $6,922 $5,922 $5,754 $9,788 $6,422 $10,270 $5,198 $7,929 $5,646 $6,972 $5,590 $1,270 $5,158 $10,244 $7,020 $8,251 $6,287 $9,038 $6,777 $8,633 $5,716 $6,336 $6,722 $5,606 $6,119 $6,261 $1,142 $9,476 $10,296 $6,764 $9,762 $9,515 $9,477 $6,013 $6,264 $6,850 FICA $4,351 $3,723 $3,611 $6,153 $4,037 $6,455 $3,645 $4,983 $3,549 $4,382 $3,514 $4,570 $3,619 $6,439 $4,412 $3.930 $3,952 $5,681 $4,259 $5,427 $3.593 $3,983 $4,226 $3,524 $3,884 $3,948 $4,490 $5,957 $8.471 $4,252 $6,131 $5,981 $5,956 $3,818 $3,937 $4,306 STipeNDS TotAL BUDGeTED COMPENSATION $56,678 $48,660 $41,280 $80,429 $52,169 TITLE 301 CLASSROOM TEACHER b :lcLASSROOM TEACHER FIRST NAME JErFREY DEXTER JANINE RUSSELL * * $84.382 $47,64 $65,151 $46,391 DATABASE PROGRAMMER ANAL Y ASSOC. PRINCIPAL· HIGH D 3 CLASSROOM TEACHER PRINCIPAL - MIDDLE SCHOOL Ó; CLASSROOM TEACHER f>S CLASSROOM TEACHER hi. CLASSROOM TEACHER b:¡-CLA6SROOM TEACHER CLERK OF THE BOARD ANITA ERIC H. ANDREW LARRY NANCY SUSAN LAST NAME ISAACS JACKSON' :;t JAKIM I Þ JARRETT .¡ JENKINS ~ JOHNSON ¡/ JOHNSON JOHNSON JOHNSON JOHNSON I JOHNSTON JOHNSTONE \,. * * $57,284 $45,935 $59,737 $41,31 $84,11 ." CLASSROOM TEACHER . 'D 'ttLASSROOM TEACHER PRINCIPAL - ELEMENTARY SC JENNIFER ANN AMY LISA JANICE JUDITH , \ t * $51,685 $51,363 $51,660 b' CLASSROOM TEACHER I D CLASSROOM TEACHER II CLASSROOM TEACHER JONES P JONES'V KALTENBACH * LAURINE PHYLLIS MATHILDE KAMMERER ~ KARSTENS \/ r¡,~KASONIK y, KAUrFMAN P KEISER/ KErtH * * * * $74,264 $55,685 $70,940 $46,971 $52,066 $55,237 $46,061 $50.769 $51,613 $58,685 COORDINATOR OF SPECIAL EO '2..cLASSMOM TEACHER ASST. PRINCIPAL - MIDDLE '3 CLASSROOM TEACHER ! t CLASSROOM TEACHER 15 CLASSROOM TEACHER " CLASSROOM TEACHER J '} CLASSROOM TEACHER I 'i CLASSROOM TEACHER '\. CLASSROOM TEACHER ASST. PRINCIPAL - HIGH PRINCIPAL - ELEMENTARY SC CLARE BARRY MARY REBECCA llSA SANDRA SANDRA WilLIAM KELLY KENNEDY KERWIEN·HARMAN KESTERSON KEYSER * $77,870 $84,600 $55,581 $80,221 $78,181 ;z.oCLASSROOM TEACHER ASST. PRINCIPAL - ELEMENT CARL EDITH BRENDA LINDA REGINA KEVIN * $77,667 $49,901 $51.472 $56,284 COORDINATOR - INSTRUCTION ASST. DIR. OF SPECIAL EOU '2.1 CLASSROOM TEACHER 2. -¡i.:LASSROOM TEACHER :; 2.3 CLASSROOM TEACHER KARLA PETER E.KAYE KEYSER / KIEHN ,,¡ KINDLER I KING/ KI~G KI8K~J KIRST V. KIRTLEY KNAPP KNIGHT 4> .p p ... '" @ FY 2005/06 School Data DENTAL $202 $202 $202 $202 $202 $202 $202 $202 $202 $202 $202 $202 $202 $202 $202 $202 $202 $162 $202 $202 $202 $202 $202 $202 $202 $202 $202 $202 $202 $202 $202 $202 $202 $202 $202 $202 HEALTH $3.516 $5,860 $5,860 $5,860 $5,860 $5,860 $5,860 $5,860 $5,860 $5,860 $5,860 $5,860 $5,860 $5,860 $5,880 $5.860 $5,860 $4,686 $5,860 $5,860 $5.880 $5,860 $5,860 $5,860 $5,860 $5,860 $5,860 $6,860 $5,860 $5,860 $4,688 $5,860 $5,860 $5,660 $5,860 $5.860 RETIREMENT $6,508 $8.692 $5,504 $5,920 $5,595 $5,922 $7,081 $5,503 $5.900 $6.022 $5,921 $5,738 $9,836 $6,861 $8,772 $5,931 $7,057 $6,219 $7,446 $7,264 $5,799 $7,006 $5,534 $6,935 $5,554 $5,618 $5,819 $6,850 $7,093 $5,930 $8,629 $6,093 $6,971 $5,565 $7.051 FICA $4,090 $4,208 $3,460 $3,721 $3.518 $3,723 $4,451 $3,460 $3,709 $3,786 $3,721 $3,607 $6,183 $4,312 $5,514 $3,728 $4,436 $5,443 $3,909 $4,661 $4,565 $3,645 $4,405 $3,480 $4.359 $3,491 $3,530 $3,658 $4,308 $4,458 $3,727 $4,167 $3,829 $4,383 $3.498 $4.432 STIPENDS .. .. .. .. TOTAL BUDGETED COMPENSATION $63,472 .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. * $58,185 $45,221 $48,481 $49,486 $46,651 $47,146 $80.815 $56,378 $72,081 $48,731 $57,987 ,143 ,099 ,184 $71 $51 $61 $59,665 $47,648 $57,561 $45,476 $56,987 $45,636 $54,987 $45,221 $48.646 $45,976 $48,660 FIRST NAME TITLE ~:z..'t CLASSROOM TEACHER .2.:; CLASSROOM TEACHER 2J, CLASSROOM TEACHER "Z.::-CLASSROOM TEACHER ~~ CLASSROOM TEACHER '2..1 CLASSROOM TEACHER "ø CLASSROOM TEACHER ~l CLASSROOM TEACHER 3 'Z.CLASSROOM TEACHER )~ CLASSROOM TEACHER ~ 'fCLASSROOM TEACHER ~LASSROOM TEACHER NANCY JOANNE KIMBERLY MARY BETH CATHER JOANNE NANCY-LEE IRENE CINDY DAWN JOAN LAST NAME KOENIG KOHLMANN KONOLD KOOKEN KOVEL-WOJCIK KOWALSKY KOZUB KRONE KYLE LAINE LAIRD LAKE PRINCIPAL - ELEMENTARY SC ~ CLASSROOM TEACHER :1)+ CLASSROOM TEACHER .3 f( CLASSROOM TEACHER ~'1 CLASSROOM TEACHER HUMAN RESOURCES MANAGER SR SUPPORT ANALYST, SCHOO .. $46,146 $47.816 $48,731 $54,472 $50,066 $57.284 $45,731 $57,935 $56,284 $58,284 "tD CLASSROOM TEACHER .q. \ CLASSROOM TEACHER 4-"Z..CLASSROOM TEACHER t¡."') CLASSROOM TEACHER 4Ì1 CLASSROOM TEACHER ~ ~ CLASSROOM TEACHER ~(,. CLASSROOM TEACHER ~ 1-CLASSROOM TEACHER ~~ CLASSROOM TEACHER ~~ CLASSROOM TEACHER 6øCLASSROOM TEACHER !/i r CLASSROOM TEACHER ~ 1..CLASSROOM TEACHER ~ ., CLASSROOM TEACHER S-fCLASSROOM TEACHER ~.5CLASSROOM TEACHER 3' LCLASSROOM TEACHER MARGARET MATTHEW Jl,JDITH ROLLIN FRANKLIN KRISTINA LAWRENCE DAVID STEPHEN CAROLE DAVID VIRGINIA KAY RONALD RICHARD 1> LANDAHL./ LARRICK LARRICK ~:~:~ I-R. LAWWILL' It& LAYMAN LAYMAN LEAR LECKRONE LEJEUNE LERA LEWIS LINDSAY LOCKWOOD LOHRER HELEN DIANE PATRICIA WILLIAM DARCIE TERESA REBECCA TIMOTHY PHILLIP JOHN LOVE LOVE LUGUS LUNDH MABRY MACDONALD MACE MACK ~ FY 2005/06 School Data DENTAL $202 $202 $202 $202 $202 $202 $202 $202 $202 $202 $202 $202 $202 $202 $202 $202 $202 $202 $202 $202 $202 $202 $202 $202 $202 $202 $202 $202 $202 $202 $202 $202 $202 $202 $202 $202 HEALTH $5,860 $5,860 $5,860 $5.860 $5,860 $5,860 $5,860 $5.860 $5,860 $5,860 $5,860 $5,860 $5,860 $5,860 $5,880 $5,860 $5,860 $5,860 $5,860 $6,880 $5,860 $6,860 $5,860 $6,860 $5,880 $5,860 $5,860 $5,880 $5,860 $5,860 RETIREMENT $6,692 $5,922 $5,494 $6,947 $5,807 $6.022 $6.931 $6,666 $5.707 $9,661 $7,142 $7,172 $5.524 $7,051 $6,748 $6.422 $7,142 $7,264 $6,779 $6,264 $5,565 $6,818 $5.991 $6.008 $6,264 $7,002 $7.038 $5,666 $6,114 $5,748 $7,142 $6,397 $6,392 $5,693 $5,727 $6,496 FICA $4,206 $3,723 $3,454 $4,387 $3,651 $3,786 $3,728 $4,190 $3.587 $6,073 $4,489 $4,508 $3.472 $4 ,432 $3.613 $4.037 $4,489 $4,565 $3,633 $3,937 $3,498 $4,285 $3,786 $3,776 $3.937 $4,401 $4,425 $3,562 $3,843 $3,612 $4,489 $4,021 STIPENDS TOTAL BUDGETED COMPENSATION $54,987 $48.660 $46,146 $57,081 $47,718 TITLE .3 S1-CLASSROOM TEACHER .s ~ CLASSROOM TEACHER Si CLASSROOM TEACHER (., () CLASSROOM TEACHER FIRST NAME MARTHA MARY PHILIP SARAH LAST NAME MACK MACMICHAEL MACMICHAEL MAGi:RFIEj! * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * $49.486 $48,731 $54.769 $46,891 $79,384 $58,685 $58,936 $45,391 $57,935 $47,231 $52,769 $58,685 $69,685 $47.486 $51.472 $45,731 $56,019 $49,231 $49,363 $51.472 $57,534 $57,831 $48,560 $58,685 $52,566 $50,236 $47,226 HUMAN RESOURCES SPECIALIS 1..1 CLASSROOM TEACHER ~ ')...CLASSROOM TEACHER " ;CLASSROOM TEACHER t,~CLASSROOM TEACHER PRINCIPAL - ELEMENTARY SC (.. S CLASSROOM TEACHER ~ CLASSROOM TEACHER ~~LASSROOMTEACHER , ~CLASSROOM TEACHER '~CLASSROOM TEACHER ~ CLASSROOM TEACHER ~ CLASSROOM TEACHER .:j"J.ÇLASSROOM TEACHËR ':}}CLASSROOM TEACHER ::f'1 CLASSROOM TEACHER ~ CLASSROOM TEACHER ;¡-'- CLASSROOM TEACHER 1-rcLASSROOM TEACHER ~ CLASSROOM TEACHER :p, CLASSROOM TEACHER ,?O CLASSROOM TEACHER q¡ CLASSROOM TEACHER ~¡CLASSROOM TEACHER '6} CLASSROOM TEACHER ~~ CLASSROOM TEACHER c¿ ~ CLASSROOM TEACHER '6' f CLASSROOM TEACHER C{ ~LASSROOM TEACHER ROSEMARIA KAT DANIEL CHRISTOPHER ROLF KAREN NANCY ALICE COURTNEY ANN KIMBERLY MATTHEW MARCIA CAROLYN MARTHA MARY KEVIN MARJORIE JANICE DARREN GREGORY ANITA BARBARA VIRGENA DAWNA NANCY FRANK LAURIE ROBIN DANIEL (4 t,. MALLORY MALLORY-CH.AVERS / MAXEY MAY MAYNARD MAYNARD MAYS MCADAMS MCCLANAHAN MCCRACKËN MCCULLEN MCCURDY MCDADE MARSHALL MARSHALL MARTIN MARTIN MARTIN MASON MASSIE MASSIE MASTER MATHENY MALM MANN MANN PMARCUS MARKOS $4,018 $3,515 $3.600 $4,083 * * $52,519 $45,956 $47,061 $53,378 SUPPORT ANALYST, SCHOOL T '&'1 CLASSROOM TEACHER '3 ~ 4CLASSROOM TEACHER SANDRA JOHN MCELWE~/ J J,MCKEEL ^ MCLAUGHLIN MCMILLIN G FY 2005/06 School Data DI;NTAL $202 $202 $202 $202 $202 $202 $202 $202 $202 $202 $202 $202 $202 $202 $202 $202 $202 $202 $202 ;;ö7 - $202 $202 $202 $202 $202 $202 $202 $202 $202 $202 $202 $202 $202 $202 $202 $202 HEALTH $5,860 $5,860 $5,860 $5,860 $5,860 $5,860 $5,880 $5,860 $5,860 $5,860 $5,860 $5,860 $5,860 $5,860 $5,880 $5,860 $5,860 - $5,860 $5,860 $5,860 $5,860 $5,860 $5,860 $5,860 $5,860 $5,860 $5,860 $5,860 $5,860 $5,860 $5,860 $5,860 $5,860 RETIREMENT $8,904 $6,642 $5,799 $6,466 $6,093 $5,697 $7,002 $5,545 $5,514 $6,325 $11,301 $5,494 $6,624 $6,007 $5,846 $5,922 $7,203 $7,568 $5,809 - $14.566 $5.ã9Õ $7,152 $4,269 $6,235 $5,839 $5,494 $6,007 $6,025 $5,615 $5,829 $5,637 $5,830 $6,692 $12,098 $7,325 $5,931 FICA $5,598 $4,175 $3,845 $4,064 $3,830 $3,581 $4,401 $3,486 $3,466 $3,976 $7,103 $3,454 $4,163 $3,777 $3,549 $3,723 $4,527 $4,757 $3,651 ~ $3.703 $4,496 $3,629 $3,919 $3.871 $3,454 $3.777 $3,787 $3,529 $3.864 $3,544 $3,865 $4,206 $7,320 $4,604 $3,728 STIPENDS .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. TOTAL BUDGETED COMPENSATION $73.170 $54,580 $47,651 $53,128 $50,066 $45,564 $45,306 $51,972 $92,852 $45,146 $54,425 $49,363 $46,396 $48,660 $59,185 $62,185 $47,731 $119,690 $46.811 $57,534 TITLE ASST. PRINCIPAL· ELEMENT 3 qo CLASSROOM TEACHER tt I CLASSROOM TEACHER q1..CLASSROOM TEACHER Ii :> CLASSROOM TEACHER 'ì'tCLASSROOM TEACHER ~"CLASSROOM TEACHER HUMAN RESOURCES SPECIALIS i? CLASSROOM TEACHER If~LASSROOM TEACHER PRINCIPAL· HIGH SCHOOL q f6 CLASSROOM TEACHER 'i't CLASSROOM TEACHER ~OCtLASSROOM TEACHER , CLASSROOM TEACHER '2. CLASSROOM TEACHER 3 CLASSROOM TEACHER If CLASSROOM TEACHER 5 CLASSROOM TEACHER ASST. SUPERINTENDENT, INS FIRST NAME MARGIE B. GWEN NANCY CHRISTINA CHARLES DAVRA JENNIFER LINDA VICKI CREWS DEDRIA REBECCA WILLIAM THOMAS LISA DANIEL LYNDA SHARI EILEEN LAST NAfE MCNERGNEY V MEEKS MEHLlCH MENKE MERKORD MERRITT MILLER / MILLER MILLER MILLER MILLER ,,/ MILLSAP MINOR MITCHEll MIX MOLINARO MONAHAN MONAHAN MORRIS MORRIS MORTELL MORTON MOUNTJOY MURPHY MYERS MYRTLE NASH ~ NASH ØaNEUHAUS R NEWMAN ~ p ~ l' ~ET ~A PEGGY ~ .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. $58.761 $47,431 $51,231 $47.976 $45.146 $49,363 $49,501 $46,136 $47,901 $46,316 $47.901 $54,987 $99,402 $60,185 $48,731 COORDINATOR OF SPECIAL ED DRIVER SUPERVISOR ,.. CLASSROOM TEACHER t¿ CLASSROOM TEACHER ~ CLASSROOM TEACHER loCLASSROOM TEACHER 1\ CLASSROOM TEACHER I "}.ÇLASSROOM TEACHER I Y:LASSROOM TEACHER ~ CLASSROOM TEACHER " CLASSROOM TEACHER (... CLASSROOM TEACHER EXEC. rnR. INTERVENTION & DEBORAH GEORGE JENNIFER lAURA MARGARET SUSAN SARAH MICHAEL KEVIN JEFFRY CARLA DONNA l:¡" CLASSROOM TEACHER I c¡ CLASSROOM TEACHER THOMAS SUSAN DEBORAH FY 2005/06 School Data DENTAL $202 $202 $202 $202 $202 $202 $202 $202 $202 $202 $202 $202 $202 $202 $202 $202 $202 $202 $202 $202 $202 $202 $202 $202 $202 $202 $202 $202 $202 $202 $202 $202 $202 $202 $202 $202 HEALTH $5,860 $5,660 $5,660 $5,860 $5,660 $5,860 $5,880 $5,860 $5,860 $5.860 $5,660 $5,860 $5,860 $5,860 $5,880 $5,860 $5,880 $5,880 $5,860 $5,880 $5,880 $5,860 $5,860 $5.860 $5,660 $5,880 $5,860 $5,860 $5,860 $5,860 $5,660 $5.880 RETIREMENT $9.465 $5,676 $7,525 $6,477 $6,126 $1,051 $5,677 $6,093 $6,745 $7,142 $9,387 $6,886 $7,020 $5.606 $8.493 $6,861 $7,154 $6,287 $7,629 $5,940 $7,142 $6,618 $5,842 $6,508 $7,142 $6,144 $6,838 $6,740 $8,094 $5,931 $9,255 $9.425 $1{951 $6,422 $5,524 $6,508 FICA $5,950 $3,567 $4,730 $4,072 $4,228 $4,436 $3,566 $3,830 $4,240 $4,489 $5,902 $4,328 $4.412 $3,524 $5,339 $4,312 $4,497 $3,952 $4,795 $3.134 $4.489 $4.159 $3,672 $4,092 $4.489 $3,862 $4 ,298 $4,236 $3,830 $3,726 $5.818 $5,924 $3,741 $4,037 $3.472 $4,090 TOTAL BUDGETED COMPENSATION STIPENDS $77,777 .$46,641 * $61,829 TITLE ASST. PRINCIPAL - ELEMENT FIRST NAME SUE EVELYN DENNIS * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * $53.222 $55,269 $57,987 $46,646 $50,066 $55,425 $58,685 $77,137 $56.378 $58,784 $51,660 $62,685 $48,811 $58,685 $54,378 $48,006 $53.476 $56.185 $55,378 $50,071 $48,731 $76,044 $77.442 $48,901 $52.769 $45,391 $53,472 $58,685 $50.486 $56,581 $57,685 $46,061 $69,783 INSTRUCTIONAL DATA BASE C '}..() CLASSROOM TEACHER ~ CLASSROOM TEACHER -z.-~LASSROOM TEACHER ,.)::LASSROOM TEACHER :2..~CLASSROOM TEACHER "1.6cLASSROOM TEACHER -u.cLASSROOM TEACHER ASST. PRINCIPAL - ELEMENT "'2..lcLASSROOM TEACHER z.q CLASSROOM TEACHER "2..'ìCLASSROOM TEACHER COORDINATOR -INSTRUCTION ~CLASSROOM TEACHER ~( CLASSROOM TEACHER 32.PLASSROOM TEACHER :ß CLASSROOM TEACHER ~CLASSROOM TEACHER ~LASSROOM TEACHER 1£..CLASSROOM TEACHER j1CLASSROOM TEACHER 3't:LASSROOM TEACHER "3'tCLASSROOM TEACHER ~CLASSROOM TEACHER ~ CLASSROOM TEACHER ~ ').cLASSROOM TEACHER q.}cLASSROOM TEACHER cp.tLASSROOM TEACHER DIRECTOR OF FOOD SERVICE 41 q CLASSROOM TEACHER ASST. PRINCIPAL - MIDDLE 4 5CLASSROOM TEACHER \f LJ:;LASSROOM TEACHER JJ. ~LASSROOM TEACHER ~ ~ c{LASSROOM TEACHER JULIE SUSAN MARY KRISTIE JUDITH SUSAN BARBARA JEANNETTE CAROLE BEVERLY CECIL RONA CINDY BARBARA NANCY JOSEPHINE JACQUELYN CAROLE PAMELA CHRIST ELIZABETH BONNIE BARBARA VIVIAN SHEILA SHIRLEY DANIEL DEBORAH KIMBERLY PAT DARLENE CHARLES DIANA LA7ST. NAME NEWMAN NICHOLSON NISSLEY NOGGLE NOTHNAGLE OBERLE OBRECHT ODATO OLIVERI p .. j ~ )( PALMER-RICE PARKS PARMELEE PASSERELL PATTERSON PAULSEN PERROW PERRY PETERS ..,..jfHILIPS ~ . PITSENBEf}éeR p PITT V PODRAZA PODREBARAC POLO PORTER OMAN j ORROCK OSVALDS OTIS PACE ~ PACE J"p PACE PAVLO PAYNE PEEKS PEREZ p FY 2005/06 School Data DENTAL $202 $202 $202 $202 $202 $202 $202 $202 $202 $202 $202 $202 $202 $202 $202 $202 $202 $202 $202 $202 $202 $202 $202 $202 $202 $202 $202 $202 $202 $202 $202 $202 $202 $202 $202 $202 HEÁLTH $5,860 $5,860 $5,860 $5,860 $5,860 $5,860 $5,860 $5,680 $5,860 $5,860 $5,860 $5.860 $5,660 $5,660 $5,860 $5.660 $5,860 $5.660 $5,660 $5.860 $5,860 $5.860 $5,660 $5.660 $5,660 $5,660 $5,660 $5,860 $5.660 $5,860 $5.860 $5,860 $5,860 $5,660 $5,860 RETIREMENT $5,524 $6,435 $5,989 $6,013 $5,666 $6,083 $7,264 $5.736 $6,464 $6,667 $12.869 $5,494 $5,756 $7,020 $6,179 $6,868 $7.264 $4.483 $6,757 $6.074 $6,636 $6,892 $6.458 $6,722 $6,521 $7,118 $6,251 $5.483 $8.456 $8,692 $6,422 $8,483 $7,620 $7,008 $6,606 $8,829 FICA $3,472 $4,045 $3,765 $3.779 $3,562 $3,824 $4.565 $3,607 $4.063 $4,191 $7,412 $3,454 $3.619 $4,412 $5,142 $4,317 $4,565 STIPENDS TOTAL BUDGETED COMPENSATION $45,391 TITLE W1 CLASSROOM TEACHER 5 ()::LASSROÖM TEACHER FLEET MANAGER FIRST NAME LAST NAME POSOVSKY · · · · $52,876 $49,210 $49,410 $46,561 $49.986 $59,685 $47.148 $53,113 $54,784 $105,739 ð I CLASSROOM TEACHER S'2.- CLASSROOM TEACHER S3 CLASSROOM TEACHER .54 CLASSROOM TEACHER s5 CLASSROOM TEACHER S,"CLASSROOM TEACHER s"'T"CLASSROOM TEACHER DIR. OF BUiLDING SERVICES :Sß C! 51c L()c $45,146 $47,31 LASSROOM TEACHER LASSROOM TEACHER LASS ROOM 'TEACHER · $57,685 $87,208 $56.435 $59,685 $49,61 COORDINATOR, EXTENDED DAY ¿, I CLASSROOM TEACHER '-2-cLASSROOM TEACHER $3,810 $4,247 $3,618 $4,298 $4,332 $4,059 $4,226 $4.099 $4,474 $3,930 $3,446 $6,315 · · · · · · · · $55.519 $49,910 $56,185 $56.628 $53.066 $55.237 $53,581 $58.487 $51,363 $45.051 $69,479 SYSTEMS ENGINEER-SCHOOL T (, 3CLASSROOM TEACHER ~t CLASSROOM TEACHER ,-"CLASSROOM TEACHER (), CLASSROOM TEACHER ~CLASSROOM TEACHER {,~CLASSROOM TEACHER ,qCLASSROOM TEACHER ~LASSROOM TEACHER 1--( CLASSROOM TEACHER ::; ~SSROOM TEACHER HUMAN RESOURCES MANAGER MARK VERON I ALAN JANICE REVA BARBARA BHAGY ALAK MARGARET MARTA PATRICIA LESLIE MARGARET DONNA DOUGLAS KELVIN SANDRA SANDRA ROBERT HARRIET GWENDOLYN BRENDA EDMUNDA CHERYL R. ELAIN DAVID LUCI DAVID SUSAN PRICE-THOM7 ,~,.. PRITCHETT RADCLIFFE RAGLAND RAINEY RAJENDRAN RAMSEY RAMSEY REARDON f: REASER X REED REHORN x REID I ~REID iI' REID REID REJONIS X RESIO REYNOLDS RHODENIZER RICHARDS RICHARDSON RICHARDSON RIDDICK RIDDICK RIDENOUR RIGBY . I ROBERMAN· s $4,206 $4,037 $5.333 $4.790 $4.405 $4,153 $4,167 · · $54,967 $52,769 $69,708 $62.609 $57,561 $54.284 $54,472 ::f} CLASSROOM TEACHER # CLASSROOM TEACHER COORDINATOR -INSTRUCTION COORDINATOR - INSTRUCTION 'f 5CLASSROOM TEACHER ~SSROOM TEACHER 4 :::r ~LASSROOM TEACHER WENDY MARYANN HELEN MARLENE TONI RICHARD SUSAN RHONDA ~e, ROBERTSON ROBEY ßf.. ROBINSON X rJC ROBY v( RODERICK RODERICK ROEBUCK K} FY 2005/06 School Data DENTAL $202 $202 $202 $202 $202 $202 $202 $202 $202 $202 $202 $202 $202 $202 $202 $202 $202 $202 $202 $202 $202 $202 $202 $202 $202 $202 $202 $202 $202 $202 $202 $202 $202 $202 $202 $202 HEALTH $5,860 $5,860 $5,860 $5,880 $5.860 $5,860 $5,860 $5,860 $5,860 $5,860 $5,860 $5,660 $5,860 $5,860 $5,860 $5,860 $5,860 $5,860 $5,860 $5,860 $5,860 $5,860 $5.860 $5.860 $5,860 $5,860 $5.860 $5,860 $5.860 $5,860 $5.860 $5.660 $5.860 RETIREMENT $5,940 $11,658 $5,002 $9,791 $1,767 $1,020 $6,886 $5,708 $6,619 $6,715 $6.093 $6,287 $6,886 $7,580 $6,538 $6,800 $7,020 $6,435 $6,179 $9,972 $5,738 $5,666 $5,922 $5,809 $6,406 $9,504 $6,367 $7,118 $7,981 $7,118 $5,911 $7,142 $5,179 $5,901 $S,D48 $9.536 FICA $3,734 $7.268 $3.747 $6,156 $4,883 $4,412 $4,328 $3,588 $4.198 $4,221 $3,830 $3,952 $4,329 $4,765 $4,110 $4,274 $4,412 $4,045 $3,884 $6.269 $3,607 $3,562 $3,723 $3,651 $4,027 $5,975 $4,003 $4,474 $5,017 $4,474 $3,715 $4,489 $3,633 $3.709 $5.059 $5,995 TOTAL BUDGeTED COMPENSATION STIPENDS * TITLE CLASSROOM TEACHER PRINCIPAL - MIDDLE SCHOOL FIRST NAME * * * * * $48,81 $95,793 $48,986 $80,485 $63,826 $57.685 $54.878 $55.175 $50.066 $51,660 $56.581 $62,284 $53.722 $55,878 $57.685 $52,878 $50.769 $56,581 $46,901 1=r~ ,(41-1 CLASSROOM TEACHER COORDINATOR - INSTRUCTION COORDINATOR - INSTRUCTION ~6 CLASSROOM TEACHER or¡ l CLASSROOM TEACHER ~ 2.cLASSROOM TEACHER q?¡:LASSROOM TEACHER qttCLASSROOM TEACHER ~ CLASSROOM TEACHER ß~LASSROOM TEACHER lJt-cLASSROOM TEACHER ~ CLASSROOM TEACHER f7 CLASSROOM TEACHER t¡f) CLASSROOM TEACHER 't I CLASSROOM TEACHER ~ 'Z.CLASSROOM TEACHER q ~LASSROOM TEACHER LAURIE DAVID DEBORAH SHARON CAROLYN GAYE PATRICIA ELLEN FLORENCE GEORGE BONNIE BETTE JEAN lENORE ELIZA JUD WATTS BARBARA RANDOLPH LAURA DOUGLAS DEBORAH LAST NAME ROEMER / r ROGERS . RONDEI\~ ~ROOT ~/ ~ RO$S V\ ~"ROTE . RUEMMLER SADLER SADLER SAKEll SANDELL SANTOS SAVAGE SCALLET SCHLANK-GARDNER SCHWAB SCOTT SCOTT * * * * * * $81,940 $47,146 $46.561 $48,660 $47.731 $52,636 $78,103 $52,316 $58,487 $65,582 $56.487 $48,571 $58.685 $47,486 $48,486 $68,130 $78.364 ASST DIRECTOR. ASSESSMENT If~ CLASSROOM TEACHER q5 CLASSROOM TEACHER <i ,"CLASSROOM TEACHER ef1-CLASSROOM TEACHER q t1PLASSROOM TEACHER COORDINATOR - INSTRUCTION 91 CLASSROOM TEACHER S¢:)LASSROOM TEACHER DEP. DIRECTOR. FACILITIES t> CLASSROOM TEACHER D)..CLASSROOM TEACHER DJCLASSROOM TEACHER 6tfCLASSROOM TEACHER PScLASSROOM teACHER COORDINATOR . INStRUCTION ASST. PRINCIPAL - HIGH DIALLO SARAH ANNE JANENE SUSAN DEBAAH MARJORIE GeORGE LINDA KATHLEEN RICHARD VIRGINIA JENNIFER JUNE MARY JANE SCULLY SELDEN SELLERS SESSOMS SEVERS SHACKELFORD SHEARBURN X (§) SIDEBOTTOM SLECHTA ~ ~ SHEPHERD SHIFFLETT .., SHEFFIELD ,... SHELOR F SHUEY SHUPE A. SMITH 15: SMITH p SMITH - FY 2005/06 School Data DENTAL $202 $202 $202 $202 $202 $202 $202 $202 $202 $202 $202 $202 $202 $202 $202 $202 $202 $202 $202 $202 $202 $202 $202 $202 $202 $202 $202 $202 $202 $202 $202 $202 $202 $202 $202 $202 HEALTH $5,860 $5,860 $5,860 $5,860 $5,860 $5,860 $5,860 $5,860 $5,860 $5,860 $5,860 $5,860 $5,880 $5,660 $5,660 $5,860 $5,860 $5,660 $5,660 $5.660 $5,860 $5,860 $5.860 $5.860 $5,860 $5,860 $5,860 $5,860 $5,860 $5,860 $5,860 $5,860 $5,860 $5.860 $5,860 RETIREMENT $12,443 $6,715 $7.821 $6,403 $5.666 $6,179 $6,607 $5,650 $6,959 $6,165 $7,264 $5,666 $6,593 $5,850 $10.306 $5,637 $6.435 $6,983 $7.068 $6,256 $7,690 $5,897 $6,123 $6,666 $7,112 $5,503 $13,131 $6,699 $5,879 $5.555 $5,666 $11.155 $6,144 $6,251 $6,881 $6,643 FICA $7.362 $4,221 $4,917 $4,025 $3.562 $3,884 $4,279 $3.677 $4,374 $3.676 $4.565 $3,562 $4,145 $3,677 $6.478 $3.544 $4,045 $4,389 $4,443 $3,932 $4,633 $3,581 $3,848 $4.190 $4,470 $3,460 $7,465 $4,336 $3,696 $3,492 $3,562 $7,012 $3,862 $3,930 $4,312 $4,175 STIPENDS " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " TOTAL BUDGETED COMPENSATION $102.242 $58,435 $45,221 $107,889 $56,685 $91 $50,486 $51,363 $56,376 $54,581 $48,311 $45,646 $46,561 ,657 $55,175 $64,267 $52,613 $46,561 $50,769 $55,934 $48.071 $57,185 $50,660 $59,685 $46.561 $54,175 $48,071 $84,684 $46,316 $52,878 $57,378 $58,081 $51,401 $83,184 $46,806 $50,316 $54,775 TITLE DIR. OF TRANSPORTATION C>' CLASSROOM TEACHER DEP, DIRECTOR, CUSTODIAL D ':J;CLASSROOM TEACHER g CLASSROOM TEACHER q CLASSROOM TEACHER I V CLASSROOM TEACHER II CLASSROOM TEACHER 11..CLASSROOM TEACHER 13 CLASSROOM TEACHER l¥lASSROOM TEACHER I ~CLASSROOM TEACHER I (.. CLASSROOM TEACHER I:?>CLASSROOM TEACHER ASST. PRINCIPAL - HIGH ~ CLASSROOM TEACHER I ~ CLASSROOM TEACHER 2P CLASSROOM TEACHER "2./ CLASSROOM TEACHER 'l,.2.CLASSROOM TEACHER 'to} CLASSROOM TEACHER "'L'tCLASSROOM TEACHER 2.S CLASSROOM TEACHER 2" CLASSROOM TEACHER ¡ 1t:LASSROOM TEACHER ).~LASSROOM TEACHER DIR. OF HUMAN RESOURCES 2~ CLASSROOM TEACHER ~LASSROOM TEACHER 'tÞ1 CLASSROOM TEACHER '3 2,pLASSRooM TEACHER PRINCIPAL - ELEMENTARY $C "3 3CLASSROOM TEACHER 3'1 CLASSROOM TEACHER 3$ CLASSROOM TEACHER 3¡"'CLASSROOM TEACHER FIRST NAME WILLIE VICKI PAMELA SHARON WILLIAM LEIGH BERNHARD BARBARA RAYNE:LL DEBORAH JUNE ANNE SALLY JULIE KATHERYN MËlISSA GHIZLAINE SIDNEY CLOVER SANDRA THOMAS KIMBERLY PATRICIA THOMAS RICHARD ELLEN KAREN PHILLIP MARY JUDITH CAROL LESLIE LEIGH BETTY JAMES .4l1li ~T NAME ~ITH '^ SNEAD \./ .. SNYDER .'^-.. ~NYDER SOKOLOWSKI SPELLMAN SPIGONE SPRADLIN ST ARGELL STARON STEIGMAN JR STEIGMAN STEINBACH STOLLINGS STORK STRAUME STRICKLER STRONG SUBLETTE SUBLETTEWILLlAMSON SULLIVAN SURDUKOWSKI SUTHERLAND {?) STEVENSON / STOKES vi' TAFT / TATE V T AYLOR TAYLOR TAYLOR TAYLOR SUTLIFF / ~ R.SUYES/ SVETZ SVMMERS SYSLlNG .p ~ FY 2005/06 School Data DENTAL $202 $202 $202 $202 $202 $202 $202 $202 $202 $202 $202 $202 $202 $202 $202 $202 $202 $202 $202 $202 $202 $202 $202 $202 $202 $202 $202 $202 $202 $202 $202 $202 $202 $202 $202 $202 HeALTH $5,860 $5,860 $5.860 $5.860 $5,860 $5,860 $5,860 $5,860 $5,860 $5,880 $5.860 $5,860 $5,860 $5,860 $5.880 RETIREMENT $1.141 $6,215 $6,692 $5,151 $6,500 $6,113 $6,261 $6,411 $6.850 $5,931 $6,911 $6,022 $5,543 $1,544 $1,203 $6,022 $5,860 $5.860 $5,860 $5,660 $5,880 $5.860 $5,860 $5.860 $5.860 $5,860 $5,860 $5,860 $5,860 $5.860 $3,516 $5,860 $5,860 $5.860 $5,860 $5,860 $8,522 $5,595 $5,859 $9,001 $6,41 $6.119 $11,555 $6,806 $5,681 $4,165 $5,829 $7,383 $10,230 $8,483 $5,606 $5,880 $7.213 $1.233 $5,880 $6,959 FICA $4,489 $3,901 $4,206 $3,619 $4.085 $4,220 $3,948 $4.066 $4,306 $3,128 $4.383 $3.166 $3,485 $4,142 $4.521 $3.068 $5,351 $3.511 $3.664 $5,661 $4,030 $3,884 $1,256 $4,218 $3,515 $3,540 $3,664 $3,160 $6,430 $4.015 $3,524 $3,683 $4,535 $4,541 $3,691 $4,314 STIPENDS * * * * * * * * * * * * TOTAL BUDGETeD COMPENSATION * * $53,115 $56.281 $48,131 $51,264 $49,486 $45,551 $61,990 $59,185 $49,486 $10,022 $45,911 $48,141 $14.006 $56,615 $51.010 $54.981 $41,31 $53,410 $55,160 $51,613 FIRST NAME TITLE 5} ~ CLASSROOM TEACHER ENVIRONMENTAL COMPLIANCE }'6 CLASSROOM TEACHER .3 9 CLASSROOM TEACHER ~ CLASSROOM TEACHER ¿Y I CLASSROOM TEACHER ~ '2- CLASSROOM TEACHER ~..., CLASSROOM TEACHER tJ!... CLASSROOM TEACHER 4$ CLASSROOM TEACHER Ii(... CLASSROOM TEACHER It 1-<:LASSROOM TEACHER 4<istLASSROOM TEACHER 4(,CLASSROOM TEACHER SOCLASSROOM TEACHER "s1 ClASSROOM TEACHER ASST. PRINCIPAL - MIDDLE NANCY SARAH JAMES HENRY CHRISTINE GREGORY KATHERINE LETA MIGNONETTA CHERYL BARBARA RUTH DONNA MIKKY ANDREA LAST NAME TEEL J ~ TEMPLE THARPE THILL THOMAS THOMAS THOMAS THOMAS THOMAS THOMASEN TOBEY TOMAC TRANK TRICE 52-CLASSROOM TEACHER ~> CLASSROOM TEACHER FREDERIC JESSE STEVEN TERESA DEBORAH v TUCKER TUCKER TURNER TURNER LLER / "".~ SOW' URGO ~ ATHLETIC DIRECTOR - HIGH .$ 'fcLASSROOM TEACHER ~ $ CLASSROOM TEACHER * * * * * * $52,615 $50,169 $94,940 $55,925 $41.896 $60,665 $84.056 $53,269 $46,056 $48,151 $46.131 $46,281 PRINCIPAL - MIDDLE SCHOOL $ , CLASSROOM TEACHER 51-CLASSROOM TEACHER e HVAC TECHNICIAN .99CLASSROOM TEACHER 5'\ CLASSROOM TEACHER PRINCIPAL- ELEMENTARY SC * * * * $59.212 $59,435 $48,316 $51.185 (,D CLASSROOM TEACHER MANAGEMENr ANALYST (, I CLASSROOM TEACHER ~ 1- CLASSROOM TEACHER ?~LASSROOM TEACHER & LASSRooM TEACHER (, LASSROOM TEACHER KAREN BETTY DONALD KATHERINE MARGARET MARY-ELIZABETH JO SANDRA DARBY JANET RICKY DAVID DAVID VADEN/ P VAlE VERE;LL p j VOLKSTORF '~VOLLMER ¡y VRHOVAC '\ VRHOVAC VEST VIA VIA VIA VINING MARJANN DOROTHEA HEATHER WAlENDOWSKI WAlKER WALKER f8 FY200~06SchooID~a DENTAl- $202 $202 $202 $202 $202 $202 $202 $202 $202 $202 $202 $202 $202 $202 $202 $202 $202 $202 $202 $202 $202 $202 $202 $202 $202 $202 $202 $202 $202 $202 $202 $202 $202 $202 $202 $202 HEALTH $5,860 $5.860 $5.860 $5,860 $5,880 $5,860 $5,860 $5,860 $5,860 $5.860 $5,860 $5,860 $5.860 $5,860 $5,660 $5,860 $5,860 $5,860 $5,860 $5,860 $5.880 $5,860 $5.860 $5,860 $5,860 $5.860 $5.860 $5.860 $5.860 $5,860 $5.860 $5.860 RETIREMENT $6,886 $5,575 $7,020 $7,142 $5,565 $6,850 $7.135 $6,521 $6,836 $5,808 $6.458 $7,058 $5,687 $7.032 $6.459 $7,135 $6,378 $5,890 $5,767 $6,382 $8.362 $6.287 $5.484 $7,385 $5,951 $5,575 $6.093 $6.844 $7.203 $6.959 $7,264 $7,020 $6,063 $5.850 $5,649 $5,574 FICA $4,326 $3.504 $4.412 $4.489 $3.498 $4,306 $4.485 $4.099 $4.298 $3.652 $4,059 $4.436 $3,575 $4.421 $4,060 $4,485 $4,009 $3.703 $3,626 $4,011 $5,257 $3,952 $3,447 $4.641 $3.741 $3,504 $3,830 $4.302 $4,527 $4,374 $4,565 $4.412 $3,810 $3.677 $3,677 $3,504 STIPENDS ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... TOTAL BUDGETED COMPENSATION $56,581 $45,806 $57,685 $56,685 $45,731 $56.264 $58,624 $53,581 $56.175 $47,732 $53,066 $57,993 $46,726 $57,764 $53,066 $58,628 $52,410 $48.401 $47,391 $52,440 TITLE S fJ, CLASSROOM TEACHER ~:¡. CLASSROOM TEACHER 1/6 CLASSROOM TEACHER ", CLASSROOM TEACHER ~LASSROOM TEACHER J¡ CLASSROOM TEACHER :rkLASSROOM TEACHER .:f} CLASSROOM TEACHER ~'\CLASSROOM TEACHER ":}SCLASSROOM TEACHER .}(,.CLASSROOM TEACHER ~LASSROOM TEACHER WCLASSROOM TEACHER 1''1 CLASSROOM TEACHER qiìCLASSROOM TEACHER '6/CLASSROOM TEACHER (2.cLASSROOM TEACHER t¡)cLASSROOM TEACHER ~LASSROOM TEACHER FIRST NAME PAMELA TRACY CAROL LOIS SARAH FLORINE MICHA!;l KATHERINE SUSAN BARBARA PATTIE EDWARD LOUISE JANE STEPHEN CHARLOTTE LINDA CHERYL WILLIAM lAST NAME WALKER WALKER WALL WALLS WALTER WARD WARLICK WARREN WASHKO WATSON WATSON WAYNE III WEAVER WEBB WEISEND WELLEN WELLS ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... $68,710 $51,660 $45,061 $60,684 $48,901 $45,811 $50,066 $56.237 $59,185 $57.185 $59,685 $48,071 $48.061 $45,806 $57,685 $49.816 COMMUNITY PROGRAM COORD COORDINATOR . INSTRUCTION "I"í CLASSROOM TEACHER q(,.CLASSROOM TEACHER f¿}CLASSROOM TEACHER ~LASSROOM TEACHER {fICLASSROOM TEACHER io CLASSROOM TEACHER ~ I CLASSROOM TEACHER t¡1.CLASSROOM TEACHER fj .3cLASSROOM TEACHER 'ic.fCLASSROOM TEACHER ~'CLASSROOM TEACHER "CLASSROOM TEACHER ct1CLASSROOM TEACHER qqCLASSROOM TEACHER ~'FLASSROOM TEACHER RICHARD SANDRA KEVIN MARY PAULA RICKEY JENNIFER CYNTHIA MARTHA JANET OLIVIA JANE KATHERINE JILL LILY TAMARA CHRISTI þ£ :HARAM JR ~ ~ :~ITAKER V\ ~ WEST ESTEN HITE WHITE WHITE WHITE WHITENACK WHITLOCK WHITLOW WHITMORE WHITTEN WilHOITE WilKINS WILLIAMS WILLIAMS WILLIAMS WILSON FY 2005/06 School Data DENTAL $202 $202 $202 $202 $202 $202 $202 $202 $203 $202 $202 $202 $202 $202 $202 $5,860 $202 '$5:e6ö'>"-""'''-n'ð:l ·y;·.?':·,iµai\Y'l""~j."""""" ~¡lIo&M"'\I.:) $5,860 '$202 HEALTH $5,860 $5,860 $5,860 $5,860 $5,860 $5,860 $5,860 $5,860 $5,860 $5,860 $5,860 $5,660 $5,860 RETIREMENT $6,267 $5,940 $5.942 $6,959 $6,777 ~ ~ SARA JEAN STE:VEN ASSOC. PRINCIPAL - HIGH CONSTANCE ~ CLASSROOM TEACHER MARY 'i' CLASSROOM TEACHER SUZANNE D CLASSROOM TEACHER NICANOR II CLASSROOM TEACHER YURSIK PAMELA /"].CLASSROOMTEACHER * $7,116 ~~I.1;!i-"""~\4Jt'.tw"""~''''~~~~ktrr~fI'~r.t..,,...r~~,,,",~·n~,'<~~~~~<:>...~JJ;;t2,~~iafYtjpr,o:;;;í!M~~"iV:';iJ~'~~~'_I'_~t;21'~'~T.*~_~,~~,~~?{:~J~,'IA,:r.¡$j~~:~ ...,.. '" "'>....~~.',.:.~,1"..: ZIMMERMANN ~ DABNEY EXEC DIR, FISCAL SERVICES $99,262 . $7,318''''"- $12.081 MìèHÃËL-'-'~""""-rrS'RôÖM""fËAëHê'R""""""""""""'''''-''''1'M;4á6~'~·''''''-'-'--''tr.1î62""""~"""$6::r44""'"" ~ $6,007 $5,565 $9,043 $10,208 $5,779 $7,142 $7,057 FICA $3,932 $3,734 $3,735 $4,374 $4,259 $3,952 $3,777 $3,498 $5,684 $6,418 $3,633 $4,489 $4.436 $0 $4,474 TOTAL BUDGETED COMPENSATION STIPENDS * * · · (jtJ rz.¡ * · $51,410 $48,806 $48,821 $57,185 $55,685 $51,660 $49,363 $45,731 $74,314 $83,885 $47,486 $58,686 $57,987 $48,731 $56,487 TrrLE t'OO CLASSROOM TEACHER () I CLASSROOM TEACHER kLASSROOM TeACHER ~ CLASSROOM TEACHER 'rCLASSROOM TEACHER 5 CLASSROOM TEACHER ~CLASSROOM TEACHER :rCLASSROOM TEACHER COORDINATOR -INSTRUCTION FIRST NAME EVELYN MELISSA ROBERT SUSAN EMALlNE ERIN CHARLES LA$T NAME WILSON WILSON WILSON WILSON WINTER WISE-ACKENBOM WITT WITT fIL WOLLENBE~ 4- 'i> WRIGHT V WYANT YAGER YEAMAN YLARDE 1.35 G FY06 SAL FY06 FICA FY06 RET FY06 HEAl FY06 DEN 19,066 200 15,195 200 14,002 0 13,833 200 12,737 200 12,192 200 12,124 200 I 11,712 200· 11,639 0 11,561 200 11,357 200 11,246 200 11,174 200 10,996 200 10,810 200 10,482 200 10,028 200 9,841 200 9,746 200 9,723 200 9,708 200 9,669 200 9,441 200 9,277 200 9,169 200 9,026 0 8,958 200 8,905 200 8,729 200 8,711 200 8,441 200 8,413 200 8,362 200 8,277 200 8,267 200 8,229 200 5,752 5,752 5,752 5,752 5,752 5,752 5,752 5,752 5,752 5,752 5,752 5,752 5,752 5,752 5,752 5,752 5,752 o 5,752 5,752 5,752 5,752 5,752 5,752 5,752 o 5,752 5,752 5,752 5,752 5,752 5,752 5,752 5,752 5,752 5,752 173,327 8,260 138,136 7,750 127,488 þÞ/i,593 125,759 I~ 7,571 115,7a9 I a .3\7,426 110,832 7,354 110,221 7,345 106,47.4 7,291 105,81.1 7,281 105,102 7,271 103,24.5 7,244 102,23-9 7,229 101,518 7,220 99,96J 7,196 98,275 7,172 95,29.2 7,129 91,162 6,974 89,46,1 6,844 88,60.4 6,778 88,387 6,762 88,254 6,751 87,900 6,724 85,829 6,566 84,334 6,452 83,3.53 6,377 82,053 6,277 81,4.40 6,230 80,9,52 6,193 79,357 6,071 79,193 6,058 76,7110 5,871 76,4?9 5,851 76,018 5,815 75,f45 5,756 75,.156 5,749 74,807 5,723 TITLE COUNTY EXECUTIVE COUNTY ATTORNEY COMMONWEALTH ATTORNEY ASSISTANT COUNTY EXECUTIVE ASSISTANT COUNTY EXECUTIVE CLERK, CIRCUIT COURT DIRECTOR, MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET CHIEF OF POLICE DIRECTOR OF FINANCE DIRECTOR OF SOCIAL SERVICES DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR OF INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY DEPUTY COUNTY ATTORNEY DIRECTOR OF PARKS AND RECREATION DIRECTOR OF PLANNING DIRECTOR OF ZONING & CURRENTDEVELOPMEN DIRECTOR OF FIRE/RESCUE SHERIFF COUNTY ASSESSOR DEPUTY COMMONWEALTH ATTORNEY ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, IT APPLICATIONS CHIEF OF FINANCE ADMINISTRATION & TAXATION CHIEF OF FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, IT SYSTEMS ASSISTANT COUNTY ATTORNEY DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF SOCIAL SERVICES DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF SOCIAL SERVICES POLICE CAPTAIN MANAGER OF GEOGRAPHIC DATA SERV¡G6S CHIEF OF PLANNING ASSISTANT COMMONWEALTH ATTORNEY ADOPTION SUPERVISOR ASSISTANT COUNTY ATTORNEY SENIOR PROJECT MANAGER ASSISTANT COMMONWEAL TI-/ ATTOFRNEY CHIEF OF ENGINEERING C9 LAST TUCKER ,JR DAVIS CAMBLOS WI-UTE FOLEY MARSHALL BREEDEN MILLER WIGGANS RALs;rON GRAHAM CUtP TRANK MULLANEY CllIMBERG MCCUlLEY EGGL~STON ROBB WOODZELL M08RE WELLS WAI:TERS JR KOC>NCE BURNETT KAMPTNER FREEMAN CATTELL-GORDON LIMERICK WEAVER BENISH LOYVE LE~IS HE~RICK STUMBAUGH DElORIA KE~SEY )~ FIRS R L J R T S M J R K M M M P V A J E B R J R R D G J D C K D B C A M R J @ 200 200 200 200 200 200 200 200 200 200 200 200 200 200 200 200 200 200 200 200 200 200 200 o 200 200 200 200 200 200 200 200 200 200 o 200 200 5,752 5,752 5,752 5,752 5,752 5,752 5,752 5,752 5,752 5,752 5,752 5,752 5,752 5,752 5,752 5,752 5,752 5,752 5,752 5,752 5,752 5,752 5,752 o 5,752 5,752 5,752 5,752 5,752 5,752 5,752 5,752 5,752 5,752 5,752 5,752 5,752 8,193 8,159 7,719 7,680 7,560 7,510 7,256 7,231 7,227 7,220 7,203 7,161 7,091 7,077 7,075 7,068 7,067 7,025 6,991 6,904 6,891 6,857 6,853 6,814 6,726 6,719 6,713 6,686 6,671 6,651 6,617 6,587 6,572 6,549 6,547 6,537 6,512 () S ~~ 0"0 5,698 5,674 5,368 5,341 5,258 5,223 5,046 5,029 5,026 5,021 5,010 4,980 4,932 4,922 4,921 4,915 4,915 4,886 4,862 4,802 4,793 4,769 4,766 4,739 4,678 4,673 4,669 4,650 4,640 4,625 4,602 4,581 4,570 4,554 4,553 4,546 4,529 74,486 74,170 70,169 69,821 68,729 68,270 65,963 65,737 65,696 65,640 65,485 65,103 64,466 64,335 64,323 64,252 64,245 63,867 63,557 62,767 62,647 62,341 62,304 61 ,944 61,147 61,086 61,029 60,785 60,649 60,463 60,155 59,883 59,744 59,535 59,522 59,428 59,200 DIRECTOR OF INSPECTIONS DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF OF PARKS & RECREATION CHIEF OF ZONING POLICE CAPTAIN POLICE LIEUTENANT PRINCIPAL PLANNER SENIOR CIVIL ENGINEER COMMUNITY RELATIONS MANAGER DESIGN PLANNER POLICE LIEUTENANT CHIEF OF CURRENT DEVELOPMENT ADULT DIVISION SUPERVISOR ADOPTION SUPERVISOR SENIOR SYSTEMS ENGINEER PRINCIPAL PLANNER POLICE LIEUTENANT STRATEGIC MANAGEMENT COORDINATOR COORDINATOR, SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT CHIEF OF HOUSING POLICE SERGEANT ASSISTANT FIRE CHIEF - ADMINISTRATION ASSISTANT COMMONWEALTH ATTORNEY SENIOR PROGRAMMER/ANALYST SUPERINTENDENT OF PARKS POLICE LIEUTENANT MANAGEMENT ANALYST II FISCAL ASSISTANT SENIOR SYSTEMS ENGINEER CHIEF ACCOUNTANT COMPUTER OPERATIONS SUPERVISOR ASSISTANT FIRE CHIEF - PREVENTION ASSISTANT FIRE CHIEF - OPERATIONS CPS SUPERVISOR SENIOR APPRAISER WATER RESOURCES MANAGER POLICE SERGEANT CHIEF ACCOUNTANT ITZ SCHLOTHAUER CRICKENBERGER SPRINKLE PARRENT NOTEMAN ECHOLS BROOKS CATLIN MALlSZEWSK TEIXEIRA FRITZ DWOSKIN COLMAN TUCKER MCDOWELL ALLEN III ALLSHOUSE DUNGAN WHITE BOND OPRANDY MURRAY DUBOVSKY SMITH JENKINS SHIFFLETT NEITZ ARNETTE WELCHER KENNEDY LOWRY PLUMMER CASEY DAVIS HARPER WHITE II WASIL.EWSK FR 3Ct J R J J G E G L M J W S P T J E L C R J J C J M G P B I H B R R C J G J K (i) 200 200 200 200 200 200 200 o 200 200 200 200 200 200 200 200 200 200 200 200 200 200 200 200 o o 200 200 200 200 o 200 o 200 200 200 200 5,752 5,752 5,752 5,752 5,752 5,752 5,752 o 5,752 5,752 5,752 5,752 5,752 5,752 5,752 5,752 5,752 5,752 5,752 5,752 5,752 5,752 5,752 5,752 5,752 5,752 5,752 5,752 5,752 5,752 o 5,752 o 5,752 5,752 5,752 5,752 oc;-oG 6,512 6,502 6,502 6,457 6,396 6,354 6,287 6,286 6,266 6,258 6,253 6,249 6,226 6,211 6,192 6,169 6,165 6,149 6,127 6,123 6,102 6,102 6,099 6,082 6,050 6,040 6,022 6,018 6,001 5,955 5,928 5,922 5,897 5,889 5,875 5,875 5,870 4,529 4,522 4,522 4,491 4,448 4,419 4,372 4,372 4,358 4,352 4,348 4,346 4,330 4,319 4,306 4,290 4,287 4,276 4,261 4,259 4,244 4,244 4,242 4,230 4,208 4,201 4,188 4,185 4,174 4,142 4,123 4,118 4,101 4,096 4,086 4,086 4,082 59,198 59,111 59,109 58,701 58,150 57,766 57,153 57,144 56,964 56,891 56,841 56,805 56,598 56,460 56,288 56,084 56,042 55,898 55,704 55,667 55,476 55,4 76 55,445 55,290 55,000 54,913 54,749 54,706 54,559 54,138 53,894 53,834 53,612 53,539 53,409 53,406 53,363 ON POLICE LIEUTENANT POLICE SERGEANT REAL ESTATE SUPERVISOR COMMANDER, POLICE ADMINISTRATIVE DIVIS SENIOR APPRAISER POLICE SERGEANT ELIGIBILITY SUPERVISOR PURCHASING AGENT FIRE CAPTAIN WEB ANALYST ELIGIBILITY WORKER POLICE SERGEANT FIRE CAPTAIN POLICE SERGEANT SENIOR APPRAISER PROJECT MANAGER/INSPECTOR POLICE SERGEANT SENIOR SYSTEMS ANALYST POLICE SERGEANT POLICE SERGEANT GROUNDWATER PROGRAM MANAGER WATERSHED MANGER II G.I.S. COORDINATOR EMS INSTRUCTOR ORGANIZATIONAL DEVELOPMENT MANAGER COMMERCIAL INSPECTOR BRANCH CHIEF PROGRAM ACCOUNTABILITY MANAGER SENIOR PROGRAMMER/ANALYST PROJECT MANAGER/INSPECTOR FACILITIES MAINTENANCE MANAGER RESIDENTIAL INSPECTOR BRANCH CHIEF POLICE SERGEANT PROJECT MANAGER/INSPECTOR POLICE CORPORAL MANAGER OF ZONING ADMINISTRATION CIVIL ENGINEER II POLICE SERGEANT SCHWERTFEGER MAINZER JR CARVER WHITE TIMMENY BABER BARLOW GRAVITT CARTER PACK ROLAND KARR BROOKS JENKINS BEVERLY WERRES COX STOWELL WAGNER CI-IIARAPPA SWALES GREEN PETTITT FISHER WINTER GILBERT JENKS BURGERT LILLEY SHATZ VIA HOPWOOD GARRISON HEIDE SHEPHERD SNELL. AYLOR ~v R P G E H J L H [) E W [) W L C J c' ,,) C M A D T o E C W M M R G o T T R J c' Q T bt5---b{ð GJ 200 o 200 o 200 200 200 200 200 200 200 o 200 o 200 200 200 200 200 o 200 200 200 200 200 200 200 200 200 200 200 o 200 200 o o 200 5,752 o 5,752 5,752 5,752 5,752 5,752 5,752 5,752 5,752 5,752 o 5,752 5,752 5,752 5,752 5,752 5,752 5,752 o 5,752 5,752 5,752 5,752 5,752 5,752 5,752 5,752 5,752 5,752 5,752 o 5,752 5,752 o o 5,752 5,865 5,860 5,840 5,839 5,839 5,814 5,803 5,798 5,793 5,775 5,734 5,732 5,723 5,709 5,703 5,699 5,694 5,690 5,688 5,688 5,684 5,664 5,664 5,627 5,622 5,621 5,618 5,565 5,563 5,563 5,560 5,553 5,551 5,549 5,546 5,543 5,542 4,079 4,075 4,061 4,061 4,061 4,044 4,036 4,032 4,029 4,016 3,988 3,986 3,980 3,970 3,966 3,963 3,960 3,957 3,955 3,955 3,953 3,939 3,939 3,913 3,910 3,909 3,907 3,870 3,869 3,869 3,867 3,862 3,861 3,859 3,857 3,855 3,854 53,320 53,273 53,091 53,079 53,079 52,856 52,755 52,708 52,665 52,500 52,131 52,108 52,027 51,901 51,844 51,807 51,761 51,724 51,706 51,706 51,676 51,492 51,492 51,156 51,113 51,101 51,077 50,593 50,576 50,571 50,546 50,484 50,467 50,441 50,422 50,394 50,378 POLICE SERGEANT CIVIL ENGINEER II CHIEF OF PUBLIC WORKS PAYROLL SUPERVISOR PURCHASING SPECIALIST SENIOR BUSINESS LICENSE EXAMINER SENIOR PLANNER FIRE CAPTAIN SENIOR SYSTEMS ANALYST PROGRAM SUPERVISOR - ATHLETICS SENIOR PLANNER MASTER POLICE OFFICER FIRE CAPTAIN SENIOR FC/ADOPTION SOCIAL WORKER SENIOR CPS SOCIAL WORKER SENIOR ELIGIBILITY WORKER REGISTRAR VICTIM WITNESS COORDINATOR SENIOR PLANNER BUSINESS AUDITOR SENIOR ACCOUNTANT MASTER POLICE OFFICER MASTER POLICE OFFICER FIRE CAPTAIN SENIOR APPRAISER MASTER POLICE OFFICER SENIOR POLICE OFFICER MASTER POLICE OFFICER POLICE SERGEANT PROGRAM SUPERVISOR - RECREATION EDUCATION SPECIALIST-TRAINING PLANS REVIEWER MASTER POLICE OFFICER MASTER POLICE OFFICER MASTER POLICE OFFICER SENIOR SOCIAL WORKER FIRE CAPTAIN SEITZ COOLEY MUHlBERGER THRAVES DICKERSON HOY WIEGAND PUCKETT BETTS HUGHES WADE CLAYTOR SNEAD LEWIS MAREK SWIFT HARRIS PAINTER GRANT CORREA WHEELER KUYKENDALL GEBHARDT MONROE BURNLEY HAHN RICHARDSON PISTULKA GREENWOOD SMITH LAMBERT HUCKSTEP BROWN JOHNSON MCCORMICK CAMIRAND GENTRY ')~ T G P B B K R [) B T J L. J C' ,,) H M J c' ,,) C J J C' ,,) [) K J F) A M R C [) R C W J c; T 200 200 o 200 200 200 200 200 200 200 200 200 o 200 200 200 200 200 200 200 200 200 o 200 200 200 o 200 200 o 200 200 200 200 200 200 o 5,752 5,752 o 5,752 5,752 5,752 5,752 5,752 5,752 5,752 5,752 5,752 5,752 5,752 5,752 5,752 5,752 5,752 5,752 5,752 o 5,752 o 5,752 5,752 5,752 5,752 5,752 5,752 o 5,752 5,752 5,752 5,752 5,752 5,752 o o~ 5,537 5,521 5,508 5,506 5,499 5,480 5,479 5,417 5,409 5,397 5,388 5,368 5,350 5,346 5,336 5,324 5,323 5,321 5,306 5,301 5,299 5,257 5,243 5,202 5,191 5,159 5,152 5,151 5,135 5,129 5,116 5,107 5,105 5,104 5,101 5,082 5,071 D~ 3,851 3,840 3,830 3,829 3,824 3,811 3,810 3,767 3,762 3,754 3,747 3,733 3,721 3,718 3,711 3,703 3,702 3,700 3,690 3,687 3,685 3,656 3,646 3,618 3,610 3,588 3,583 3,583 3,571 3,567 3,558 3,552 3,550 3,550 3,548 3,534 3,526 50,334 50,191 50,068 50,054 49,990 49,816 49,805 49,244 49,174 49,068 48,985 48,803 48,636 48,602 48,505 48,404 48,394 48,368 48,238 48,191 48,173 47,792 47,663 47,291 47,194 46,904 46,837 46,831 46,678 46,628 46,512 46,428 46,409 46,404 46,377 46,197 46,097 OFFICER MASTER POLICE OFFICER CLERK, BOARD OF SUPERVISORS CIVIL ENGINEER II EROSION CONTROL ENFORCEMENT SENIOR ELIGIBILITY WORKER RENTAL ASSISTANCE COORDINATOR MASTER POLICE OFFICER SYSTEMS ANALYST SENIOR PLANNER MASTER POLICE OFFICER EMS SUPERVISOR MASTER POLICE OFFICER POLICE CORPORAL MASTER POLICE OFFICER FISCAL IMPACT PLANNER SENIOR PLANNER POLICE OFFICER 1ST CLASS CHIEF DEPUTY SHERIFF POLICE CORPORAL MASTER POLICE OFFICER SENIOR SOCIAL WORKER SENIOR SOCIAL WORKER MANAGEMENT ANALYST II SENIOR SOCIAL WORKER POLICE OFFICER 1 ST CLASS SENIOR PLANNER RESIDENTIAL INSPECTOR MANAGEMENT ANALYST II POLICE CORPORAL ENGINEERING TECH BUDGET ANALYST I SENIOR ELIGIBILITY WORKER SENIOR SOCIAL WORKER MASTER POLICE OFFICER SHERIFF SERGEANT PAYROLL SPECIALIST SENIOR APPRAISER ~ KESNER CAREY SCHUCK THACKER JR FERNEYHOUGH HAMMOND MCKAY MORRIS AMARANTE TUTHILL ELLIOTT HARVEY FINK GLUBA ALLSHOUSE WALLER FIELDS VOHWINKEL LARKI N POWERS SUSZYNSKI GOODPASTURE EARL DILLON POWELL CLARK DOTSON JAMMES HACKNEY WILKERSON VINZANT LACY BOWLES LYTTON SPROUSE POWELL SHULL ~l¡ R E A G A R J H y L S D G A S S J J J M T M J N G C' o C S C' ,,) W L. F~ N T K p J 0' . I ¡ J J ~' " J:. "~';I~ '1iÎ '1.1.1 D~ (jJ o o 0 o 0 o 0 o OJ o 200 200 200 200 200 200 200 200 200 200 200 200 o 200 5,752 5,752 5,752 5,752 5,752 5,752 5,752 5,752 5,752 5,752 5,752 5,752 5,752 o 5.752 o 5,067 5,059 5,051 5,027 5,025 5,017 5,009 15,007 4,993 4,982 4,978 4,978 4,975 4,961 4,960 o o o o o o S 3,524 3,519 3,513 3,496 3,495 3,489 3,483 3,482 3,472 3,465 3,462 3,462 3,460 3,450 3,449 o o o o o 46,063 45,994 45,919 45,701 45,685 45,608 45,533 45,514 45,388 45,295 45,255 45,251 45,226 45,102 45,091 o o o o o SHERIFF SERGEANT POLICE CORPORAL FIRE FIGHTERIADVANCED LIFE SUPPORT DEPUTY REGISTRAR SUPPORT ANALYST DATA MANAGEMENT COORDINATOR SENIOR POLICE OFFICER SYSTEMS ANALYST PLANNER SENIOR PLANNER MANAGER, ZONING ENFORCEMENT MASTER POLICE OFFICER ACCOUNTANT ZONING ORDINANCE PLANNER FIRE CAPTAIN SENIOR PLANNER POLICE LIEUTENANT MANAGER, ZONING PERMIT REVIEW SENIOR PLANNER FIRE CAPTAIN WRIGHT BECK DEANf= HELF-GERBO CARTER BURTON ANDERSON COLOM LANCASTER MACCALL WYATT GILES GORDON BALDWIN GARRISON THOMAS NEWTON GRADY GILLESPIE DAVIS L I=< IJ L M I=< R G 10( F L I;:) 10( S C S ,~ .:' .J T IV1 JEFFERSON AREA Libertarians _ .._._.~0!-~ 01/ 7~ Remarks by Jefferson Area Libertarians Chair Arin Sime to the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors Albemarle County Public Budget Hearing Wednesday 4/6/2005 Good evening, my name is Arin Sime, and I currently serve as chair of the Jefferson Area Libertarians, I don't believe that the rate reduction to 74 cents goes far enough. As an example, if a person's property was previously assessed at $150,000, and they experienced the County average assessment increase of27%, then their property is now assessed at $190,500. Under the current 76 cents per $100 of assessed value, that person will have their taxes raised by $307 this year. Under the 74 cent rate that you have proposed, they will still pay $270 more in taxes this year. That's hardly a tax cut, and it's not even much of a reduction in the tax rate. The JAL believes that at a minimum, the right thing to do is to adjust the tax rate so that this average homeowner will not pay anymore in taxes. In the example scenario I just described, that would require lowering the rate to 60 cents per $100. I realize that many will call this amount of a rate cut too drastic. However, based on Albemarle County budget data about their sources of revenue, I believe that cutting the tax rate to 60 cents would lower the budget revenue for 2005- 2006 to $232 million. That is still 6.5% over the 2003-2004 budget! If $218 million was enough money to get by only two years ago, why is it so much to ask that the County survives on a mere $232 million this year? I believe strongly that this is the least you can do for our citizens. Thank you for your time, and I urge you to lower the rate much more dramatically than two cents. .('~¡t;é) 6ý D' 7- . _.':. _,Ø".¿;"'/ -( ~19 ¿ rt"'C'1 /o#/,+/"../,V d/ flJ Here we go again. The County Board of Supervisors and Mr. Tucker establish priorities, figure expenses based on budgets, inflation, new government regulations, requests, growth, initiatives, and, hopefully, vision. Then a small group complains to a couple of supervisors about their property tax bills, and the board seems to forget everything else, and gets ready to throw out the whole budget. Buckling to the few and cutting funding for everyone else. First of all, real estate is only assessed every other year, so counting this jump as the percentage it rose in one year is ludicrous. Secondly, we all know we could sell our houses for the assessed value and more. Perhaps we are victims of our own success, but in the long run, we all greatly benefit from the good reputation of Albemarle County and the Charlottesville community. The last time tax rates were cut was in 1977. At the time, the supervisors said that they could raise them again at any time. We went through many many lean years, but supervisors never raised the rates because of the unpopularity of any tax hike ever. It took twenty years to restore the $.76 tax rate, which is still the lowest among comparable Virginia communities. If homeowners disagree with specific assessments, let them go argue the amount with the assessors. But leave the rate alone. Cutting the rate cuts millions of dollars from our schools, and cuts funding for dozens of other programs and services. The very things that are the fabric of our quality of life. The very things the supervisors cited as priorities. If history tells us anything, it would be at least 2025 before anyone would ever restore cuts made now. Think of the damage done in the meantime. Leave the property tax rates alone! Marjorie Shepherd James W. Lark, III, Ph.D. 6055 Buck Ridge Road Earlysville, V A 22936 (434) 973-5958 jwlark@virginia.edu - ~---..... - TO: Albemarle County Board of Supervisors ___ ø~_~____ ·:_.._..~L__ 1'¿ FROM: James W. Lark, III Secretary, Jefferson Area Libertarians (434) 973-5958 SUBJECT: Comments at Board of Supervisors meeting, Wednesday, April 6, 2005 Thank you for the opportunity to address the Board this evening. My name is Jim Lark. I live in the Buck Mountain section of Albemarle County. I have the honor of serving as secretary of the Jefferson Area Libertarians. On behalf of my JAL colleagues, I urge the Board to cut taxes and spending this year; in particular, I urge you to cut the property tax rate substantially. I believe a good first step would be to cut the rate to $.60 per $100 in assessed value. Once again the county government stands to receive a substantial increase in tax revenue by virtue of the rise in assessed value of Albemarle County homes and land. Once again those of our neighbors who are on fixed incomes are under increasing pressure to sell their homes and land. Once again you have the opportunity to do the right thing and reduce the amount of taxes you take from the citizens. I realize that it is sometimes difficult for you to resist the appeals (and in some cases, threats) of those who stand to gain through government taxing and spending. However, it is incumbent upon you to do just that. Albemarle County government has become too large and too expensive, and it long past time for you to reduce its scope and cost. Thank you for considering my comments. ___ .~R~_ ~.,." .y/,{/ó/ " .... ':J. -... .I~. e;;? /______-....-......-.~.,..,.,-.....,.."""" ·f~ My name is Patricia Earle. I was born and raised in the city as was my mother before me but I am now a resident of the county and have been for 38 years. The Charlottesville of my youth was a sleepy little southern town, existing largely due to the University - and otherwise rather economically depressed. - so much so that I witnessed the exodus of many young people from our community due to the lack of gainful employment. Forced to go elsewhere to make their fame and fortune, some have been fortunate to come "back home" in their retirement years - to find many changes - yes, but some unfortunate similarities as well. Today, our young people are again being forced to leave their home to start their adult lives elsewhere - not because there are no jobs here but because the cost of owning a home here increases annually due to ever increasing real estate taxes. I was a Realtor for close to 30 years so I understand real estates assessments are a function of market forces that are outside the control of any governing body. But I cannot understand why a rise in the demand for housing should create an equivalent rise in our property taxes since as a governing body you do have the power to set the tax rate and the amount of revenue generated from that rate should be based solely upon predetermined county needs and not upon the ever fluctuating market value of real estate. Or, is it a question of charging the citizenry simply "what the traffic will bear"? If ~,' I strongly suggest you reexamine your budget priorities, keeping in mind the undue burden that market forces outside of your control have placed upon home owners, both young and old - and I respectively urge you to lower the tax rate to at least 72 cents on the dollar to help offset this burden. Thank you. MERIWETHER LEWIS ELEMENTARY SCHOOL \iED ~~¿,~~?EcT: Cha~~)~~~~:I:~~~~~~n~o;~901 '/",L.!. Telephone (434) 293-9304 ! '.,";"".- ~.-,.' ..;.;, \.. ç.;¡. . ::;::a ~~am #;._,_~ / .~~ April 6, 2005 ---'---' ~- Members of the Board of Supervisors and Mr. Tucker: Good evening. My name is Sylvia Henderson, homeowner, taxpayer and County employee. I am pleased to be the principal of Meriwether Lewis Elementary School and am here to represent the elementary principals of our school division. We want the Board to know that we support the School Board's budget that includes a much needed salary increase for our teachers. We commend the Board of Supervisors and the School Board for their efforts devoted to making the dream of having our salaries reach the top quartile in Virginia a reality. However, a tax cut beyond two cents would erode the progress we have made in our attempts to stay competitive in the marketplace. Compensation is the major means we have at our disposal to attract, retain, and motivate quality staff. We can't control other factors important to teachers such as the high cost of living in our community. Each penny you cut from the real property tax reduces the funding to our schools by $647,000. Education is the most valuable service the County provides. Well-educated residents are vital to the local economy that can supply a strong workforce. The performance of our students demonstrates the quality and hard work of our teachers and staff. Our school division rates among the top 10% of all divisions in the state, our SAT scores are at an all time high with an exceptional 81 % participation rate, and 80% of our students pursue post secondary education. As you can see, education is an important priority to the citizens of our community. These same citizens become very upset when they see their child's teacher working a second job outside of school hours in order to make ends meet so that they can live in the county in which they work. I urge you to fully fund the School Board's budget in order to meet the many requirements for sustaining an excellent school division that has consistently outperformed the compensation level provided its valuable employees. Respectfully submitted, ~~ ~y~ia Henderson Principal "A School Where Character Counts" KEITH C. DRAKE. PH.D. 2160 Viburnum Court . Charlottesville, Virginia 22911-9059 434.974.1617 . 434.974.7305 (Fax) . kdrake@adelphia.net REMARKS TO ALBEMARLE COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Public Budget Hearing - April 6, 2005 My name is Keith C. Drake; I'm an Albemarle County taxpayer. I would like to comment on the Board's proposed 21 % increase in the real estate property tax rate, and then offer a suggestion for the budgeting process in future years. First, let's be clear about your proposed tax rate change. As explained by the notice the Board published in the Daily Progress on March 28,2005, changing the tax rate to $0.74/ $100 of assessed value is actually a 21 % increase, due to the recent increase in assessments values. By law, you must lower the tax rate to $0.61 to generate the same amount of revenue by the new, higher assessments. However, you can vote to raise the tax rate above $0.61 by holding this public hearing. If the Board approves a tax rate of$0.74, please be honest about the new rate. For those of you running for re-election this fall, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Rooker, Mr. Bowennan, please do I/O! campaign that you lowered the tax rate by two cents. Rather, you merely changed it by two cents, representing a I3-cent mcrease. Now, let me offer a proposal for future budgets that is fair and eliminates the vast majority of argument from both sides. I propose you implement a County Budget Index that defines how much money is required to run county government, and therefore what the tax rate should be. This Index would allow for budget growth by including factors such as the Cost of Living or Inflation index, and also population growth. The Budget Index should also consider changes school enrollment. Adjustments should be made to account for the costs of complying with State and Federal regulatory requirements. It might include an additional, modest increase - on the order of one or two percent - to allow for improvements in existing programs such as teacher retention and to allow for special, unforeseen needs. This Index would be a fonnula that would define precisely the total county budget. After factoring out other sources of revenue, the amount of revenue needed from real estate assessments would then define the tax rate. I believe a County Budget Index provides a simple, clear, and fair method of detem1ining our tax rate. It would eliminate the vast majority of the bickering that occurs every year. Finally, I ask you to consider fonning an advisory group to study this proposal. I would be happy to serve as a member of that group. Thank you for time and attention. .. :=D AT 80S ME¡;:-i' ... .vßh.:f ,"-.~"'" . ':'.::;;c' :ter:n +t: o<? / ·:.-...,,:_...~__u ~~_..-.,,---..---_..- Remarks of Charles ("Chip") Deale President, Albemarle County Schools Parent Council President, Crozet Elementary School PTO Before the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors Wednesday, 06 April 2005 Good evening, Mister Chairman; Mrs. Thomas; and gentlemen of the Board. My name is Chip Deale, and I come before you in multiple capacities: . As President of the Albemarle County Schools Parent Council, which represents each of the county's public K through 12 schools. . As the 5-term President of the Crozet Elementary School PTO, and that school's faculty and 375-plus students. · And, as a property owner with two daught~-cs in. th_epublic school i ¡ .~.- ..",' '(~~ system. ~/;0/.- 0;/ ....-~.-... ~~----..--~-.,.,-...",..~"-~' ,- ~ ~,,_.- - JÝ~ You may recall that at last year's hearing, I - and many other parents - came waving this poster and tossing Tootsie Rolls into a jar. . . an expression of our opposition to the then-proposed tax rate reduction, We were grateful that you listened to our opinions and opted to keep the rate at 76 cents. You might be pleased to know that tonight I do not have any Tootsie Rolls with me! However, our general message remains the same as it was in 2004. While we may not necessarily favor any reduction in the tax rate - and I personally would like to see it increased - the Parent Council and the PTO will not oppose the 2 cent reduction that is being considered. 1 However, we will vehemently speak out against any consideration of a rate reduction that goes deeper than the proposed adjusted rate of 74 cents. Chairman Rooker, at a recent BOS work session I attended, you stated that \"'.¿~-:,-,...r~ reducing the tax rate by 2 cents left the county with a reasonable return, but "not much of a margin for error." There's no reason to put that slight margin of error further at risk by slicing the tax rate by another penny or two. Supervisor Wyant, in your printed campaign material when running for the seat you now hold, you stated that, "I will strive for greater educational excellentin Albemarle County. As Supervisor, I will work actively with the School Board to make sure that more of our tax dollars reach classrooms and teachers; a 20:1 student-teacher ratio is achieved in all county schools; and competitive salaries allow us to retain the best teachers for our children." I applaud your words and agree with your sentiments. However, those are goals that I fear could not - and would not - be achieved if our tax rate was reduced to 73 or 72 cents. For as you know, for every penny the rate is reduced, the allocation to the School Division is lowered by nearly $650,000. 2 Superintendent of Schools Castner has stated that the School Division is willing to accept and can take the necessary actions to live with a 2 cent reduction. But a cut beyond that would put the Division's budget at "a real challenge level." We are not in a fiscal crisis at this time. As a result, there's no need to unnecessarily put the fabulous progress that has been achieved in the public schools at risk - with the detrimental impact this would have on the quality of education our children receive. All of us actively involved in support for public education in the county truly appreciate the $10 million in new revenues for schools that is included in the proposed budget - especially the funds earmarked for teacher compensation. But do not offset that step forward with the several steps in reverse that would happen if you sliced the tax rate lower than 74 cents. Hold the line at 74 cents if you must, but don't chip away at the progress that is being made. Thank you. 3 - fv-t;6 J é r/t£ÁI~?..; '1 - o '1- (; - or /'V¡ Y Ai d4vt ¡¿ í7 W (!:2 ,J-. T6 /1- I <.. ¡ Ç1'v I T / /v ~ zg-;-J ¿, v; I/-e.. Ra & 4 / 41¡'~ Co. I Á.4-vSL JJLt/~ 6) lJ.-e.,j1;"tfr1£ ~ ~""~ r. .tJ.-<. - bodÞ.v ~ .htr. /3o/; T tLC k V( ._m~~~?~ I~ ¡2(L c.rP>t#~ bJ'7ð Þ oslo£- IS -h ó . ?/2A1~ ~ ~/J-.¡o/r-7· AÙ"I ð ~ frI,,"'( Æýß-'1~ µ'CL~ pJ cvt..e fri7/<l-k "vOÞ - (j/rð(>f Afß41cÄ:J . A-/b~ ~1 9õV-ULf.JÞ1~ A;If> 4 fl~d>1,Síh;/;-n, h írr è.;'¡;Z.tA.tS h /k.c~ Þ a.£f f~ ~S. ?ð R. 't.X ^ "1 f / ~ ; ftv;¿ ~ ~'V<4 "11>712. ~dr,<Jt ~s.¡. ,Á.À-..c~.f by "°2 ~ ~q 4 'f J2-ð--t /,;k... ~-----,-.L;. .lJJLvAfA.~ ~-.;f~{ f=-.I14 ~~ 6y /?1~ ~ ~74 lf~1 ~ J,-* ~ bff.LA... ~s ~ v~ 6" ~ A-./~ ~ J-ð a.¡fJ . ír.,-.{ l{~ I2eVi2-1t~ ...IX /-fY7N'j rf/J.f¡~ ~ C/l/4tLd.t? cf hr 2-1 . 7?/J (P-c c~. ~ tJV~ @ ~ÝlA--T IS ~ bÕ<Lr¡ ~ -1-0 -s 70 ~ t7u.-; ~ cP...kvts-< ~~ h dl'fI'! í N f:) CJW'l. /J ¡1 7 fZ~ J '1-" r......... Ä-- --Ii>. t..o .;:J aT 0 Zq- (f? ~ /...<.J ~ 'He (P~ ~A- o->J- ~ ~/>l ~ fJ- J~ fo ~¿,~ #I/;, c., ~ a..",'/~ ,f..-e.wF2M euv:l/~ rCIY-~ --1-0 S-hf k0 end "t' UYi ~ / /& ~ ~ Jh.-~ /11 j.f f¡; Æ 1<- . ~-f-zL ~ / //4. 7Í ß£ b~ rtTah /}-r~ ff? C; r-<h ~ ~s I If <..:T -£4r ¿C ~ ~ -b1~ -r~ ~ ~ s!?¢ ~ !if lótJ ~ /H'J~ - ~ A-f aP ~ )(. "l.ók-' yÝV cJ-::J- ~ ~ /~ ,.e..e...S ~('{\ ~ TO ~ ~ c:.... r I õW úJ -( f¡ ól0 Ù.,sý ~ ~ .uþYiL. {,J 1"..4-7" Ft. ÎÀe- b c).J4-- cf d-lJ '-;07 -/0 fi.uJ1-... ~ fV'..AY¿ ~ b~ ~s ~ ~';:II<- ,\~' Þ--d ~ ~ ¿ ¡V4Æ hr ~> · @ Do S6Yh(L~ ¡rb~ fvv¿ ~ ~ -h<J.o< J'iS ~ . / ) / ~ /t-ß~ øJ ðV..J.Å. J, ~ ~ PL.o"k.>. 7 t:J ~ fl1 ~ 7 ßJL ~IyJ æ,~<'<-{ µ ~ /ð7r. ) A-:f{: ~ bOd.-4 rY\ß.>~ 6~ -h /eø:k . d :h.e.- &C¿c~'" J~ ¡:) 76 ~ 6=.d<¡ q- ;~: end- fxs¿ F ~~/-&ÞÄ- -¡;, p ß ~ '1 ~ h I crw'.L1.... ft-r<.- k~ ~~ r¡}X rdffL - '1cft1.. ~.A-Y.IL ~ ~.e s ~ L....-¡ ~ /LLv'~ <..o<.Æ ~ j--z.4f4 c¡t2á.L. )f~ Æ -rfrx.P<J t:J.Vl ~t.. (/rfZ0/ ho f-r... ~ ~ A ~ ~<q) w A., è '" tíV.L./'<... -ftI'VlZ~.J ~ loC~ ~ D/V o~<r' rP/~ ~ lA4 Aï1. -rip W/Y'.. 5:. ~~~ - "... . ,,¡i-f-v-" , J -?or- ~ ,- . . {... (" 6 ~ ~'1'~' c:c.( f; ~. FEBRUARY 2005 I I)ETITION THE ALBEl\IARLE COUNTY VIRGINIA BOARD OF SUPERVISORS TO LOWER THE RATE OF REAL ESTATE TAX CURRENTLY .76 CENTS PER $100.00 ASSESSED VALUE OF REAL ESTATE TO .70 CENTS l>ER $100.00 REAL ESTATE ASSSESSMENT. EFFECTIVE JANUARY 1,2005 NAME /J r /j1; - ,-. / I U /' / f7 I /1/- .-. .J¿"/' 1/ --' SIGNATlJ~1! /f),~ II f6 ,L--7 _ /' ¡//u?--. ~ , ADDRESS / _ ~ +- '5 () :JÇ-¡j ru.-v~ /tA<____ '~ CITYCP fj ~-~-Ij 0 ZIP.. ' --Y'¡)A~>~ j,'j4/J.Jlpl \.!CA., V -vrG ; ADDRESS i ß ~r-- 1/ ~7YC)~~---d/~/--r'''"''t~ IlJ CITY ZIP cf)/Ij-~ 0'0. _ b] / NAME NAME I c'o I\;e-\Î CITY ~Pø"~ ~4£'~ Jr~, /7.5 v: ¿( ADDRESS , DðD M CY\ïO :> CITX L~~ìár-L,-t:tëS\i ~ t \ë. ADDRES}\.'S' . ý'Î f-{Úk. DO)( CITY . 4/1 ~~S¿) / !/e- ;Z¡(9~ ~ rLtJ ZIP ~~ q t; ~ c., a \Å,..--r- ZIP V A 2'2- ¡f ;l ZIP ~ '9-P'- ADDRESS SIGNATURE CITY ZIP . . t', ~ . ( \> ~v J?EßRUARY 2005 . 1>v~~d&J.M.I-f .-r::-J I }>ETITION TIlE ALBEMARLE COUNTY VIRGINIA BOARD OF SUPERVISORS TO LOWER THE RATE OF ImAL ESTATE TAX CUltRENTLY .76 CENTS PER $100.00 ASSESSED VALUE OF REAL ESTATE TO .70 CENTS PER $100.00 REAL ESTATE ASSSESSMENT. EFI~~ECTIVE JANUARY 1,2005 N AME(j' ../.......- /, ,d (~7<- \.~ SIGNA Œ NAME !¡~ SI GNATlJIY3- Y\ '^. ~ ~t·~~ SIGN1\TURE \-;- _ \ _ \......, "v,-,- ~---o ILQ..¡- NAME It \.~ I l1jl~ ¡r CAr SIGNA1:YRE . __J'l-~ \1.LJ-9~ 1"7 ¡~,) -. ::,. ~-: f",;; ~~' : I '.j ;~-tVf} ADDRESS CITY ZIP m ZIP 2 2920 poc If ,-v-t? CITY ZIP :J 1'3'" ADDRESS S~f ZIP '2)"/1 ADDRESS 10 ~ ZIP dl ADDRESS L(771- ~ 7è.A..>::f CITY "" kC'~c..(~ (c ~ 0 ADJlò~;~. Y6'o CITY'J;; u 4- ~\~.;-- /0;1\",- ZIP ':2-2'7L7 ?15.) ?Q{..~ ?::é:-- / l ') ADDRESS )-1 O¡ l ~. RßL~f lµ¿~A"--¡¿~ CITY C\-u ZIP ;:¿J.5 ADDRESS ~ & ú \, U \J vì ¿z (vA--",\ ~ ,6 CITY ZIP ADDRESS I ¡ CITY ZIP ---·___u____ · ~' ó d £ b'::{: l~ ",-fV~ J ffY~- "7~<...-í.N~l( íP~t 'f1~'''' FEBRUARY 2005 I PETITION THE ALBEMARLE COUNTY VIRGINIA BOARD OF SUPERVISORS TO LOWER THE RATE OF REAL ESTATE TAX CURRENTLY .76 CENTS PER $100.00 ASSESSED VALUE OF REAL ESTATE TO .70 CENTS PER $100.00 REAL ESTATE ASSSESSMENT. EFFECTIVE JANUARY 1, 2005 r '1"" ,I--tvll þV~ N SIGNATURE H St1,~ E ffUi!-.. /1n, "~. NAME n t:vbe€.:r 6 kJ SIGNATU~ f',t __ (--, ' - ~ rç NAME~ n, SIGNATU13 t:: A--tJ NAME '1bf\QlJ 'D SIGN(~,¿ cD rk:- J R- f2- ADDRESS j-7f.) ..il & ep"}'-€ ~ CITY ZIP ADD~SS l.) 70 () IJ Ov//~J I) CI~ o!/eJv.-/¿ ~ ~~ d I ADDRESS , '2~CZO bA,( & ~ elf CITY .' ZIP Œ~1CU(Of(e$v7{ ~ ADDRESS ADDRESS 625.:24- ·JCL( (Nli\..'-; ZIP 'l-2 e¡ 0 P-d CITY Of; '. ,1 (J1~ ,ozeA VI..). l ~C¡)3d- ZIP -:::z.;;. ZIP 7- "2--') '-- ADDRESS o ( vlt.£I\-1¡- CITY . C rVL£.-l}/,~ , ADDRESS J / 370 ¡-/~ CITY%r-h . ADDRESS Z-6 CITY ¡qJ'. ADDRESS SC9"3> C M-e) &1 J ~ f:- CITY ó?~1S fJ1m' 0l@hv' ;{2c¡ð] ADDR~SS I' . n I OS7 ~v [ VVÚl.¥'J-v-t LV\. I CITYC ZIP { / rõ¿e. \- VA 2Z1?¿ ~ .. ,¡J¡\~ v(. -11 'b FEBRUARY 2005 ~~\.~~~,,')¡/ I PETITION THE ALBEMARLE COUNTY VIRGINIA BOARD OF SU])ERVISORS TO LOWER TIlE RATE OF ImAL ]~STATE TAX CURRENTLY .76 CENTS ])ER $100.00 ASSESSED VALUE OF REAL ESTATE TO .70 CENTS PER $100.00 REAL ESTATE ASSSESSMENT. EJ.1'FECTIVE JAN UARY 1, 2005 . oM AS d'"' .. ADDRESS NAME ~ .nA-1Jb Sß " CITY ~~e ZIP 2-ZCfýG NAMI; ,.-. . ¿.- ¡;::: t4/ J -:> -SIGNATURV~ ,~.....,,~,,~.,..,~::~,~..<,:. ."" , ,.." ~".i'~ ADDRESS 'f.~ ,- 7L¿..? t..¿A;S (J al (f~ /j'~"'; 4 ø/' JA:t ZIP :2--7 97 f' CITY 'TV!. ,. . fA:/' :7l ¿rJ.. ZIP vJJ ~zz ~ ADDRESS NAME ADDRESS SIGNATURE CITY NAME ADDRESS SIGNA TURE CITY NAME ADDRESS SIGNATURE CITY NAME ADDRESS SIGNATURE CITY NAME ADDRESS SIGNATURE CITY ---._- ZIP .,) ~") 91) IUfrA/ '¿)¡t%I1/(Þ ZIP 1fHf ¡I fl/th ¿¡f zæ- '10\ ZIP ZIP ZIP ZIP ZIP ~~ 1bD J aM~J' ~cuJ J Le oJ-0~OO ~ hprl/¡¡kj2oC ~~. ~ ~i ¡;tJ¿ ikt j ~ ttuf rr^ fIIj' (Jv. ()JJ . ~Øo~-ur,~ '. '1JV~1/'i. f ~ UwJ- N Od 6W- ~ U>~ ~O-~ ~ ~ ~+~i ck þO ~,W~'t ~~ ,YW.Hrwd\ h (t'~k~ ¡~~t ~~ð-~~~~LPJ~!k'~ ~ tk Jww. ~ ~~ i1ø 1i .CßA/)£/) ~. ~ ~.~ ~ tk ,l~.S ~~.::J & , . ¡" 1M; CtwJW? a þt¡~ ~ t4 (Aú:ÆR¡Pj ~ 1 ~ .. ~ ~.~~~~ ~Lhdtzd~ ~ 6W\ ();WA -& ~ ~. ,M ~ ~ -fsli wt~ w-t¡ õL i ~~I b . f a ~ ~vJ. ~ ~. k. ~" f l-vt ~ .ot.' M)) ~ &,~ 1;1) ~ 1 ~ ~~ r~' f. (£VvX'k ~ ~ ~~~~~£.~01\~ r.::: fD ~~~ ~ w~ ~t MN ~. ~ ~ ~~~ ~~~ £f~ ~nw¿f ~~rJ k ~ [µ ~ ~~~ ~/ f&5DDoo 1k~JJ ~ ~ If>;. tf~/oClO ~fÁ 1, rP~-i4 WoJK. ik tv~ lk~ L{ ~. ~o ~ ~\t~ ·it ~ ~ lí1~. ~ ~ ~ Ì1 j;þ;f¡~~. - ) · ,..:.::::';¡:.:JIJED AT 80· ~-;: ~\fj¡:'-:'::=-:.' -.--=' II .....,¡".~"---..\,~" ',+'.. J",ìe: V'ß ~/ As<?nda Itam #: d7 / [;,,":;;;>.'3 ¡n:!!als: l' ~ The Director (CEO) County of Albemarle Office of Real Estate Assessment Room 243 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, V A 22902 - 4596 Jan. 28,2005 David Rodriguez 102 Overlook Drive Charlottesville, V A 22903-9604 Subject: Parcel No. 076N00IOOOOOF1 Dear Madame/Sir, Several days ago, I received notice that the revised assessment for my land parcel came to a total of$250,300! In April of2002, it had increased from $173,500 to $174,410. This was acceptable and reasonable. But the huge jump in the assessment to $250,300 stretches the credibility of the new assessment. That is a $75,890 increase! By increasing the value of the property in this way, the day will come when I can no longer afford to pay the taxes. The same policy was used in California years ago. The people fought these measures. It eventually created all kinds of complications and forced changes in their tax system, which proved to be detrimental for everyone involved. It compelled the middle classes to sell their property. It created a system that was bad for the state and bad for the people. To this day, the resulting problems in California still have not been solved. Virginia needs revenue, but it should not be done to the extent that people are forced to move from their property. This is neither a humane nor a fundamentally sound policy. It's important for all of us to have a conscience and also to listen to it. Are your administrators doing this? I hope that someone at the top of your administration will reconsider what I term unjustifiable Increases. Very truly yours, David E. Rodriguez -"""yþ/~/ " ," of! / ~~ April 6, 2005 TO: Albemarle County Board of Supervisors FROM: Bill L. Long Property Tax Rates. My name is Bill Long. My wife, Eileen, and I moved to Albemarle County in 2000, and built a home in the Blue Springs Farm subdivision, after I retired fÌom the Federal Government. Our world in recent years involves principally encountering low percentage rates of change. Two point five percent for Government retirement cost-of-living increase; three percent for Certificates of Deposit. The only large numbers we see relate to economic growth in China, unemployment figures in Europe, and inGreases in our medical costs (the latter being directly linked to this present issue). Thus, when we encounter numbers aSSOGiated with Albemarle County property tax increase, and Country budget growth, of the order being discussed here (i.e., 27%; 13.6%; 8.7%), many of us seniors believe that we have entered Never-Never Land. Other Virginia jurisdictions have recognized the problems that escalating property assessments have posed for its citizens. And many governments are reacting with meaningful reductions in rate assessments. We implore our County Board to act similarly, and to approve a substantial reduction in the tax assessment rate to offset the impact of high property assessment. The emphasis here is on "substantial", rather than a cosmetic, "feel good" minimalist reduction. It is easy to get caught up in a numbers game when developing budgets. But we hope that the Board will retlect hard on the human dimension of its decision, and the impact on the senior,. property-owning residents over the longer term. Most senior citizens of the County, including the many on essentially fixed incomes, want to contribute substantially to the future welfare and vitality of their community ... by maintaining their properties and by supporting Albemarle institutions and programs. However, without some help in at least keeping even when income and outlays are totaled up, such contributions will be difficult, if not possible to maintain. Does the Board think that it is in the County's interest to drive out everyo~~ears and older and of middle income status? Without some tax relie£: the "great sucking sound' heard in the County will be ftom something other than NAFI A-related jobs heading south across the Mexican border. Bill L. Long 3104 Ragged Ridge Lane Charlotte~, Virginia 22903 ~~\,~